Ball Carrier Hurdling The Tackler

[itin]

It was my turn to ref my club's second side match this Saturday. During the match one of our players hurdled the tackler who was coming in low but still on his feet. I immediately pinged him for it.

On Sunday, the school side I coach had an opponent do this at the goal line, leaping over a defender to score a try. I asked the ref 'isn't it illegal to jump over a tackler because it's dangerous play?' Ref said it was fine. I had to bite my tongue when, in the closing minutes, the opponent again attempted to hurdle the tackler but was upended and came down on their head. Luckily there appeared to be no major damage but the player had to be helped off the field with what was a likely a concussion.

Looking through the laws I am having a hard time find the exact reference. Perhaps I am wrong about this call?

 

[didds]

I was always told hurdling tacklers was dangerous play. far more recently this has come up here and had usually been accepted.

Its an interesting thought though... a low side tackle that is hurdled may well be totally safe. A hudle into a front on tackle is potentially very dangerous as boots now end up nearer a tacklers head/face when there was a very good expectation that they were out of the way. And back to that side tackle - as descibed above what when the tackle does make the hur4dling legs and this upends the hurdler - is that nowe dangerous play but for putting HIMSELF in danger ie the hurdler?

didds

 

[Dixie]

In January 2008, little Shane Williams actually hurdled right over a bamboozled Topsy Ojo when playing for Ospreys v London Irish. Phil E commented at the time (post #18) that he'd stopped in at a local club after his own game, saw seven fellow refs including two ex-Society chairmen and a Warwickshire RFU past president, all of whom said it was at least a PK and possible a YC for dangerous play.

http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?11064-Ospreys-v-London-Irish&p=133742&viewfull=1#post133742

For what it's worth, I agree with them! Get it wrong and this happens:

http://www.rugbydump.com/2010/04/1404/hong-kong-player-does-a-crazy-flip-to-get-on-rugbydump

 

[Browner]

Some would be tacklers go so damn low, that hurdling them is not only easy but its not actually dangerous ............... but aren't players who dive in towards the knees of an oncoming player endangering themselves? [LAWS]A player must not tackle an opponent whose feet are off the ground.
Sanction: Penalty kick [/LAWS] ............. So jump into the air to get law protection? :wtf:

 

[Kubamagdon96]

http://youtu.be/YGMNsEg0g8M
I agree that this should be illegal because if he catches the player in the head it can be very dangerous. That's just my own view!

 

[Ian_Cook]

In January 2008, little Shane Williams actually hurdled right over a bamboozled Topsy Ojo when playing for Ospreys v London Irish. Phil E commented at the time (post #18) that he'd stopped in at a local club after his own game, saw seven fellow refs including two ex-Society chairmen and a Warwickshire RFU past president, all of whom said it was at least a PK and possible a YC for dangerous play.

http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?11064-Ospreys-v-London-Irish&p=133742&viewfull=1#post133742

For what it's worth, I agree with them! Get it wrong and this happens:

http://www.rugbydump.com/2010/04/1404/hong-kong-player-does-a-crazy-flip-to-get-on-rugbydump

Playing devil's advocate here, but how is it any different from what happened to Dan Carter two weeks ago; injured (had to be replaced, and now sidelined for a few weeks) by a perfectly legitimate tackle.

People get injured in tackles all the time. EVERY tackle has the potential to be dangerous to some degree.

Now if hurdling an opponent was made illegal, then it wont take long for a smart coach to work out how to stop a ball carrier; just get the would-be tackler to throw himself crosswise on the ground in front of the ball carrier. Since he cannot hurdle the prone player, he has to slow down and or change direction to go around him.

 

[barker14610]

http://www.rugbydump.com/2009/12/1225/midweek-madness-todd-clever-flies-into-george#allcomments

 

[Browner]

Now if hurdling an opponent was made illegal, then it wont take long for a smart coach to work out how to stop a ball carrier; just get the would-be tackler to throw himself crosswise on the ground in front of the ball carrier. Since he cannot hurdle the prone player, he has to slow down and or change direction to go around him.

Nah..... Mr unSmart coach would fail the 14.2 [d] test ! :nono:

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

http://youtu.be/YGMNsEg0g8M!

It's that well known South Yorkshire referee.... Llyr ApGeraint Roberts.

Although I know for a fact he doesn't like mushy peas!

 

[Ian_Cook]

Nah..... Mr unSmart coach would fail the 14.2 [d] test ! :nono:

No he wouldn't. Law 14.2 (d) only applies in the circumstances outlined by 14.2 DEFINITIONS

[LAWS]LAW 14 DEFINITIONS
This situation occurs when the ball is available on the ground and a player goes
to ground to gather the ball, except immediately after a scrum or a ruck.
It also occurs when a player is on the ground in possession of the ball and has
not been tackled.[/LAWS]

The ball is in the hands of the ball carrier, not on the ground, so none of 14.2 applies!

Whatever were you thinking?

 

[Browner]

Whatever were you thinking?

oooops..... hit the 2, instead of 1 !!!!! 14.1 [d] A player on the ground must not tackle or attempt to tackle an opponent.

 

[Camquin]

A acquaintance of mine on Rolling Maul, a certain Mr Foghorn Leghorn has the following sig taken from the Bedford school site

http://www.bedfordschool.org.uk/default.asp?page=907

"In the last few minutes of a Dulwich match in 1897, Wheeler broke away and scored the winning try by jumping clean over the full-back. This feat was also accomplished by W W Vassall seven years later."

So there is history.

Camquin

 

[Ian_Cook]

oooops..... hit the 2, instead of 1 !!!!! 14.1 [d] A player on the ground must not tackle or attempt to tackle an opponent.

But what if he doesn't tackle or attempt a tackle. He makes no movement towards the player with his hands of body, and makes no attempt to grasp?

And it still doesn't apply anyway because the ball is not on the ground, and no-one has attempted to go to ground to take possession of it.

 

[Browner]

But what if he doesn't tackle or attempt a tackle. He makes no movement towards the player with his hands of body, and makes no attempt to grasp?

And it still doesn't apply anyway because the ball is not on the ground, and no-one has attempted to go to ground to take possession of it.

Eh, ........... 14.1 [d] isn't concerned with ball possession ........... it's soley concerned with attempting or executing a tackle when the attemptee is on the ground .......so your comment above makes no sense at all. On the crap NZ wine again ?? [i'm off to bed-good night]

 

[Ian_Cook]

Eh, ........... 14.1 [d] isn't concerned with ball possession ........... it's soley concerned with attempting or executing a tackle when the attemptee is on the ground .......so your comment above makes no sense at all. On the crap NZ wine again ?? [i'm off to bed-good night]

The WHOLE of Law 14 is to do with the ball on the ground and players attempting to take possession of it. Its the reason that law exists in the first place

The clause Law 14.1 (d) is part of Law 14.1. You cannot just cherry-pick a clause out of one law and try to apply it to a different Law. For example, do you think it would be OK to apply this Law...

14.1 PLAYERS ON THE GROUND
(a) A player with the ball must immediately do one of three things:
• Get up with the ball

...to a tackled player who is held. If you follow through with what you are suggesting, then it would be quite OK for a tackled and held player to just get to his feet with the ball.


Law 14.1 (d) is intended to make it clear that a player who has gone to ground to take possession of the loose ball on the ground, and fails to so, must not tackle another player who does get the ball. That is why it is there.

If a player goes to ground in general play, and does NOT tackle an opponent, or does NOT attempt to tackle an opponent, then he has NOT committed any offence!

 

[Browner]

The WHOLE of Law 14 is to do with the ball on the ground and players attempting to take possession of it. Its the reason that law exists in the first place

The clause Law 14.1 (d) is part of Law 14.1. You cannot just cherry-pick a clause out of one law and try to apply it to a different Law. For example, do you think it would be OK to apply this Law...

14.1 PLAYERS ON THE GROUND
(a) A player with the ball must immediately do one of three things:
• Get up with the ball

...to a tackled player who is held. If you follow through with what you are suggesting, then it would be quite OK for a tackled and held player to just get to his feet with the ball.


Law 14.1 (d) is intended to make it clear that a player who has gone to ground to take possession of the loose ball on the ground, and fails to so, must not tackle another player who does get the ball. That is why it is there.

If a player goes to ground in general play, and does NOT tackle an opponent, or does NOT attempt to tackle an opponent, then he has NOT committed any offence!

eh !!!! It was you who suggested that the coach should send a player to the deck as a way to slow down the attack IF hurdling was an offence............ I disagree that the WHOLE OF 14.1 is soley concerned with getting possession of the ball a] is b] is pseudo obstructing c] is obstructing d] is stopping players on 'their' feet from playing the game. In addition, Your Smart coaches tactic fails easily.....Definition says ....

A player who makes the ball unplayable, or who obstructs the opposing team by falling down, is negating the purpose and Spirit of the Game and must be penalised."

Your Devils Advocate suggestion was never a starter.

 

[Ian_Cook]

eh !!!! It was you who suggested that the coach should send a player to the deck as a way to slow down the attack IF hurdling was an offence............ I disagree that the WHOLE OF 14.1 is soley concerned with getting possession of the ball a] is b] is pseudo obstructing c] is obstructing d] is stopping players on 'their' feet from playing the game. In addition, Your Smart coaches tactic fails easily.....Definition says ....

A player who makes the ball unplayable, or who obstructs the opposing team by falling down, is negating the purpose and Spirit of the Game and must be penalised."

For Christs sake mate, you cannot obstruct a player who has the facking ball! Where the hell did you get your ELRA, out of a bubblegum packet?

Its all in the title of the Law...

Law 14: BALL ON THE GROUND NO TACKLE


Law 14 ONLY applies when the ball is on the ground and no tackle has been made. None of its provisions apply to any other phase of play. That is an undeniable, irrefutable FACT!

 

[Dickie E]

I was always told hurdling tacklers was dangerous play.

You were also probably told that you have to 'let him up'.

 

[Rushforth]

You were also probably told that you have to 'let him up'.

I was told both too.

As a referee and coach, the vast majority of 'let him up' offences is diving on top of the player on the ground. No-no.

As a referee and coach, I have not seen players attempt to hurdle tackles outside of American Football which I have watched for a few hours at most.

On scrolling back, you all (ya'll) seem to be taking ludicrous positions. Yes, some players attempt to jump out of tackles. They tend to do it whilst keeping control of their feet!

Given that the ideal tackle is below the waist, preferably around thigh-level, and that the vast majority of tackles (i.e., by the tackler, and often with the the tackled player attempting to go to ground) are too high...

What are you talking about? I hope it is as a point of law. I do see it very occasionally with kids U13. By which I mean I saw it once. Missed it twice, I'm sure!

 

[The Fat]

Rocky Elsom tried it against Fiji and got a PK against him for his trouble