coaches commenting on referee performance/decisions.

[didds]

Ive no issue with that italy/wales scenario being a PT. But I suspect it highlights that when the "standing over the tackled player" bit was brought it it was solely envisaged as being "ball on the ground and pre-emptive to a ruck forming" and not about receiving the ball from the tackled player immediately...

 

[Phil E]

Thanks Phil - very clear

A follow-up question: once the player has moved away from the tackle (or if the ball has moved away from the tackle and is then played) can the player then be tackled by an opponent from behind, or are they still protected by 14.9.c?

Others have answered this, but for me (as RichNL highlighted).

It depends if we have just a tackle, or a tackle with offside lines.

If its just a tackle, once the ball has moved away from the tackle area we are in open play and yes he could be tackled by a retreating player (no offside lines set).

If it's a tackle with offside lines (player stood over the ball at the tackle**), then retreating players are offside until they either get onside (back behind the offside line), or are put onside by someone else (highlighted in previous posts). These people are known as lazy runners, and you will often hear referees shout "never onside".

**There seems to be a trend for top refs to shout "offside lines" when this happens. Probably more for them and their team than the players.

 

[Phil E]

Bump.

Had an age group coach blaming me for his team losing the match...... I therefore had proof that it was within 15 secs of the final whistle!

If this happens to you, be sure to quote Regulation 12.5 in your Match Official Abuse Form. This lays out to the disciplinary panel exactly what rule has been broken. They are familiar with the laws, but not always the regulations, so help them out by effectively saying "he broke this regulation".

12.5 Approaches to Match Officials
No person (other than the Match Officials team or Match Officials coach) shall approach the Match Officials at any time during the half-time interval and up to 30 minutes after the match to discuss any issue arising from the match nor shall enter the Referee’s changing room unless invited to do so by the Referee.

 

[Stu10]

Law 10.7 applies explicitly to open play. 10.9 to 10.11 apply to ruck/maul/set piece offsides, so 4) isn't included there.

However, there's only offside to consider if there was a tackle with offside lines, a support player standing over the ball on the ground - which I'd assume is the same as ruck conditions. If the tackle is made and the ball is popped back 3m (i.e. away from the tackle area) to a supporting player, no-one is offside and that player can be tackled from any direction.

In the Italy-Wales case, red 10's tackle happened on top of the previous tackle, so I'd be going with penalty try.

Others have answered this, but for me (as RichNL highlighted).

It depends if we have just a tackle, or a tackle with offside lines.

If its just a tackle, once the ball has moved away from the tackle area we are in open play and yes he could be tackled by a retreating player (no offside lines set).

If it's a tackle with offside lines (player stood over the ball at the tackle**), then retreating players are offside until they either get onside (back behind the offside line), or are put onside by someone else (highlighted in previous posts). These people are known as lazy runners, and you will often hear referees shout "never onside".

**There seems to be a trend for top refs to shout "offside lines" when this happens. Probably more for them and their team than the players.

What about laws 10.9 and 10.10?

Retiring from a ruck, maul, scrum or lineout

1. A player who is offside at a ruck, maul, scrum or lineout remains offside, even after the ruck, maul, scrum or lineout has ended.
2. The player can be put onside only if:
   1. That player immediately retires behind the applicable offside line; or
   2. An opposition player carries the ball five metres in any direction; or
   3. An opposition player kicks the ball.

This doesn't mention tackle with offside lines, but I wonder if that is an oversight?

For my understanding on lazy runners, let's assume it was a ruck if we must. If the ball is passed out from the ruck and that ball carrier runs 5m, then lazy runners are now onside and can tackle the ball carrier - correct? (However, I'm trying to imagine if this is likely to happen in a game, for a lazy runner to start up field and then come back to catch a ball carrier that has carried the ball 5m and still not got past the offside line created by the breakdown.)

 

[shebeen]

Here are a couple of screen shots... I can't see how the Italian can get more over the tackled player... He is adjacent to Wales #2 on the floor who made the tackle, and his toes are practically touching the tackled Italian player on the floor.

(Ignore the leg in the air in the first photo, that it a third Italian player.)

View attachment 4565View attachment 4566

probably unavoidable, but not posting this to advance the arguments made by the video author.
Just some good angles and edits on the incident in question, in one easy place

 

[Stu10]

That video is actually better than normal . Focusing on the potential penalty try that we are discussing:

• 2 ITA players taken out at the half-way line... the referee says he saw it, they've made 50m of territory and he's decided advantage is over; though it could be argued these players could have been an a position to walk in a try. I think I'm happy to let this go as a personal call on advantage.
• WAL #10 pushes ITA #10 in the back, subsequently ITA #10 cannot support at the tackle... I think this is significant. (I don't think we've discussed this point here yet.)
• TASanalytics thinks the ref inadvertently makes the correct call on whether WAL #10 is offside because the ball was not on the ground therefore Law 14.10 does not apply. "Offside lines are created at a tackle when at least one player is on their feet and over the ball, which is on the ground." Fair enough, I missed this detail.
• HOWEVER, TASanalytics does not appear to consider Law 14.9.c.

The video covers Williams v Fusco in the air, which I've previously mentioned.

Regarding the scrum penalty, I don't recall seeing the camera angle showing the WAL prop losing his feet... I have to wonder how ITA were penalised. Furthermore, we have seen a number of cases of penalties being reversed lately for over-celebrating, even without grabbing an opponent by the shirt collar and screaming into his face from 3 inches away.

 

[crossref]

• 2 ITA players taken out at the half-way line... the referee says he saw it, they've made 50m of territory and he's decided advantage is over; though it could be argued these players could have been an a position to walk in a try. I think I'm happy to let this go as a personal call on advantage.

I'd be tempted to YC at least one of them anyway

 

[chbg]

If this happens to you, be sure to quote Regulation 12.5 in your Match Official Abuse Form. This lays out to the disciplinary panel exactly what rule has been broken. They are familiar with the laws, but not always the regulations, so help them out by effectively saying "he broke this regulation".

12.5 Approaches to Match Officials
No person (other than the Match Officials team or Match Officials coach) shall approach the Match Officials at any time during the half-time interval and up to 30 minutes after the match to discuss any issue arising from the match nor shall enter the Referee’s changing room unless invited to do so by the Referee.

Thanks. I couldn't remember where that was, so referred to the principle in general.

 

[Phil E]

probably unavoidable, but not posting this to advance the arguments made by the video author.
Just some good angles and edits on the incident in question, in one easy place

So from that video it's clear that the officials never considered that the tackler didn't enter the tackle zone correctly.
It also shows a Red player trying to kick the ball out of the would be scorers hand....which is a PK as well.

 

[crossref]

I think on that incident I concur that Italy were hard done by and that the MO did not acquit themselves very well

 

[belladonna]

If one was giving them the benefit of the doubt, maybe for the match officials the ball had left what they would normally regard as the tackle area, so they didn't consider it? (Tackle area is mentioned in 14.11.c - thanks Dickie - but nowhere defined.)

Once this has happened, the tackler can come from any direction (thanks Phil E). I have to agree, though, it's odd they didn't mention it in their discussions, as the distance from the tackle wasn't far (about 1m?) Could this be down to some GMGs that we are not privy to, for example?

 

[Stu10]

If one was giving them the benefit of the doubt, maybe for the match officials the ball had left what they would normally regard as the tackle area, so they didn't consider it? (Tackle area is mentioned in 14.11.c - thanks Dickie - but nowhere defined.)

Once this has happened, the tackler can come from any direction (thanks Phil E). I have to agree, though, it's odd they didn't mention it in their discussions, as the distance from the tackle wasn't far (about 1m?) Could this be down to some GMGs that we are not privy to, for example?

The ITA player (#13) who received the ball from the tackle was himself tackled by WAL #10 before he had even moved his feet. There is no way you can say he had left the tackle area.

It feels to me like laws 10.9 and 10.10 have been completed forgotten by the referee and TMO, Karl Dickson has briefly remembered about 10.10, but the team did not actually examine it.

 

[belladonna]

The ITA player (#13) who received the ball from the tackle was himself tackled by WAL #10 before he had even moved his feet. There is no way you can say he had left the tackle area.

It feels to me like laws 10.9 and 10.10 have been completed forgotten by the referee and TMO, Karl Dickson has briefly remembered about 10.10, but the team did not actually examine it.

I'm saying, arguably, that perhaps the officials considered that the ball (not the player) had left the tackle area, which is one of the conditions of the tackle ending under 14.11.c.

 

[crossref]

I'm saying, arguably, that perhaps the officials considered that the ball had left the tackle area, which is one of the conditions of the tackle ending under 14.11.c.

I am not sure they really considered anything other than whether a ruck had formed

 

[belladonna]

I am not sure they really considered anything other than whether a ruck had formed

Well they definitely needed to consider whether an offside line had been created! But perhaps they didn't discuss 14.9.c because it was clear to them that it didn't apply? On the other hand, maybe four Tier 1 referees simply forgot it existed altogether

 

[Phil E]

I have reported in a previous thread for this season where a very experienced Level 7 coach had no idea you had to enter a tackle from your own side, or that there was a tackle area.

Was amazed why I penalised his player for running past a tackle, then entering from the far side (opponents side).
Said he never knew that wasn't allowed.

 

[Stu10]

I have reported in a previous thread for this season where a very experienced Level 7 coach had no idea you had to enter a tackle from your own side, or that there was a tackle area.

Was amazed why I penalised his player for running past a tackle, then entering from the far side (opponents side).
Said he never knew that wasn't allowed.

Did he train as a coach in Italy, circa 2017?

 

[Dickie E]

The ITA player (#13) who received the ball from the tackle was himself tackled by WAL #10 before he had even moved his feet. There is no way you can say he had left the tackle area.

It feels to me like laws 10.9 and 10.10 have been completed forgotten by the referee and TMO, Karl Dickson has briefly remembered about 10.10, but the team did not actually examine it.

I think the TMO was Joy Neville

 

[belladonna]

FWIW, Nigel says it should have been a penalty because still in the tackle area.

 

[Dickie E]

FWIW, Nigel says it should have been a penalty because still in the tackle area.

given that that video has a World Rugby watermark (notwithstanding the cows and muck spreader in the background), is this an official WR verdict?