Actions at the tackle

[Womble]

Does anyone referee it that way? Players find it very hard to tackle a player without holding him !!!! so we don't need that bit in our thought process!! Referee what matters.... Was the tackle completed with the player being held on the floor? if yes go through your tackle thought process. If not then the ball carrier may get up and play on.....

 

[Wedgie]

f) must leave the field when shown yellow or red card (usually happens twice every three games).

LOL. Making like Billy-no-mates, eating a decidedly average lump of meat in the hotel bar, read the above and literally spat out a mouthful of food back on to the plate to the disgust of the rest of the clientele...

 

[Pegleg]

Does anyone referee it that way? Players find it very hard to tackle a player without holding him !!!! so we don't need that bit in our thought process!! Referee what matters.... Was the tackle completed with the player being held on the floor? if yes go through your tackle thought process. If not then the ball carrier may get up and play on.....

Well if you don't you're doing it wrong. A tackler must hold the tackled player in the tackle and take them to the ground. Once there he must release immediately. So "tackle and held" is wrong. As long as the player is held at the moment he goes to ground job done. Your interpretation leads to, "he's not held" shouts when the tackler complies with the law by releasing immediately and why we see refs allowing players to get to their feet following a tackle still carrying the ball - in error.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Well if you don't you're doing it wrong. A tackler must hold the tackled player in the tackle and take them to the ground. Once there he must release immediately. So "tackle and held" is wrong. As long as the player is held at the moment he goes to ground job done. Your interpretation leads to, "he's not held" shouts when the tackler complies with the law by releasing immediately and why we see refs allowing players to get to their feet following a tackle still carrying the ball - in error.

It can be a tricky one though. What if the BC goes down on one knee and so does the tackler. Technically, that is a tackle. If the tackler then releases by falling off the tackle (i.e., involuntarily), how many referees are going to ping the ball carrier if he bounces back up off his knee?

What I like to see is the tackler holding the ball carrier for a small fraction of a second, say 1/3s to 1/2s, after they both go to ground, just to indicate to the referee that the tackle is complete. If we force the immediacy of the release then it becomes too fine a line between a tackler releasing and a tackler letting go before the BC is grounded.

A small "overlap" helps everyone involved to know where they stand.,


ETA: Interestingly, South African referee Lourens van der Merwe use the expression "brought to ground and held". See Question 5

http://www.sareferees.com/ref-replies/duty-ref-459--lourens-van-der-merwe/2829590/

"If the ball-carrier is brought to ground and held, a tackle has occurred."

 

[Blackberry]

I'm with Ian and Womble; if a tackled player goes down and seamlessly rolls straight back up with the grace of Fred Astair, I would be very likely to play on. The tackler needs to spend that fraction of a second to bring the tackled player to a halt. Then, the tackled player's attempt to get to his feet will look very different, and easier to manage for a ref.

 

[Adam]

f) must leave the field when shown yellow or red card (usually happens twice every three games).

Only that frequent if you're behind the play and have missed the first infringement or are too out of breath to proactively communicate...

 

[Phil E]

I seem to remember that we have discussed this before and the general consensus (well almost everyone apart from Crossref :deadhorse was that both actions (brought to ground and Held (yes I put it round that way on purpose)) are usually done together....hence the use of the word AND. The law doesn't say one, THEN the other. It says one AND the other.

But hey, I lost interest in this thread when the :deadhorse: raised its head!

 

[crossref]

my only point is that the sequence of words is important. In natural language, two verbs with an 'and' implies a sequence.
hit and run is different from run and hit
shake and vac is different from vac and shake
listen and learn is different from learn and listen

bring to ground and hold IS different from hold and bring to ground, and what the Laws say is the second.

Holding has to come to first, else you could knock someone down and grab them.

Dixie said in post #2

It's important (vital!) to get clear in your mind exactly what you expect to see, so you can recognise when something looks wrong.

I agree with those wise words.
My contention is that IF you have lodged in your mind the incorrect phrase 'brought to ground and held' then you eill have the wrong model. The consequences are
- you will be allowing tacklers too much time to release
- you will sometimes be incorrectly allowing tackled players who are quikcly released to get back up

because you have the wrong phrase lodged in your brain.

Lodge in the correct phrase 'held and brought to ground' and your refereeing the tackle will be more accurate.

 

[Browner]

So much for the definitions - slightly edited above for completeness. As to what rights and responsibilities they have, I guess only the tackle assist and jackler need a response as tackled player and tackler are very clearly laid down in law:

Tackle Assist:

1) remain on feet
2) clear release of the tackled player
3) (debatable) no need to exit the tackle zone and re-enter, but must reposition as necessary so that (s)he is behind the ball and behind the tackled player and/or tackler
4) Only from that position can (s)he play the ball

Jackler (if different from tackler or tackle assist):

a) must enter the tackle zone through the gate
b) must remain on feet
c) if latches onto the ball prior to a ruck forming, may keep hands on the ball while ruck is on progress
d) if loses grip on ball, becomes just another rucker with no special privileges
e) when so required by Sir, must release the ball (likely only if he's unaware that a ruck formed before he got to the ball, or has lost contact for a moment and then regrasped the ball)
f) must leave the field when shown yellow or red card (usually happens twice every three games).

Jackler (if immediately previously acted as either tackler or tackle assist):

a) may remain in tackle zone, but if previously tackle assist must reposition as noted above
b) must remain on feet
c) if latches onto the ball prior to a ruck forming, may keep hands on the ball while ruck is on progress
d) if loses grip on ball, becomes just another rucker with no special privileges
e) when so required by Sir, must release the ball (likely only if he's unaware that a ruck formed before he got to the ball, or has lost contact for a moment and then regrasped the ball)
f) must leave the field when shown yellow or red card (usually happens twice every three games).

Re: both jacklers.
D&E ?... Permission to keep handling the ball 'once qualified/permitted to do so ' ( by virtue of hands on prior to forming) only seemingly ends when the ruck ends. Or can you find any reference/clarification that says it ends earlier?

 

[menace]

Well if you don't you're doing it wrong. A tackler must hold the tackled player in the tackle and take them to the ground. Once there he must release immediately. So "tackle and held" is wrong.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that I'm pretty sure that since Womble has secured a spot in the National Panel that he's more than likely got there by knowing what he's doing? I can't be sure but I have a hunch he didn't get the job via a lotto ticket? So I'm sure he knows a tackle when he sees one. But I could be wrong!:biggrin:

 

[crossref]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that I'm pretty sure that since Womble has secured a spot in the National Panel that he's more than likely got there by knowing what he's doing? I can't be sure but I have a hunch he didn't get the job via a lotto ticket? So I'm sure he knows a tackle when he sees one. But I could be wrong!:biggrin:

if you read womble's post carefully he is saying that the sequence of words does matter, that a referee with the phrase 'brought to ground and held' in his mind will tend referee it differently from one who is thinking 'held and brought to ground'

womble says that even though the Law is held and brought to ground, the best way to referee is to have in mind the phrase brought to ground and held...

 

[Pegleg]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that I'm pretty sure that since Womble has secured a spot in the National Panel that he's more than likely got there by knowing what he's doing? I can't be sure but I have a hunch he didn't get the job via a lotto ticket? So I'm sure he knows a tackle when he sees one. But I could be wrong!:biggrin:

I've got international refs that have told me different. So do they trump a national panel? We all know people at the top of any "game" who get things wrong.

This point is one of emphasis. Yes, OF COURSE, we have to be happy that a tackle has taken place. And we all know that the word "IMMEDIATELY" is open to interpretation. So we have to be careful but the law is pretty specific and clear "Held and brought to ground in that order. After all Brought to ground and held makes a mockery of the instruction to the tackler to release immediately.

As Ian Cook says there is an overlap. Our interpretation of immediately takes care of that.

I'm interested that people moan about a thread being like flogging a dead horse and their being bored by it. Surely they can just ignore such a thread, leaving it to those not bored by it. No?

 

[Pegleg]

Or to put it another way. Once I've called tackle then I expect the tackler to release and the ball carrier to comply with his tackle requirements.

 

[Dixie]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that I'm pretty sure that since Womble has secured a spot in the National Panel that he's more than likely got there by knowing what he's doing? I can't be sure but I have a hunch he didn't get the job via a lotto ticket? So I'm sure he knows a tackle when he sees one. But I could be wrong!:biggrin:

Probably true - but this is the UK, and as Womble is 102, it is possible that it was simply his turn ... :wink:.

Also, let's not forget the small furry animal's own words:

In my last 3 matches "Sir" has not refereed the "assist tackler" & as a consequence the tackle area has become a mess !

Either "Sir" was Womble, in which case he torpedoes the concept of National Panel Infallibility, or else he was acting as AR to a National Panel ref, thereby torpedoing the concept of National Panel infallibility. So with all due respect to Womble as a senior colleague - he gets treated as equally capable of a mistake as the rest of us, compounded by the fact that he plies his trade toward the comedy & entertainment end of the refereeing spectrum.

 

[Pegleg]

Well said Dixie. "willy waving" has no place here. Especially when it's not yours!

 

[ChrisR]

The BC slips and goes to ground and an opponent grasps him as he is on the ground. Is it a tackle?

It doesn't matter squat what happens first as long the two requirements ('held' and 'on the ground') occur simultaneously.

The tackle, and all subsequent events, start at that point.

 

[Browner]

The BC slips and goes to ground and an opponent grasps him as he is on the ground. Is it a tackle?

As described, no it isn't.
[LAWS]. A player who is not tackled, but who goes to ground while holding the ball, or a player who goes to ground and gathers the ball, must act immediately.

14.1 Players on the ground
(a) A player with the ball must immediately do one of three things:

• Get up with the ball
• Pass the ball
• Release the ball.

[/LAWS]
[LAWS]. A tackle occurs when the ball carrier is held by one or more opponents and is brought to ground [/LAWS]

Sequence = held, then grounded.

 

[Dixie]

Re: both jacklers.
D&E ?... Permission to keep handling the ball 'once qualified/permitted to do so ' ( by virtue of hands on prior to forming) only seemingly ends when the ruck ends. Or can you find any reference/clarification that says it ends earlier?

And it's a fair point that requires an answer. The law currently says:

[LAWS](b) Players must not handle the ball in a ruck except after a tackle if they are on their feet and have their hands on the ball before the ruck is formed.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/LAWS]

Clearly, there is nothing specific in those few words that suggests that the exception is time-limited. If we were forensically dissecting parliamentary language, we might focus on the use of "have their hands" as opposed to "had their hands", and ask whether this is the use of the present historic tense or the present tense, and whether it makes any difference. But this is the iRB, and given its history of imprecision in lawmaking, such sophistry is inappropriate.

We need to look at the genesis of the exception, not merely the current wording of it. That genesis came as a revision in the 2010 law book, and while this has not (to my recollection) been the subject of any clarification or recent discussion over ambiguity, my recollection is that this was probably the last in a package of measures designed to rebalance the breakdown away from the side in possession, and towards the "defending" team. Sir Ritchie's magnificent exploits were (as usual) to the fore, as he would get his mitts on the ball, the ref would bottle the "holding on" call, and the ruck would then form - with Sir Ritchie then being penalised for his magnificence (handling in the ruck).

All the discussion in (UK) meetings etc around this point at the time stressed that once the jackler lost contact with the ball, his privileges expired. I can find no contemporaneous commentary to that effect, but am confident it reflects what everyone at the time took to be the position.

Happy to be contradicted. If anyone feels the need to focus tightly on the wording of the law, then I contend that the use of the present tense there rather than the past implies continuity - but this wouldn't be where I would personally focus my attention in an effort to get at the truth.

 

[OB..]

I keep pointing out that trying to apply forensic techiques to words is inappropriate because natural language is simply not a system of formal logic.

Surely reality dictates that a tackler can hold on briefly after the ball carrier is on the ground so as to make it clear he had not released beforehand. Similarly if the jackler is driven off the ball he has lost his one chance of stealing it.

If we cannot agree in principle on those we have real problems.

 

[Dixie]

I can find no contemporaneous commentary to that effect, but am confident it reflects what everyone at the time took to be the position.

This from here in May 2011. 1st page only is relevant, and the contention appeared to have been uncontroversial at that time:

http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?12335-Can-you-have-2-quot-Jacklers-quot&highlight=jackler

posts 5-8 refer