Comments and view appreciated on these...

[talbazar]

Hi All,

I had ref'ed a 10's tournament over the weekend. Saturday only actually... Great fun even with 10 games for the day. Anyway, I have two of my decisions I'd like comments on if you'd care.

First one - Gold vs. Blue
Penalty against Blue for infringement in a ruck on the 50m line
Gold SH plays the quick tap
Blue 20, about 2 metres from the mark, puts his arm out and attempts a high tackle on Gold SH. Contact between Blue's arm and Gold neck/head area but Gold SH escapes the tackle.
I play advantage
Play continues with a couple of passes and Gold score between the post.
I award the try, let Gold take the conversion call Blue 20 and issue YC

Would you have done so? Any issue with that?

Second one - Blue vs. Black
Open play, Black winger kicks ahead from the 50m line and chases down inside Blue 22 where he gathers the ball
Blue defender grabs Black ball carrier and brings him to ground without going to ground himself
Blue defender barely releases Black's jersey to put his hands on the ball.
By then, 2 more Blue defenders have arrived and no Black is in sight.
Black ball carrier (on the ground) fails to release the ball
PK again Black

I'm asking because my AR after the game told me that maybe it could have gone the other way around (I.E not releasing the tackled player, PK against Blue)

Thoughts about this?


Thank you all!
Cheers,
Pierre.

 

[leaguerefaus]

Hi All,

I had ref'ed a 10's tournament over the weekend. Saturday only actually... Great fun even with 10 games for the day. Anyway, I have two of my decisions I'd like comments on if you'd care.

First one - Gold vs. Blue
Penalty against Blue for infringement in a ruck on the 50m line
Gold SH plays the quick tap
Blue 20, about 2 metres from the mark, puts his arm out and attempts a high tackle on Gold SH. Contact between Blue's arm and Gold neck/head area but Gold SH escapes the tackle.
I play advantage
Play continues with a couple of passes and Gold score between the post.
I award the try, let Gold take the conversion call Blue 20 and issue YC

Would you have done so? Any issue with that?

I would have thought you should award the try, YC the offender, and then allow the goal kick. I'm going to assume this is seniors - if not, many will say you shouldn't had played advantage from the high tackle (unless there was an immediate try-scoring opportunity, which it sounds like their probably was anyway!).

 

[Ian_Cook]

Hi All,

I had ref'ed a 10's tournament over the weekend. Saturday only actually... Great fun even with 10 games for the day. Anyway, I have two of my decisions I'd like comments on if you'd care.

First one - Gold vs. Blue
Penalty against Blue for infringement in a ruck on the 50m line
Gold SH plays the quick tap
Blue 20, about 2 metres from the mark, puts his arm out and attempts a high tackle on Gold SH. Contact between Blue's arm and Gold neck/head area but Gold SH escapes the tackle.
I play advantage
Play continues with a couple of passes and Gold score between the post.
I award the try, let Gold take the conversion call Blue 20 and issue YC

Would you have done so? Any issue with that?

100%. I'd like to see more referees take the attitude that a try scored does not absolve any earlier serious foul play by defenders, although as leaguerefaus says, the order should be YC then conversion.

Second one - Blue vs. Black
Open play, Black winger kicks ahead from the 50m line and chases down inside Blue 22 where he gathers the ball
Blue defender grabs Black ball carrier and brings him to ground without going to ground himself
Blue defender barely releases Black's jersey to put his hands on the ball.
By then, 2 more Blue defenders have arrived and no Black is in sight.
Black ball carrier (on the ground) fails to release the ball
PK again Black

I'm asking because my AR after the game told me that maybe it could have gone the other way around (I.E not releasing the tackled player, PK against Blue)

Thoughts about this?


Thank you all!
Cheers,
Pierre.

I'd have to see this myself to express an opinion.

Firstly, from your description, the Blue defender brought the Black attacker down from behind, and since he didn't go to ground himself, he was not a tackler, so he must go through the gate. Did he? If not, PK against Blue

Secondly, if he did go through the gate (or if I am misunderstanding your description, and the Blue defender was already in the gate) then to me the words you should have in mind are "clear release". The tackler/defender merely sliding his hands over the tackled player to the ball is not enough. In the SH, referees use the expression "see daylight" i.e., hands completely away from the tackled player and then go back for the ball.

 

[tim White]

With a three to one advantage and no support in sight for the tackled player I'd have to be certain his options to play the ball were compromised by the 'barely released' tackle -if the tackler wrapped up man and ball preventing a release towards his approaching support I can see a PK against the tackler, if he had a piece of shirt only and the tackled player was free to wriggle and release how he pleased prior to the other defenders arriving I can see much less of a PK for not releasing.

If the tackler released there is no problem, if the tackler did not release how material was it? how disadvantaged was the ball carrier?

 

[Ian_Cook]

With a three to one advantage and no support in sight for the tackled player I'd have to be certain his options to play the ball were compromised by the 'barely released' tackle -if the tackler wrapped up man and ball preventing a release towards his approaching support I can see a PK against the tackler, if he had a piece of shirt only and the tackled player was free to wriggle and release how he pleased prior to the other defenders arriving I can see much less of a PK for not releasing.

If the tackler released there is no problem, if the tackler did not release how material was it? how disadvantaged was the ball carrier?

Keeping in mind, of course, that the Black tackled player is entitled to release the ball and get to his feet then pick the ball up. If the Blue defender has tackled the player, not gone to ground, and prevents the Black tackled player from doing this by attempting to take the ball without releasing and going around into the gate, then PK against the Blue defender, three to one advantage or not.

Remember, the other two players have to go around to the gate as well.

 

[talbazar]

I would have thought you should award the try, YC the offender, and then allow the goal kick. I'm going to assume this is seniors - if not, many will say you shouldn't had played advantage from the high tackle (unless there was an immediate try-scoring opportunity, which it sounds like their probably was anyway!).

100%. I'd like to see more referees take the attitude that a try scored does not absolve any earlier serious foul play by defenders, although as leaguerefaus says, the order should be YC then conversion.

Actually, I called Blue 20 over while Gold kicker was getting in position for the conversion, let the kick happen and issued the YC.
Basically I didn't want to stop time (it's a fairly social 10's touney and we were running late, big time). And yes, it's senior rugby.
But I take note for next occurrence.
Thanks for the feedback!

I'd have to see this myself to express an opinion.

Firstly, from your description, the Blue defender brought the Black attacker down from behind, and since he didn't go to ground himself, he was not a tackler, so he must go through the gate. Did he? If not, PK against Blue

Blue defender somehow did so. In the movement, while putting Black ball carrier to the ground, Blue defender did end up in a legal position to challenge the ball.

Secondly, if he did go through the gate (or if I am misunderstanding your description, and the Blue defender was already in the gate) then to me the words you should have in mind are "clear release". The tackler/defender merely sliding his hands over the tackled player to the ball is not enough. In the SH, referees use the expression "see daylight" i.e., hands completely away from the tackled player and then go back for the ball.

I like the "see daylight" expression, I'll probably use it. But it doesn't tell you how far away from the body is a "clear release"? :chin:

With a three to one advantage and no support in sight for the tackled player I'd have to be certain his options to play the ball were compromised by the 'barely released' tackle -if the tackler wrapped up man and ball preventing a release towards his approaching support I can see a PK against the tackler, if he had a piece of shirt only and the tackled player was free to wriggle and release how he pleased prior to the other defenders arriving I can see much less of a PK for not releasing.

If the tackler released there is no problem, if the tackler did not release how material was it? how disadvantaged was the ball carrier?

That's where my line of thoughts was... Because of the mix of:
- Blue defender "kinda release" Blue ball carrier
- No support from Black side
Both these aspects make me believe it was a correct enough decision.

But

Keeping in mind, of course, that the Black tackled player is entitled to release the ball and get to his feet then pick the ball up. If the Blue defender has tackled the player, not gone to ground, and prevents the Black tackled player from doing this by attempting to take the ball without releasing and going around into the gate, then PK against the Blue defender, three to one advantage or not.

Remember, the other two players have to go around to the gate as well.

The fact Black tackled player should have had a chance to release and get up is a very valid point.
I'm trying to replay the scene in my head and I'm not sure he would have had a chance...

Again, that's a note to self for next time.

Thanks for the feedback Gentlemen,
Cheers,
Pierre.

 

[OB..]

The fact Black tackled player should have had a chance to release and get up is a very valid point.

He must release it[LAWS]15.5 e) If opposition players who are on their feet attempt to play the ball, the tackled player must release the ball.[/LAWS]The opponent is entitled to take it from him.

 

[talbazar]

He must release it[LAWS]15.5 e) If opposition players who are on their feet attempt to play the ball, the tackled player must release the ball.[/LAWS]The opponent is entitled to take it from him.

Fully agree with you OB..
I think the point is just to ensure that the tackled player had an opportunity to place the ball where he wanted to.

 

[Mat 04]

Hi All,

First one - Gold vs. Blue
Penalty against Blue for infringement in a ruck on the 50m line
Gold SH plays the quick tap
Blue 20, about 2 metres from the mark, puts his arm out and attempts a high tackle on Gold SH. Contact between Blue's arm and Gold neck/head area but Gold SH escapes the tackle.
I play advantage
Play continues with a couple of passes and Gold score between the post.
I award the try, let Gold take the conversion call Blue 20 and issue YC

Would you have done so? Any issue with that?

No, this is exactly what I would have done.

Second one - Blue vs. Black
Open play, Black winger kicks ahead from the 50m line and chases down inside Blue 22 where he gathers the ball
Blue defender grabs Black ball carrier and brings him to ground without going to ground himself
Blue defender barely releases Black's jersey to put his hands on the ball.
By then, 2 more Blue defenders have arrived and no Black is in sight.
Black ball carrier (on the ground) fails to release the ball
PK again Black

This is difficult without seeing it. In my experience, it is easier to be strict and consistent in interpretation and application of the law than it is to look for reasons to dis-apply it. If blue tackler/assist doesn't release then penalise him first (and quickly), don't allow the other three defenders to come into the equation.

See above.

 

[Ian_Cook]

He must release it[LAWS]15.5 e) If opposition players who are on their feet attempt to play the ball, the tackled player must release the ball.[/LAWS]The opponent is entitled to take it from him.

...ONLY of the opponent is legally entitled to do so, and that means he must be standing in the gate (unless he's the tackler) and must first have released the tackled player. This is a tackle, so the arriving two Black players also have to go around and enter the tackle zone through the gate.

 

[RobLev]

Fully agree with you OB..
I think the point is just to ensure that the tackled player had an opportunity to place the ball where he wanted to.

I have to be tentative here, but I understand that the consensus is that the tackler's (broadly defined) duties do not include letting the tackled player do anything. Provided that the tackler has indeed released the tackled player, and is coming on his feet from the correct side of the ball etc, he has every right to take it from the tackled player whose duty is to release, even if that means the tackled player cannot exercise one, or indeed any, of his options.

 

[OB..]

I have to be tentative here, but I understand that the consensus is that the tackler's (broadly defined) duties do not include letting the tackled player do anything. Provided that the tackler has indeed released the tackled player, and is coming on his feet from the correct side of the ball etc, he has every right to take it from the tackled player whose duty is to release, even if that means the tackled player cannot exercise one, or indeed any, of his options.

Yes. There are things he can legally do, but he does not have an over-riding right to do them. Just like a player falling on the ball.

 

[Blackberry]

I have to be tentative here, but I understand that the consensus is that the tackler's (broadly defined) duties do not include letting the tackled player do anything. Provided that the tackler has indeed released the tackled player, and is coming on his feet from the correct side of the ball etc, he has every right to take it from the tackled player whose duty is to release, even if that means the tackled player cannot exercise one, or indeed any, of his options.

RobLev, you are dead right. Once the tackler is on his feet, he is free to play the ball. Also, re coming in from the correct side, I think 15.4 lets him come in from any side.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Yes. There are things he can legally do, but he does not have an over-riding right to do them. Just like a player falling on the ball.

If a player who is not a tackler, is attempting to take the ball from the tackled player from the wrong side of the tackle zone, and in so doing, he prevents an attempt by the tackled player to quickly release the ball and get to his feet, are you saying that the tackled player's rights have not been infringed?

 

[OB..]

If a player who is not a tackler, is attempting to take the ball from the tackled player from the wrong side of the tackle zone, and in so doing, he prevents an attempt by the tackled player to quickly release the ball and get to his feet, are you saying that the tackled player's rights have not been infringed?

I am saying that the illegal play should be penalised. In the case you describe, that is the play by the non-tackler.

However it can be tricky for a tackled player to be sure if the player trying to grab the ball is legal or not. I'm afraid he just has to trust the referee, who should probably clarify the situation with a call.

(Do I really have to dot all the t's and cross all the i's every time? :sad::biggrin

 

[RobLev]

I am saying that the illegal play should be penalised. In the case you describe, that is the play by the non-tackler.

However it can be tricky for a tackled player to be sure if the player trying to grab the ball is legal or not. I'm afraid he just has to trust the referee, who should probably clarify the situation with a call.

(Do I really have to dot all the t's and cross all the i's every time? :sad::biggrin

To be fair to you, it wasn't necessary because you were commenting on my #11 where the "tackler (broadly defined)" was described as coming in from the correct side of the ball etc.

 

[WinterMute]

This year, the ARU have put the emphasis on empathy; rewarding dominance. So, if there are 3 blue and the tackled player is isolated, the outcome should be a turnover unless something exceptional done by BC or "very" illegal done by blue (eg, they all flop onto BC). We have been told to favour dominance over law, something I am still in the process of resolving in my games

 

[Browner]

Hi All,

I had ref'ed a 10's tournament over the weekend. Saturday only actually... Great fun even with 10 games for the day. Anyway, I have two of my decisions I'd like comments on if you'd care.

First one - Gold vs. Blue
Penalty against Blue for infringement in a ruck on the 50m line
Gold SH plays the quick tap
Blue 20, about 2 metres from the mark, puts his arm out and attempts a high tackle on Gold SH. Contact between Blue's arm and Gold neck/head area but Gold SH escapes the tackle.
I play advantage
Play continues with a couple of passes and Gold score between the post.
I award the try, let Gold take the conversion call Blue 20 and issue YC

Would you have done so? Any issue with that?
I'd've played advantage and awarded try, but I wouldn't have YC that far out. The player would have been warned for a non serious HT and his10m non compliance.

Second one - Blue vs. Black
Open play, Black winger kicks ahead from the 50m line and chases down inside Blue 22 where he gathers the ball
Blue defender grabs Black ball carrier and brings him to ground without going to ground himself
Blue defender barely releases Black's jersey to put his hands on the ball.
By then, 2 more Blue defenders have arrived and no Black is in sight.
Black ball carrier (on the ground) fails to release the ball
PK again Black

. Tackler release is designed to encourage a fair contest for possession, in this case with no opponents nearby Blues offence isn't considered material enough for me. PK against Black who was CLEARLY isolated and CLEARLY offending.
I'm asking because my AR after the game told me that maybe it could have gone the other way around (I.E not releasing the tackled player, PK against Blue)

Thoughts about this?


Thank you all!
Cheers,
Pierre.

As above

 

[Dixie]

...he has every right to take it from the tackled player whose duty is to release, even if that means the tackled player cannot exercise ... any, of his options.

Except that one of the options is to release the ball ...

 

[RobLev]

Originally Posted by RobLev
...he has every right to take it from the tackled player whose duty is to release, even if that means the tackled player cannot exercise ... any, of his options.

Except that one of the options is to release the ball ...

:booty: