Cavalry charge?

[Dickie E]

Reffed an U16 game and as is often the case at this age one team had a Hagrid in their ranks.

Their preferred penalty tactic was for Hagrid to build up a head of steam and take the pass from the quick-tapper and crash into the opposition.

Is this legal or is it a variation of a cavalry charge? (Or maybe even a 1-man flying wedge? )

 

[talbazar]

To me, if he is ahead of other players and gets the ball, it's legal.

My interpretation of the reason of forbidding the "cavalry charge" is to avoid "forcing" the defending team to line up to tackle several attacking players not knowing which one will get the ball and as such ending up tackling players without the ball.

If the tactic doesn't hide the player who will receive the ball and doesn't lead the defending team to tackling players without the ball, I would allow it.

Cheers,
Pierre.

 

[menace]

For me, as described, it fits the definition of a cavalry charge and I won't allow it.

As per laws...I've highlighted the pertinent bits.
[LAWS]'Cavalry Charge’. The type of attack known as as a 'Cavalry Charge' usually happens near the goal line, when the attacking team is awarded a penalty kick or free kick. Either a single player stands some distance behind the kicker, or attacking players form a line across the field some distance behind the kicker.
These attacking players are usually a metre or two apart. At a signal from the kicker, they charge forward. When they get near, the kicker tap-kicks the ball and passes to a player who had started some distance behind the kicker.[/LAWS]

IMO Ticks all the boxes for the charge.
First time..stop it as the charging player receives the ball and let them take it again. (And explain why they can't do it)
Second time...as the charging player receives the ball ...PK.

 

[menace]

To me, if he is ahead of other players and gets the ball, it's legal.

My interpretation of the reason of forbidding the "cavalry charge" is to avoid "forcing" the defending team to line up to tackle several attacking players not knowing which one will get the ball and as such ending up tackling players without the ball.

If the tactic doesn't hide the player who will receive the ball and doesn't lead the defending team to tackling players without the ball, I would allow it.

Cheers,
Pierre.

I disagree. The Calvary charge is defined in law 10 'dangerous play'....so the reason is that the attacking big-boofa has speed and significant more momentum and force at about 11m from defence line...the defence can't legally move up to minimise that time and space until the tap. Ie they can't meet the attacking player with their own opposing momentum and force to stop the attacker and therefore are more likely to get hurt. It's dangerous for the defenders.

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

I agree with menace.

When I refereed this age group and younger there was invariably a Hagrid and on many occasions I had to dissuade teams from doing as above. I manged it with a peep and explanation and a re-take and never had to resort to a PK. I can only recall one coach who moaned (after the game over a drink so no issues there) about it saying I was removing his most potent attacking option. I suggested if that was the case then he'd better start to come up with something a bit more imaginative as the use of Hagrid Rugby had a limited shelf life - or words to that effect.

 

[Phil E]

If he is running at pace when the tap is taken and popped to him then it's a Cavalry Charge.
It only needs one person to be a CC.

ATP.....but stop it before contact is made.

 

[Dixie]

I agree that it falls within the definition of the cavalry charge. Whether it should do is a different matter.

If Hagrid was an inside centre (perhaps going by the nom de jeu of Manu) he might easily break through the first line of defence and then have a free run of over 10m to the full back. Seeing that, and in the knowledge that WR views this degree of a "head of steam" to be an instance of Law 10 dangerous play, should the referee blow the whistle? And if so, how should he restart?

 

[crossref]

I agree that it falls within the definition of the cavalry charge. Whether it should do is a different matter.

If Hagrid was an inside centre (perhaps going by the nom de jeu of Manu) he might easily break through the first line of defence and then have a free run of over 10m to the full back. Seeing that, and in the knowledge that WR views this degree of a "head of steam" to be an instance of Law 10 dangerous play, should the referee blow the whistle? And if so, how should he restart?

in open play - if Hagrid is too big for the full back to handle, the full back will contrive to miss the tackle

 

[OB..]

in open play - if Hagrid is too big for the full back to handle, the full back will contrive to miss the tackle

So you blame Tony Underwood/Mike Catt for failing to tackle Jonah Lomu? :biggrin:

"Near the goal-line" is the box it does not tick, and it makes a difference. The defenders have almost no space to work with. Tackling him in midfield does not give him a chance to reach out and score, so a different technique can be used.

 

[menace]

So you blame Tony Underwood/Mike Catt for failing to tackle Jonah Lomu? :biggrin:

"Near the goal-line" is the box it does not tick, and it makes a difference. The defenders have almost no space to work with. Tackling him in midfield does not give him a chance to reach out and score, so a different technique can be used.

True. But "usually happens near the goal line" does not mean the Calvary charge is exclusive to ONLY near the goal line and should be ignored law on the remainder of the FOP? (Isn't the definition of LOTG 'near' mean 1m? So therefore only a Calvary charge if it's within 1m?? :sarc::sarc

 

[OB..]

True. But "usually happens near the goal line" does not mean the Calvary charge is exclusive to ONLY near the goal line and should be ignored law on the remainder of the FOP? (Isn't the definition of LOTG 'near' mean 1m? So therefore only a Calvary charge if it's within 1m?? :sarc::sarc

Since a penalty cannot be taken within 5m of the opponents' goal-line, the reference clearly cannot mean "within 1 metre". Yes it is inconsistent. (What else did you expect?)

This discussion shows why legislation by example is a poor idea. Just how many of the details given are an essential part of the offence? In this case nearness to the goal-line materially affects the style of defence, so I regard it as significant. Elsewhere you simply judge if the play is actually dangerous.

 

[irishref]

erm, stupid question perhaps, but what is Hagrid?

No attacking player is allowed to move towards the ball before the penalty or free kick is taken so don't allow it.

 

[crossref]

No attacking player is allowed to move towards the ball before the penalty or free kick is taken so don't allow it.

that's not in the Laws.

 

[OB..]

erm, stupid question perhaps, but what is Hagrid?

A character in Harry Potter novels. He was very big.

 

[Taff]

that's not in the Laws.

There's been a clarification or memo though.

 

[Pinky]

that's not in the Laws.

It is in some of the age grade variations.

 

[Dickie E]

No attacking player is allowed to move towards the ball before the penalty or free kick is taken so don't allow it.

Presumably the kicker himself is an exception?

 

[talbazar]

So the law says that if a team decides to take a tap (not quick tap) for a PK, all players (or at least the player receiving the ball) in that team must be standing still when the ball is tapped by the SH???

I guess that is not applied that much... Watch some 7's for example :sarc::sarc::sarc:

Now at age group, with an Hagrid or a Goliath, "manage it" seems like a good option...

My 2 cents,
Pierre.

 

[crossref]

that's not in the Laws.

There's been a clarification or memo though.

Go on then, let's see it! :

 

[crossref]

that's not in the Laws.

It is in some of the age grade variations.

In Scotland?