Search:

Type: Posts; User: mich; Keyword(s):

Search: Search took 0.01 seconds.

  1. [Tackle] Re: No-tackle. Can offside lines be estabilshed by being over the ball ?

    I was wrong.

    If this were TWOL (but not), the ball still in the tackle area would have preserved the offside line.
    However, since this is now about a ruck, the position of the ball relative to...
  2. [Law] Re: Wrong? definition of Tackled Player - time to redefine Tackler?

    I think it was for TWOL (f.a.k.a. one-man ruck).

    Anyway, ruling (as specified in the 2019 low) is no more same as the 2017 Low Amendment Trial:


    Let me try to summarize assuming this fixed law...
  3. [Law] Re: Wrong? definition of Tackled Player - time to redefine Tackler?

    He (#7) might have been considered not tackler as standing and not weighing (to be supported) enough on the tackled player on the ground?
  4. [Law] Re: Wrong? definition of Tackled Player - time to redefine Tackler?

    Ouch. Really confused. But great to see the fact that your exam follows the 2017 Amendment. Hmmm...
  5. [Law] Re: Wrong? definition of Tackled Player - time to redefine Tackler?

    Tacklers are always in the tackle box by definition.


    a. tacklers behind the ball (thus closer to their goal line)
    b. tacklers in front of the ball (thus closer to opponents goal line)


    Some...
  6. [Law] Re: Wrong? definition of Tackled Player - time to redefine Tackler?

    I am seriously confused. In fact, a senior referee told us so in front of many referees. And, I agree with his (and high-probably senior referees consensus on) interpretation and practicing of the...
  7. [Law] Re: Wrong? definition of Tackled Player - time to redefine Tackler?

    Now I have found the amendment trial.

    Global Law Trials 2017 (Aug 2017 for South, Jan 2018 for North) https://laws.worldrugby.org/?domain=20&language=EN



    It had overridden the 2017 and 2018...
  8. [Law] Re: Tacklers privilege (Re: Wrong? definition of Tackled Player

    Maybe an off-the-thread topic but what do you guys think on this?
  9. Replies
    20
    Views
    1,330

    [Tackle] Re: Tackle holding on a ball

    I believe "grasping only on the ball" is conventionally regarded as grasping BC, by interpreting a ball is a part of BC. Also, the first possession of the ball (thus by BC) continues until the ball...
  10. Replies
    20
    Views
    1,330

    [Tackle] Re: Tackle holding on a ball

    So you would put a not-releasing-the-ball penalty on the ex-BC if he would resist? I believe this has been minority ruling nowadays. hmm...
  11. Replies
    20
    Views
    1,330

    [Tackle] Re: Tackle holding on a ball

    Sure. The question was on the rules for seniors. Mini rules vary for regions - even ripping itself may be prohibited for some countries. Not the case in Japan, though.
  12. Replies
    20
    Views
    1,330

    [Tackle] Re: Tackle holding on a ball

    Yep. I knew it.
    http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?20008-Should-the-tackler-have-released

    The majority might have consensus of penalizing a ripper but a bit of debate was there. Anyway,...
  13. Replies
    20
    Views
    1,330

    [Tackle] Re: Tackle holding on a ball

    Oh. So for you, they are technically a) no, b) - and c) no, but you still rule it as tackle holding as convention?

    It is acceptable as a consequence, but let me give technically sound...
  14. Replies
    20
    Views
    1,330

    [Tackle] Tackle holding on a ball

    I am sorting out the tackle-holding-on-a-ball situation.

    Here is a representative situation:

    A ball carrier (BC), Buck, in a Red (attacking) team runs into an opponent player, Rip, in a Blue...
  15. [Tackle] Re: No-tackle. Can offside lines be estabilshed by being over the ball ?

    Standing over or not may be kinda subjective part in this thread. I will accept your judge as well but this thread started considering he was standing over the ball. :->

    BTW, thepercy and Pinkey...
  16. [Tackle] Re: No-tackle. Can offside lines be estabilshed by being over the ball ?

    Let me give it another interpretation, assuming it was not a tackle. The Green player (trying to steel the ball) touched the Blue player recognized as standing over the ball. At the contact, it...
  17. [Law] Tacklers privilege (Re: Wrong? definition of Tackled Player

    Yeah. I remember we used to rule that way last year with a trial rule - tacklers also need to reenter from the gate or alike. The 2019 law seems not written in that way.

    Before:

    14-6....
  18. [Law] Re: Wrong? definition of Tackled Player - time to redefine Tackler?

    Thanks for the warm welcome and so quick responses, which are amazing!

    Right for illegal tackles... I believe tackled players and tacklers in the law always have special meanings for their...
  19. [Law] Re: Wrong? definition of Tackled Player - time to redefine Tackler?

    Maybe. I just found more commonality between tackler and other players except for a few privileges to tacklers.

    For the "tackler" redefinition, I meant changing from:


    14-4. Players in a...
  20. [Law] Wrong? definition of Tackled Player - time to redefine Tackler?

    While discussing no-tackler tackle situations, I have just found the definition of Tackled player might be not correct for allowing such situations, or the situation might just not allowed.


    ...
Results 1 to 20 of 20