PDA

View Full Version : Taken back?



OB..
27-03-10, 13:03
What do you think?
http://www.sareferees.co.za/laws/laws_explained/clips/2322180.htm

Phil E
27-03-10, 13:03
Taken back.

Law doesn't say anything about voluntarily or involuntarily being taken back inside the 22. Just who has possession when it goes back.

The initial tackle doesn't count as a "new phase" to cancel out the taken back.

Taff
27-03-10, 13:03
Taken back in my book.

The only thing I'm not 100% sure about is whether a maul pushed back over the 22m line is considered as taken back. I assume it is, just as a scrum pushed back over the 22m line is counted as taken back. Am I right?

chopper15
27-03-10, 17:03
Law 19.1 (b) When a team causes the ball to be put into their own 22. When a defending player plays the ball from outside the 22 and it goes into that player’s 22 or in-goal area without touching an opposition player and then that player or another player from that team kicks the ball directly into touch before it touches an opposition player, or a tackle takes place or a ruck or maul is formed, there is no gain in ground. This applies when a defending player moves back behind the 22 metre line to take a quick throw-in and then the ball is kicked directly into touch.

For further consideration . . . surely?


i)In a wrap tackle how sure has the ref to be that the oppo wasn’t touching the ball?
ii)And did the defender cause the ball to be put back into his own 22? Of course he didn't. :hap:

Rit Hinners
27-03-10, 18:03
ii)And did the defender cause the ball to be put back into his own 22? Of course he didn't. :hap:

Yes he did. He carried it there.

He could have released it before the line if he didn't want to carry it back there.

Davet
27-03-10, 20:03
...player from that team kicks the ball directly into touch before it touches an opposition player, or a tackle takes place or a ruck or maul is formed, there is no gain in ground.


Whilst the ball was taken back, there was then a ruck, which means the kick can gain ground.

Wrong decision.

Phil E
27-03-10, 21:03
Whilst the ball was taken back, there was then a ruck, which means the kick can gain ground.

Wrong decision.

My understanding (from the original ELV discussions) was that the ruck/maul/whatever, had to be a new/seperate phase of play.

i.e. driven back ball passed, then a ruck, maul, etc takes place.

This is a driven back and ruck as one movement.

Davet
27-03-10, 21:03
...or a ruck or maul is formed...

The ruck (or maul) needs to be formed inside the 22 to allow gain in ground.

I agree that a ruck or maul that is formed outside the 22 and then is shoved back into it would not give gain in ground.

In this case the ruck was formed inside the 22, and so I would suggest that the gain in ground should have been allowed

Ian_Cook
27-03-10, 21:03
Correct decision

The player being driven back was part of the phase of play that caused the ball to be taken back.

This makes perfect sense to me

► A maul that starts outside the 22 and is driven over the 22 is taken back and would require a new maul, ruck or tackle to cancel it.

► A ruck that starts outside the 22 and is driven over the 22 is taken back and would require a new maul, ruck or tackle to cancel it.

► A scrum that starts outside the 22 and is driven over the 22 is taken back and would require a new maul, ruck or tackle to cancel it.

...therefore logically....

► A tackle that starts outside the 22 and is driven over the 22 is taken back and would require a new maul, ruck or tackle to cancel it.

chopper



i)In a wrap tackle how sure has the ref to be that the oppo wasn’t touching the ball? You are clouding the issue by trying to bring the same spurious argument to this debate that you did re: the hooker touching the ball in a scrum. The player touching the ball in a "wrap tackle" is incidental contact and is not relevant



ii)And did the defender cause the ball to be put back into his own 22? Of course he didn'tYes he did.

He was in possession and was driven over. If a defender was driven over his own goal-line, it would be a 5m scrum (not a drop-out 22) for exactly the same reason If he was good enough or big enough, he could have prevented it. No different to a defending team's scrum being driven over the 22. The attacking team may have been doing the driving, but the defending team had the ball, so taken back.

chopper15
27-03-10, 22:03
Yes he did. He carried it there.

He could have released it before the line if he didn't want to carry it back there.

With a wrap hold?

chopper15
27-03-10, 22:03
Accept your point about a wrap 'tackle', Ian, but oppo ball contact during a FK scrum - or even if the ball is touched during an attempted tackle when the ball is out - must be viewed as 'incidental' or 'spurious' has to be a fallacious argument.

Should either contact be made there's no law interpretation that can deny a ref awarding the DK. :hap:

Rit Hinners
27-03-10, 22:03
I would hardly call one arm around a leg and the other hand grabbing an elbow a wrap hold.

If a ball carrier allows himself to be wraped so he cannot get rid of the ball it's his own failing. Perhaps instead of attempting to avoid the unavoidable he should meet it head on and protect the ball and it's availability.

Ian_Cook
27-03-10, 22:03
Chopper

To rule that it wasn't the defenders fault that he was taken back, would result in punishing the attacking team for their own good play and rewarding the defending team for the poor play of their team-mate.

Not at all equitable!

Dickie E
27-03-10, 23:03
I agree with Davet.





...therefore logically....

► A tackle that starts outside the 22 and is driven over the 22 is taken back and would require a new maul, ruck or tackle to cancel it.



I don't concur with the concept of a tackle starting anywhere. It either is or it isn't.

Also, a ruck or maul is a distinct event. While it may evolve from a tackle this isn't a necessity. In the film clip I didn't see anything resembling a ruck outside the 22 so it nust have commenced in the 22.

Ian_Cook
27-03-10, 23:03
I agree with Davet.

I don't concur with the concept of a tackle starting anywhere. It either is or it isn't.

Also, a ruck or maul is a distinct event. While it may evolve from a tackle this isn't a necessity. In the film clip I didn't see anything resembling a ruck outside the 22 so it nust have commenced in the 22.


So I am the theoretical coach of a Super 14 team. If you are right, then in future, I will be coaching my players in that situation to allow themselves to be passively pushed back over the 22 before going to ground (tackled), and releasing the ball to their team-mates who will then pass the ball to the kicker who will boot the ball 60m downfield.

Unfortunately for me, in the real world, the real S14 referees will rule it carried back!!

Davet
27-03-10, 23:03
in the real world, the real S14 referees will rule it carried back!!


And they will be wrong.

The tackle is a phase of play.

The ruck is a phase of play.

They are distinct entities, governed by different sets of law.

The tackle caused the player to be driven back, if he had laid it back abd then it had been kicked - no gain.

That's not what happened.

The tackle was followed by a ruck. That ruck started inside the 22, it is a separate phase of play.

I cannot see point in debating this it's not an interpretation - it's simply what happened. The ref was wrong.


So I am the theoretical coach of a Super 14 team. If you are right, then in future, I will be coaching my players in that situation to allow themselves to be passively pushed back over the 22 before going to ground (tackled), and releasing the ball to their team-mates who will then pass the ball to the kicker who will boot the ball 60m downfield.


You missed out the bit about ensuring a ruck takes place, and that it starts inside the 22 - simply doing as you suggest will not result in a gain in ground.

Ian_Cook
28-03-10, 00:03
I cannot see point in debating this it's not an interpretation - it's simply what happened. The ref was wrong.

The answers given on the sareferees site are checked for validity before they are published.

They said the referee was right, and since that is how they are going to rule it, what you think is going to make no difference.

In S14, that situation will lead to no gain in ground.

fait accompli!!

Davet
28-03-10, 01:03
sarefs site is wrong.

It's not the first time.

The ruck was formed inside the 22, the kick should have gained ground.

OB..
28-03-10, 02:03
The answers given on the sareferees site are checked for validity before they are published.
Who checks them?

Dickie E
28-03-10, 08:03
Consider 17.6(h):

Scrum after a maul when catcher is held. If a player catches the ball direct from an opponent’s kick, except from a kick-off or a drop-out, and the player is immediately held by an opponent, a maul may form. Then if the maul remains stationary, stops moving forward for longer than 5 seconds, or if the ball becomes unplayable, and a scrum is ordered, the team of the ball catcher throws in the ball.

Let's assume Blue are the catching team & that this maul is then pushed back into Blue 22. Should ref immediately blows it up so that Blue can have scrum feed then kick for touch with gain-in-ground? (equity and all).

If ref allows play to continue and Blue then have ball at back of maul, can Blue SH refuse to play the ball and instruct his forwards to make it unplayable so that they can have the scrum feed and resulting gain-in-ground kick for touch?

Ian_Cook
28-03-10, 09:03
Who checks them?

According to the email I received from the webmaster some time ago...

"Answers to readers questions are checked by at least two other S14/Currie Cup level referees before the Duty Ref's answer is posted. Comments and explanations in the "RIGHT OR WRONG?" section (with the video clips) are also checked by two S14/Currie Cup referees"

I presume that it has not changed since then


You missed out the bit about ensuring a ruck takes place, and that it starts inside the 22 - simply doing as you suggest will not result in a gain in ground.

Completely wrong I'm afraid Davet, a ruck does NOT have to take place... only a tackle



Law 19.1 (b) When a team causes the ball to be put into their own 22. When a defending player plays the ball from outside the 22 and it goes into that player’s 22 or in-goal area without touching an opposition player and then that player or another player from that team kicks the ball directly into touch before it touches an opposition player, or a tackle takes place or a ruck or maul is formed, there is no gain in ground. This applies when a defending player moves back behind the 22 metre line to take a quick throw-in and then the ball is kicked directly into touch.A ruck is clearly not a requirement to allow a gain in ground from the kick. A tackle is sufficient.


Consider 17.6(h):.......

Irrelevant. Law 17 deals with the Maul. Its Law 19 that deals with touch. line-out and gain in ground.

* * * * *

I have asked the following question of the Duty Ref on sareferees.co.za


I wish to question the comments made on 100323 Clip 1 - 24 March - Taken Back. Could you please explain why it is that even though the Brumbies player was ruled to have "taken back", the ruck that formed immediately afterwards inside the 22 did not "cancel" the taken back, given the wording of Law 19.1 (b)

"...When a defending player plays the ball from outside the 22 and it goes into that player’s 22 or in-goal area without touching an opposition player and then that player or another player from that team kicks the ball directly into touch before it touches an opposition player, or a tackle takes place or a ruck or maul is formed, there is no gain in ground.".

How does the player being driven back by an opponent and then brought to ground in a tackle inside the 22, followed by a ruck, differ from the situation where the ball is passed or carried back, the ball-carrier is then tackled, and a ruck forms, with the ensuing kick being allowed a gain in ground. RegardsWe'll see what (if any) answer I get

PaulDG
28-03-10, 10:03
According to the email I received from the webmaster some time ago...

"Answers to readers questions are checked by at least two other S14/Currie Cup level referees before the Duty Ref's answer is posted. Comments and explanations in the "RIGHT OR WRONG?" section (with the video clips) are also checked by two S14/Currie Cup referees"

I presume that it has not changed since then

So do you think:

1. The draft is discussed at a formal meeting where the original is defended and attacked point by point, line by line with all going to the Law book over every detail (not just the ones they're not sure about, but everything as being sure, even if you are a professional, isn't the same thing as being right) and confirm the reply is exactly correct with full justification and cross-references from the book and/or Law rulings?

Or

2. The draft is emailed out to a few busy refs the morning it's due to be posted and those refs, if they have time, give it a quick "once over" and if it "feels right" they either don't reply or mail back a "seems OK to me" response?

Which process is more likely?

(For bonus points, which process do you think the management believe is going on?)

Ian_Cook
28-03-10, 10:03
So do you think:

1. The draft is discussed at a formal meeting where the original is defended and attacked point by point, line by line with all going to the Law book over every detail (not just the ones they're not sure about, but everything as being sure, even if you are a professional, isn't the same thing as being right) and confirm the reply is exactly correct with full justification and cross-references from the book and/or Law rulings?

Or

2. The draft is emailed out to a few busy refs the morning it's due to be posted and those refs, if they have time, give it a quick "once over" and if it "feels right" they either don't reply or mail back a "seems OK to me" response?

Which process is more likely?

(For bonus points, which process do you think the management believe is going on?)

How the feck would I know. Thats what they told me when I asked. If you want more detail, you have a computer and an internet connection so ask them yourself.

Dickie E
28-03-10, 10:03
Completely wrong I'm afraid Davet, a ruck does NOT have to take place... only a tackle



yes, a ruck does not have to take place BUT if one does take place and it didn't start outside the 22 then it is sufficient to allow gain-in-ground (as shown in the video clip).

Dickie E
28-03-10, 11:03
Irrelevant. Law 17 deals with the Maul. Its Law 19 that deals with touch. line-out and gain in ground.



This is a new scenario that I am painting. Please consider it on its own merits.

Davet
28-03-10, 12:03
Law 19.1 (b) When a team causes the ball to be put into their own 22. When a defending player plays the ball from outside the 22 and it goes into that player’s 22 or in-goal area without touching an opposition player and then that player or another player from that team kicks the ball directly into touch before it touches an opposition player, or a tackle takes place or a ruck or maul is formed, there is no gain in ground. This applies when a defending player moves back behind the 22 metre line to take a quick throw-in and then the ball is kicked directly into touch.


Ian - I cannot undertand your logic.

The Law is quite clear, if the ball ios kicked AFTER a ruck has formed, then gain in ground is possible in exactly the same way as if there had been a tackle.

Sequence of events was

1) Tackle, process commenced outside 22, and tackle was completed with the ball having been driven back into the 22 - at that point a kick would not gain ground.
2) A ruck is then formed, INSIDE the 22. At no point was any part of that ruck outside the 22 - the ruck formed for the first time after the ball had been driven back.


Which bit of the Law in red above do you feel doesn't apply?

OB..
28-03-10, 13:03
Naturally I started this poll because in this instance I disagree with Mark Lawrence's decision.

There is one continuing piece of play that starts with the catch, followed by the catcher being driven back and then to ground. A ruck forms and the ball is kicked directly into touch from behind the 22m line.

Although play is continuous, the law requires us to break it into segments in order to apply 19.1 (b).

When a team causes the ball to be put into their own 22. When a defending player plays
the ball from outside the 22 and it goes into that player’s 22 or in-goal area without
touching an opposition player
Fine so far (I assume that possibly touching the ball in some way while making a tackle does not count – but it does not matter in this case).

and then that player or another player from that team kicks
the ball directly into touch before it touches an opposition player, or a tackle takes place
A tackle occurs when the ball carrier is brought to ground. If he isn’t, there is no tackle. In this case he goes to ground inside the 22.

The counter argument is that the tackle started outside the 22. In that case, if a player is first grabbed inside the 22 but drives outside it before being brought down, you should allow a gain in ground on the basis that the tackle started inside the 22. That is not what I observe.


or a
ruck or maul is formed, there is no gain in ground.
There is no ruck until after the player has been tackled because no team mates join in until that point. Whatever the argument over the tackle, the ruck itself is surely formed inside the 22.

It may well be that IRB refs have been told to rule as Mark Lawrence did, but for the moment I will not be advising junior referees to copy him.

Ian_Cook
28-03-10, 13:03
Ian - I cannot undertand your logic.

The Law is quite clear, if the ball is kicked AFTER a ruck has formed, then gain in ground is possible in exactly the same way as if there had been a tackle.

Sequence of events was

1) Tackle, process commenced outside 22, and tackle was completed with the ball having been driven back into the 22 - at that point a kick would not gain ground.
2) A ruck is then formed, INSIDE the 22. At no point was any part of that ruck outside the 22 - the ruck formed for the first time after the ball had been driven back.


Which bit of the Law in red above do you feel doesn't apply?

That is not what you said earlier...

I said

I will be coaching my players in that situation to allow themselves to be passively pushed back over the 22 before going to ground (tackled), and releasing the ball to their team-mates who will then pass the ball to the kicker who will boot the ball 60m downfield.

You replied

You missed out the bit about ensuring a ruck takes place, and that it starts inside the 22 - simply doing as you suggest will not result in a gain in ground.

You were wrong! Let me itemise it for you...


Law 19.1 (b) When a team causes the ball to be put into their own 22. When a defending player plays the ball from outside the 22 and it goes into that player’s 22 or in-goal area without touching an opposition player and then that player or another player from that team kicks the ball directly into touch

► before it touches an opposition player, or
► a tackle takes place, or
► a ruck or maul is formed,

there is no gain in ground. This applies when a defending player moves back behind the 22 metre line to take a quick throw-in and then the ball is kicked directly into touch.

In other words, a tackle is all that is required to cancel the "taken back". A ruck or a maul are not necessary.

As I said, I have written to SAReferees and asked them to justify why they thought the referee was right.

The umpire
28-03-10, 14:03
Sorry for late arrival to the debate (been busy) but on one viewing, which all you'd get if you were there, taken back in, ruck formed, gain in ground allowed.
Simples:cool:

Phil E
28-03-10, 14:03
There is no ruck until after the player has been tackled because no team mates join in until that point. Whatever the argument over the tackle, the ruck itself is surely formed inside the 22.

I see the tackle to ruck transition as a single phase of play.

Phases of play are split up by open play, passing, etc.

I believe this was also discussed in the ELV explanations and was explained as such.

OB..
28-03-10, 15:03
I see the tackle to ruck transition as a single phase of play.

Phases of play are split up by open play, passing, etc.
There is nothing to that effect in the law.

I have commented in the past that we need a law to cover transitions between phases, as so much is unclear.

(And you still have the problem that the tackle occurred inside the 22.)

Phil E
28-03-10, 16:03
(And you still have the problem that the tackle occurred inside the 22.)

erm...NO. The tackle started outside the 22, went back into the 22, developed into a ruck, then the ball came out. Phase of play over.

didds
28-03-10, 17:03
why is this in the lineout forum?

:-)

didds

Davet
28-03-10, 18:03
PhilE

Tackle and ruck are separate phases of play - that's why different Laws apply.

I assume that you don't referee them the same?

OB

I would be happy with the idea that a tackle is a process, that takes a finite time, and that in this case although the tackle was completed inside the 22, the process - initiated by an opponent seizing and trying to drag the ball carrier to ground - started outside. During that process the ball was taken back into the 22.

I would see this as analogous to a ruck or maul being driven back, and we know they would not reset the marker.

The essential in this case is that a separate phase of play, a ruck, began inside the 22, and this DOES cause a reset.

Ian

I did not say that a ruck was necessary as well as a tackle.

I said that if the tackle was the phase that drove the ball back inside then you don't need a further tackle, you simply need a ruck - provided it starts inside the 22.

Which we had.

Do I understand that you agree with me that in this case the ruck was the reset - since it formed after the tackle, and was always from start to finish inside the 22?

Didds

I assume it's in the Line-out forum because it decides where the Lineout takes place.

Phil E
28-03-10, 19:03
PhilE

Tackle and ruck are separate phases of play - that's why different Laws apply.

Sorry, but I disagree.............. to a point.

What separates different phases of play?

A tackle is a phase of play

A ruck is a phase of play.

A tackle to ruck without the ball leaving it is one phase of play.

A lineout that becomes a maul is one phase of play.

I see a phase of play as being a play that is separated by open play or passing ball.

I agree that I have no law to back this up, but neither do you for your version.

The ONLY place in the law book where the phrase "phase of play" is used is on page 94 where it says "a ruck is a phase of play", but it also says "open play has ended". So does the next phase of play begin the next time "open play has ended"? If it does then tackle to ruck is one phase of play.

Davet
28-03-10, 19:03
A tackle to ruck without the ball leaving it is one phase of play


It can't be.

They are governed by separate laws.

As is a maul following a line out.

As one phase ends a whole new set of Laws take over.Tackle - Law 15, Ruck - Law 16. Line out - Law 19, Maul - Law 17.

Your position, as you say, has no basis in Law -it can't - the whole of the Law is predicated on separating the phases. That's one reason why new refs need to get in the habit of calling the phase, at least to themselves. It ensures that they know what Law is relevant, or gives them a better chance of doing so than if they don't divide the play up into phases.

Phil E
28-03-10, 20:03
Your position, as you say, has no basis in Law .

And neither does yours.

Where in the laws does it say that a tackle is a phase of play? It doesn't.
The same applies to mauls and lineouts.

The only time "phase of play" is used is to describe a ruck, together wth the term "open play has ended".

IF open "play has ended", determines when a phase of play has started, then it does not end in between a tackle and ensuing ruck.

Ian_Cook
28-03-10, 21:03
why is this in the lineout forum?

:-)

didds

Because its about gain in ground in Law 19



I am wondering if sareferees take the same view as Phil appears to, that the phase of play begins with the ball carrier being forced back into his 22, and therefore the ruck is part of that phase, so it would have required another tackle, ruck or maul before the taken back was canceled.


NOTE:
The voters in this thread are split about 50/50, slightly more think it should be ruled taken back. That makes this issue contentious

Toby Warren
28-03-10, 21:03
I can see both sides - but am clear the advice that we were given at the ELV briefing that there would be NO gain in ground.

OB..
28-03-10, 21:03
"Phase of play" is a useful, standard term to describe what particular laws refer to, as distinct from other laws. It does not matter that it is not defined in the laws. The contents of the laws themselves distinguish the phases, as Davet says.

We already accept that some phases can follow directly from others without open play supervening eg ruck from tackle, maul from lineout etc. I see nothing in Law 19 that says or implies that for the purposes of a gain in ground, phases must (uniquely) be separated by open play.

OB..
28-03-10, 21:03
I can see both sides - but am clear the advice that we were given at the ELV briefing that there would be NO gain in ground.
It seems to me likely that Mark Lawrence was following what he was expected to do, but the rationale escapes me, so how was it explained to you?

Toby Warren
28-03-10, 22:03
It seems to me likely that Mark Lawrence was following what he was expected to do, but the rationale escapes me, so how was it explained to you?

Like Phil E says, if tackle becomes maul/ruck this is the same phase of play therefore no gain

OB..
28-03-10, 22:03
Like Phil E says, if tackle becomes maul/ruck this is the same phase of play therefore no gain

And how was that justified, or did nobody challenge it?

Davet
28-03-10, 23:03
I can see both sides - but am clear the advice that we were given at the ELV briefing that there would be NO gain in ground.


The advice at the ELV briefing would be, I suspect, that if the Tackle, ruck, maul, scrum etc was driven back over the 22 there would be no gain in ground following a kick.

That is absolutely correct.

If it were not for the next pahse, ie the ruck that formed inside the 22 then that would apply here.

BUT - we clearly have a ruck forminng, after the tackle.

PhilE's contention open play must separate phase is - in my opinion - just plain wrong.

You rereree a tackle, then a ruck forms- you referee that ruck. They are separate things, with their own laws.

If you regard them as the same thing then the whole structure of the game falls on your head - it simply cannot be.

Toby Warren
29-03-10, 10:03
And how was that justified, or did nobody challenge it?

It was one of those answers that made it clear -'this is how we are going to ref. this type of thing'

To be honest there was so many questions / debates can't remember if this was challenged or not.

Phil E
29-03-10, 11:03
You rereree a tackle, then a ruck forms- you referee that ruck. They are separate things, with their own laws.

I am not disputing that. I am well aware of what a tackle is and what a ruck is, I am well aware that they have their own laws.

But when one runs seamlessly into the other I regard them as part of the same phase of play, becasue play has not been broken up in any way.

We are still at the same breakdown, the ball hasn't gone anywhere. When the ball comes out then we start a new phase of play.

Davet's contention that the tackle/ruck transition are two separate phases is - in my opinion - just plain wrong.

Davet
29-03-10, 11:03
Then we disagree on the fundamentals of the game.

I see it as absolutely basic, one phase follows another, and identifying the transition is so basic that one cannot hope to be a competent referee if one fails to recognise when that happens, and apply the Laws appropriate to the new phase. At a tackle we have Law 15, as that becomes a Ruck we have Law 16.

The whole basis of the game clearly differentiates between these phases.

And the Law on gain in ground is crystal clear - if (amongst other considertaions) a ruck has formed inside the 22 then a kick direct to touch gains ground.

The word formed is critical - if it forms outside then it doesn't reset, if it forms inside then it does.

Anything that happened before the ruck formed is (in this context) therefore wholly irrelevant. The formation of the ruck is the trigger.

Adam
29-03-10, 11:03
I am not disputing that. I am well aware of what a tackle is and what a ruck is, I am well aware that they have their own laws.

But when one runs seamlessly into the other I regard them as part of the same phase of play, becasue play has not been broken up in any way.

We are still at the same breakdown, the ball hasn't gone anywhere. When the ball comes out then we start a new phase of play.

Davet's contention that the tackle/ruck transition are two separate phases is - in my opinion - just plain wrong.

I agree that a tackle straight into a ruck is one phase of play. This is what the TV statisticians consider a phase of play to be.

Davet
29-03-10, 12:03
This is what the TV statisticians consider a phase of play to be.


Now that has got to be a wind-up.

You cannot be serious!

Ian_Cook
29-03-10, 12:03
I see exactly where Phil is coming from. A tackle transitions into a ruck, rather than a tackle ending and a ruck beginning. The players don't suddenly stop at the end of the tackle and start again at the beginning of the ruck.

The Law specifies how a ruck begins/forms, and when it ends, either successfully or unsuccessfully

The Law specifies how a maul begins/forms, and when it ends, either successfully or unsuccessfully

The Law specifies how a tackle occurs but it does NOT specify when it ends.


DEFINITIONS
A tackle occurs when the ball carrier is held by one or more opponents and is brought to ground.I was taught that a tackle BEGINS when the ball carrier is held by his opponent, and is COMPLETED when the ball carrier is brought to ground.

We then have what is known is a the "post-tackle", a period (usually brief) during which time the tackled player can exercise his options or must meet his obligations before a ruck is formed. Sometimes the post-tackle does not occur because the ruck forms immediately.

Even the iRB coaching manuals recognise tackle and post-tackle separately.

From "Coaching Attack"


....
5. The skills of attack apply to all players just as the skills at the tackle and post tackle do. This is emphasised by the number of phase plays that exist in the game.
....The term also appears in many of the iRB's statistical reports

If SAReferees are thinking this way, then it is easy to see why they are saying no-gain in ground... the tackle in teh example clip began outside the 22 and the ball was carried back, when a ruck was formed (still a part of the ball being carried back) then there was a new phase of open play during which none of the conditions of 19.1 (b) were met before the ball was kicked out.

I see Davets side, and I see the SAReferees side too. I tend to agree with SAReferees because it seems more equitable to me. The attacking player has done well, driving his opponent back into his own 22m. and that has disadvantaged him.

Dickie E
29-03-10, 12:03
It doesn't seem equitable to me.

Consider why this whole gain-in-ground thing started. It was to stop the defending team tactically & deliberately taking the ball back into their own 22 in order to kick the ball into touch for a gain-in-ground.

I think you're losing touch with the law makers' intent.

Davet
29-03-10, 12:03
But the Law simply says, ruck formed...

It was.

Ian_Cook
29-03-10, 12:03
I think you're losing touch with the law makers' intent.

In that case, so are half the voters on this thread, and a goodly number of SANZAR referees.

OB..
29-03-10, 14:03
If we have a ruling that tackle into ruck is to be considered one phase for the purposes of Law 19.1, then I would not object (and that maybe what the elite referees are told to do).

However as the law stands, it REQUIRES the referee to distinguish the two - use of hands, offside etc. Open play does not play a role in this distinction, and does not in law have a special place in the pantheon of phases.

It is true that a tackle can merge directly into a ruck, but so can a ruck merge into open play. In fact all play is continuous until the whistle goes. It is still true that during play the referee has to apply different laws for different situations. We call them phases of play.

I raised this because I cannot see any justification in law, but I can understand an argument in favour of it. Whether it is a good argument or not is not clear, and it sounds as if people are going to handle it differently, which cannot be good.

Phil E
29-03-10, 14:03
It is true that a tackle can merge directly into a ruck, but so can a ruck merge into open play.


No it can't because a ruck has an end point, it either successfully ends or unsuccessfully ends as laid down in law. There is no such distinction for a tackle.

Davet
29-03-10, 14:03
Yes, but a Ruck also has a clearly defined start point.

OB..
29-03-10, 16:03
No it can't because a ruck has an end point, it either successfully ends or unsuccessfully ends as laid down in law. There is no such distinction for a tackle.

I'm sure you know when you are applying Law 15 and when Law 17. If follows that you understand that these phases are distinct in the requirements of the law. That is what matters. That is what makes them different phases in standard rugby parlance.

Since the definition of a ruck starts "A ruck is a phase of play ..." (and the word is not used otherwise in the laws) I do not see much mileage in semantics.

Phil E
29-03-10, 17:03
Since the definition of a ruck starts "A ruck is a phase of play ..."

...and continues, "Open play has ended".

Davet
29-03-10, 18:03
OPen play has ended is perfectly correct.

So have other phases.

The only logical extension of your arguement is that there are only two phases of play - open play and ruck.

I don't see that as a tenable position.

fzxjkg
29-03-10, 19:03
As a relatively new ref it makes sense to me. The opposition at no time interfered with the control of the ball. (Other than to make the tackle) The team maintained possession, brought it back over the 22, through a breakdown and then kicked into touch.

Call was correct.

OB..
29-03-10, 20:03
As a relatively new ref it makes sense to me. The opposition at no time interfered with the control of the ball. (Other than to make the tackle) The team maintained possession, brought it back over the 22, through a breakdown and then kicked into touch.

Call was correct.
The whole point of specifying that a ruck or tackle nullifies the taken-back is that it is in practical terms impossible to tell if the opposition played the ball when there is a ruck. The law therefore deems that they have.

This means the question is not "Did they interfere with the ball?" but "Did a ruck form inside the 22?" That is the criterion expressed in the law.

Phil_E takes the line that "tackle going into ruck" does not count because he sees it as one single phase. That is not what the law says and I agree with Davet that Phil's position is in logic and law untenable.

However I suspect that is what the elite people have been told to do (because basically I trust that Mark Lawrence knows what he is doing).

I also point out that "a tackle occurs when the ball carrier is held by one or more opponents and is brought to ground."
Since the player hit ground inside the 22, that means the tackle took place inside the 22 - another reason for allowing a gain in ground from the subsequent kick. The law does not contain any reference to when the tackle started because it does not become a tackle until the player goes to ground. Prior to that it is still open play, which may turn into a maul, or may just continue if the ball carrier breaks clear.

Adam
29-03-10, 22:03
The whole point of specifying that a ruck or tackle nullifies the taken-back is that it is in practical terms impossible to tell if the opposition played the ball when there is a ruck. The law therefore deems that they have.

This means the question is not "Did they interfere with the ball?" but "Did a ruck form inside the 22?" That is the criterion expressed in the law.

Phil_E takes the line that "tackle going into ruck" does not count because he sees it as one single phase. That is not what the law says and I agree with Davet that Phil's position is in logic and law untenable.

However I suspect that is what the elite people have been told to do (because basically I trust that Mark Lawrence knows what he is doing).

I also point out that "a tackle occurs when the ball carrier is held by one or more opponents and is brought to ground."
Since the player hit ground inside the 22, that means the tackle took place inside the 22 - another reason for allowing a gain in ground from the subsequent kick. The law does not contain any reference to when the tackle started because it does not become a tackle until the player goes to ground. Prior to that it is still open play, which may turn into a maul, or may just continue if the ball carrier breaks clear.

The law doesn't say that. I'm firmly with the belief that tackle to ruck is one 'breakdown' or phase of play. Similarly, I would say that a maul to ruck is one phase of play.

The rest of the rugby community see tackle to ruck as one phase of play. That's why they call it a breakdown. The phase counters on the TV matches also class tackle to ruck as one phase of play. I don't see where there is evidence to support your view.

OB..
29-03-10, 23:03
The law doesn't say that. I'm firmly with the belief that tackle to ruck is one 'breakdown' or phase of play. Similarly, I would say that a maul to ruck is one phase of play.

The rest of the rugby community see tackle to ruck as one phase of play. That's why they call it a breakdown. The phase counters on the TV matches also class tackle to ruck as one phase of play. I don't see where there is evidence to support your view.

I am quoting the fact that the laws force a referee to treat the two differently.

The law does NOT talk about phases of play, so there is little point in semantic argument.

Law 19.1 (b) DOES say that a kick can gain ground if a ruck formed inside the 22 after the ball was taken back.

Nobody can deny that the ruck formed inside the 22.

I don't see how you get round that (except by ignoring it).

.

chopper15
30-03-10, 01:03
After reading the threads I'm still trying to understand why the consensus is for a ‘no gain’ decision.

The original video clip appears to show the initial hold on the ball-carrier was outside the 22 and the grounding for the tackle back over it.

If what the video appears to show actually happened would I be right in assuming a gain in ground would’ve been given?

I ask for this confirmation because the comment with the video clip was;

‘The referee was right. It would have been different if after the Brumbies had taken the ball back and a Brumby had been tackled. Then a direct kick into touch would have been allowed’.

This suggests that had the grounding of the ball-carrier taken place outside the 22 and momentum took them back over that tackle wouldn’t qualify to allow a gain in ground.

Yet Law 19.1 (b) would apparently allow it;

When a defending player plays the ball from outside the 22 and it goes into that player’s 22 . . . and another player from that team kicks the ball directly into touch before a tackle takes place . . there is no gain in ground.

It states ‘another player’ not ‘another tackle’. :hap:

David J.
30-03-10, 04:03
After reading the threads I'm still trying to understand why the consensus is for a ‘no gain’ decision.

What consensus are you referring to? There's a pretty even split.

Drift
30-03-10, 04:03
I voted no, he didn't take it back himself, he was driven back in a tackle. If you watch him he is shaping to either run or pass the ball so he doesn't want to take it back and therefore the kick should've had a gain in ground.
When the ELV's came out there was a DVD showing this exact thing and the DVD said the kicking team get the gain in ground

Casey Bee
30-03-10, 05:03
I voted no, he didn't take it back himself, he was driven back in a tackle. If you watch him he is shaping to either run or pass the ball so he doesn't want to take it back and therefore the kick should've had a gain in ground.
When the ELV's came out there was a DVD showing this exact thing and the DVD said the kicking team get the gain in ground

That is interesting, anyone know where this can be found?

I saw the 6 clips relating to charging into rucks that were being used to show what is dangerous play. These 'extract' examples are excellent learning tools. Anybody know of other recent examples on any rugby law topics?

OB..
30-03-10, 17:03
When the ELV's came out there was a DVD showing this exact thing and the DVD said the kicking team get the gain in ground

I have managed to find my copy. The example is at 9:29 and does indeed illustrate just this point. The player is driven back into the 22 in the process of a tackle being made, a ruck forms, and the subsequent kick to touch is allowed to gain ground.

Perhaps the IRB has changed its mind :)

tim White
30-03-10, 19:03
"the process of a tackle being made, a ruck forms, and the subsequent" :- perhaps this was why?

OB..
30-03-10, 20:03
The ELV clip was less clear than the one we have been discussing. In the latter the tackle drove the player back into the 22 and the ruck clearly formed AFTER that. In the ELV version the tackle and ruck were not so clearly separated. The tackle started outside the 22 and the rest happened just inside it. If that was a good example of allowing a gain, then the Mark Lawrence one was even more so.

Drift
31-03-10, 01:03
I have managed to find my copy. The example is at 9:29 and does indeed illustrate just this point. The player is driven back into the 22 in the process of a tackle being made, a ruck forms, and the subsequent kick to touch is allowed to gain ground.

Perhaps the IRB has changed its mind :)

So which one would you recommend to use? I am in favour of giving the gain in ground as the attacking team did not willingly take the ball back

OB..
31-03-10, 11:03
So which one would you recommend to use? I am in favour of giving the gain in ground as the attacking team did not willingly take the ball back

My preference is to follow what I understand the law to say ie to allow the gain in ground.

Robert Burns
31-03-10, 15:03
Any chance we can point out the SArefs that they have made a small error and can they fix it as the law is clear?

:o)

(If that was the only error I'd made in a game I'd be happy!)

OB..
31-03-10, 22:03
I believe Ian Cook has emailed them.

Davet
01-04-10, 15:04
So have I

Robert Burns
01-04-10, 15:04
be interesting to see what the response is.....if there is one.

Blindpugh
04-04-10, 18:04
Just watched Glasgow vs Newport Gwent Dragons and from ko Tobi Faleteau NGD No8 caught ball outside 22 but was driven back inside 22 and ruck formed immediately. Ball cleared down to half way and I waited with baited breath to see what decision IRB referee Alan Lewis would give? as it was a replica of the SA refs video
(I do not know how to show clip. Match was on BBC 2 Wales).

He awarded lineout to Glasgow on halfway:clap:

I wonder if IRB clarified this grey area midweek? or do we still have a difference with interpretation between SH and NH?

Ian_Cook
04-04-10, 22:04
OK, here is what the SARefs said (my question followed by their answer)

http://www.sareferees.co.za/news/ref_news/2337160.htm


1. Name: Ian Cook

Question: Hello. I wish to question the comments made on Clip 1 - 24 March - Taken Back. Could you please explain why it is that even though the Brumbies player was ruled to have "taken back", the ruck that formed immediately afterwards inside the 22 did not "cancel" the taken back, given the wording of Law 19.1 (b)

"...When a defending player plays the ball from outside the 22 and it goes into that player's 22 or in-goal area without touching an opposition player and then that player or another player from that team kicks the ball directly into touch before it touches an opposition player, or a tackle takes place or a ruck or maul is formed, there is no gain in ground."

How does the player being driven back by an opponent and then brought to ground in a tackle inside the 22, followed by a ruck, differ from the situation where the ball is passed or carried back, the ball-carrier is then tackled, and a ruck forms, with the ensuing kick being allowed a gain in ground?

Regards, Ian


Pro Legoete: Hi Ian,
We just need to remember that the tackle took place outside the 22 and the tackle was completed in the 22 of which a ruck was formed as a result. This (tackle and ruck) is deemed to be seen as 1 phase and not as 2 phases hence the referee and his assistant referee judged the ball to have been carried back and kicked directly into touch.
I hope this clarifies the confusion,
Kind regards, ProThree comments

1. They regard the start of the tackle as being where the Ball Carrier was first held, and not where they were brought to ground

2. They regard the tackle and ruck and one phase. (I think this is what Phil was saying.)

3. Both the referee and the AR ruled it as taken back

I can clearly see the justification for this.

Scenario 1: a Maul (defending team took in) is formed outside the 22, and is driven back. The ball comes clear and it kicked directly to touch. No gain in ground!

Scenario 2: a Maul (defending team took in) is formed outside the 22, and is driven back. The ball is then dropped onto the ground and the maul has become a Ruck. The ball is then cleared and is kicked directly to touch.

Do you regard this as one phase or two?
Do you allow a gain in ground?

Rit Hinners
04-04-10, 23:04
Scenario 2: a Maul (defending team took in) is formed outside the 22, and is driven back. The ball is then dropped onto the ground and the maul has become a Ruck. The ball is then cleared and is kicked directly to touch.

Do you regard this as one phase or two?
Do you allow a gain in ground?

Since the ball never left the maul it is the same phase.

Therefore, no gain in ground.

Robert Burns
05-04-10, 00:04
1. They regard the start of the tackle as being where the Ball Carrier was first held, and not where they were brought to ground

Erm, not to convinced about this, the law is clear, If they consider the start of a tackle to be when a player is held, what happens when it becomes a maul? To me this makes no sense.

The Law clearly defines when a tackle has occurred and it is when an opponent brings the ball carrier to ground. There is no start to this.

I think they are trying to justify an error here!

Rit Hinners
05-04-10, 00:04
If when one player from each side are grappling each other and one has possession of the ball, what would you call it if not a tackle?

You are confusing when a tackle ends with when it begins. The tackle doesn't begin when the carrier is brought to ground. That's when it ends.

A tackle can become a maul or a ruck without ever ending sucessfully.

Ian_Cook
05-04-10, 01:04
Since the ball never left the maul it is the same phase.

Therefore, no gain in ground.


I agree, so if the ball never left the tackle when it became a ruck, can you apply the same criteria. IMO you can

Maul transitions to Ruck with no intervening open play = 1 phase
Tackle transitions to Ruck with no intervening open play = 1 phase

This make perfect sense to me.

Ian_Cook
05-04-10, 01:04
LAW 15 DEFINITIONS
A tackle occurs when the ball carrier is held by one or more opponents and is brought to ground.I could legitimately argue that this means the tackle, as a phase of play, begins when the ball carrier is held.

Robert, I do not believe that they are saying this just to cover an error. It would be very dangerous thing to do. This appears to have been the interpretation at elite level in the SH for some time. This is not the first time I have seen this.

And to answer your question...


If they consider the start of a tackle to be when a player is held, what happens when it becomes a maul?

The same thing....

Ball carrier is held and driven back over the 22
Second defender joins to form a maul
Third defender rips the ball and kicks directly to touch
No gain in ground

If you don't rule it this way, the Law becomes too easy to circumvent, because the second defender will just back off from joining until the ball crosses the 22.

OB..
05-04-10, 01:04
As I said earlier, if there is an IRB Ruling or similar, we ought to be told. I don't particularly object, but Law 19.1 (b) specifically says "a ruck or maul is formed". Very clearly in the current case, the ruck was NOT formed until after the tackle was completed inside the 22.
If you don't rule it this way, the Law becomes too easy to circumvent, because the second defender will just back off from joining until the ball crosses the 22.
And that is necessarily bad? It is certainly not illegal.

Phil E
05-04-10, 01:04
the ruck was NOT formed until after the tackle was completed.

Where do we find the definition of when a tackle is completed/over?

OB..
05-04-10, 01:04
Where do we find the definition of when a tackle is completed/over?

By "completed" I meant simply that once the player was on the ground and held, we had a completed tackle. I was not saying the tackle phase was over.

Phil E
05-04-10, 01:04
By "completed" I meant simply that once the player was on the ground and held, we had a completed tackle. I was not saying the tackle phase was over.

So where do we find the definition of when the tackle phase is over?

Ian_Cook
05-04-10, 02:04
As I said earlier, if there is an IRB Ruling or similar, we ought to be told. I don't particularly object, but Law 19.1 (b) specifically says "a ruck or maul is formed". Very clearly in the current case, the ruck was NOT formed until after the tackle was completed inside the 22.
And that is necessarily bad? It is certainly not illegal.


It certainly goes against the spirit and intention of the Law

(I am always in favour of closing loopholes and minimising the effects of the Law of Unintended Consequences)

To me the interpretation used simpler than the alternative.

Robert Burns
05-04-10, 02:04
If when one player from each side are grappling each other and one has possession of the ball, what would you call it if not a tackle?

You are confusing when a tackle ends with when it begins. The tackle doesn't begin when the carrier is brought to ground. That's when it ends.

A tackle can become a maul or a ruck without ever ending sucessfully.

Not confusing anything, your description is open play. There is nothing in law that says a tackle begins when...


I could legitimately argue that this means the tackle, as a phase of play, begins when the ball carrier is held.

Robert, I do not believe that they are saying this just to cover an error. It would be very dangerous thing to do. This appears to have been the interpretation at elite level in the SH for some time. This is not the first time I have seen this.

And to answer your question...



The same thing....

Ball carrier is held and driven back over the 22
Second defender joins to form a maul
Third defender rips the ball and kicks directly to touch
No gain in ground

If you don't rule it this way, the Law becomes too easy to circumvent, because the second defender will just back off from joining until the ball crosses the 22.

I don't like it because it's interpretation, not law, and in this instance the law is very clear. The law is clear and the requirements for a tackle to have occurred are player held AND brought to ground.

In this case the player is held outside the 22, so this is open play, they are driven back into the 22 and then the go to ground, we now have a tackle. Players join and then a ruck is formed.

Now under the law, this is good enough for taken back to be discounted. Why are they interpreting the law different, when the words are very clear?

Dickie E
05-04-10, 11:04
I could legitimately argue that this means the tackle, as a phase of play, begins when the ball carrier is held.



I've got a problem with this. A tackle OCCURS, it doesn't BEGIN.

Following your logic a tackle that commences in field of play could move into in-goal at which time tackle law continues to apply because the tackle began in FoP? :confused: :confused: :confused:

Dickie E
05-04-10, 11:04
Not confusing anything, your description is open play. There is nothing in law that says a tackle begins when...



I don't like it because it's interpretation, not law, and in this instance the law is very clear. The law is clear and the requirements for a tackle to have occurred are player held AND brought to ground.

In this case the player is held outside the 22, so this is open play, they are driven back into the 22 and then the go to ground, we now have a tackle. Players join and then a ruck is formed.

Now under the law, this is good enough for taken back to be discounted. Why are they interpreting the law different, when the words are very clear?

I agree

OB..
05-04-10, 11:04
It certainly goes against the spirit and intention of the Law

(I am always in favour of closing loopholes and minimising the effects of the Law of Unintended Consequences).

But just how far do you go? Suppose that instead of passing from the base of the scrum, they had done a mini pick and drive, getting stopped short of the 22. We would have had a very brief phase of open play and a brand new ruck, so a gain in ground would have been "engineered" legally.

What bothers me is that the law in this case seem to be very clear, but there is (I presume) some sort of guidance or agreement to interpret it as Mark Lawrence did. It is similar to the SA decision on the ball rolling back past the virtual 22m line in touch. Regional differences of this sort do us no favours.

Ian_Cook
05-04-10, 12:04
I've got a problem with this. A tackle OCCURS, it doesn't BEGIN.

Why doesn't it begin? Logic dictates that anything that "occurs" must have a beginning and an end, otherwise it takes place in an infinitely short period of time.

I would argue that a tackle "ends" when

1. the tackled player passes the ball, or
2. a player legally takes possession of the ball in the tackle area, or
3. a ruck is formed, or
4. When the ball leaves the field of play.

The contentious bit is when does the tackle start?

Some argue that it starts the moment the tackled player is brought to ground, while it seems that among the SA refs, it begins when the ball carrier is grasped by an opponent. What happens next determines when the tackle is completed (= tackle), or not (= maul), or becomes something else (= ruck).


Following your logic a tackle that commences in field of play could move into in-goal at which time tackle law continues to apply because the tackle began in FoP? :confused: :confused: :confused:Law 15.1 states that a tackle only takes place in the field of play. If a ball carrier is held in the FoP, driven back over his goal-line and then brought to ground in the in-goal area. this is not a tackle, in the same way that a scrum, ruck or maul ends when the ball crosses the goal line. There is no equivalent Law for the ball crossing the 22, so that same logic does not apply.

Davet
05-04-10, 13:04
If a tackle is an event then the phrase " a tackle occurs when..." is a legitimate description of that event.

Ball carrier and opponent bound together, one driving the other, is open play. If a 2nd opponent joins in we still have open play. If a team-mate of the ball carrier joins in we have formed a maul. If neither happens, but instead the ball carrier is taken to ground and held then the event known as a tackle occurs - at that instant.

So now we have 2 phases occuring after the ball is taken back in - tackle,then ruck.

It seems as if SARefs is simply making up Law to suit the interpretation they want.

Phil E
05-04-10, 16:04
I don't like it because it's interpretation, not law,

Interpretation OF the law is what being a rugby referee is all about :chin:


and in this instance the law is very clear.

If the law is very clear why are we on nearly 100 posts with qualified referees still debating the point?

Robert Burns
05-04-10, 19:04
I have no idea Phil.

One of the clearest laws written, and there is an interpretation issue?

Maybe my turn to write to SA REFS.

Blindpugh
05-04-10, 20:04
I have no idea Phil.

One of the clearest laws written, and there is an interpretation issue?

Maybe my turn to write to SA REFS.

Why write to SA Refs for clarification? When KLM1 gives monthly update at our Training sessions on Law updates it is always from the IRB. ST often refers to SA REFS as an excellent website but there is only one place IMO that Unions refer Law clarification to i.e. IRB.

As our season draws to a close I will continue to give gain in ground until we are told otherwise at a Society meeting. It is important that we are all singing off the same hymn sheet but at moment there are 2 versions

It will be interesting to see what happens if situation occurs when Barnes or Owens are refereeing SH teams:chin:

OB..
05-04-10, 20:04
Why doesn't it begin? Logic dictates that anything that "occurs" must have a beginning and an end, otherwise it takes place in an infinitely short period of time.
The word "tackle" has two distinct meanings. One is the event defined at the beginning of Law 15; the other is a phase of play. Let’s not confuse them


I would argue that a tackle "ends" when

1. the tackled player passes the ball, or
2. a player legally takes possession of the ball in the tackle area, or
3. a ruck is formed, or
4. When the ball leaves the field of play.
You are referring here to the phase of play. You admit that the tackle phase ends when a ruck is formed. Law 19.1 (b) allows a gain after a ruck is formed inside the 22, which was clearly the case here.

The contentious bit is when does the tackle start?
Now you are referring to the tackle event.


Some argue that it starts the moment the tackled player is brought to ground, while it seems that among the SA refs, it begins when the ball carrier is grasped by an opponent. What happens next determines when the tackle is completed (= tackle), or not (= maul), or becomes something else (= ruck).
"A tackle occurs when the ball carrier is held by one or more opponents adn is brought to ground."

In other words, until the player hits the ground while held, we do not have a tackle. Since the initial contact can turn into one of several phases of play, what laws apply before that phase is determined? We obviously cannot apply tackle, ruck, maul etc laws since those phases might not occur. Until one does, we have open play. Defining it retrospectively is only needed for the argument claiming the tackle took place outside the 22 because it started there. Whether that is thought to be a good idea or not, it is not something that comes out of the laws as written.

Robert Burns
05-04-10, 20:04
Why write to SA Refs for clarification? When KLM1 gives monthly update at our Training sessions on Law updates it is always from the IRB. ST often refers to SA REFS as an excellent website but there is only one place IMO that Unions refer Law clarification to i.e. IRB.

As our season draws to a close I will continue to give gain in ground until we are told otherwise at a Society meeting. It is important that we are all singing off the same hymn sheet but at moment there are 2 versions

It will be interesting to see what happens if situation occurs when Barnes or Owens are refereeing SH teams:chin:
Because they are telling the world wrong in regards to law.

Phil E
05-04-10, 22:04
Because they are telling the world wrong in regards to law.

In your opinion.

Robert Burns
05-04-10, 22:04
Are you saying they are right in regards to law? in your opinion?

Equity maybe correct, but as it isn't being done consistently, it can't be equity.

Phil E
06-04-10, 00:04
Are you saying they are right in regards to law? in your opinion?

Equity maybe correct, but as it isn't being done consistently, it can't be equity.

Yes I am......and I am not alone.
More people on this site agree with me then disagree.

Robert Burns
06-04-10, 00:04
I beg to differ, but that's life.

I believe the law is clear, and that this interpretation is against what the law clearly states.

Adam
06-04-10, 00:04
I've changed my mind on this one after discussing it with a colleague and re-watching the ELV DVD. It wasn't taken back as the law states that if a ruck or maul is formed inside the 22, a gain in ground from a direct kick to touch is permissible.

This is contrary to what I believed (that a tackle followed by a ruck is one phase), and as such the ball was taken back so no gain in ground could occur from a kick direct to touch.

Phil E
06-04-10, 00:04
15 - 14 on the votes then.

Hardly a consensus of opinion?

David J.
06-04-10, 01:04
So where do we find the definition of when the tackle phase is over?

An excellent question. We have pretty good language about when other phases of play (ruck, maul, lineout, scrum) are over, but not a tackle.

I think it's reasonable to say the tackle phase is over when 1) another phase (ie a ruck) occurs 2) when the ball travels 1m from the tackle or 3) when all the requirements of the tackle (releasing, rolling away) have been met.

Ian_Cook
06-04-10, 03:04
I beg to differ, but that's life.

I believe the law is clear, and that this interpretation is against what the law clearly states.


The Law clearly states many things that we, as referees, interpret differently,

The forward pass, for example......

oops, maybe I should not bring that up again!!!

Robert Burns
06-04-10, 09:04
The Law clearly states many things that we, as referees, interpret differently,

The forward pass, for example......

oops, maybe I should not bring that up again!!!
worms, WORMS!!!!!

All over my bloody keyboard!!!!

Robert Burns
06-04-10, 09:04
15 - 14 on the votes then.

Hardly a consensus of opinion?
I also voted incorrectly, I to went with taken back first, but after reading the law believe the gain in ground should have been given.

Ian_Cook
06-04-10, 10:04
There are 30 votes, and just over half (16) agree with Lawrence's decision

Also, reading though this thread there are a lot of fairly experienced referees on both sides of the issue.

Those two facts alone tell me that the issue is anything but clear.

I can see both sides of the debate, and while I agree that the letter of the Law makes Lawrence wrong, all of us on this forum know that we don't always follow the letter of all 22 Laws and the umpteen dozen subclauses that make up the Laws of the Game

Personally, I agree with Lawrence's decision, and the subsequent explanation on the SA Referees website, because the alternative seems inequitable to me; punishing the good play of the tackler, and rewarding the poor play of the ball carrier.

Davet
06-04-10, 11:04
Our role is not concerned with good or bad play, positive or negative, - we are concerned soley with the legality of the play - and with a mandate to ensure a sporting contest within the Laws.

The Law allows players with a foot in T-i-G to pick up a rolling ball and claim the scrum back - is that positive or negative - does it equate to eliminating what was almost a good kick - who cares?

In tis case if the tackler had not driven the player back first he would have been bore effective. Perhaps the ball carrier strove hard to stay on his feet - was that good play... who cares?

It is not our job to reward anyone.

Ian_Cook
06-04-10, 11:04
If its not our job to "reward" good play, WTF is equity all about then?

There is a saying that "if it looks wrong, it probably is wrong"

Allowing a gain in ground in those circumstance look plain wrong to me.

Robert Burns
06-04-10, 11:04
There are 30 votes, and just over half (16) agree with Lawrence's decision

Also, reading though this thread there are a lot of fairly experienced referees on both sides of the issue.

Those two facts alone tell me that the issue is anything but clear.

I can see both sides of the debate, and while I agree that the letter of the Law makes Lawrence wrong, all of us on this forum know that we don't always follow the letter of all 22 Laws and the umpteen dozen subclauses that make up the Laws of the Game

Personally, I agree with Lawrence's decision, and the subsequent explanation on the SA Referees website, because the alternative seems inequitable to me; punishing the good play of the tackler, and rewarding the poor play of the ball carrier.
Agreed,

But if pulled up about it by knowledgeable coach that has bothered to learn the laws, how are you going to justify this interpretation?

OB..
06-04-10, 12:04
There is a saying that "if it looks wrong, it probably is wrong".
It reflects the way a referee has to work - by instinct. However it is unacceptable as an argument after the event.

Word is that the SA refs now agree Mark Lawrence was wrong, and will issue a correction. Let's see.

Davet
06-04-10, 12:04
WTF is equity all about then


Being fair to both sides

Adam
06-04-10, 12:04
I think the taken back call is all dependent on competition for the ball within the 22. In this case there has been competition as a ruck has subsequently formed. One of the criteria in the LOTG states that if a ruck or maul is formed inside the 22 after the ball has been taken back, and therefore a gain in ground is now permitted.

I agree with Ian that I don't think it's right, because in every other facet of the game one phase (as it was explained to me at the ELV workshop) incorporates the tackle followed by ruck as one.

triage
06-04-10, 12:04
I think during the discussion lots of people have changed their opinion one way or the other....is there a way of resetting the vote to see what people think now?

Robert Burns
06-04-10, 12:04
Word is that the SA refs now agree Mark Lawrence was wrong, and will issue a correction. Let's see.

Wonder if that'll be in response to my question?

Robert Burns
06-04-10, 12:04
I think during the discussion lots of people have changed their opinion one way or the other....is there a way of resetting the vote to see what people think now?
Not really, only way would be to create another poll.

OB..
06-04-10, 13:04
in every other facet of the game one phase (as it was explained to me at the ELV workshop) incorporates the tackle followed by ruck as one.
That is not literally true. Different laws apply at tackle and ruck, therefore the phases must be treated separately. In what sense do you as a referee regard tackle to ruck as one phase?

Phil E
06-04-10, 13:04
Our role is not concerned with good or bad play, positive or negative, - we are concerned soley with the legality of the play -

Those two sentences are not mutually exclusive.

The laws are framed in such a way as to reward positive play.

They consistently mention and reward (with put in, etc) the team in possession, the team going forward, the attacking team.

To me that is rewarding positive play.

Robert Burns
06-04-10, 13:04
Those two sentences are not mutually exclusive.

The laws are framed in such a way as to reward positive play.

They consistently mention and reward (with put in, etc) the team in possession, the team going forward, the attacking team.

To me that is rewarding positive play.
I believe that is us rewarding play in line with the law.

We don't have many choices as to what to award, because it's dictated for us by the law.

Davet
06-04-10, 13:04
I've previously made the point about the utter daftness of deciding that some legal play is positive, and other, equally legal play, is negative; and that soemhow as referees we want to identify and differentiate between two legal plays, rewarding one, and punishing the other.

Adam
06-04-10, 14:04
That is not literally true. Different laws apply at tackle and ruck, therefore the phases must be treated separately. In what sense do you as a referee regard tackle to ruck as one phase?

I class it as one breakdown (or phase), but the laws I apply are different depending on whether a ruck has been formed or it is merely a tackle. As a colleague explained his definition of a phase ending, "when it has been either passed, picked up, or ran with".

Ian_Cook
06-04-10, 14:04
I class it as one breakdown (or phase), but the laws I apply are different depending on whether a ruck has been formed or it is merely a tackle. As a colleague explained his definition of a phase ending, "when it has been either passed, picked up, or ran with".

Rather like a Line-out that becomes a Maul

I regard that as one phase of play, which starts as a line-out and transitions to a maul when it leaves the line-of-touch.

Now if you don't believe that it can be regarded as one phase, what happens when a "maul" forms on the line-of-touch and doesn't leave it.

► Players are not permitted to collapse it because they would be collapsing a maul, but

► The offside line is still 10m from the line-of-touch so it is still a line-out.

It is therefore a maul and a line-out at the same time, therfore, it can be considered as one phase.


It reflects the way a referee has to work - by instinct. However it is unacceptable as an argument after the event.

I disagree. No matter how many times I visualise it, allowing a gain in ground looks inequitable. IMO.

Adam
06-04-10, 14:04
I disagree. No matter how many times I visualise it, allowing a gain in ground looks inequitable. IMO.

I agree with you, but the law as writ says that a gain in ground should be allowed. :S

OB..
06-04-10, 15:04
I class it as one breakdown (or phase), but the laws I apply are different depending on whether a ruck has been formed or it is merely a tackle.
Classing it as one breakdown does not seem to have any meaning at all. What effect does that classification have on your decision making as a referee? Apparently none, since you have to apply different laws. So what is the point of your classification?

Davet
06-04-10, 15:04
what happens when a "maul" forms on the line-of-touch and doesn't leave it.



You have a maul at a line-out.

Which has it's own distinctive set of laws.

When it moves off the line-of-touch it becomes simply a maul.

I don't see any problem with this.

Different Laws apply at each phase, as long as you don't conflate one with the other you'll be OK

Donal1988
06-04-10, 15:04
OB I can kind of see what he means. Tackle is made, tackler rolls and releases, ball carrier releases, a ruck is formed (this is where tackle becomes a ruck), players contest the ball and ball passes beyond the hindmost foot (ruck is now over). It may well be easier to consider the whole thing a breakdown.

Certainly I have been advised to treat the whole thing together sequencially. It isnt correct in law to consider them one term but it may just be easier.

Phil E
06-04-10, 15:04
It isnt correct in law to consider them one term but it may just be easier.

Often refereed to as a "Muck".

OB..
06-04-10, 15:04
OB I can kind of see what he means.
I think we all see how the idea arose. It's why we use the term "breakdown".

It isnt correct in law to consider them one term but it may just be easier.
But as you say it is not correct in law, so we cannot apply it when applying the law. There is no law relating to "the breakdown".

Robert Burns
06-04-10, 23:04
I understand the Phases, but this is mearly TV definition.

They define a phase as the ball being moved about before returning to a tackle/ruck or maul.

The phase does not apply to referees as a tackle, ruck or maul are all completely different entities for us, regardless of if they are the same phase, or seperate phases.

OB..
07-04-10, 10:04
The SA refs site has changed it’s position. The reply to Ian Cook’s question now reads:-
You are right - on two counts. The referee was wrong - on two counts. As you say the ruck was formed after the player had been driven back inside his 22. That was enough to allow gain in ground. Secondly an opponent (No.2) played the ball with his foot, which would also allow for gain in ground.

And the comment on the original clip includes:-
The referee was sure but he was wrong. But then when we first did this clip, we, too, were wrong. Not only was the ruck formed after Chapman was driven back into his 22 and therefore formed in the 22 but Keven Mealamu of the Blues played the ball with his foot.
For two reasons the referee was wrong.

Robert Burns
07-04-10, 15:04
Nice to see them now comply with law.

now, back to the poll, anyone still think it was taken back?

Davet
08-04-10, 10:04
I do - it was taken back, then a ruck formed inide the 22 which allowed gain in ground (as well as opponent playing the ball)

Ian_Cook
08-04-10, 10:04
Obviously, their checking systems are working. Either that or the questions raised by Robert Burns and I got them thinking

I change my vote then, If they can admit they were wrong, so can I

I still feel it "looks wrong" though, allowing a tackled player who is pushed back to get a gain in ground for his team. I can hear the distinctive sound of Super 14 coaches reviewing their tactics from here.

I know what I would be saying.....


"when you are tackling a player just outside their 22, don't try to push him back to get forward momentum, just drop him right there on the spot if you can!!"

Davet
08-04-10, 11:04
"when you are tackling a player just outside their 22, don't try to push him back to get forward momentum, just drop him right there on the spot if you can!!"

Fair enough, but might it not be better to coach the players to drive forward, get support, and ruck right on over, winning quick ball on the front foot?

Rather than assume you will not win possession?

Mindset...

Ian_Cook
08-04-10, 11:04
Fair enough, but might it not be better to coach the players to drive forward, get support, and ruck right on over, winning quick ball on the front foot?

Rather than assume you will not win possession?

Mindset...

Last year, yes, but with the current post-tackle interpretations, the percentages indicate that you are very unlikely to gain possession, because TRM turnovers were a LOT more common that they are now.

This year, the average TRM turnover rate in S14 is running at between a quarter and a third of what it has been previously

Robert Burns
08-04-10, 11:04
Last year, yes, but with the current post-tackle interpretations, the percentages indicate that you are very unlikely to gain possession, because TRM turnovers were a LOT more common that they are now.

This year, the average TRM turnover rate in S14 is running at between a quarter and a third of what it has been previously
Not sure about this Ian, I agree current tackle laws mean the tackler is away faster, but if that first support is opponant going for the ball, they are also more encouraged by the referee to get it as they were there before the ruck.

So turnovers are still more possible than before, if your players are supporting well.

Davet
08-04-10, 11:04
Part of the "problem" that results in fewer T/R Turnovers (Mauls are different), is that the tacklers (or players who tackle) have to get hands off the ball - McCaw et al will therefore find it harder.

But if referees manage this part of the game properly - keep players on their feet, make tacklers release and get back to their feet, prevent holding on, and get tackled players clear...

Then we can ruck for the ball, and drive over it with SUPPORT- so the old strength of the ABs - you're never lonely in a black shirt - will become a strength again. Don't have forwards picking the damn thing up, their job is to drive opponents off and let the 9 get it and use it.

Quick ruck ball produces the best rugby.

Rose tinted glasses produce the best nostalgia - but - it could be like that, maybe - just maybe... it's really down to refs...

Dickie E
08-04-10, 11:04
I change my vote then, If they can admit they were wrong, so can I



Impressed :bday:




I still feel it "looks wrong" though, allowing a tackled player who is pushed back to get a gain in ground for his team.

I still contend that the "taken back" law is all about stopping the defenders from tactically & deliberately retreating into their 22 in order to get a gain in ground. This is consistent with the Saffer call.