PDA

View Full Version : Tackle or Ruck



Brian Ravenhill
10-11-05, 12:11
During a recent University game I was asked by both teams to call the ruck, I said I would do my best to call TACKLE. RUCK, HANDS OFF. I then took a very strict line on the tackle turning in to a ruck. The latest law book states ‘ one or more players from each team, who are on their feet, in physical contact, close around the ball on the ground’

Now both defences were very well drilled and disciplined. So if the ball was presented correctly in the tackle the defending side committed no more bodies to the tackle/breakdown. Thus the only defending bodies being the tackler(s) off their feet, no matter how many attackers were committed to the tackle/breakdown it never became a ruck. However the defenders fanned out across the pitch behind the ‘offside line’ but as the breakdown was still a tackle and not a ruck there was no ‘offside line’.

Players who were falling back to the defensive line were not penalised even if they got in the way because they had committed no infringement, much to the annoyance of the attacking side, but when it was explained to them at ‘down time’ understood were I was coming from, but neither team had the foresight to position men between scrum-half and fly-half to intercept any attempted pass.

Is it time the laws were re-written to have an offside line at the tackle, to tidy things up and adjust to what player perceive anyway?

Bryan
10-11-05, 12:11
Brian,
I empathise with you on this subject which annoys me to know end. I have even gone to the point of saying "Tackle only, no offside" and defending lines still don't understand!

That being said, I still don't think there should be an offside line at the tackle. If players don't understand the laws then that's their own doing.

However, if there is no ruck and attacking forwards are ahead of the ball, thus preventing a defending player to get to the ball, is this not obstruction under 10.1d if there is no defending player in contact with them at a ruck? I ask this hypothetically as in no way will I penalise the attacking forwards, but as the game tends towards defending teams not committing forwards to form rucks (thus all we have are tackles and sentinels), then maybe this does need to be addressed?

I'm sorry for not answering your question and in fact I've asked one myself, but perhaps ignorance is bliss in this case.

-Bryan

Brian Ravenhill
10-11-05, 12:11
Bryan

Perhaps this is a question for your RRDO, Ops you havn't got one, thanks to SRU!

ex-lucy
10-11-05, 13:11
well ... i think that there should be an offside line at tackles ....

as for the attacking forwards obstructing in 'rucks'.... they are, i suppose ... just as much as you see lead blockers in the back lines run up ahead of the ball ...

I hate the runners ahead of the ball in the back line ... it is intentional and even though they dont actually touch defenders this whole movement does affect defenders ...

jboulet4648
10-11-05, 14:11
I don't think the players are perceiving an offside line at the tackle, but they perceiving that a ruck need only constitute of player(s) from one side (attacking) standing over the ball, and not being bound to players from the defending side.

While I know that this is by law not a ruck, in US collegiate rugby, at some of the lower levels where players are just learning the game, I call the above as a ruck so the players can "practice" getting onside and behind last foot. If I was to call this otherwise, mass confusion would result.

As it is some of our newer players are still bewildered that even if you "tackle a player" as long as you are on your feet you are not a tackler and need to approach the ball through the gate.

I do not think there should be a rewrite of the laws to create an offside line at a tackle, maybe a rewrite to include attacking players standing over the ball in a pseudo-ruck, creates an offside line

Bryan
10-11-05, 14:11
Bryan

Perhaps this is a question for your RRDO, Ops you havn't got one, thanks to SRU!
Hahahah...Jerk. ;)
I'm not in the Borders, so actually I do have one. It was Bill Calder who took one for the team and fell on the grenade. Then the Borders Refs Society threatened to go on strike so there was a big Pow-Wow and now Bill is still the RDO.
The fact that we have 4 is apparently largely due to Jim Fleming, who harrassed the SRU to no end.

-Bryan

Wert Twacky
10-11-05, 16:11
The tackle to ruck event is one area where, althought I know in my mind the laws and definitions, I often find myself in discussions with an aggrieved party after a penalty for "hands in".
Especially at the better drilled games where the defending back row and next arriving attacking player are there v quickly.
Often the next player is there, on his feet and in contact with the ball, and then a flanker/etc arrives to contest while on his feet and you have the situ where a ruck forms from the tackle and you call "Hands off", while both bods have a paw "on".

May sound a bit waffly, but anyone catch my drift? :confused:

tim White
10-11-05, 16:11
At this point both players are infringing, if neither gave up I think I might call a scrum, ball trapped, on the floor, team going forward etc. Plan B, if they pick it up and it seems to be a maul VERY QUICKLY I might have not seen the slow pick up. Difficult call when technical infringement is overtaken by events. I think this is one of those, 'did it feel like rugby' situations. :rolleyes:

ex-lucy
10-11-05, 17:11
The tackle to ruck event is one area where, althought I know in my mind the laws and definitions, I often find myself in discussions with an aggrieved party after a penalty for "hands in".
Especially at the better drilled games where the defending back row and next arriving attacking player are there v quickly.
Often the next player is there, on his feet and in contact with the ball, and then a flanker/etc arrives to contest while on his feet and you have the situ where a ruck forms from the tackle and you call "Hands off", while both bods have a paw "on".


i think here, usually, if a player (on his own) is on his feet and has hands on .. if he hasnt picked up the ball in one second (or so), for me, there must be a good reason NOT to penalise the tackled player ... for either hanging on to it or not placing it away from under his body/ not rolling away ...

After the penalty i would explain to the penalised player why ...
"i want the ball released earlier and away from your body... dont just lie there".

If one player from each side arrives absolutely simultaneously .... "Ruck, no hands" ..

If one player arrives momentarily (a split second) before an oppo ... i allow hands on ... but if he doesnt pick it up within one second ... and the ball is there to be played... i shout "ruck, no hands" ....

this is where he game is at ... right at the sharp end of referee's interpretations and decision making .....
looking at recent internationals ... nearly 50% of pens are given for tackle/ rucks situations ... like this ... so it is crucial to get this correct and consistent.

robertti
10-11-05, 17:11
brian, that is a really interesting question you have raised there. i mean everyone thinks that it is a ruck, after all a 'thing' has enveloped in the middle of the park and all players are playing as if it is a ruck.

I would be very inclined to not really worry about the technicalities of a ruck, whether there is enough players there etc. If all players are playing the game thinking its a ruck (especially during a long pause in the game), then ping offside backs and hands etc.


what are some other views?

didds
11-11-05, 22:11
well - if it isn't a ruck and thus no offside line you can't go pinging anybody who "strays ofside" from some perceived offside line - they might be only the 2nd person on the pitch who actually knows it ISN'T a ruck and thus there is no offside line. You'd be penalising somebody for actually understanding the laws - shurely shome mishtake?

didds

DBurdon
12-11-05, 01:11
Its good to see so many refs have a problem with this.

I find myself shouting all the time:

"Not offside, its just a tackle".

I think there's a huge eduction job to be done.

ex-lucy
12-11-05, 11:11
Questions:
1. how many times do you see the tackler get to his feet and go back around to come back into the tackle through the 'gate' to fetch the ball ?

and

2. how many times do you see the tackler get up and not bother to go round thru the gate but go straight in from (seemingly) the wrong side?

just interested ....

Robert Burns
12-11-05, 14:11
Something I always penalise if they don't listen to the shout, all persons entering the tackle zone MUST come through the gate! Except the tackler who doesn't have too (provided he went to ground, otherwise he's not a tackler and does have to come through the gate)

DBurdon
13-11-05, 00:11
Best of luck to the tackler. If he's made a good tackle. Brought the ball carrier to ground and put the ball carrier the wrong side, he should be rewarded.

Ricampbell
13-11-05, 10:11
Questions:
1. how many times do you see the tackler get to his feet and go back around to come back into the tackle through the 'gate' to fetch the ball ?

and

2. how many times do you see the tackler get up and not bother to go round thru the gate but go straight in from (seemingly) the wrong side?

just interested ....


In answer to one - never as he doesn't have to

and in answer to two - he seems to go in from the "wrong" side a lot but as the tackler he may come in from where he likes.

Law 15.6 (c) referes to other players coming in through the gate

ex-lucy
13-11-05, 20:11
Mr Campbell, I am well aware of the laws in question, my questions here are about actual incidents in matches ... where you have refereed
so, Mr Campbell you have never seen tacklers go back around through the gate, whether they have to or not ? i am talking about practical experience of actual incidents...

i have seen them... lots of them ... ignorance of the laws ... lots of players are ignorant of the laws ...

I was trying to guage how many players do 2) ... i very rarely see tacklers get to their feet and then play the ball from (seemingly) the wrong side ...
maybe one or two so far this season ...

I see McCaw do it reguarly and then hear lots of shouts of "offside" from the clubhouse 'lawyers' ...

should this law be changed ?

Ricampbell
13-11-05, 22:11
Mr Ex-Lucy I didn't mean to question your knowledge of the laws I was answering your question. I have never seen a tackler go back round and through the gate, just like I rarely see an arriving player come through the gate. My impression is that players feel that at a tackle there is "no offside" therefore they come from everywhere. I wish I had players who tried to come through the gate.

Before I get slated I know they must come throught the gate, that offside at the tackle relates to how you enter it and that we shouldn't say no offside at a tackle when we mean no offside away from the tackle!

Ross

OB..
13-11-05, 23:11
I always thought the law itself was clearer than most: there is no offside line at a tackle. There is simply a requirement for entering the tackle area:

Law 15.6 (c)At a tackle or near to a tackle, other players who play the ball must do so from behind the ball and from directly behind the tackled player or the tackler closest to those players’ goal-line.

The tackler(s) (if any) are by definition already inside the tackle area.

The problems arise mainly in two aspects of practical application:
(1) trying to identify and keep tabs on all the different categories of player, what they are doing, and what they have done; and
(2) the close similarity between a ruck (which does have offside lines) and the sort of undefined pile-up that often occurs at a tackle.

The transition to a ruck also gives rise to problems because legal behaviour suddenly becomes illegal.

Some people think the tackle area should be treated like a ruck in offside terms, but that would have consequences that presumably the IRB did not want. For example, the rush defence would be very risky as each time a tackle took place behind you, you would be offside and have to retreat. Successive tackles would play havoc with trying to remember who was on side and who wasn't, and how each player could become onside again. Rucks are that much slower than tackles, so the problem is tractable (most of the time).

Account Deleted
14-11-05, 13:11
There is indeed no offside at the tackle. The offence is entering the tackle from the wrong direction and not offside. Same result Penalty and possibly 3 points but no offside. I think we sometimes add to the confussion when we mistakenly call "off-side red 6" in the "heat of battle".

ex-lucy
14-11-05, 20:11
Saturday ... i had a situation .... scenario ... black attacking ... ball carrier gets 'tackled' by 2 reds ... about 15m out from posts ... one of the reds gets up from the 'tackle' and tries to play the ball ... i penalise him for being on the wrong side .... i explain to him that he wasnt the tackler .. the other red was the 'main' tackler, he merely assisted ...
i think this is in accordance with a recent IRB guideline ... the red player took umbrage but i asked him to calm down and asked red captain to calm him down.
black kicker missed the pg.

chef11
14-11-05, 20:11
If both red players made the tackle and went to ground,then the red player that got to his feet can play the ball.If the second red player did not go to groun the he must go atound and come through the gate.

Robert Burns
14-11-05, 21:11
yeah, thats one of those give and take ones, if it was a clear assist and the other guy was clearly the actual tackler, maybe.

But I would in most occassions as described wave play on as he is being positive and he was part of the tackle.

Did/would his actions have stopped the other team getting the ball first? if so then you can blow it, but it's one of those situations I would say is better managed than penalised.

ex-lucy
14-11-05, 21:11
oh yes, red would be tackler got up and then obstructed black supporting players from picking and driving ... while sort of trying to pick the ball up ... i am sure the IRB guideline said where two tacklers are involved .. only one can be the tackler so it is the main tackler that can get up and play the ball .... or was i dreaming that one in the shower ?

didds
15-11-05, 00:11
so how do you define the main tackler?

didds

Robert Burns
15-11-05, 00:11
Thats the problem, and hence why management is probably better there.

OB..
15-11-05, 00:11
Part of the definition is:-

Opposition players who hold the ball-carrier and bring that player to ground, and who also go to ground, are known as tacklers.

Opposition players who hold the ball-carrier and do not go to ground are not tacklers.


Note that the terms are in the plural. Therefore there can be two (or more)tacklers.

I have checked the IRB Rulings, and found nothing to say any different. The idea that there can be only one tackler, or even a "main" tackler is new to me.

didds
15-11-05, 00:11
as always, many thanks for the clarification OB!

didds

Robert Burns
15-11-05, 00:11
I think the misunderstanding came from the law ruling.

I believe the sittuation stated if a player was tackled by two players, but only one went to ground. and described the actions of the other player.

I think that's it anyway.

OB..
15-11-05, 00:11
That is certainly a reasonable summary of the Ruling, but the point was to distinguish the two situations: one player was a tackler because he went to ground in the tackle, the other wasn't because he didn't.

ex-lucy
15-11-05, 13:11
so in my scenario ... two tacklers .. both going to ground ... either can get to their feet and then play the ball from the 'seemingly' wrong side and dont have to go back through the gate ?

is this correct ? and i was incorrect on Sat?

i reasoned that the main tackler was the player who did most of the work in grabbing and putting the ball carier on the ground and thus was under the 'assistant' tackler who just seemed to grasp the ball carrier at the last and fell over in the momentum of the other tackler's efforts.....

Bryan
15-11-05, 13:11
so in my scenario ... two tacklers .. both going to ground ... either can get to their feet and then play the ball from the 'seemingly' wrong side and dont have to go back through the gate ?

Correct. There is no hierarchy of tacklers. Either they are, or they're not. Be aware of tacklers rolling away, getting on their feet, and then coming in from the side of the tackle. They are still tacklers and are allowed to do this (IMO) even though they look like arriving players, provided a ruck does not form.

Also be aware of players going directly to ground at their opponent's feet, where this is not even a tackle but comes under "ball on the ground- no tackle" and ANYONE on their feet can play the ball from ANY direction until a ruck forms.

Hope this helps,
-Bryan