Gate too narrow to defend or attack

SimonSmith said:
After my day at work I'm all out of gaskets.

The GMG was a valiant attempt to bring commonality to USA refereeing. At least Richard Every tried.

Problems include, but are not limited to:
It contracts outside the law. what?
It removes common sense.
It is not read by enough people, referees included. Indeed!
Coaches over here....There are a lot people who want to try things because the law says they can, or try to be clever inside the law, without asking if it's actually good rugby. Yes, because that genius idea you just came up with that's transformative? Yeah, Hansen and Cheika, it didn't occur to them, but it did to you. Amen!!!

Oh, there's 78 pages on what's wrong with refereeing over here. But I'm still sober.
Click to expand...

Glad to hear your head didn't explode. Sorry to hear you had such a crappy day.

Don't follow some of what you said above (see above).

So, grab a glass of wine and see if you can read my first point and lend me your opinion. Adding to what you said above, I see new crap the coaches through at the game every year - this is just another one. The problem is, we as US refs aren't quick enough or confident enough to stop it before all the teams start doing it and it becomes a disease.

Read my first post and let me know what you think please.
 
I think some people have forgotten a couple of important words in Law 15.6 (d)

[LAWS]Those players may then play the ball providing they are on their feet and do so from behind the ball and
from directly behind the tackled player or a tackler closest to those players’ goal line.

[/LAWS]

You can still be "behind the ball", even if you are wider than the ball (which, unless you are a seven stone skinny white guy) you almost certainly will be. If I am driving my car following a cyclist who is lined up with my hood ornament, I'm still behind him!!

What referees want to see from approaching players is a real effort to line up and come into the tackle zone through the gate, but we are not looking for parade ground military precision!
 
So here's a few thoughts for you to dismiss!

WIthout wanting to get too Zen, I see my role as a ref to give both teams the opportunity to play the game they have trained for and to put their skills to the test against an opposition, ensuring that they do so legally, safely and within the spirit of the game. We talk about clear and obvious, and that should apply to as much of what we do as possible. Sometimes there will be grumbling about a PK that you blow, but if you find a good balance, then you should be able to keep the game flowing while ensuring that acts contrary to the spirit of the game are punished.

The pencil position ruck that you talk about is an example. Yes, to the letter of the law, any player entering the ruck with feet either side of the player on the ground is outside the gate and so is therefore liable to PK. However, do you really want to blow it? If you focus on the letter rather than the spirit of the law, the only way a player could get to the ball within the gate would be to walk over his teammate and the tackler. Therefore you ref the spirit, allowing a few degrees of entry at the gate to ensure that players can contest the ball in this situation.

If you think about a ruck, think about when a player is most likely to offend. A defender running backwards to a ruck is likely to take a shortcut and is the one you need to watch most closely. If you can see all of his number or all of his chest it's likely a side entry, if you don't see both feet start behind the last feet then it's likely a PK. You can also think about the material impact. Was he trying to dive in to prevent a steal or was he just trying to avoid stepping on someone when the defenders weren't really contesting anyway.

As a ref you need to know the law inside out and backwards, but at the same time you have to keep the game flowing. So start thinking about what "looks right" and "looks wrong" and apply the laws in that context. You will get a far better game and far happier players on both sides if you can manage the game rather than just blowing the whistle.

The GMR is a great start. From there I suggest that you refine your game to give the players the game they want, within the spirit as much as the letter of the law. If you can find that balance and perspective it will more than likely make you a better ref!
 
Not having read most the stuff above, for the purpose of the gate is to make it a bit clearer what entering the tackle zone from your own side is.

So provided a player enters the general area of the tackle, with bum facing his own tryline, then play on. Lets not get all protractor and tape measure on this.

Apply common sense, and work out what the law is designed for, and make sure the intent of the law is met. And for me the law is meant to prevent players who are late arriving, from entering the tackle area to prevent a contest, IF they have to take a shorter line to the ball, so come in at the side.
 
Patrick said:
Glad to hear your head didn't explode. Sorry to hear you had such a crappy day.

Don't follow some of what you said above (see above).

So, grab a glass of wine and see if you can read my first point and lend me your opinion. Adding to what you said above, I see new crap the coaches through at the game every year - this is just another one. The problem is, we as US refs aren't quick enough or confident enough to stop it before all the teams start doing it and it becomes a disease.

Read my first post and let me know what you think please.
Click to expand...

Oy. Writing this after writing up my Disciplinary Committee report...

The GMG has (had?) a habit of specifying things that are either not covered by law or are just rank wrong. Examples would include the fiasco over the receiver entering the lineout, players being able to gator roll anyone, not just someone playing the ball.

Examples: "No part of aplayer’s body (including the arms)" regarding the gate. I can't see that in the law book.
Have a look at the illustration in para 8 of the tackle - the blue player is setting up ahead of the tackle.
From the scrum section:"Before a scrum can be wheeled legally there must be a clearforward movement by the combined front row of the team that is driving theiropponents backwards." I challenged - not for the first time - this and got told it was coming down from WR.

The problem with writing restrictive, or prescriptive, guidelines is that you remove common sense. A pencil wide tackle? I'd allow a body width, maybe a bit more, and apply common sense. I want a fair competition for the ball at that zone, and to keep the game flowing. I think the coaches are being daft. If their argument is that "we have a really thin gate, that's the defenders stuffed", I'm not sure how the game advances as the gate restriction applies to their players as well.

I understand the premise of what Richard is doing. I'm happy to state on the record that he and I have some fundamental disagreements about refereeing, and, although we haven't discussed it, High Performance development and management. I'm on the distribution list for HiPer referees. Some of those messages frankly...well, if we saw those behaviors in C1s in my Society we'd be having some pretty frank coaching. That's the Elite levels getting basics and fundamentals wrong.

There are some good people in the refereeing department and R&L structure, and am sure everyone is working from a place of best intent. I bet if you put all of them with qualifications or work in experience in human development, human resource management and stakeholder management in one room, they'd all fit in a toilet cubicle. But that's another rant
 
Iron_Lung said:
...

The pencil position ruck that you talk about is an example. Yes, to the letter of the law, any player entering the ruck with feet either side of the player on the ground is outside the gate and so is therefore liable to PK.

...
Click to expand...

This is surely incorrect. The letter of the law on the tackle (I presume you meant this, not "ruck", where the gate isn't even an aid to interpretation) is:

[LAWS]15.6 (d) At a tackle or near to a tackle, other players who play the ball must do so from behind the ball and from directly behind the tackled player or the tackler closest to those players’ goal line.[/LAWS]

The law does not define a gate, outside which no part of an "other player"'s body may pass on pain of PK. Not only can you be "behind the ball" (Ian #22) even if you are wider than the ball, you can be "directly behind the tackled player" even if you are wider than he is. If you have a foot either side of the tackled player, you are approaching the ball from directly behind him.
 
RobLev said:
This is surely incorrect. The letter of the law on the tackle (I presume you meant this, not "ruck", where the gate isn't even an aid to interpretation) is:

[LAWS]15.6 (d) At a tackle or near to a tackle, other players who play the ball must do so from behind the ball and from directly behind the tackled player or the tackler closest to those players’ goal line.[/LAWS]

The law does not define a gate, outside which no part of an "other player"'s body may pass on pain of PK. Not only can you be "behind the ball" (Ian #22) even if you are wider than the ball, you can be "directly behind the tackled player" even if you are wider than he is. If you have a foot either side of the tackled player, you are approaching the ball from directly behind him.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you're right Rob, I said ruck when I meant tackle. I guess I should have said "to the most stringent, ridiculous interpretation of the law, you could interpret it this way"...

I agree with your analysis and interpretation. My interpretation is the same as yours and I allow some leniency providing the intent of the players is positive and within the spirit of the game as I see it.
 
Patrick, put down the GMGs. Step away from the GMGs. Now, pick up the "Laws of the Game, Rugby Union".

Read Laws 15 & 16. They contain all the information you need. Pay close attention to Law 15.6(d).

What 15.6(d) tells us is that players compete for the ball from a position behind the ball. This law is specifically prohibiting side entry, nothing else. The reference point is the ball.

Now read 16.5(c): Players joining or rejoining the ruck. A player joining a ruck must do so from behind the foot of the hindmost team-mate in the ruck. A player may join alongside this hindmost player. If a player joins the ruck from the opponents’ side, or in front of the hindmost teammate, the player is offside. A player may bind onto an opposition player providing the player is not otherwise offside.

In my view: Even with the "pencil", a player may join the ruck alongside the player directly over the ball. This would seem to be contrary to the mythical "gate".
 
SimonSmith said:
I think the coaches are being daft. If their argument is that "we have a really thin gate, that's the defenders stuffed", I'm not sure how the game advances as the gate restriction applies to their players as well.
Click to expand...

And it goes entirely against a key principle of Rugby Union;

Principles of the Game
CONTEST AND CONTINUITY
The contest for possession of the ball is one of Rugby’s key features. These contests occur
throughout the Game and in a number of different forms:
• in contact
• in general play
• when play is re-started at scrums, lineouts and kick offs.


If one team is allowed to create a situation at the tackle where there is no way for the opposition to legally contest for the ball than that violates this core principle of the game.
 
Simon. I think the principal reason for the "pencil" is to place the ball as far back as possible toward their teammates. I don't think grassroots coaches spend much time trying to devise ways of getting a PK. Some may, just not in my circle.

Patrick, the point of my previous post was to emphasize my view that GMGs are "guidance' and not law. To my mind the GMGs shouldn't be making stuff up.

And, I was trying to be amusing, not intending to be snarky. Sorry.
 
Patrick said:
GREAT video - thanks for that.

BUT, if you took the blue tackling dummy and turned it 90 degrees, where is your Gate?

I think this video speaks very nicely to the problem I'm having. The way he teaches his players is EXACTLY how I coach (yes, I coach also) my players (all youth).

Still need help....
Click to expand...
I guess for Geech the problem doesn't exist. That's good enough for me.
 
Ian_Cook said:
What referees want to see from approaching players is a real effort to line up and come into the tackle zone through the gate, but we are not looking for parade ground military precision!
Click to expand...

Recognize what the law was intended for;

SIDE ENTRY is generally negative play; spoiling possession already gained by opposition or securing tenuous possession for your own team. It either kills the ball or kills the contest for it.

GATE ENTRY is generally positive play; either propelling your team forward, or stopping a drive and forcing your opponents to do something else with the ball.

Can I also point out that I have been bleating on about TWO gate widths for years but why would you restrict your own by acting like a pencil?
 
Patrick said:
There can only be one reason a coach would teach this move - to get the ref to award a PK against the offending defensive team.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

well i can think of one blatantly obvious alternative reasons... by narrowing the gate the resultant contest (if any) is unlikely to be more than 1 on 1, maybe 2 on 2. it just maximises the opportunity to win back the ball... and more importantly, the ball; is now furthest from the defenders and closest to the attackers.

Why do you go looking for conspiracy theories?

didds
 
Sorry for the delay, I was doing a round robin 15s yesterday (3 - 30 min matches PLUS one 50 min match that just about killed me - all collage mens)

Okay, I'm done with this topic

For those of you with positive and helpful insights - THANK YOU VERY MUCH. It's why I come here.

I was a little pissed off at a couple negative or definitive replys - rugby is nothing if NOT definitive. I appreciate the one apology - I feel like you should read everything (including this site) and not put down the GMG or anything else BUT, read everything with an eye toward skepticism.

Moving on, my take away - the 'pencil' tackle is just one more attempt to draw a PK at best. At worst, another cynical play devised by coaches to make an already messy breakdown all the more unruly.

Thus, I will be taking the approach of 'Is this in the spirit of the game?' every time I see it. And I'll do it from both the attacker and defenders point of view. So, if the defender does everything to arrive at the Gate legally, I'm going to let him have fair access to the ball regardless of the minutia of the tackled players position on the pitch.

If the 'penciled' players team mate arrives and uses the ball immediately because his opponent is just a tad lost, so be it, play on.

Anything else, and I have a full arsinal of calls I can make to keep the contest fair and moving.

Thanks ALL!


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Side note - don't read past here if you don't care.

Just because I don't post 5,000 times, does NOT make me a green behind the ears ref. There's so much on this site that I use as reference that I don't feel compelled to comment on every little thing just to hear (see) my lips flap.

I had the experience recently of watching the RWC with someone that wants to understand the game - holy crap, this is a complicated game. I think I scared him off (kidding, his kid plays for me...).

Point is; I played for 20 years, (winger, center and 10) for Old White (Atlanta), Old Black (NY), LA (yes, in Los Angeles) and finally Santa Monica (yes, again in Santa Monica California). ACL and shattered ankle ended my contact days.

Got a wonderful blond pregnant three times and ended up coaching along side Shawn Lipman (Eagles) for youth.

He sold his company and I got stuck with a couple hundred kids that LOVED rugby. Coaching now for 12 years.

Forced to ref for the obvious reason - lack of refs in our region. This will be my 6th refing season. 15's, 7's, older youth, mens under D1, tons of collage, etc.

I chime in when I have legitimate questions of the board and can't find answers in previously posted threads.

My next rant, concern, discussion will involve 'the Jackal' - hold on boys, the fireworks are about to fly but I need to find the most step-by-step way to approach it. I doubt Richard Every will be thrilled.

Thanks and remember, vote early and vote often.

Patrick
 
.......green behind the ears......


Glad to hear that you don't have that particular condition.
 
SimonSmith said:
Coaches over here....There are a lot people who want to try things because the law says they can, or try to be clever inside the law, without asking if it's actually good rugby. Yes, because that genius idea you just came up with that's transformative? Yeah, Hansen and Cheika, it didn't occur to them, but it did to you.
Click to expand...

Its a bit off topic Simon, but do you think the attempts to be clever inside the law in the US is because of the influence of gridiron and its heavily structured play by play style?

I've watched a team train then play who had two US students in it and they seemed to be more interested in finding ways to trick the opposition from set pieces or exploit the holes in the laws than actually play the game and win the breakdown contest - they were backs and spent much of the game watching the piggies work in defense - with the result that they spent a lot of the time trying to marshal the forwards into a position where they could try their new tactics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top