Early 'tackle'?

[rubyref]

When is a player a ball carrier and fair game for a tackle?

Couple of situations, one from my match a couple of weeks ago and one from the Aus-NZ SF, which are similar but may result in different decisions.

First one happened in the SF. Don't recall who players were but Aus player going forward is attempting to catch ball but is juggling it in the air and doesn't have control. NZ player takes him to ground. Ball goes to ground. Tackle (and therefore knock-on) or taking man without the ball?

Second is similar but player attempting to pick ball from the ground going backwards towards his own line but fumbling it (no knock-on; ball going backwards). Again opposing man takes him to ground. Tackle or taking man without the ball?

I'll let you know what the decisions were later. You may of course know the SF decision if you remember it. A maximum 40 people in the world know what my decision was, although I doubt any of them remember it

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

IMO Juggling = carrying, therefore ok to be tackled. Otherwise you could juggle your way to the line.
Fumbling = Ditto

 

[Dixie]

IMO Juggling = carrying, therefore ok to be tackled. Otherwise you could juggle your way to the line.
Fumbling = Ditto

Agreed

 

[OB..]

Years ago I was playing in a match when something similar happened. White won a ruck close to Blue's line. The fly half called for a pass just as the flanker sprinted up to take a pop pass. He tried to take a pass intended for the fly half, but it was too hard and he knocked it up in the air over the defensive line. He ran through untouched and tried to catch it on the far side of them. He was still struggling to get control when he came up to a bemused Blue full back who did nothing. The flanker finally got the ball as he fell over the goal line.

The referee awarded the try saying "You could have tackled him".

To me this is a flaw in the over-lenient definition of a knock-on. It actually requires a defender to tackle a player who does not have any physical contact with the ball and may be some distance from it.

Under current law, if a player has touched the ball and does not have physical possession but is still trying to play it, you can tackle him.

 

[Simon Thomas]

in both scenarios a tackle would be legal in my view

 

[ChrisR]

Refer to Foul Play 10.4(f)

Can't obstruct a player not in possession. Definitions: Possession is 'carrying'. Sanction: PK

Amswer: PKs. You can play the ball but not the (fumbling) player.

 

[didds]

IMO Juggling = carrying, therefore ok to be tackled. Otherwise you could juggle your way to the line.
Fumbling = Ditto

aka the Tim Stimpson ruling in these here parts I believe.

didds

 

[Davet]

Juggling equals in possession.

You may tackle the juggler.

As was done to Tim Stimpson many years ago ... Trying remember, 97 Lions to SA? Or later? It was in SA, I'm sure of that.

 

[didds]

Juggling equals in possession.

You may tackle the juggler.

As was done to Tim Stimpson many years ago ... Trying remember, 97 Lions to SA? Or later? It was in SA, I'm sure of that.

Pretty sure it was an England tour dave... 2 test series.. ?? I think England won one of them. Don't think i am confusing it with 1994 though.

didds

 

[didds]

aha!

year 2000

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sport/rugby_union/795190.stm

didds

 

[Davet]

That's the one!

Cheers Didds.

It says about the knock on but mysteriously fails to mention the tackle while juggling that caused the knock on.

But the point remains,juggling is in possession.

 

[OB..]

aha!

year 2000

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sport/rugby_union/795190.stm

didds

I watched that at my club. Having seen the scenario before (my story above) and looked into it, my instant reaction was "scrum to South Africa". I mentioned this to those at my table, who were puzzled by it, and there was an outcry when the decision was announced. It was sometime before one or two calmed down enough to ask why.

Even Woodward later admitted on TV that the decision was "technically correct". His acceptance was based on the view that Stimpson was actually just touching the ball when Vos tackled him.

My view was that Stimpson had knocked the ball on with his right hand, then with his left hand before being brought down in in-goal and slamming his hand down on the ball as it landed, claiming a try. He never caught the ball before it hit the ground. Knock-on. Vos was entitled to tackle him.

 

[OB..]

It says about the knock on but mysteriously fails to mention the tackle while juggling that caused the knock on.

No. Stimpson's first contact was before Vos tackled him. It was on the second contact that he was tackled.

 

[Davet]

OB yes. But if Vos had not tackled him then IMO Stimpson would have successfully completed his catch and scored.

I think we discussed it in detail at the time, when as I recall I was less sanguine about it, being a little upset, since if the score had been made England could have drawn or probably won the game.

Time heals all things.

 

[OB..]

OB yes. But if Vos had not tackled him then IMO Stimpson would have successfully completed his catch and scored.

Possibly, but then I think Vos was entitled to tackle him (and not just on the technical grounds Woodward accepted).

I think we discussed it in detail at the time, when as I recall I was less sanguine about it, being a little upset, since if the score had been made England could have drawn or probably won the game.

Time heals all things.

I was also upset at the outcome. Stimpson should have tried to bend and pick the ball up rather than kneeing it forward. I was more upset at the try allowed to Joost van der Westhuizen!

 

[crossref]

40 min: Referee Colin Hawke plays ten minutes stoppage time.
79 min: Referee Hawke announces there will be nine minutes stoppage time.

it seems like an age since they had countdown clocks.

QU - does anyone referee like that now? I mean telling people, 40 mins is up , but we have 5 mins stoppage time.

I just set my countdown watch to the time allowed and let it count down to to zero stopping and starting as I go along. I do also have stopwatch runnning for elapsed time but never normally pay any attention to it.

 

[Davet]

Crossref, I always used a countdown timer too. Stopping and restarting (with clear time on and off signals) as appropriate.

The game went on until after the timer hit zero. I used to note the actual clock time at the start of each half, but only as a backup.

However, when noting comments while assessing I use the stopwatch and simply run up, so a PK may be logged as being 1/44. Mainly because it is too difficult to sync playing time with refs who fail to signal time on / off.

 

[rubyref]

So both are fair game to be tackled.

It will come as no surprise that Craig Joubert got it right. Unfortunately, yours truly didn't.

Fumblers in Cumbria will not be so lucky this weekend.

 

[didds]

However, when noting comments while assessing I use the stopwatch and simply run up, so a PK may be logged as being 1/44. Mainly because it is too difficult to sync playing time with refs who fail to signal time on / off.

are referees at non elite levels expected to signal time on and off? given that they are the sole timekeeper etc and don;t even have ARs with them etc?

didds

 

[crossref]

are referees at non elite levels expected to signal time on and off? given that they are the sole timekeeper etc and don;t even have ARs with them etc?

didds

I do -- just to reassure the players and coaches that I have remembered to stop/start watch.

Also the ritual of saying it aloud very definitely helps me to remember always to "time-on"... when restarting.