foul play, late charge, tackle infringement

[p.a.l.]

10.4
(a) Punching or striking -
(e) Dangerous tackling (or attempted tackle) above line of shoulders
(f) playing an opponent without the ball
(m) late charging the kicker

http://roberica.com/M2U01243.MPG

Video shows blue player getting hit (believe me it was a tear inducing nose hit) in the face (nose and mouth) with the back of the elbow right after kicking the ball. Note how the head gets snapped back.

A penalty should have been awarded to Blue with choice of where infringement took place or where the ball landed. Infringement took place on the halfway line, ball landed about 22 meters.

No penalty was called. Referee claimed, in discussion with injured player, after the match that he thought the kicker ran into the opposition player and therefore no penalty was called for. Video evidence clearly shows this not to be the case. It looks like the ref followed the ball and then looked at blue and green players, thereby possibly missing the elbow hit itself.

My point is that the highest priorities, safety and sportsmanlike conduct, the management of both of which results in clean, fair, hard fought matches, was not observed by the referee in this incident. It is particularly in the case of a player kicking or calling "mark" on catching a ball that the referee must rigorously enforce foul play laws due to the greater risk of serious injury.

The b side match between Berkeley RFC and Haas Business School was refereed by myself. A high tackle occurred against Haas. However it was inadvertent as the Haas player ducked and it was not in itself dangerous. Still, I blew it and awarded a penalty for Haas to make the point. Shortly thereafter a high tackle occurred by Haas against Berkeley. Again it was not particularly dangerous and appeared to be inadvertent. Again, I blew it and awarded a penalty, admonishing both teams to keep the tackles low. No more high tackle took place. Not even close.

Despite some back talk from both sides, it was a pleasure to referee that match.

Earlier in the A side match (video recorded match), a penalty was called against blue (Ref and I discussed this after the match as well).

Green player has the ball and is running at blue. Blue player gets green in his grasp and turns green player so he is facing blues goal line and ball is on blue side. Blue player then pulls green to ground. Green attempts to roll over the ball on the ground while holding on to the ball. Blue player holds on to green. Referee yells to blue player to release green. Blue releases green. Green then rolls over the ball presenting the ball to greens side and his back to blue preventing blue form gaining possession. Referee yells to blue to move away. By now a ruck has formed and blue moves away as fast as is possible between the feet (some of which put a stomp in) of the green players.

At no time did referee yell at green to release the ball, or to not roll over the ball.

Result : penalty against blue for not releasing the tackled player.

No penalty against green for not releasing the ball, or rolling over the ball to deny blue possession.

Both players committed infringements, but the more material of them was the fact that, since the ball was on the blue side of the tackle, blue had an advantage. Blue immediately obeyed the referee, which resulted in green committing a further infringement by which blue was denied possession.

The referees reasoning, in after match discussion, was that the blue player must first release the tackled player. If that does not happen, anything after that is apparently irrelevant. In the given situation I strongly disagree. The fact that the laws of rugby state that the tackler must release the tackled player before it is stated that the tackler must release the ball is in no way an ironclad rule as to the order in which events must proceed.

The events, as described above, show that the blue player gave an advantage to blue in the manner of the tackle, immediately obeyed the referees commands, yet no relevance was given to greens, materially, greater offense of foul play which denied blue possession.

The referees reasoning in after match discussion was law 15.4 (a), and that blue player had thereby 'completely messed up' greens potential to play the ball. However, greens potential to play the ball had come directly from an infringement of foul play, namely 15.5 (a) and (b).

14.2
(a) Lying on or near the ball

15.4
(a) Tackler must immediately release tackled player

15.5
(a) tackled player ,must not lie on, over, or near the ball to keep opponents from gaining possession
(b) tackled player must immediately pass or release

Referee seemed to be very focused on the tackler releasing the tackled player and giving a great deal of leeway to the tackled player in releasing the ball. This is exactly the opposite of the referees actions in a previous match in which the referee called for immediate (as in the split second tackler goes to ground) release of the ball. These calls came so fast that the tackler did not even have time to 'release' the tackled player.

These two styles are completely at odds, but, more importantly, they are inconsistent and, as such, are very confusing to players.

Comments?

Thanks!

[Greg Collins]

Lots of stuff in here about managing the tackle zone.

In my book, to keep it simple as I am a bear of very little brain, unless and until the tackler has complied with his obligations under 15.4 I'm not interested in the tackled player and his actions in relation to 15.5

Works for me. YMMV

[andyscott]

Video shows blue player getting hit (believe me it was a tear inducing nose hit) in the face (nose and mouth) with the back of the elbow right after kicking the ball. Note how the head gets snapped back.

First off, definate penalty against green 5, off his feet, wrong side and interferes with the SH.

Looks purely accidental to me at first glance.
Wouldn't particularly think his head was snapped back because of the elbow, more like a protective mechanism your body has. (go to flick a kids nose and watch how fast he pulls his head away, dont do this on any random child :D )

Green players arm is also still until it makes contact with the face, then it moves, so again no intent.

So I would not have penalised it either as it was not late, in that it was part of the movement once committed, nor did I think it was dangerous.

Andy

[OB..]

I am not clear that Green 5 actually had any effect, but he should certainly be warned.

I did not see the jump and contact by the other Green player as deliberate or dangerous. I look to see if the player jumps in such a way that he is bound to land on the opponent. Close but no cigar in this case.

I found it impossible to tell if the referee was looking at the contact. Novice referees find it hard to watch the kicker after he has kicked, since their playing/spectating instincts are to follow the ball.

On your high tackle decisions, it is a matter of judgement whether or not ducking caused the high tackle. The IRB has decreed that even if a tackle starts below the line of the shoulders but then slips up, it is still a high tackle, The tackler must start low enough to be safe.

If he takes the risk and it goes wrong, he is liable to get penalised.

I am not sure I follow the other tackle situation to start with, but when they are on the ground, tackle complete, is blue on his own side of green or not?

With green facing blue's goal-line, I consider him to be playing the ball illegally on the ground if he deliberately rolls over it, though sometimes the momentum of the tackle can make this unclear. However he is entitled to place the ball in any direction (15.5 (c)), so he can reach back behind himself with the ball. An opponent on his feet can prevent this by grabbing the ball, whereupon the tackled player must release it.

What can the blue tackler do? Only one thing: release the tackled player. He is not entitled to hold on to green, even if he thinks he is preventing green from doing something illegal -that is the referee's job, not his. Once he is on his feet, whichever side of green he is, he can play the ball. That means if he is on green's side of the tackle and green rolls over the ball, he is actually presenting it to blue, provided blue has released and regained his feet - advantage blue.

From your description, the first offence was clearly by blue.

Can I suggest you put separate incidents in separate posts? The thread is likely to get very confusing otherwise.

[SimonSmith]

Agree with much of what has been posted above.

I would also suggest tactfully that the forum etiquette that referees shouldn't be directly identifiable unless it's a televised game. By all means refer to team colors, but only on rare occasions do teams and referees get identified - and usually then it's self identification.

It's not a "rule", just the way we do things...

[p.a.l.]

Yes, in future I agree, 2 different posts as they are 2 different situations.

Situation 1 - late hit- believe me, the head snapping back was from the contact. Had it not been for a mouthguard, a few teeth would have been loose. As it was, had any of the wives / girlfirends had tampons, I would have stuffed them up the nose to help stop the bleeding (which continued for about 10 minutes, although the ref did not call for a blood injury replacement).

Windows mediaplayer offers options of slow stepping through the scene. Even without it though, the green player can be seen sweeping his arm backwards after crossing blues path and that is where contact between arm and face takes place. The sweeping motion may be due to an effort to turn his body around, but green must know that blue is right behind him.

Situation 2 - blues back is to green, green ball carrier is the grip of blue, also with his back to green(green ball carrier is between blue tackler and blue team). The ball is between green ball carrier and blue team (blue side, facing blues goal line).

My question is, if an infringement is spotted by the ref and ref calls to that payer to cease, player immediately complies, then the opposition player commits foulplay (rolling over the ball from a position where the ball is in front of him, but he is facing the opposition instead of his own team), which penalty should the referee call?

In this case, I should think that, since blue player immediately complied and green then rolled over the ball, the rolling over the ball is the more material of the infringements.

[p.a.l.]

Clarification

Situation 2 - blues is facing his own goal line, green ball carrier is the grip of blue, also facing blies goal line (green ball carrier is between blue tackler and blue team). The ball is between green ball carrier and blue team (blue side, facing blues goal line)

[OB..]

Blue player holds on to green. Referee yells to blue player to release green. Blue releases green. [...]Result : penalty against blue for not releasing the tackled player.
He was holding on so long that the ref had to tell him to release. Subsequent action by green does not exculpate him. First offence was by blue.

Perhaps I have an out-of-date Windows Mediaplayer, because I can't find any slomo controls.

By chance I have just sneezed and had a nose bleed. I blame green.

The amount of damage is not a measure of illegality.

[SimonSmith]

I'm having trouble running the video.

But reading the thread, I'm loathe to criticize the referee. People who have the advantage of video replay can't agree that foul play took place. On that basis, you wouldn't say the referee, who got one shot, live, got it wrong.

[Dickie E]

He was holding on so long that the ref had to tell him to release. Subsequent action by green does not exculpate him. First offence was by blue.



I disagree. By the ref telling Blue player to release he is effectively saying: "if you release now you won't be penalised". If what he really meant was ""if you release now I will penalise you anyway" then:
a) ATP has no meaning, and
b) he should have saved his breath and blown his whistle.

What happens after the Blue player has complied stands on it's own merits - it is nonsense to penalise Blue because Green subsequently offends.

PS: I don't think Green subsequently offended in the described scanario.

1. Blue tackles Green and Blue is slow to release
2. Blue follows ref's instruction, releases, and Green exercises his option to play the ball in any direction.

Play on for me.

[Dickie E]

The amount of damage is not a measure of illegality.

I disagree. Murder is a more serious offence than grievous bodily harm.

But I think we've been there before. :rolleyes:

[OB..]

I disagree. Murder is a more serious offence than grievous bodily harm.

But I think we've been there before. :rolleyes:
It is perfectly possible to kill somebody legally. The amount of harm is not a measure of culpability.

[Dixie]

Situation 2 - Green turned in the tackle, blue failing to release, Green rolling over the ball.

I think it is an excellent rule of thumb that the tackler must release the tackled player first off. Had he done so IMMEDIATELY as required, the tackled player may have been able to reach behind him to place the ball on Green's side of the tackle - legal, though undesirable from Blue's perspective. Blue's offence was likely aimed at preventing this from happening - illegal and material.

Given that the ref has seen Blue's offence and had to manage it, he then sees the roll over the ball. This is not placing the ball - it is an illegal action, which I ping with the "roll away" signal. However, I'd first ask if it was material. If no Blue players are there to contest the ball, the effect is no different than the legal action of placing the ball there. If Blue are contesting, the offence has crystallised.

Assuming Blue were there to contest, and so were disadvantaged by Green's roll, I'd come back to the first offence - Blue not releasing Green tackled player, thereby preventing him from exercising his legitimate option and leading him into the illegality of the rollover.

So I'd go with the ref.

[Phil E]

Had to watch the video twice before I even noticed the incident in question.


I thought it was accidental and not intentional. No offence play on. Even if it had been penalisable, the ref can't give it if he doesn't see it. From the ref's description he said "he thought the kicker ran into the opposition player". I read that as he wasn't sure. He can't guess.

First obligation is on the tackler to release. From your description the ball was trapped between them, so the ball carrier had no chance of fulfilling his obligations, until the tackler complied with his. Ping the first offence.

[beckett50]

There is no late charge. The kicker is caught by the trailing arm of the player that attempted to charge down the kick.

Green 5 should be penalised for 2 reasons. 1st his initial movement is INTO the tackled player (who incidently wasn't held so technically no tackle:wink: ) and then to compound matters he attempts to tackle the scrum half whilst still on the floor and makes a complete sows ear of that as well.:wow:

[Mike Selig]

From the angle we have play on. Agree with penalty against green 5 though. Also, I think the ref does have a look back post kick but whether this was at time of incident I don't know. On that evidence play on (although call back for penalty against green 5 who I think also tries to trip the scrum half...).

On the other point I think the ref got it right. Tackler has to release and move before anything else becomes material. Even if he did so straight after the ref asked him this suggests he could have done so sooner, so ping him.

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

As it was, had any of the wives / girlfirends had tampons, I would have stuffed them up the nose to help stop the bleeding (which continued for about 10 minutes, although the ref did not call for a blood injury replacement).


Toot! Excuse me ladies, has anyone got any tampons? :wow: :wow: :wow:

I might have hang on a minute (rummage rummage) - no but I've got one my grandad's incontinence pads - will that do? :eek: :eek: :eek:

As John Patrick McEnroe would say....you cannot be serious! :biggrin:

Isn't it just easier to have first aid kit?

[Dinks]

Just for info, I always explain what I'm looking for at the tackle during the pre-match brief to all the players

1. Tackler to roll away (and a proper roll not a half hearted one)
2. Tackled player to place, pass or release the ball
3. 3rd player to stay on feet (no weight going through their arms) and come in through the gate.

In this case, ping early (stop a messy situation developing) for tackler not rolling away accompanied by "we spoke about this before the game, tackler must release and roll away".

[Davet]

If the tackler fails to release the tackled player, then the tackled player cannot do much other than hold on and wait. Certainly rolling over the ball would not be allowed, but if the tackler had got away then the player could have immediately placed the ball, but with the tackler in the way he could not.

Ping the first offence.

I agree that the refs call for the Tackler to roll away did imply that immediate compliance would be OK, but then he clearly took the view that the delay did cause the second offence, and so pinged the correct player.