Ball Carrier is legally tackled goes to ground, presents ball; leaves hand-on ball

[Dickie E]

The art to refereeing is knowing the ones not to blow, that's a PK not to blow.

Perhaps I worded it wrong however, like Ian points out, if you blow that PK once then you are going to be blowing it all day long.

Red will soon learn to make sure they don't get isolated. I think you're overly giving the team in possession benefit of the doubt. Man on feet has all rights, etc.

I would agree with you if Red 19 hadn't been dragged along the ground.

 

[Drift]

Red will soon learn to make sure they don't get isolated. I think you're overly giving the team in possession benefit of the doubt. Man on feet has all rights, etc.

I would agree with you if Red 19 hadn't been dragged along the ground.

Sorry mate I don't agree, that's just play on. The thing that got hammered into the referees at the nationals was to let those instances breathe and get out of the PK. That one it's gone within half a second.

 

[Drift]

The thing that cements this as play on is the jackler gets up and looks to carry on, if he really thought he had the ball then you would see the hands getting thrown up in the air.

 

[ChrisR]

The thing that cements this as play on is the jackler gets up and looks to carry on, if he really thought he had the ball then you would see the hands getting thrown up in the air.

I don't think you want to introduce that as an indicator. You know where that will lead and we wouldn't want that, would we?

 

[The Fat]

Play on

 

[RobLev]

PK against Red 5 for dangerous play; he slides past the jackler and so misses the clear-out, and then (from what would be an offisde position if he'd lost contact completely) drags the jackler off by the collar and neck.

 

[ddjamo]

PK against Red 5 for dangerous play; he slides past the jackler and so misses the clear-out, and then (from what would be an offisde position if he'd lost contact completely) drags the jackler off by the collar and neck.

with that vision you should be able to work a card in there somehow?

 

[Drift]

I don't think you want to introduce that as an indicator. You know where that will lead and we wouldn't want that, would we?

No I am not saying I want to see it, however you often see it at some levels (Nic White and Will Genia come to mind) however as the player doesn't seem to care too much about it then it's clear he didn't think he had won the ball. Just reinforces the play on call.

 

[Drift]

PK against Red 5 for dangerous play; he slides past the jackler and so misses the clear-out, and then (from what would be an offisde position if he'd lost contact completely) drags the jackler off by the collar and neck.

Seriously???

If you are being pedantic enough to call that how on earth do you get any flow to the game?

 

[Browner]

The thing that got hammered into the referees at the nationals as to let those instances breathe and get out of the PK. That one it's gone within half a second.

Isn't this the crux of the issue Drift?
This jackler does everything a coach (or referee) would want.

By your own admission its a PK that is ignored (breathing) because the game can continue, but this simply isnt a clear line in the sand for players/coaches. At the next occasion that isn't 0.5s , say it's 0.7, 0.8, 0.9, ...1.1 ?..... What then? You give the PK Or not?

These marginal decisions rightly lead to claims of inconsistency (*see other recent thread! ) as the TP & the T will be doing the same action each time.

Would coaches/press/players be happy with a stricter application of law, without this breathing ? ..... I doubt it (some might favour the game continuity/flow arguments) , but at least everyone would know the benchmark standard being applied.

FWIW, if i see the jackler pulling the ball & dragging the BC coz he hasn't released , then J gets the decision. ( but then, as an ex-backrower I'm probably biased)

 

[OB..]

These marginal decisions rightly lead to claims of inconsistency

Should we really expect marginal decision to be consistent? You are suggesting that in such decisions there is one and only one correct view, which I doubt.

FWIW, if i see the jackler pulling the ball & dragging the BC coz he hasn't released , then J gets the decision. ( but then, as an ex-backrower I'm probably biased)

Yes, but if the jackler is pulling the player rather than the ball?

At a tackle, the tackled player is entitled to place the ball, and the jackler is allowed to get his hands on it. At the moment of initial contact, both players are legal. There will inevitably be a brief moment before you can expect the ball carrier to release, so it is possible for a support player to drive the jackler off (legally) before the ball has been released.

There are lots of minor variations on this theme. I suggest "clear and obvious" is a good approach (and we will probably still disagree about even that!)

 

[ddjamo]

^^^ there was nothing ignored. it was the standard on the day. if you want a tighter standard and turn the ball over for those 50/50's that's the ref's choice. I have a hard time believing that a ref could sell it.

 

[Browner]

Should we really expect marginal decision to be consistent? You are suggesting that in such decisions there is one and only one correct view, which I doubt.

Yes, but if the jackler is pulling the player rather than the ball?

At a tackle, the tackled player is entitled to place the ball, and the jackler is allowed to get his hands on it. At the moment of initial contact, both players are legal. There will inevitably be a brief moment before you can expect the ball carrier to release, so it is possible for a support player to drive the jackler off (legally) before the ball has been released.

There are lots of minor variations on this theme. I suggest "clear and obvious" is a good approach (and we will probably still disagree about even that!)

Not exactly OB, its merely an acknowledgement that 'breathing allowances' (irrespective of whether its wise or not) that override an PK ,fuel inconsistency.

If the jackler pulls player & not the ball, he gets no credit.

What about if, the BC has the same time allowance as the Tackler to release ? Equitable? .....just saying

This thread started with BC delay practice's, some have seemingly become acceptable to some, others less so .... Interesting discussion though.

 

[RobLev]

Seriously???

Only semi. Forgot the smiley :biggrin:

If you are being pedantic enough to call that how on earth do you get any flow to the game?

There is though a point there; those saying that the jackler got cleared out before he could establish his rights to the ball have to be aware that the process by which he was cleared out was itself illegal.

Not pinging to preserve the flow of the game essentially means that the side in possession is being allowed to get away with illegal play. If the refereeing is consistent, that means that tries will be scored that should not have been...but if that does happen, all hell breaks loose about the referee's head for not picking up the offence. While whistling for absolutely everything would stop the game dead, there is a point at which a ref must whistle to enable the game to take place within (or at least not too far outside) the Laws.

It takes at least two participants to permit the game to flow, and if a player does indulge in illegal play and is pinged for it, it is him, not the referee, that is spoiling the flow of the game; just as it is the player, not the referee, who "ruins the game" when he gets red carded for foul play.

 

[RobLev]

I don't think you want to introduce that as an indicator. You know where that will lead and we wouldn't want that, would we?

The introduction of a round ball?

 

[ChrisR]

The introduction of a round ball?

Exactly!

- - - Updated - - -

The introduction of a round ball?

Exactly!

 

[Ian_Cook]

^^^ there was nothing ignored. it was the standard on the day. if you want a tighter standard and turn the ball over for those 50/50's that's the ref's choice. I have a hard time believing that a ref could sell it.

And I have a hard time believing that it would benefit the game overall. A breakdown 50% turnover rate caused by a referee's quick-fire trigger finger leads directly to players becoming unwilling to take the ball into contact and instead kicking it away; the first step on the path to aerial ping-pong.

South Africa won a Tri-Nations doing that in 2009 on the back of less territory, less possession, less metres run, less line-breaks and less passes that the other two teams. The only open play stat they won was kicks in play. SANZAR referees changed the breakdown priority the following year to "tackler must release first" in order to prevent the game from descending further into a mire of kicking.

 

[OB..]

Not exactly OB, its merely an acknowledgement that 'breathing allowances' (irrespective of whether its wise or not) that override an PK ,fuel inconsistency.

When there are close judgement calls, you will always get some differences between referees. You just cannot measure things to that degree of precision. I think that is best called "variation", since you cannot do anything about it, though the best referees will probably show less variation than others.

The sort of inconsistency you can tackle occurs when referees are using different criteria eg one referee calls a ruck over when the scrum half puts his hands on the ball, another does so when the scrum half lifts the ball, and a third waits until the ball is actually clear of the ruck.

 

[ddjamo]

And I have a hard time believing that it would benefit the game overall. A breakdown 50% turnover rate caused by a referee's quick-fire trigger finger leads directly to players becoming unwilling to take the ball into contact and instead kicking it away; the first step on the path to aerial ping-pong.

South Africa won a Tri-Nations doing that in 2009 on the back of less territory, less possession, less metres run, less line-breaks and less passes that the other two teams. The only open play stat they won was kicks in play. SANZAR referees changed the breakdown priority the following year to "tackler must release first" in order to prevent the game from descending further into a mire of kicking.

agree wholeheartedly and we could pile on more examples. bottom line is that a referee must commit mentally to the way he will handle 50/50's and then maintain that standard. if a referee sets his standard so specific that it cannot be repeated every breakdown - he's only inviting trouble for himself and the match and he will be labeled inconsistent. I think it was drift that said, "survive the initial clear out" and that's his standard. I have heard, "one pull is a contest, two pulls I'm turning it over..." that was his standard.

IMO the best way to be consistent is to get the teams to buy in and then let them play involving the referee as little as possible. pk'ing the example is going to lead to a very high penalty count and one boring ass match.

 

[Dickie E]

pk'ing the example is going to lead to a very high penalty count and one boring ass match.

I'd disagree with that too. That incident, where the jackler has got everything right, might happen once or twice in a game.