PDA

View Full Version : ball-carrier carried



chopper15
04-11-07, 16:11
In yesterday's Redruth v Westcombe Park game (19:16) a red tackler had his opponent held in the air, who just held on to the ball.

In the melee he had players to which he could've passed.

The ref. blew up and gave the put-in to W.P.

Was the unwillingness of the red tackler to bring him to the ground the reason for the scrum?

Account Deleted
04-11-07, 16:11
There was no tackle since the ball carrier did not go to ground. To which side did the ref give the scrum?

David J.
04-11-07, 17:11
Impossible to say without asking the referee himself, but if a situation looks dangerous, the referee is obliged to stop play. While the restart is not specifically accounted for in the laws, a scrum to the team in possession would be consistent with similar stoppages.

Padster
04-11-07, 18:11
Was it a maul or a catch?

Account Deleted
04-11-07, 20:11
Only two players are refered to in the original post and they are on their feet with the ball in hand. So no tackle or maul or ruck. it is still open play. Ball unplayable scrum to the side in possesion for me.

Gareth-Lee Smith
04-11-07, 20:11
I'd go with David J's logic

Account Deleted
04-11-07, 23:11
From reading the original post WP were red and made the stop. I would assume that a maul developed and thus the scrum was to red as it became unplayable.
however, the original post does not supply sufficient information to be definite.

chopper15
05-11-07, 14:11
In yesterday's Redruth v Westcombe Park game (19:16) a red tackler had his opponent held in the air, who just held on to the ball.

In the melee he had players to which he could've passed.

The ref. blew up and gave the put-in to W.P.

Was the unwillingness of the red tackler to bring him to the ground the reason for the scrum?




The WP was the ball-carrier running in open play.

The ref. blew, WP ball.

Ball-carrier was lowered to ground with due care.

Simon Thomas
05-11-07, 15:11
Sounds like a good safety call to me and correct WP put-in.

Redruth would have been better putting him to deck to create tackle.

Nice to see correct decision - in my day that would have been a "penalty to us, handling off your feet" and an evil grin in Corin or Hendy's face !

didds
05-11-07, 18:11
"Ball-carrier was lowered to ground with due care" sounds like a spear tackle was in the process of occurring... so the "tackler" understood and so didn;t follow through woith the dangerous and penalisable part. Top marks to him. if so.

Then safety issue/scrum as suggested above.


???

didds

Dixie
05-11-07, 21:11
Chopper, if I read it right (and as described it's quite a hard situation to envisage), it's a bit like Henson's "tackle" against Tait, when the latter was picked up by H and made to look foolish in his first international.

Of course, this is not a tackle as defined, since the ball carrier is not brought to ground. If it carries on for any length of tiume, I would expect the ref to bring play to a halt and restart with an attacking ball. This, however, is unlikely. A mauly-thing is the more likely outcome, with players from both sides closing on the protagonists, trying to wrest the ball. If the ref views this as dangerous, stop play, restart to the attacking side (remember, it's illegal to destabilise a maul by lifting a leg, so startig with two off the ground seems inherently dangerous). There is also the point that the definition of a maul requires the ball carrier to be on his feet - so it's not really a maul at all.

On balance, this sounds like reffing of the very highest order. I know I wouldn't have spotted it, or made what my research for this response suggests to me is the correct call - scrum, attacking put in.

http://www.rugbyrefs.com/forums/imagehosting/533472f850974d8e.jpg (http://www.rugbyrefs.com/forums/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=133)