PDA

View Full Version : 6 Nations TMO decision on "double movement"



Mat 04
26-02-08, 14:02
Was it a try in your opinion or not?

oxped
26-02-08, 15:02
which one?

beckett50
26-02-08, 16:02
define in Law the term "double movement":D

Simon Griffiths
26-02-08, 16:02
I would suggest that it was for that reason that he put it in inverted commas...

Mat 04
26-02-08, 17:02
I would suggest that it was for that reason that he put it in inverted commas...

Exactly Simon.

In other words, not immeadiately making the ball playable to be played once tackled.

Mike Whittaker
26-02-08, 17:02
Exactly Simon.

In other words, not immediately making the ball playable to be played once tackled.

Sorry, but which other player was prevented from playing the ball??

...and according to the result in my paper a try was scored.

PS and did TMO or referee even mention a double movement?

Jacko
26-02-08, 17:02
The question was asked in French, so no idea.

Dixie
26-02-08, 17:02
Still no idea which game we are talking about! One of the looser threads on the board so far, in terms of intellectual rigour ....

Davet
26-02-08, 18:02
try or no try
answer yes or no
which option does "yes" mean; yes "try", or yes "no try"

Slack logic.

OB..
26-02-08, 18:02
There is a further complication: was the TMO being punctilious in not commenting on something outside his remit (and missed by the referee)?

Simon Griffiths
26-02-08, 19:02
Dixie, if we're considering the same try that I brought up on the other 6N TMO thread, then it was Bowe's try in the Ireland match.

Perhaps, given the current uncertainty as to the TMO's remit it was not the best place for me to have mentioned it, but it certainly started an interesting debate on the other thread.

Mat 04
26-02-08, 21:02
YES it was a try or NO it wasnt, why certain people on this board must pick apart everyone elses argument or statements and try to make others look foolish is beyond me.

This is exactly the reason I created this poll in an attempt to find out if people thought it was a try or not without the pointless bickering and beating about the bush in the other thread. In future I shant bother and will leave the petty arguments be.

I didnt ask anything about the TMO protocol, definition of immediately, definition of stretch or reach out, I simply want to know, do you think it was a try or not.

OB..
26-02-08, 22:02
I'm afraid you walked into it because your question was either/or and the only answers were Yes and No. It is not possible to give a useful answer.

Can you edit the poll to ask, eg "Do you think Bowe scored?" ?

dave_clark
26-02-08, 23:02
in which case some smart arse will point out that, yes, he did :)

Davet
27-02-08, 00:02
Why pick apart what you wrote? Because unless you are clear we don't know what you mean. If you ask "do you want either ham or eggs, yes or no?" then there is no sensible answer.

It ain't rocket science.

chopper15
27-02-08, 00:02
Mat, I know only too well how you feel!

There's only one answer to the way you posed the question tho' and that has got to be Yes, simply because the ref awarded it.

What is surprising is that you didn't want to know the reasons for their opinions!

Mike Whittaker
27-02-08, 00:02
Like I said, the result in my paper said that a try had been scored...

Mat 04
27-02-08, 01:02
Why pick apart what you wrote? Because unless you are clear we don't know what you mean. If you ask "do you want either ham or eggs, yes or no?" then there is no sensible answer.

It ain't rocket science.

Yes it was phrased incorrectly, but I would of assumed that common sense would prevail.

Yes - Affirmative - Try
No - Negative - No try


You obviously knew what it meant as you were one of the voters, as did 4 other people.

Mike I was so angry earlier I didnt even bother to answer your question.

15.5 B) A tackled player must immediately pass the ball or release it. That player must also get up and move away from it.

Whether or not there is a player being prevented from playing it doesnt come into that point.

Im waitign for someone to pick at the wording of 15.5 A) now... but I really dont care :nono:

Mike Whittaker
27-02-08, 09:02
Yes it was phrased incorrectly, but I would of assumed that common sense would prevail.

Yes - Affirmative - Try
No - Negative - No try


You obviously knew what it meant as you were one of the voters, as did 4 other people.

Mike I was so angry earlier I didnt even bother to answer your question.

15.5 B) A tackled player must immediately pass the ball or release it. That player must also get up and move away from it.

Whether or not there is a player being prevented from playing it doesnt come into that point.

Im waitign for someone to pick at the wording of 15.5 A) now... but I really dont care :nono:

Sorry Mat but I do think the presence or otherwise of another player does come into it. It is that highly complex subject called materiality... (sends shudders down my spine thinking of the can of worms this could open)

This happens in lots of areas... e.g. 'crossing' where if there is no player impeded in tackling then there is no materiality and I would suggest no cause for penalty (assuming no other gains).

Another common area is that of accidental offside where if a player with the ball accidentally bumps into one of his own side in front of him and there are no opponents in the area, no stoppage necessary.

Even closer to the incident in question is the case of a player tackled and released by tackler, lying on his back holding ball in the air for anyone to take. That he does not release it as such is then, I would suggest, irrelevant. It is available to be played ...

Enough from me... Others can pull to pieces :)

Dickie E
27-02-08, 10:02
Mat, I'm happy to vote any way you want me to.

Dixie
27-02-08, 11:02
Mike, IMO you are overstepping several lines here.
[Materiality] happens in lots of areas... e.g. 'crossing' where if there is no player impeded in tackling then there is no materiality and I would suggest no cause for penalty (assuming no other gains). Crossing isn't outlawed anywhere. The offence is obstruction - which by definition requires an opponent to be obstructed. If there is none, there is no offence, material or otherwise.


Another common area is that of accidental offside where if a player with the ball accidentally bumps into one of his own side in front of him and there are no opponents in the area, no stoppage necessary. Assuming no obstruction, the laws accept that players become offside routinely throughout the game. Whether accidentally or deliberately offside, they are not committing an offence unless they become active in the game. The player who becomes accidentally offside is not taking an active part in the game if there is no-one there to be inconvenienced, so again there is no offence - material or otherwise.


Even closer to the incident in question is the case of a player tackled and released by tackler, lying on his back holding ball in the air for anyone to take. That he does not release it as such is then, I would suggest, irrelevant. It is available to be played ... I see this as a very dangerous view. The tackled player's options are clear, and he has not complied. Does it matter? I say it matters a lot. While the ball is indeed available to be played, it is much easier to play a ball popped into your breadbasket while running flat out than it is to pick up a ball from the deck when you need to worry about treading on your teammate.

Quite apart from this, however, I see no upside in allowing players to have leeeway in the tackle area. They know what they have to do, and should do it instinctively or reflexively. Allowing thinking time to assess their options contravenes the requirement of immediacy, and will inevitably create all sorts of problems elsewhere. Why, for example, should the player release at all in any tackle? If he just lies on his back with the ball in the air, it's available to be played by both sides. Apply materiality and avoid the penalty.


Enough from me... Others can pull to pieces :) Happy to oblige, as always:biggrin:

Davet
27-02-08, 15:02
Mat04
whatever.

OB..
27-02-08, 15:02
I have now had a chance to review the incident.

It is hard to hear what the officials on the field say (damned commentators think they are more important) but I think the TJ says it was a try. The question to the TMO started by saying the grounding was ok, then something unintelligible which may have ended with the word "forward". (Interesting that two French officials talk to each other in English for the crucial bits.) The TMO eventually responds "you may give the try". After all, he is not allowed to comment on what happens in the field of play.

For me the forward movement after the tackle was not momentum. He made a clear effort to get up on his knees so he could lunge forward. That is well outside my understanding of reaching, so would render the movement illegal.

A possible counter to that is that the tackler could have released earlier. Even so, Bowe would have had to release the ball and regain his feet.

It all happened very quickly and since the TMO was not allowedf to comment, I would not take this as defintiive proof of a particular interpretation. The referee clearly had doubts on the issue.

OB..
27-02-08, 15:02
Allowing thinking time to assess their options contravenes the requirement of immediacy, and will inevitably create all sorts of problems elsewhere.
At our CRDA training session on the tackle the definition "as soon as he reasonably can" was adopted for "immediate". The referee judges what is reasonable, but having a look around first would seem to fall outside it. Looking up and reacting would just about comply.

Account Deleted
27-02-08, 23:02
Some of the replies on this thread really show why we get such negative feedback and dislike of refs.
The question, whilst not worded in the best possible way, is, in reality, clear.
The fact that the try was given is known to all so stupid remarks like "my paper says it's a try" are pointless.
Why do people have to be so rude? We are supposed to be colleagues!

Mike Whittaker
27-02-08, 23:02
The reason I said that the paper says it was a try is because it was... The referee said so. He made his judgement on the day and his decision is final. To ask the question as to whether it was a try or not is pointless.

It is the constant challenging of all the decisions by the refs that is undermining them, not the acceptance of their decisions.

By all means look at the various points which a referee has to take into account when making a decision, that might be instructive...

As a ref you may have met an assessor who points out all the decisions you have got wrong in a game. Dead helpful that. And believe me it would be quite easy from the touchline.

If you ever want to be really smart you can ask yourself what a referee could have done in a situation to improve his chance of making the right decision...

OB..
28-02-08, 02:02
The reason I said that the paper says it was a try is because it was... The referee said so. He made his judgement on the day and his decision is final. To ask the question as to whether it was a try or not is pointless.
The point at issue ("Bless you", said Pooh) is whether we think the referee's decision was correct. It turns on an important point, namely the extent to which a player is entitled to stretch for the line when tackled, and the criteria used to judge that. We learned that we do not all agree on this, which is something that ideally needs sorting out, for the benefit ultimately of the players.

The wording of the poll presented a problem. My approach was to explain why that was the case, and suggest a solution. I think I removed the essential ambiguity, but dave clark made a wry (but valid) point in his turn. Nobody bothered to suggest anything better. You’ll have to decide for yourselves why not.

By all means look at the various points which a referee has to take into account when making a decision, that might be instructive.
That was where we started. Now that the poll has been changed, shall we get back on track?

Mike Whittaker
28-02-08, 09:02
I apologise for having gone off track...

Unfortunately it is my experience that the overwhelming majority of 'wrong decisions' by the referees that I watch are due to the referee being in the wrong place or looking in the wrong direction or failing to recognise player intent or not appreciating the materiality of the situation etc etc, and not due to ambiguity or lack of clarity in the laws and the way they are written.

Whilst of course I agree that a thorough knowledge of the laws is a prerequisite for good refereeing I do get frustrated by the proportion of time spent on law analysis relative to that on the reasons for making 'wrong decisions' as outlined above.

This excellent board is however for the pleasure and interest of those who use it and it is not for me to pass judgement. I will leave you to get back on the track you have defined :)

Mat 04
28-02-08, 11:02
.

For me the forward movement after the tackle was not momentum. He made a clear effort to get up on his knees so he could lunge forward. That is well outside my understanding of reaching, so would render the movement illegal.

Completely agree OB.

Account Deleted
28-02-08, 11:02
When the decisions made by players are analyzed that is wrong too Mike? Refs players and coaches are all part of the game. The game will grow because people are interested and want to debate the game. Live with it Mike because it is only going to become more intense.

The whole point of a forum is to discuss things and to promulgate ideas.

Facetious answers and jibs at the grammar etc of a post is frankly a bit low.

cymrubach
28-02-08, 12:02
I voted with my gut instinct, which is how it would have been on the rugby pitch, as I saw it my immediate reaction was no try, I wouldn't have had the benefit of replays.

All Mat is asking of you is to judge it the same way, what would you have called from the initial view.

(Even after seeing the replays I would still call it the same for the reasons OB mentioned)

OB..
28-02-08, 12:02
Unfortunately it is my experience that the overwhelming majority of 'wrong decisions' by the referees that I watch are due to the referee being in the wrong place or looking in the wrong direction or failing to recognise player intent or not appreciating the materiality of the situation etc etc, and not due to ambiguity or lack of clarity in the laws and the way they are written.
Agree 100%. I rarely mention points of law unless there seems to be a gap in the referee's knowledge.

Davet
28-02-08, 16:02
The point is that if you want to look at a situation and get some benefit from that examination then clarity is essential, both in wording, and in thinking about it. We may well think we know what you mean...sometimes we think we know what the Laws mean, but often we don't.

David J.
28-02-08, 17:02
Anyone have a link for a video of the try?

cymrubach
28-02-08, 18:02
Dave J, try this.....

http://www.rugbyfanz.com/VideoShow.php?id=780

Emmet Murphy
28-02-08, 20:02
Just looking at it again I'd now agree it probably shouldn't have been given - his knees clearly come up and then straighten out again ... if that had happened in one of my games I probably would have given it though :o

Davet
28-02-08, 23:02
Oh come off it guys. Watch it in real time - he never stops moving, the action is all immediate - absolutely no problem whatsoever with awarding the try. It was excellent. Movement of knees, what's that got to do with anything? The law doesn't say that in reaching only a players arms must move, so why invent this peculiar requirement?

Basic principle: If the law doesn't ban it, then it is legal

OB..
29-02-08, 02:02
Basic principle: If the law doesn't ban it, then it is legal
No.

We all know the law does not specifically ban pulling hair or gouging eyes. Such things are part of what we call foul play. In other words, we have to interpret the laws in accordance with our understanding of the game.

The question here is about what we call reaching, how far "immediacy" extends, whether there was momentum etc.

You have drawn your own line in the sand, as you have to in order to make decisions, but there is no basis for demanding we all toe it.


Oh come off it guys. Watch it in real time - he never stops moving, the action is all immediate - absolutely no problem whatsoever with awarding the try. It was excellent. Movement of knees, what's that got to do with anything? The law doesn't say that in reaching only a players arms must move, so why invent this peculiar requirement?
I don't think anybody is inventing anything. In my case it is what I have understood the expectation to be from a number of discussions, reading, observation etc. Your experience is obviously different. The matter is best settled by someone in authority, but it might well be similar to some of the tricky touch decisions - different in different places.

My impression, in real time, was that Bowe made an effort to move forward without getting to his feet. In slomo I could see that he brought up his knees, pulling against the tackler, and used his right hand to lever himself forward, straightening out his body as he did so. And he only just made it. He had been tackled well short. There was some momentum, but IMHO not enough to get him to the line unaided. It was all continuous, but that is not the same as immediate, and does not determine if it constitutes "reaching" or not.

We do know that the referee was bothered by something (even though the TJ appeared to say it was a try) and it was not the grounding. We also know the TMO could not comment on anything but the grounding.

Dickie E
29-02-08, 02:02
quite clearly no try as far as I am concerned. Not just a double movement but a triple movement as he commando crawled twice along the deck.

David J.
29-02-08, 08:02
Wow.

I've the luxury of watching this video about 3 times before voting "no try" earlier today. Now, re-watching it again a a half dozen times, I change my mind.

The slow motion is actually deceptive. A wing charging a full speed who's tackled 5m from the try line? My perspective: Momentum carries him close enough to the line and he legally reaches and score. His knees are actually digging grooves in the turf, tossing divots, as his momentum carries him to the try line.

The TMO was no help, not that I understand TMO protocol very well, but there's one man on the field making a decision and he did it. In the very last second of the video (1:13), two seconds after the tackle was initiated, one second after the grounding, after all the other advertisements come up for other videos, you actually see the referee's legs in the video, a meter from the grounding.

How do I change my vote?

Davet
29-02-08, 14:02
OB - I suspect we must agree to differ on this one as well.

My comment on invention was about your notion that reaching involves only arms. I don't know where that comes from, it doesn't accord with any normal definition of "reach".

It almost seems as if you are saying that there is no such thing as a double movement, but that if you make one, then you are not reaching...I supsect that you will say, no you can make more than one movement with the arms. I would suggest that the reaching motion involving the whole body is Ok... but I see circles coming up.

One thing; if a player is tackled and held well short of the line, but due to slippery conditions he and the tackler both slide rapidly towards the goal-line, at what point must the ball carrier release the ball? Would you be happy if he released it once he had stopped sliding (after all if his momentum carries him all the way to in-goal then he can score a try). What about if he hangs on to the ball, stops sliding just short of the line but close enough to reach over (arms only, if you insist) and does so as soon as he comes to a rest? What about if he comes up a half-metre short and pops the ball to an oncoming team-mate immediately after coming to rest? What about if he is 1m short, 5m 10m... is there a boundary? Must a tackled player release the ball at all times even while he is sliding?

Dixie
29-02-08, 15:02
As I write this, the vote is very evenly balanced - 6 each - which indicates that there is a genuine difference of reasonable interpretations. There is also the suggestion that with only 12 voting, many others are sitting on the fence. Agreeing to disagree is certainly an option here, but it would be interesting to get to the heart of the disagreement.

In an effort to do so, can I ask the following:

Assume Vainikolo has used his trademark lean into the tackle 2.5m out, but the defender has anticipated it and wrapped his ankles. V falls in a foetal position (adopted to lean into the tackle), digs his front studs into the ground and immediately straightens every limb in a successful effort to reach the goal line. If he is to be penalised, what law has he broken?

OB..
29-02-08, 17:02
If he is to be penalised, what law has he broken?
There are two separate problems here:
(1) what criteria should we use to check compliance with the law?
(2) did Bowe comply with the chosen criteria?

The answer to Dixie’s question clearly depends on the answer to (1) in the first place. He stresses "immediately", as does Davet elsewhere.

The answer to (2) tends to reflect the answer to (1), so is less generally useful. In the present thread it serves to make it clear that there is a difference of opinion.

OB - I suspect we must agree to differ on this one as well. Yes indeed. So the next step is to see if we can agree why we disagree, and perhaps seek an authoritative answer.

My comment on invention was about your notion that reaching involves only arms. I don't know where that comes from, it doesn't accord with any normal definition of "reach".
My view is different, it is NOT my personal invention but, as I have already said, it is shared by others with whom I have discussed this. I have also quoted dictionary definitions to show that the word "reach" has a wide range of possible meanings. Given the differing views evident from this thread, it is not realistic to try and claim it has only one possible meaning. As I said earlier, it has to be taken in its rugby context. For me this includes the axiom "a player on the ground is out of the game". There are various exceptions to this, of which we are arguing about one.

It almost seems as if you are saying that there is no such thing as a double movement, but that if you make one, then you are not reaching.
The term "double movement" is bad because it is perfectly possible to have a single continuous movement that is illegal.
If, after a tackle, you make two separate moves to ground the ball, then IMHO the second was not immediate, and is illegal for that reason, even if for no other.

One thing; if a player is tackled and held well short of the line, but due to slippery conditions he and the tackler both slide rapidly towards the goal-line, at what point must the ball carrier release the ball?
Are you trying to prove that Achilles could never overtake the tortoise?
Even your own preferred reading means you have to decide what is "immediate", and there will be close decisions which people will disagree about on the facts, even if they agree on the theory.

All we can do is try to define conditions which are clear cut, and accept that there will always be tricky boundary conditions.

Davet
01-03-08, 00:03
Not trying to create a paradox. But wondering about how far momentum counts.

If the player slides, under momentum, then he could - in wet and slippery conditions - travel several yards. I once slid the best part of 15 metres having taken a good run up and then dived on my belly. But just in youthful exhuberance, rather than in a game (and as you no doubt realise from the phrasing it was some little time ago).

But, if I had been a ball carrier then I could have scored a try, surely? After all, that's momentum for you.

So what I am asking is, when momentum is carrying the ball carrier remorslessly towards the line, can he anticipate his good fortune and hang on to the ball until he slides triumphantly over? If not then the momentum concept seems to be a little lacking in practical application. My assumption therefore is that the answer is "well, duuh, of course he can!"

IF that is the case, then what happens when, like my lottery numbers, the hope is greater than the reality? As he trickles sadly to a muddy stop, short of the line, will he hear the refs whistle, and be accused of holding on, or can he redeem himself by acting immediately he comes to a stop?

PeterH
01-03-08, 13:03
Is anyone holding this sliding player Davet?

OB..
01-03-08, 13:03
Not trying to create a paradox. But wondering about how far momentum counts.
In a game situation we have all seen a player slide a couple of metres to score, knowing that it would (a) be allowed and (b) make him almost impossible to tackle. I don’t think I have ever seen more than 5 metres, and to achieve that, a player must start off moving pretty fast, so the score can be called an "immediate" action – there is little time to do anything else.

So what I am asking is, when momentum is carrying the ball carrier remorslessly towards the line, can he anticipate his good fortune and hang on to the ball until he slides triumphantly over? If not then the momentum concept seems to be a little lacking in practical application.
I think the validity of momentum is well established in the situations we are all used to. Extending the distance to 15 metres is something of a flight of fancy. If we choose to take flight, then it is hard to argue that the player should at some stage let go of the ball and leave it behind, yet his "score" can hardly be described as "immediate". I’d be tempted to allow it for rarity value alone. However even if we felt it should be disallowed, that does not undermine the concept of allowing some degree of momentum. We are back to cutting up a continuum into pieces.

If that is the case, then what happens when, like my lottery numbers, the hope is greater than the reality? As he trickles sadly to a muddy stop, short of the line, will he hear the refs whistle, and be accused of holding on, or can he redeem himself by acting immediately he comes to a stop?
Pelion upon Ossa, but going with the flow, if the momentum was OK, then reaching out when it stops is IMHO legitimate.

Where the whole thing collapses is if it is "power-assisted momentum", by which I mean the player uses his arms and/or legs to help his momentum. That. to me, is illegal. Pure momentum involves no muscular action by the ball-carrier at all once he has hit the ground.

chopper15
01-03-08, 20:03
Apologies for moving my query from another thread, but the connection, I think, has a relevance to this one.

My query was: The tackler releases the attacker immediately they hit the ground (as the law obliges him to do) in the FOP near the corner, thus freeing the attacker to reach out and ground the ball on the goal-line.
A try, or PK against the attacker for not releasing the ball?

OB’s reply; Perfectly legal try, providing it complies with whichever version of "immediately reach out" you are using.

Law 15.5 (g) "If players are tackled near the goal-line, these players may immediately reach out and ground the ball on or over the goal-line to score a try or make a touch down."
Law 22.4 (e) "If a player is tackled near to the opponents’ goal line so that this player can immediately reach out and ground the ball on or over the goal line, a try is scored."


OB, these laws don’t wholly apply to the scenario I‘ve attempted to describe.
Unlike these two laws, the attacker in my scenario had to wait, albeit momentarily, to be freed from the restricting hold of the tackler to allow him to reach out and touch down.

Surely then, in these particular circumstances where the movement of the ball by the attacker was not and could not be immediate or continuous, the ref’s decision would have to be a PK against the attacker for not releasing the ball immediately he was able - and to avoid being penalised he should’ve released the ball as soon as the tackler released him?

Nice bit of positive reffing this pm, Quins v Gloucs.!

OB..
01-03-08, 21:03
OB, these laws don’t wholly apply to the scenario I‘ve attempted to describe.
Unlike these two laws, the attacker in my scenario had to wait, albeit momentarily, to be freed from the restricting hold of the tackler to allow him to reach out and touch down.
If the tackler is holding the tackled player's arms in making the tackle, then I think he has won the right to prevent him scoring. If his release counts as immediate, then the tackled player is not entitled to any extra time. Both are required to release and get to their feet before playing the ball.

Was that the scenario you had in mind?

chopper15
01-03-08, 23:03
If the tackler is holding the tackled player's arms in making the tackle, then I think he has won the right to prevent him scoring. If his release counts as immediate, then the tackled player is not entitled to any extra time. Both are required to release and get to their feet before playing the ball.

Was that the scenario you had in mind?

My query was: The tackler releases the attacker immediately they hit the ground (as the law obliges him to do) in the FOP near the corner, thus freeing the attacker to reach out and ground the ball on the goal-line.
A try, or PK against the attacker for not releasing the ball?


The same scenario(above) which you stated originally was a perfectly lawful try!

OB, you confuse me. Should I now assume it was that obvious that all would agree and it was a bit pointless in tendering it as a query in the first place?

OB..
02-03-08, 00:03
chopper15 - I do not see what you are getting at. What is it about being held that stops the ball-carrier from reaching out?

chopper15
02-03-08, 00:03
chopper15 - I do not see what you are getting at. What is it about being held that stops the ball-carrier from reaching out?

Sorry, OB! I thought 'thus freeing the attacker' was enough to suggest he couldn't reach out until released! I should've said his arms were pinned and when released he had the choice to reach out and ground the ball or just release it!

Grounding the ball in those circumstances would then be a PK defending side ball, Yes?

OB..
02-03-08, 00:03
chopper25 -in my previsou response I wrote "If the tackler is holding the tackled player's arms in making the tackle, then I think he has won the right to prevent him scoring."

Did that not cover your point?

Dickie E
02-03-08, 10:03
for what's it's worth here's how I see it:

1. a player who is not tackled, on the ground and sliding under momentum may hold onto the ball until he stops. Once he stops he must do something with the ball: pass it, place it back, get up with it or reach out and score a try.

2. a player who is tackled, on the ground and sliding under momentum may hold onto the ball until he stops. Once he stops he must do something with the ball: pass it, place it back, or reach out and score a try.

3. a player on the ground and in possession of the ball must not propel himself along the ground using elbows, knees, feet, whatever. This is in line with the tenet that rugby is a game for players on their feet.

4. once a tackler releases the tackled player the tackled player must immediately do something with the ball (inc. reaching out to score a try). If it takes the tackler 3 seconds to release the tackled player then the tackled player has 4 seconds in which to reach out and score.

chopper15
02-03-08, 21:03
Dickie, no probs with 1,2,&3.

Point 4, however, doesn’t solve my tackler’s dilemma, ie;

‘ An attacker brought to ground is lying parallel with and facing the goal-line held by the tackler who is lying behind him. There is no momentum. The attacker’s upper arms are held to his side during the tackle preventing him from reaching out to ground the ball.

The tackler knows that should he release the attacker immediately they go to ground, as he is required to do, the attacker will reach out and ground the ball for a try on the goal-line.’

The laws, or rather the vagueness of the laws, has, seemingly, created ‘a between a rock and a hard place’ situation for the tackler!

OB’s comment; "If the tackler is holding the tackled player's arms in making the tackle, then I think he has won the right to prevent him scoring." Indicates there is a degree of sympathy for the dilemma I’ve raised!

I accept this is only an opinion, but if he doesn’t release him it‘s a PT and if he does, it’s a try. If it was in the corner at least if he let him go the conversion would be that bit more difficult . . . some choice when you consider that he did make a legal tackle and in the circumstances an appropriate one!

Regarding your No.4 opinion/interpretation, ‘Once a tackler releases the tackled player the tackled player must immediately do something with the ball (inc. reaching out to score a try). If it takes the tackler 3 seconds to release the tackled player then the tackled player has 4 seconds in which to reach out and score.’

I ‘m convinced another interpretation (as opposed to a change in the law) must be accepted. eg.

‘If the attacker cannot reach out and ground the ball in one unimpeded movement during the tackle it will be deemed to be a second movement should he then reach out following an immediate release by the tackler. Penalty to defending side.’

OB..
02-03-08, 23:03
While I acknowledge that the standard sequence is "tackler-tackled-player-3rd man in", that is not enshrined in the laws. It is guidance for referees. The law says that both T and TP must act immediately, not that one has more time than the other.

If a tackler had made a superb try-saving tackle, stopping the ball-carrier just short and pinning his arms in the tackle, I think it is inequitable to expect him then to release the tackled player and watch him place the ball for a try.

Unless other players are around, I suggest the best action is a quick whistle and a scrum to the attacking side. This is my view of equity.

Frankly I have never seen this situation in many years of watching and playing rugby, so I'll go back to counting angels on pinheads.

Dickie E
03-03-08, 02:03
OB, I disagree with this. If we agree that the "tackler-tackled player-3rd man in" sequence is valid then the tackled player needs to be given the opportunity to exercise his options AFTER he is released (to me IMMEDIATELY means as soon as he is given the opportunity).

Are you suggesting that for any tackle within a metre of the goalline the tackler is allowed to keep the tackled player bundled up indefinitely in case he chooses to reach out?
Consider a tackle near the goalline but the tackled player has no intention of reaching out, he only wishes to play the ball backwards

David J.
03-03-08, 03:03
Are you suggesting that for any tackle within a metre of the goalline the tackler is allowed to keep the tackled player bundled up indefinitely in case he chooses to reach out?

Why does it make a difference that the play is occurring near the goal line, rather than far off?

Dickie E
03-03-08, 04:03
Why does it make a difference that the play is occurring near the goal line, rather than far off?

ed zachary.

Likewise, if I tackle a player near the touchline, am I entitled to keep him bundled up to prevent him from placing the ball in touch?

Mike Whittaker
03-03-08, 10:03
ed zachary.

Likewise, if I tackle a player near the touchline, am I entitled to keep him bundled up to prevent him from placing the ball in touch?
OB is quite right to mention the goal line. Decisions such as this are not made irrespective of the location and the consequences of action / inaction.

But I think the tackler would like the tackled player to place the ball in touch; don't you???? :)

Dickie E
03-03-08, 10:03
OB is quite right to mention the goal line. Decisions such as this are not made irrespective of the location and the consequences of action / inaction.



Mike,
are there any other laws (apart from advantage) that you arbitrarily modify depending on location?

Mike Whittaker
03-03-08, 11:03
But advantage is a possibility at (almost) every offence and it is this aspect that allows for consideration of materiality and interpretation. So to say 'apart from advantage' rather negates the whole point :)

OB..
03-03-08, 11:03
Dickie E - there is nothing "arbitrary" about it.

I base my view on Equity, and I explained why.

chopper15
03-03-08, 12:03
[QUOTE=OB..;39727]

If a tackler had made a superb try-saving tackle, stopping the ball-carrier just short and pinning his arms in the tackle, I think it is inequitable to expect him then to release the tackled player and watch him place the ball for a try.

Unless other players are around, I suggest the best action is a quick whistle and a scrum to the attacking side. This is my view of equity.[QUOTE]



I'm with OB on this one, 98% (don't accept his 'angels on pinheads' comment)!

The reason I raised this issue is my fear that refs just don't/wouldn't recognise the 'tackler's dilemma' should it arise.

To be honest how many of you out there are prepared to analyse and evaluate a 'slo-mo' of this 'be my guest' situation and come up with an acceptable interpretation?


I've set the ball rolling with;

‘If the attacker cannot reach out and ground the ball in one unimpeded movement during the tackle it will be deemed to be a second movement should he then reach out following an immediate release by the tackler. Penalty to defending side.’ . . . which, dare I suggest, seems fair!

Dixie
03-03-08, 13:03
Chopper, as one who rails against our normal "I'm with OB on this one" apporach, you'll be delighted to know that I disagree. The right to reach out and ground the ball is specifically given in law. Who are we to overrule the iRB? If there are other defenders there and on their feet, they can prevent the try by commandeering the ball; they can hold it up; they can push to prevent it coming towards the goal. If there are defenders in-goal, they can go to ground to get their body underneath the ball.

The tackler, on the other hand, is accepted to be required to release, roll away and get to his feet. If there is a feeling this is unfair on the last line of defence, then the law needs to be changed. We as refs are not properly constituted nor authorised to do that.

Rawling
03-03-08, 14:03
Just my take on this (someone may have mentioned it a while ago, as I've read this thread over a period of time and I might have forgotten!):
22.4(d) talks about how a tackled player may ground the ball if his momentum carries him INTO the in-goal.
22.4(e) talks about how a tackled player near the goal line can IMMEDIATELY place the ball on or over the goal line.

So... If a player is tackled and slides into the in-goal, it doesn't matter that he didn't place the ball immediately that he was tackled.
If he is tackled, slides NEAR to the goal line and THEN places the ball, this was not immediate, so he should be penalised.

Maybe? Heh.

One another note, from the last post, "If there are defenders in-goal, they can go to ground to get their body underneath the ball.".
Where does it say this in law? I know this is what happens, but... :confused:

Davet
03-03-08, 14:03
If a defender makes a tackle just short of the line and then lies on top of the tackled player preventing him from releasing or playing the ball, the OB seems to suggest we play on.

I disagree.

We always look for the tackler to release the tackled player, and then for the tackled player to release or play the ball immediately.

Thats the way it is on the half way line, on the 22, on the 5, or even 20cm short of the goal-line.

Indeed there is a strong case for awarding PT if the tackle was within a foot of the line - since if the tackler had complied with Law it is highly probably that the try would have been scored.

The defenders "try-saving tackle" is nothing of the sort, and in Equity, the attacker must be allowed to excercise the same option he has anywhere else on the field.

OB..
03-03-08, 17:03
If a defender makes a tackle just short of the line and then lies on top of the tackled player preventing him from releasing or playing the ball, the OB seems to suggest we play on.
A subtle misstatement. I specified holding his arms in the tackle, not lying on him.

We always look for the tackler to release the tackled player, and then for the tackled player to release or play the ball immediately. Thats the way it is on the half way line, on the 22, on the 5, or even 20cm short of the goal-line.

The right to reach out and ground the ball is specifically given in law. Who are we to overrule the iRB?
The law also says "immediately". As I pointed out, the law does not specify that the tackler’s "immediately" is any more immediate than that applying to the tackled player. There is a convention that we look first at the tackler, and in mid-field that makes sense. After all nobody is going to place the ball forward when it is simply nearer to the opponents than their own team.

I am saying I think our convention (it is NOT law) is inappropriate when it is a question of reaching out to score a try. I believe that idea is now dignified by the term Contextual Judgement, but used to be called Equity (until somebody changed that to Enjoyment!). It is certainly part of my take on that concept.

Red 15 tackles Blue 10 in a bear hug, pinioning his arms and the ball. They hit the ground and stop just short of the goal line, side by side. I find it ridiculous to suggest that Blue 15 now has to release and watch Blue 10 calmly reach out to score. That gives far too great a benefit to the attacker, and is inequitable.

I claim we have a Mexican stand-off.

chopper15
03-03-08, 17:03
I knew it! Like a bull at a gate, you conjure up your own little scenarios to suit the laws and interpretations that justify your fixed points of view without giving me the courtesy of reading what I actually state. . . . Dixie being the chief culprit!

eg.; ‘The right to reach out and ground the ball is specifically given in law. Who are we to overrule the iRB?’

So who wants to overrule the IRB, Dixie, when neither are applicable to my scenario?

22.4(d) talks about how a tackled player may ground the ball if his momentum carries him into the in-goal!
22.4(e) talks about how a tackled player near the goal line can immediately place the ball on or over the goal line!


‘If there are other defenders there and on their feet, they can prevent the try by . . .’ With respect, Dixie, we know that, if there were defenders there’s no ‘tackler’s dilemma’ to confront!

‘The tackler, on the other hand, is accepted to be required to release . . . .’
Yes, Dixie, this IS the ‘be-my-guest /between-a-rock-and-hard place/ Catch-22/ damned-if-you-do-or-don’t, etc.’ tackler’s dilemma to which my thread refers!

And finally you state, ‘If there is a feeling this is unfair on the last line of defence, then the law needs to be changed. We as refs are not properly constituted nor authorised to do that.’

As there are no laws to the contrary, Dixie, was the reason I said,
‘I‘m convinced another interpretation (as opposed to a change in the law) must be accepted;

eg. ‘If the attacker cannot reach out and ground the ball in one unimpeded movement during the tackle it will be deemed to be a second movement should he then reach out following an immediate release by the tackler. Penalty to defending side.’



PS. I did have a sneaking regard for Davet’s opinion which, I think, sums up the ‘tackler’s dilemma’ really beautifully, ie.

‘ Indeed there is a strong case for awarding PT if the tackle was within a foot of the line - since if the tackler had complied with Law it is highly probably that the try would have been scored.’

So, if you lot don’t agree with, or understand what I’m on about, what about registering your approval for Davet’s suggestion in a ballot?

David J.
03-03-08, 17:03
The defenders "try-saving tackle" is nothing of the sort

Ed Zacahary, Jr.

A body-wrapping tackle a couple feet from the line is a noble tackle, but one unlikely to prevent a try, unless another defender is already present or the tackler is very quick.

Perversely, a tackler would be better off in this situation if he finished the body wrap tackle two feet later. But then the law makes a clear distinction between the field of play and the in goal, whilst it doesn't make much of one of the field of play two feet from the line and the field of play everywhere else.

I don't see the quandry. Either the player conforms to the law or he gives the opportunity for his opposition to score. That happens not infrequently and is why the PT exists.

Mike Whittaker
03-03-08, 17:03
Sounds a bit like an 'unplayable' to me when players are contesting the ball on the ground and there is doubt...

Apart from the proximity to the goal line in the example being debated, not an uncommon occurrence in junior games.

didds
03-03-08, 18:03
Why does it make a difference that the play is occurring near the goal line, rather than far off?

because there is a concept of a "red zone" for penalty offences, so there clearly is a difference that is widely accepted and used?

didds

chopper15
03-03-08, 19:03
Quote:
Originally Posted by David J.
Why does it make a difference that the play is occurring near the goal line, rather than far off?

because there is a concept of a "red zone" for penalty offences, so there clearly is a difference that is widely accepted and used?

didds



And if you're 'far off' would you want to reach out in front of you to place the ball on the ground either in the FOP or in-touch . . . and what laws would you most likely violate?

David J.
03-03-08, 20:03
because there is a concept of a "red zone" for penalty offences, so there clearly is a difference that is widely accepted and used?

How does that apply here? We're not talking about the "red zone". 7m from the try zone is still the "red zone", we're talking about 1 meter from the try line.

And maybe I'm wrong, but I thought the red zone advised the increase of a sanction by the defending team, a situation that simply increases the justification for a PT if a tackler doesn't release.

David J.
03-03-08, 20:03
And if you're 'far off' would you want to reach out in front of you to place the ball on the ground either in the FOP or in-touch . . . and what laws would you most likely violate?

Well, I believe that it doesn't matter what I think a player may or may not want to do, but what they are permitted to do.

I also believe that, in the scenario as you've described it, NO laws would be violated by the ball carrier if, after being released, he attempts to place the ball in any direction, regardless of whether he is 1 meter from the try line or 7m or 57m from it.

Davet
04-03-08, 00:03
A subtle misstatement. I specified holding his arms in the tackle, not lying on him.



If the law requires the tackler to relaese the tackled player and move away, then what is the essential difference between lying on top, and maintaining a bear hug?

If we are on the half-way line then we would expect the tackler to move, then for the attacker to play or release the ball.

I cannot see that equity is served by reversing that convention, and giving the benefit to the defender rather than the attacker. Why is a try too much reward for the attacker, but saving 5 or 7 points fair reward for the defender?

Surely equity, and natural justice, means we apply the laws, and the conventions which allow us to make those laws practical, without fear or favour, and consistently within a game. If you allow the tackler to hold on to the tackled player near the goal-line, then you must do so in mid-field.

Dickie E
04-03-08, 03:03
well said, Davet

OB..
04-03-08, 12:03
I disagree because I think our convention (which works fine elsewhere) produces an utterly ridiculous situation near the goal line.

To me the equitable outcome is a 5m scrum to the attackers. There is still a big advantage to the attackers, but the defender gets some benefit from an excellent tackle.

The oddity is that if the same thing happened in the in-goal, the convention would not apply.

It is my very strong view that the convention is inappropriate in this situation. You hold the opposite view. If somebody in authority tells me I have to adopt your approach, I will obviously do so. But I will still disagree with it.

FlipFlop
04-03-08, 17:03
I'm with Davet - The onus is on the Tackler to release and roll away in the field of play. I don't care where it is in the field of play. I'd also be tempted to reach for the cards if a tackler didn't release and roll that close to the line. By allowing the tackler to remain there, he is slowing the ball down for the attack, as well as preventing the tackled player exercising his options. By letting the tackler remain there (and to give a scrum) you are giving the tackler what he wants, whereas the tackled play wants the option to either reach out and score, or to play the ball quickly so his team can take advantage of their field position.

And OB - there is a further oddity - if the same thing happened in goal, and the ball touches the floor - it's a try :D Doesn't happen 5m from the goal line. So the situations of being in-goal or in the field of play are totally different, so have different rules.

OB..
04-03-08, 18:03
The onus is on the Tackler to release and roll away in the field of play.
Only because we referees have decided that as a convention. It is NOT part of the laws, which simply require each player to act immediately. We have made a rod for our own backs if we insist on enforcing it willy-nilly.


[...] preventing the tackled player exercising his options.
As with the player falling on the ball, the fact that reaching out is legal does NOT mean he has a right to do it. That depends on the circumstances.


And OB - there is a further oddity - if the same thing happened in goal, and the ball touches the floor - it's a try :D
I'm sure you realise that is irrelevant. If the ball is off the ground, it is a 5m attacking scrum. Your approach means the defender is better off taking the risk of tackling the player in in-goal and hoping to hold him up rather than tackling him in the field of play and being given the option by an inappropriately pedantic referee of giving away a soft try or a penalty try.

I find it difficult to believe that any defender in the world would concede a try in the way you want. I think the attacker would be surprised if he did.

chopper15
04-03-08, 23:03
Ref. FlipFlop: By letting the tackler remain there (and to give a scrum) you are giving the tackler what he wants, whereas the tackled play wants the option to either reach out and score, or to play the ball quickly so his team can take advantage of their field position.



FlipFlop, one of the options you offer is to reach out and score, yet if the tackler remains there you're only prepared to give a scrum? Shame on you!

Why on earth don't you all digest what OB is telling you, loud and clear, instead of ignoring the scenario posed and then conjuring up your own because you think, only think, you can answer it?


‘If the attacker cannot reach out and ground the ball in one unimpeded movement during the tackle it will be deemed to be a second movement should he then reach out following an immediate release by the tackler. Penalty to defending side.’

Rawling
05-03-08, 00:03
Again, can I ask... where in Law are defending players allowed to go to ground in the in-goal to stop an attacker from grounding the ball?

FlipFlop
05-03-08, 00:03
Ref. FlipFlop: By letting the tackler remain there (and to give a scrum) you are giving the tackler what he wants, whereas the tackled play wants the option to either reach out and score, or to play the ball quickly so his team can take advantage of their field position.



FlipFlop, one of the options you offer is to reach out and score, yet if the tackler remains there you're only prepared to give a scrum? Shame on you!



Not what I said at all Chopper - I am in the camp of PK the tackler for not releasing - possibly even a YC. It is OB who wants to award a scrum for the tackler failing to release and roll away.

Personally I think the scrum option is not only wrong in law, but wrong in equity as well.



Why on earth don't you all digest what OB is telling you, loud and clear

Because I think he is wrong. I listen to assessors, and listen to highly experienced and respected referees (including international refs). As respected as OB is on here, he is not an oracle, and it is possible to disagree with him.



‘If the attacker cannot reach out and ground the ball in one unimpeded movement during the tackle it will be deemed to be a second movement should he then reach out following an immediate release by the tackler. Penalty to defending side.’

Personally I disagree with this. In a tackle I believe that the tackler must immediately release and roll away. After this has happened, I believe that the tackled players requirements are to immediately play the ball (including placing the ball forward). This is how I try to referee the tackle wherever it occurs in the field of play. Where do I get this from - Mr Wayne Barnes for one. The Law book also lists the tackle requirements in that order as well.

I don't need to come up with any other statement, as I feel the scenario is covered by the current tackle law.

OB..
05-03-08, 02:03
Because I think he is wrong. I listen to assessors, and listen to highly experienced and respected referees (including international refs).[...]Where do I get this from - Mr Wayne Barnes for one.
AFAIK, neither Wayne Barnes nor any of the others has pronounced on this particular situation - only on the general case.


As respected as OB is on here, he is not an oracle, and it is possible to disagree with him.
I agree. Let's get rid of the green blobs.




Personally I disagree with this. In a tackle I believe that the tackler must immediately release and roll away. After this has happened, I believe that the tackled players requirements are to immediately play the ball (including placing the ball forward). This is how I try to referee the tackle wherever it occurs in the field of play. [...] The Law book also lists the tackle requirements in that order as well.
If the sequence within a law is important, then presumably you apply 15.5 (a) before 15.5 (g)? No?

There is nothing anywhere to support the idea that the order of paragraphs dictates the order in which the situations are to be checked. There is nothing in the relevant paragraphs requiring them to be in any particular sequence. In your world, how would the laws cope with simultaneity?

Dickie E
05-03-08, 02:03
we have game management guidelines that clearly dictate the order of events at the tackle. These guidelines are as good as law. Perhaps your Societies should invest in something similar.

What are the green & red blobs all about?

Dickie E
05-03-08, 03:03
Why on earth don't you all digest what OB is telling you, loud and clear, instead of ignoring the scenario posed and then conjuring up your own because you think, only think, you can answer it?


‘If the attacker cannot reach out and ground the ball in one unimpeded movement during the tackle it will be deemed to be a second movement should he then reach out following an immediate release by the tackler. Penalty to defending side.’

Chopper, digest this :Looser:

Making the same statement over & over again doesn't make it right.

Simon Griffiths
05-03-08, 03:03
The green and red blobs (only just noticed a red blob - naughty FlipFlop :nono: ) are something to do with 'reputation' - although I shamefully admit as an admin that I know not what their purpose it per-se.

I don't believe that there are any official guidelines surrounding the tackle up here, but it is almost universally held that the order we want to see things done in (and therefore general order of penalising) is: tackler, tackled player, arriving players.

Simon Griffiths
05-03-08, 03:03
Again, can I ask... where in Law are defending players allowed to go to ground in the in-goal to stop an attacker from grounding the ball?
In-goal grounding laws apply equally to defenders and attackers - i.e. anything an attacker can do to score a try, a defender can do to ground the ball and make it dead.

David J.
05-03-08, 04:03
We've hashed out this issue to my satisfaction, so why not introduce a variation?

Blue 8 is tackled around the legs near Red's goal line by Red 12. Red 13 is hot on his heels and arrives as Blue 8 hits the ground. Red 13 attempts to wrest the ball from Blue 8 and Blue 8 does not let it go, but attempts to ground it.

Who has the right to play that ball?

Dickie E
05-03-08, 06:03
We've hashed out this issue to my satisfaction, so why not introduce a variation?

Blue 8 is tackled around the legs near Red's goal line by Red 12. Red 13 is hot on his heels and arrives as Blue 8 hits the ground. Red 13 attempts to wrest the ball from Blue 8 and Blue 8 does not let it go, but attempts to ground it.

Who has the right to play that ball?

great question and here goes:

My view:
1. if Red 13 has come through the gate then he has all rights to the ball. If no advantage - penalty to Red
2. if Red 13 has not come through the gate then he has illegally entered the tackle zone and has illegally prevented Blue 8 from exercising his options. Possible outcome - penalty try to Blue.

OB's view (added cheekily):
Red 13 can do whatever he wants (barring dangerous play) and come in from any direction to prevent the try under the banner of Equity. :eek:

beckett50
05-03-08, 10:03
Only because we referees have decided that as a convention. It is NOT part of the laws, which simply require each player to act immediately. We have made a rod for our own backs if we insist on enforcing it willy-nilly.


OB, I'm afraid I have to take issue with you here. It is not a convention decided upon by referees, but one that is enshrined in Law.

Law 15.4 refers to the tackler, and his responsibilities.

Law 15.5 refers to the tackled player's responsibilities.

Since the tackler is covered 1st in Law then he must act before the tackled player. If the iRB had meant both players to act simultaneously then, in the last Law re-write they'd have combined the two paragraphs.

The Laws are formulated to reward positive play, be they attacking or defending.

Rawling
05-03-08, 11:03
In-goal grounding laws apply equally to defenders and attackers - i.e. anything an attacker can do to score a try, a defender can do to ground the ball and make it dead.

But the Laws don't say a player in the in-goal can go to ground and get under the ball to stop someone else from grounding it, do they?

Simon Thomas
05-03-08, 11:03
I don't believe that there are any official guidelines surrounding the tackle up here, but it is almost universally held that the order we want to see things done in (and therefore general order of penalising) is: tackler, tackled player, arriving players.

Err - well only the Panel and Group protocols, Continuous Development modules, ELRA, and numerous Society Training Manager courses which derived from central RFU conference last year.

And re-iterated by experienced referees from Barnsey and Spreaders through Panel guys like KML to Development Squad refs doing their Society sessions.

The tackle law is clear and is coached to referees as a sequential decision making process :

1. tackler release and away
2. tackler release, place, pass etc immediately
3. arriving players on feet (shoulders above hips) and through 'the gate'
4. transition to ruck and call of 'ruck' at correct time

so for example the tackled player not releasing, is 'trumpted' and preceeded by the a tackler not rolling away - seeing the first offence.

Simon Griffiths
05-03-08, 13:03
But the Laws don't say a player in the in-goal can go to ground and get under the ball to stop someone else from grounding it, do they?
But that wasn't what you asked. And the new question doesn't warrant an answer. But here it is anyway, making it plainly clear that it is perfectly legal to prvent a player from grounding the ball:

22.10 BALL HELD UP IN-GOAL
When a player carrying the ball is held up in the in-goal so that the
player cannot ground the ball, the ball is dead. A 5-metre scrum is
formed. This would apply if play similar to a maul takes place in
in-goal. The attacking team throws in the ball.

Rawling
05-03-08, 13:03
That merely talks of a player being held up - it does not give players the right to play the ball whilst they are on the ground. It also specifically mentions maul-like play, although whether this is a clarification of what was meant or just one example is not clear.

chopper15
05-03-08, 15:03
We've hashed out this issue to my satisfaction, so why not introduce a variation?
Blue 8 is tackled around the legs near Red's goal line by Red 12. Red 13 is hot on his heels and arrives as Blue 8 hits the ground. Red 13 attempts to wrest the ball from Blue 8 and Blue 8 does not let it go, but attempts to ground it.

Who has the right to play that ball?


Of course, we all assume that David's Blue 8 is au fait with the laws and hangs on to the ball knowing that his reach is over the goal-line and not short of it!

Also that the Red 13 knows all about ‘gate entry’ in the FOP and its irrelevance over the goal-line

So, regarding your query, David, could it be that they both have that right to play the ball?


And with reference to your statement and first query;

Don’t you consider, David, your ‘hashed out this issue to MY satisfaction’ a bit inconsiderate, particularly when you continue with ‘so why not introduce a variation’ when you haven’t bothered to answer the original scenario query?

A still not realised and consequently discussed situation, inadvertently hi-jacked by careless mis-quotes and mis-representations of both scenario and laws!

SimonT ‘s thread 92 also confirms the tackler’s dilemma by an authoritative but unappreciative interpretation of the vague laws by a ‘learned’ panel seemingly without any qualification of the tackling circumstances,

1.tackler release and away
2.tackler (tackled, Simon?) release, place, pass etc immediately

In these unqualified circumstances a try or PT is imposed as foregone conclusion, for goodness sakes! No mention of, continuity, hesitancy, second movement as a balancing factor - particularly when it's all subject to interpretation!


And, finally, FlipFlop, I would urge you to re-examine your comment ‘ letting the tackler remain there (and to give a scrum)’!

The ref being well aware that if this deliberate action prevents a reaching out to score he would unhesitatingly award a PT?

Phil E
05-03-08, 16:03
Of course, we all assume that David's Blue 8 is au fait with the laws and hangs on to the ball knowing that his reach is over the goal-line and not short of it!

Also that the Red 13 knows all about ‘gate entry’ in the FOP and its irrelevance over the goal-line

So, regarding your query, David, could it be that they both have that right to play the ball?

Correct. Blue 8 has the right to reach and ground, but Red 13 has the right to take it off him.

Law 22
(e) Tackled near the goal line. If a player is tackled near to the
opponents’ goal line so that this player can immediately reach out
and ground the ball on or over the goal line, a try is scored.
(f) In this situation, defending players who are on their feet may
legally prevent the try by pulling the ball from the tackled player’s
hands or arms, but must not kick the ball.

David J.
05-03-08, 16:03
So, regarding your query, David, could it be that they both have that right to play the ball?


Well done, Chopper! I was so focused on the tackle laws, I neglected Law 22. Thanks Phil for the reference.



Don’t you consider, David, your ‘hashed out this issue to MY satisfaction’ a bit inconsiderate, particularly when you continue with ‘so why not introduce a variation’ when you haven’t bothered to answer the original scenario query?
A still not realised and consequently discussed situation, inadvertently hi-jacked by careless mis-quotes and mis-representations of both scenario and laws!


But I have given my answer, twice. Review the thread and you'll find it. Am I somehow obliged to continue discussion on a matter I consider closed?

And finally, doesn't the answer to my scenario perhaps shade the discussion of your scenario (which hijacked a thread itself, I'm not complaining just pointing out)? "Defending players who are on their feet may legally prevent the try by pulling the ball from the tackled player's hands or arm..."

tim White
05-03-08, 16:03
And at this point most refs would whistle for 'Held up' rather than let a frenetic wrestling match develop between agitated players who both believe they are in the right. I suspect I would side with the player on his feet (Red 13 )rather than the player off his own feet (Blue 8)- PK not releasing by Blue 8. :nono:

Phil E
05-03-08, 16:03
And at this point most refs would whistle for 'Held up' rather than let a frenetic wrestling match develop between agitated players who both believe they are in the right. I suspect I would side with the player on his feet (Red 13 )rather than the player off his own feet (Blue 8)- PK not releasing by Blue 8. :nono:

If you have blown for "Held Up" (and by preventing the player on the ground, grounding the ball that is exactly what has happened) then you are going to give a 5M scrum to the attackers surely?
.
.
.
.and dont call me shirley!

chopper15
05-03-08, 17:03
Point appreciated and acknowledged, David.

Dixie
05-03-08, 17:03
If you have blown for "Held Up" (and by preventing the player on the ground, grounding the ball that is exactly what has happened) then you are going to give a 5M scrum to the attackers surely?Held up requires the ball to be over the line - 5m scrum, attacking put-in. Mass of players near line and ball not over it - unplayable: 5m scrum attacking put-in.

Tackled player prevented from placing ball over line by defender on his feet, and tackled player refusing to release - PK seems apt. If ball is over the line and held up by defender on his feet: 5m attacking scrum

tim White
05-03-08, 17:03
It should be quickly obvious the diference between a 'held up' decision and a 'PK not releasing by tackled player'. The first tends to be static/bound up and you end their misery and frustration by blowing for a 5m scrum. If there is wrestling with prospect of the ball being ripped out then I have to go with the man on his feet every time. I fully accept the scenario given is unusual.

Phil E
05-03-08, 17:03
Tackled player prevented from placing ball over line by defender on his feet, and tackled player refusing to release - PK seems apt.

I suppose it depends on your interpretation of what exactly the tackled player is doing.

If he is over the line and trying to press the ball down onto the ground (to score a try), while the defender is trying to pull the ball up away from the ground (to prevent a try), then is he trying to score or trying to stop the defender getting the ball?

I suppose you could call it either way as its not a black and white situation (they never are).

FlipFlop
05-03-08, 18:03
Chopper - as you seem unable to comprehend my English, let me break down my earlier thread for you:


I'm with Davet - The onus is on the Tackler to release and roll away in the field of play. I don't care where it is in the field of play. I'd also be tempted to reach for the cards if a tackler didn't release and roll that close to the line.

I woudl say that is fairly clear - the tackler holding on, is in my view a PK minimum. No scrum option.

Now the bit that seems to confuse you:


By allowing the tackler to remain there, he is slowing the ball down for the attack, as well as preventing the tackled player exercising his options. By letting the tackler remain there (and to give a scrum) you are giving the tackler what he wants, whereas the tackled play wants the option to either reach out and score, or to play the ball quickly so his team can take advantage of their field position.


This is a reference to OB's way of thinking, and why I disagree with it. I am saying that IF you were to let the tackler lie there......... And IF you were to award a scrum........ I'f NOT saying I would let the tackler lie there and only award a scrum.

But I'm sure now I've clarified the top bit, that I believe it is PK, poss YC, poss PT, that you can now see this.

OB..
05-03-08, 21:03
The Playing Charter contains many references to fair play. I have made the point several times that the training emphasising "tackler - tackled player - 3rd man in" is NOT law, but a convention that has proved its value in general.

However the rigid application of that convention in this particular situation produces a result that to me is manifestly unfair, and is utterly contrary to the spirit of the game which aims at a balance between defence and attack.

chopper15
06-03-08, 00:03
FlipFlop, points acknowledged and now understood . . . I only wish mine were!

Dickie E
06-03-08, 03:03
The Playing Charter contains many references to fair play. I have made the point several times that the training emphasising "tackler - tackled player - 3rd man in" is NOT law, but a convention that has proved its value in general.

However the rigid application of that convention in this particular situation produces a result that to me is manifestly unfair, and is utterly contrary to the spirit of the game which aims at a balance between defence and attack.

OB, I understand your view on tackler & tackled player in this regard. What is your view on "3rd man in"? Are the restrictions on him lessened when close to the goalline - does he have to stay on his feet and come through the gate or can he more directly stop the tackled player from reaching out?

chopper15
06-03-08, 13:03
OB, I understand your view on tackler & tackled player in this regard. What is your view on "3rd man in"? Are the restrictions on him lessened when close to the goalline - does he have to stay on his feet and come through the gate or can he more directly stop the tackled player from reaching out?

Surely not if his ball-in-hands are over the goal-line?

And wouldn't this also apply to the tackler if he rolled immediately away, between the tackled and the goal-line but still in the FOP . . . and only 'interfered' when the tackled reached over him above the goal-line to ground the ball?

But then again what if the tackler's foot was on the goal-line?

SimonSmith
06-03-08, 13:03
Here's my guess on OB's answer:
3rd man's obligations are mandated in law.
The order in which we prioritize the tackler and tacklee compliance isn't...

OB..
06-03-08, 16:03
Here's my guess on OB's answer:
3rd man's obligations are mandated in law.
The order in which we prioritize the tackler and tacklee compliance isn't...
Correct. You got there first.

I would also point out that the third man in has actually been beaten by the attacker, so I don't have the same sympathy with him as with the tackler.

Dixie
06-03-08, 17:03
The tackler's obligations are also mandated by law, yet OB would modify them in equity. If I understand OB's position correctly, he would not insist on the tackler releasing immediately, nor on the tackler getting to his feet before playing the ball to prevent the tackled player reaching out, nor would he expect the tackler to roll away from the tackle zone if the tackled player might wish to reach out.

If this is accurate, at least in part, I think Dickie's question is perfectly reasonable and rational - how many other laws can be violated with impugnity in the reddest bit of the red zone to prevent the try being scored in the name of equity?

SimonSmith
06-03-08, 18:03
I'mnot sure I agree with OB about the equity piece.

Attacking side have worked hard to get to a place where this scenario can unfold - why shouldn't they reap the reward?
I remember reading Gerald Davies autobiography, in which he said that he had to modify his tackling technique according to where on the pitch the tackle was taking place.
Sometimes if you're beaten, you're beaten.

OB..
06-03-08, 20:03
The tackler's obligations are also mandated by law, yet OB would modify them in equity.
No, I don't. I point out that "immediately" applies to both players, and that the laws do NOT put them in sequence.

If the tackled player needs the tackler to release before he can reach out, then he cannot place the ball as fast as the tackler can release. If you insist on it, you are giving the tackled player more time and a massive advantage. That is inequitable when so much is in the balance. It is also odd that if the same thing happened a foot or so further on ie in in-goal (yes, of course, and the ball was held up) there would be no discussion.


how many other laws can be violated with impugnity in the reddest bit of the red zone to prevent the try being scored in the name of equity?
That is a bad misstatement of my argument. No wonder you do not agree with it.

I am arguing that it is the convention (NOT the law) that potentially generates an utterly ridiculous situation if it is followed rigidly.

My position is that we have a Mexican stand-off (and I am not referring to the player), so the best solution is a quick whistle and a 5m scrum, attacking ball. Both sides have gained something from the tackle. And deserved to.

chopper15
06-03-08, 20:03
No, I don't. I point out that "immediately" applies to both players, and that the laws do NOT put them in sequence.

If the tackled player needs the tackler to release before he can reach out, then he cannot place the ball as fast as the tackler can release. If you insist on it, you are giving the tackled player more time and a massive advantage. That is inequitable when so much is in the balance. It is also odd that if the same thing happened a foot or so further on ie in in-goal (yes, of course, and the ball was held up) there would be no discussion.


That is a bad misstatement of my argument. No wonder you do not agree with it.

I am arguing that it is the convention (NOT the law) that potentially generates an utterly ridiculous situation if it is followed rigidly.

My position is that we have a Mexican stand-off (and I am not referring to the player), so the best solution is a quick whistle and a 5m scrum, attacking ball. Both sides have gained something from the tackle. And deserved to.




OB, You're my hero! I only wish I could've put it so clearly! Don't you dare give up those green thingys, for that thread alone you've more than earned them!

I think you and I are the only deep thinkers among this lot!

Aren't there any of you out there sympathetic enough to this dilemma to actually put it into practise/practice(?), should it arise?

Dickie E
07-03-08, 00:03
OB, You're my hero! I only wish I could've put it so clearly! Don't you dare give up those green thingys, for that thread alone you've more than earned them!

I think you and I are the only deep thinkers among this lot!

Aren't there any of you out there sympathetic enough to this dilemma to actually put it into practise/practice(?), should it arise?

Unfortunately there is no direct correlation between eloquence and veracity

OB..
07-03-08, 01:03
Unfortunately there is no direct correlation between eloquence and veracity
Veracity is not the issue. Nobody is lying here. (Except the players. :biggrin: )

We hold different opinions. I claim mine is tenable and sensible.
I judge the other view to be tenable but ridiculous (in its effect).

YMMV.

Dickie E
07-03-08, 03:03
YMMV indeed.

Time to move on.

FlipFlop
07-03-08, 10:03
No, I don't. I point out that "immediately" applies to both players, and that the laws do NOT put them in sequence.

If the tackled player needs the tackler to release before he can reach out, then he cannot place the ball as fast as the tackler can release. If you insist on it, you are giving the tackled player more time and a massive advantage. That is inequitable when so much is in the balance. It is also odd that if the same thing happened a foot or so further on ie in in-goal (yes, of course, and the ball was held up) there would be no discussion.
.

I think we all accept that in-goal is special (numerous laws are different in the in-goal area). But would you have the same view of this on the 10m line? And award a scrum? If not how close to the line do become inconsistent with your handling of the tackle?

And while I respect your views, I will stick to mine. As taught by Bob Ockendon, Dave Broadwell, Wayne Barnes and many others - at the tackle the order is: tackler, tackled, 3rd player.

As for the inequity that close to the line - well the attacking team has worked hard to get there, and the defence hasn't stopped them further out from the line, so they risk the "reach over" try. And I'm consistent, so if they can get down the other end....

Dickie E
07-03-08, 10:03
It's also worth mentioning that I don't believe that there is any universality to this thing called "equity" - I've never heard of it except on these forums. Does it exist anywhere other that the UK? I don't think it appears in law anywhere - maybe its another convention.

Pablo
07-03-08, 10:03
Dickie - "equity" doesn't appear in Law, you are correct. However, it is taught to all English referees during our foundation course as a fundamental of the game. Our priorities (it is constantly drummed into us) are Safety, Equity and Law, in that order.

David J.
07-03-08, 11:03
So the issue we really discussing here, is it Equity? Is it whether it is more equitable that the ball carrier who nears the try line has priority over the tackler who stops him?

Can we boil it down to that one elemental issue? Maybe.
Can we disagree on that issue and still call a good match? Certainly.

I think we can disagree here one these forums and express our convictions or reservations and that's okay because as much as we disagree about an issue like this, we pretty much all agree that the game if rugby union should be played within the laws as written and this is just a minor point of law in the larger context. One doesn't have to be agree with another to be a "deep thinker" or just a good referee, right?

Dickie E
07-03-08, 11:03
David, question: have you been exposed to the concept of Equity in USA?

David J.
07-03-08, 11:03
No. I've learned about here, frankly.

FlipFlop
07-03-08, 12:03
I've read the laws and:

22.4 e) & f) say:
e) Tackled near the goal line. If a player is tackled near to the
opponents’ goal line so that this player can immediately reach out
and ground the ball on or over the goal line, a try is scored.

f) In this situation, defending players who are on their feet may
legally prevent the try by pulling the ball from the tackled player’s
hands or arms, but must not kick the ball.

I would argue that the tackled player is allowed to reach out (e), and only players ON THEIR FEET are allowed to stop him (f). I would argue that the tackler (off his feet) is NOT ALLOWED to stop him.

P.S. Equity is just the way we phrase the concept of ensuring that a "fair" decision is made, and to prevent us blowing the whistle all the time. I'm sure you might call it something else, but as the laws contradict themselves, and aren't always clear, we have this equity concept.

Phil E
07-03-08, 12:03
P.S. Equity is just the way we phrase the concept of ensuring that a "fair" decision is made, and to prevent us blowing the whistle all the time. I'm sure you might call it something else, but as the laws contradict themselves, and aren't always clear, we have this equity concept.

The word Equity in the S.E.L. acronym has been replaced by the word Enjoyment in hte new ELRA qualification.

SimonSmith
07-03-08, 13:03
David, question: have you been exposed to the concept of Equity in USA?


There's a joke there somewhere about ethnic minorities or foreigners not getting equity, but we can move on.

Equity isn't taught. The Level 1 - and indeed level 2 - exams are primarily law centered, and don't actually deal much with the practicalities of refereeing.

OB..
07-03-08, 13:03
It's also worth mentioning that I don't believe that there is any universality to this thing called "equity" - I've never heard of it except on these forums. Does it exist anywhere other that the UK? I don't think it appears in law anywhere - maybe its another convention.
Here are some extracts from the IRB’s Playing Charter:-

Rugby owes much of its appeal to the fact that it is played both to
the letter and within the spirit of the laws.

It is through discipline, control and mutual respect that the spirit
of the game flourishes and, in the context of a game as physically
challenging as rugby, these are the qualities which forge the
fellowship and sense of fair play so essential to the game’s
ongoing success and survival.

The Object of the Game is that two teams, each of fifteen players,
observing fair play, according to the Laws and in a sporting spirit
should, by carrying, passing, kicking and grounding the ball,
score as many points as possible.

Essentially this is what Equity is about, though that word is not used. I suspect it may have appeared in the RFU’s world because it is a well-known concept in English Law.

I was told that Equity was replaced in the ELRA because it means treating everybody exactly the same. Which it doesn't. And replacing it by Enjoyment makes no sense to me at all (Some people enjoy kicking others ...).

OB..
07-03-08, 14:03
As for the inequity that close to the line - well the attacking team has worked hard to get there, and the defence hasn't stopped them further out from the line, so they risk the "reach over" try. And I'm consistent, so if they can get down the other end....
But the attacking team has failed to reach the goal-line, due to the excellent work of the defender.

You think that should count for nothing. That is where we differ. An attacking 5m scrum gives both sides credit for what they have achieved.

chopper15
07-03-08, 15:03
Ref, FlipFlop; I would argue that the tackler (off his feet) is NOT ALLOWED to stop him.



i) The tackled player lying on the tackler, suddenly realises the poor chap has to release, roll free and get to his feet before making some attempt to prevent him from reaching out to score. An unenviable task he ruefully thinks.

Then, prompted by an inherent desire to be equitably responsible in play as well as in life (instilled by his late scout master and Sunday school teacher) he rolls 'immediately' aside.

Then, and only then, he quickly reaches out to ground the ball on the goal-line just as his tackler regains his feet and support arrives.

He gives a little smile of satisfaction as he graciously takes in the thunderous applause bestowed on him by an appreciative congregation.

But wait, the ref has summoned the TMO . . . Try or No Try he questions!



ii) The tackled player lying on the tackler, in full knowledge he has to release, roll free and get to his feet before making some attempt to prevent him from reaching out to score, smirkingly, raises a fist in triumph to his delerious supporters as he nonchantly but deliberately reaches out to ground the ball one handedly on the goal-line just as the cavalry arrives.

Would emotion play any part in your decision?

Dixie
07-03-08, 15:03
Would emotion play any part in your decision? No. Absolutely not.

In rugby, emotions almost always have a flip side. Winners elated, losers dejected; those who miss tackles experience guilt and shame; those who dance through tackles experience joy, elation etc. Which side of these emotional opposites am I supposed to favour?

This from the iRB's playing charter: The laws must be applied in such a way as to ensure that the game is played according to the principles of play. The referee and his touch judges can achieve this through fairness, consistency, sensitivity and, at the highest levels, management.

Being sensitive to the emotions of the losing side means being insensitive to those of the winning side. This in turn means that as I ref, I have violated the charter by not being fair or consistent. Consequently, I have lost my integrity, and would resign as soon as I realised it.

SimonSmith
07-03-08, 15:03
Would emotion play any part in your decision?

Nope - my job is to make the right decision.
There are circumstances - very friendlies, tournaments, "special" games where it's appropriate.
The run of the mill game? I apply the same standard I do at work - be right.

FlipFlop
07-03-08, 15:03
Would emotion play any part in your decision?

Nope.

I just look to ref fairly, consistently, and to the laws.

And that means I'll apply the same interpretation of the tackle law anywhere on the field of play, be it 10cm from the goal line, or on the half way line.

chopper15
07-03-08, 17:03
No. Absolutely not.
Being sensitive to the emotions of the losing side means being insensitive to those of the winning side. This in turn means that as I ref, I have violated the charter by not being fair or consistent. Consequently, I have lost my integrity, and would resign as soon as I realised it.



Being sensitive to the emotions of the losing side means being insensitive to those of the winning side. Where on earth did that originate from, Dixie?

I would most certainly accept it if it read ' Being sensitive to the emotions of the losing side means being 'sensitive' to those of the winning side.'

And as for violating the charter by swallowing that misinformed adage . . . I think you probably could have! Tho' I can see where you're coming from which I recognise is honourable.

OB..
07-03-08, 18:03
I just look to ref fairly, consistently, and to the laws.

And that means I'll apply the same interpretation of the tackle law anywhere on the field of play, be it 10cm from the goal line, or on the half way line.
... and my whole point is that this is a matter of convention, NOT law. There is nothing in the laws that says the tackled player is entitled to more time than the tackler.

chopper15
07-03-08, 20:03
[QUOTE=chopper15;40139]Ref, FlipFlop; I would argue that the tackler (off his feet) is NOT ALLOWED to stop him.



i) The tackled player lying on the tackler, suddenly realises the poor chap has to release, roll free and get to his feet before making some attempt to prevent him from reaching out to score. An unenviable task he ruefully thinks.

Then, prompted by an inherent desire to be equitably responsible in play as well as in life (instilled by his late scout master and Sunday school teacher) he rolls 'immediately' aside.

Then, and only then, he quickly reaches out to ground the ball on the goal-line just as his tackler regains his feet and support arrives.

He gives a little smile of satisfaction as he graciously takes in the thunderous applause bestowed on him by an appreciative congregation.

But wait, the ref has summoned the TMO . . . Try or No Try he questions!



ii) The tackled player lying on the tackler, in full knowledge he has to release, roll free and get to his feet before making some attempt to prevent him from reaching out to score, smirkingly, raises a fist in triumph to his delerious supporters as he nonchantly but deliberately reaches out to ground the ball one handedly on the goal-line just as the cavalry arrives. [QUOTE]




And a try for each scenario?

OB..
07-03-08, 21:03
(i) if the tackled player can reach out immediately to score, then he may do so. If he can't, he is not entitled to roll aside with the ball. He must release it and get to his feet.

(ii) if he smirks too much, his action will not be immediate.

I don't see what these scenarios contribute.

chopper15
08-03-08, 00:03
(i) if the tackled player can reach out immediately to score, then he may do so. If he can't, he is not entitled to roll aside with the ball. He must release it and get to his feet.

(ii) if he smirks too much, his action will not be immediate.

I don't see what these scenarios contribute.




Pity, OB! I was hoping to get a 'contribution' from someone else. Differing views, perhaps, and also decisions! Why no positive decisions from you?

What would've it have been?

i) No Try? Continuous movement to reach out not immediate, then not releasing the ball, penalty defending side ball?

ii) Try? There being no lawful requirement to immediately roll free of the tackler while reaching out in a continuous movement to ground the ball with an unemotional face?

This is what the law lords accept as gamesmanship, isn't it OB? Along with many, many refs who just do not, or won't, appreciate the ethics of equity to reinterprete the law or even, if necessary, drive to get it changed!

At least, if I'm correct in my first decision of No Try, it may please them that an attempt to introduce a considered act of equity by the tackled player - rolling aside first, actually helped to deprive him of a try!

OB..
08-03-08, 01:03
Does anybody here speak Cornish?

Dickie E
08-03-08, 07:03
Does anybody here speak Cornish?

we don't someone who can speak Cornish - we need someone who can think Cornish

tim White
08-03-08, 09:03
My reaction to these scenarios tends to 'requiring an immediate outcome'. It's either a try, or it's held up, or it's stopped short of the line- but whatever it is there is no long drawn out wrestling match near the line. Blow up sharp before someone does something stupid. We can discuss the minutiae of the laws but in practise it all happens very quickly and you need to manage it:chin:

chopper15
10-03-08, 15:03
My reaction to these scenarios tends to 'requiring an immediate outcome'. It's either a try, or it's held up, or it's stopped short of the line- but whatever it is there is no long drawn out wrestling match near the line. Blow up sharp before someone does something stupid. We can discuss the minutiae of the laws but in practise it all happens very quickly and you need to manage it:chin:



My thread, altho intended to be well meaning with a bit of emotion, I accept, was pretentious and obtuse and I deserved OB and Dickie E's good natured comments . . . racist gits!

What I was trying to convey was the unfair balance, seemingly (the consensus after having read these threads), given to the interpretation of vaguely worded laws' !

eg. If the tackled ends up lying on top of the tackler who had released him immediately from a bear hug tackle BUT at the same time threw him backwards to get up while he was reaching out to ground the ball.

Is it PT or play on? The former I suspect!

I do appreciate your comment of having very little time to analyse petty detail, Tim, but we all possess enough flash memory to help aid our decision, surely . . . provided we keep an open mind, of course!?

tim White
10-03-08, 17:03
Refer to the France v Italy game; exact same scenario given as held up, it seemed right answer.:cool:

chopper15
10-03-08, 17:03
Refer to the France v Italy game; exact same scenario given as held up, it seemed right answer.:cool:

That 'prevention' took place in-goal,Tim, so not relevent to my FOP scenario.

I would still appreciate your opinion, tho'!