[Tackle] Going to ground to gather ball Vs. tackled

[ChrisR]

Consider this:

A ball carrier slips and goes to ground. Before he can regain his feet an opponent grasps him and prevents him from getting up.

How do you manage this? It does not meet the strictest requirements of a tackle (Law 15) but is covered under Law 14. Do you really expect opponents to let the fallen BC back on his feet?

Law 14 does NOT prohibit a player from holding the man down.

 

[Ian_Cook]

The guy on his feet must play the ball, only the ball, then he is king. Any resistance from the guy on the ground is PING! Coaches: make this your first task for training this week.


If an opponent in open play is on the ground with the ball, play the ball, not him...even if he tries to resist; if you do that, and only that, the ref will find it easy to award you a penalty if the guy on the ground doesn't release. LEAVE THE GUY ALONE, PLAY THE BALL. That way you either get the ball or a penalty.

[LAWS]14.1 PLAYERS ON THE GROUND
(a) A player with the ball must immediately do one of three things:
• Get up with the ball
• Pass the ball
• Release the ball.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/LAWS]
... these are options, they are NOT rights. The player on the ground does not have the right to get up, or pass or release. He has these options, but they expire the moment a player on his feet gets his hands on the ball. However, if the player who went to ground to gather the ball has either rolled over to get the ball under him, or has fallen on top of the ball, and the player on his feet wraps his arms around him to get at the ball, I am penalising the player on the ground for making the ball unplayable because...

[LAWS]Law 14 DEFINITIONS: A player who makes the ball unplayable, or who obstructs the opposing team by falling down, is negating the purpose and Spirit of the Game and must be penalised.[/LAWS]

Unlike in a tackle, the player on his feet does not have to release the player on the ground.

 

[Dickie E]

Unlike in a tackle, the player on his feet does not have to release the player on the ground.

Well, he can't actually play the player on the ground so the concept of release doesn't apply

 

[Ian_Cook]

Well, he can't actually play the player on the ground so the concept of release doesn't apply

I agree, but you have taken that statement out of context with what I said earlier in the post.

If the "gatherer" has positioned himself over the ball and the man on his feet has his arms wrapped around him trying to get access to the ball, there is no Law that says he must release that player.

If the player on his feet has his arms wrapped and has hands on the ball, and the gatherer wont release, ping the gatherer for not releasing.

If the player on his feet has his arms wrapped and is trying to get hands on the ball, and the gatherer is trying to prevent him from getting his hands on it, for example by playing squeezeball, ping the gatherer for making the ball unplayable.

Remember there is no option to place or push the ball in Law 14. Get-up, pass or release are the only options!

 

[Pegleg]

I cannot figure out what in the hel* you guys are thinking. I'll reread and reread. the only thing I can figure is that several posters equate a bearhug to falling down in 14.2

The only thing an arriving player cannot do (aside from law 10) in the gather the ball-no tackle is fall on the ball gathering player or around that player to prevent ball from coming out.

The gatherer made the ball unplayable by going to ground to gather. That is his decision. The defender has done nothing wrong to this point. In fact the defender can still defend by "not letting up" iaw 14.2, not allowing him to release, not allowing him to pass. Nothing in law 14 prevents him from defending except by falling on opponent.

The defender can still play rugby nothing unique has happened.

Your logic allows the man on his feet to "demand" a PK by forcing a player to be illegal. That cannot be right. Preventing a legal option is not the same as forcing a player to be illegal.

 

[Pegleg]

If the player on his feet has his arms wrapped and is trying to get hands on the ball, and the gatherer is trying to prevent him from getting his hands on it, for example by playing squeezeball, ping the gatherer for making the ball unplayable.

Remember there is no option to place or push the ball in Law 14. Get-up, pass or release are the only options!

Totally agree. However, Trying to pull the man who is being illegal (first offence) to be positive an play the ball is very different from being negative in killing the ball for a PK as NKW suggests.

This is why we need to look at the law in the context of their aim / intention. Doing so will help us make sense of the (badly worded) laws.

 

[Nigib]

I agree, but you have taken that statement out of context with what I said earlier in the post.

If the "gatherer" has positioned himself over the ball and the man on his feet has his arms wrapped around him trying to get access to the ball, there is no Law that says he must release that player.

If the player on his feet has his arms wrapped and has hands on the ball, and the gatherer wont release, ping the gatherer for not releasing.

If the player on his feet has his arms wrapped and is trying to get hands on the ball, and the gatherer is trying to prevent him from getting his hands on it, for example by playing squeezeball, ping the gatherer for making the ball unplayable.

Remember there is no option to place or push the ball in Law 14. Get-up, pass or release are the only options!

In the scenario I'm thinking of, the gatherer can't release, rather than won't release, because the player on his feet deliberately wraps arms around holding ball even though the gatherer may be on their side, or in the act of getting up. So the gatherer is prevented from releasing. In my view this is an attempt at winning a contrived penalty rather than a genuine attempt to get the ball (they simply wrap and hold), and as such is contrary to the spirit of the Laws.

 

[Thunderhorse1986]

In the scenario I'm thinking of, the gatherer can't release, rather than won't release, because the player on his feet deliberately wraps arms around holding ball even though the gatherer may be on their side, or in the act of getting up. So the gatherer is prevented from releasing. In my view this is an attempt at winning a contrived penalty rather than a genuine attempt to get the ball (they simply wrap and hold), and as such is contrary to the spirit of the Laws.

I often see this and agree with you. If the person on the floor has released but the jackal has wrapped him and the ball up I don't see how the guy on the floor had offended. As such I don't see a need to penalise him. The jackal has has opportunity to play and win the ball (or get a genuine no-release penalty from the player on the floor) but has failed to take it. So I won't penalise either. I would let the ensuring ruck play out. Afterwards, or in a bit of downtime I might tell the captain or the jackalling player that if they are in that position to go for the ball, not wrap up the man.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

Your logic allows the man on his feet to "demand" a PK by forcing a player to be illegal. That cannot be right. Preventing a legal option is not the same as forcing a player to be illegal.

who made the ball unplayable in the first place?

DEFINITIONS
This situation occurs when the ball is available on the ground and a player goes to ground to gather the ball, except immediately after a scrum or a ruck.
It also occurs when a player is on the ground in possession of the ball and has not been tackled.
The Game is to be played by players who are on their feet. A player must not make the ball unplayable by falling down. Unplayable means that the ball is not immediately available to either team so that play may continue.
A player who makes the ball unplayable, or who obstructs the opposing team by falling down, is negating the purpose and Spirit of the Game and must be penalised.
A player who is not tackled, but who goes to ground while holding the ball, or a player who goes to ground and gathers the ball, must act immediately.

 

[OB..]

are you supporting the #1 Rugby Myth: "You have to let him up"

:biggrin::biggrin::biggrin:
I am on record not only on here (and other websites) but also on a number of referee reports that it is indeed a myth.

Please cite law

Unfortunately, if you think the wording of the laws is the solution, you are mistaken. They contain gaps, ambiguities, and contradictions.

As Ian says, the man on the ground has legal options (not rights) that he can exercise. However "the game is to be played by players who are on their feet", and there is a gap: the law gives two things he can't do, but they don't spell out what he can legally do. The convention we use over here is that he can play the ball and thereby prevent the opponent from exercising any of his options, but if he plays the man to prevent him exercising them he is acting illegally. A panel referee told me years ago that he allowed a player to drag someone a short distance into touch but not to just hold his arms so as to prevent him playing or releasing the ball. Indeed if the jackler just tries to prevent release, he gets penalised rather than the man on the ground.

When my report criticises a referee for a law error, that report is seen by several senior members of the Society, who would quickly tell me if they disagreed.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

Please cite law or are you supporting the #1 Rugby Myth: "You have to let him up"

Tread lightly yank, remember we are dealing with Europeans. These gentlemen do not use the same thought process as you.

These men have experience in their corner. Sometimes they will tell you exactly how many years of playing and coaching. When challenged by a yank, you can become shunned.

Our ignorance works in our favor, as we do not have years upon years of reinforced misguidance to shape our ideas. Ours is a fresh slate and fresh ideas, just like those of Barack Obama. you and I are the millennials in this crowd.

Careful at all times with your wording, I do not think OB realizes how his response could be misinterpreted by the uninformed

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

Well, he can't actually play the player on the ground so the concept of release doesn't apply

WTF are you talking about?

 

[ChrisR]

NKW, I appreciate your sentiments. However:

I'm British, having arrived in the USA at the tender age of 18. I know that the Brits are trying very hard not to be confused with Europeans.

I first played The Game in 1955, first coached & refereed in 1974.

I've participated in this forum since whenever, first as Marauder until I recognized that posting under my real name was better than skulking around anonymously.

So, fellow American (as I now consider myself), you must have me confused with someone else.

PS. I agree with your position on this issue.

 

[Pegleg]

who made the ball unplayable in the first place?

DEFINITIONS
This situation occurs when the ball is available on the ground and a player goes to ground to gather the ball, except immediately after a scrum or a ruck.
It also occurs when a player is on the ground in possession of the ball and has not been tackled.
The Game is to be played by players who are on their feet. A player must not make the ball unplayable by falling down. Unplayable means that the ball is not immediately available to either team so that play may continue.
A player who makes the ball unplayable, or who obstructs the opposing team by falling down, is negating the purpose and Spirit of the Game and must be penalised.
A player who is not tackled, but who goes to ground while holding the ball, or a player who goes to ground and gathers the ball, must act immediately.

The player who held the ball in to the guy of the floor in the first place. If the player on the ground has had the chance to comply fair enough. That is not what is being described. But change the scenario when you've lost the debate if you wish.

 

[ChrisR]

From law 14 definitions:

A player who makes the ball unplayable, or who obstructs the opposing team by
falling down, is negating the purpose and Spirit of the Game and must be
penalised.

The part in red is the crux of the issue and applies to the game in general, not just this scenario.

With this in mind I would allow the opponent (on his feet) to:

Prevent the player on the ground with the ball from getting up.
Attempt to wrest the ball the ball away to take possession

I would not allow that player to:

Make the ball unplayable. You know it when you see it.

As Ian stated the player on the ground has obligations, not rights, to:

a. get up, b. pass the ball or c. release the ball. If he can't do a. or b. then he must do c.

The player on his feet may legally prevent a. and can prevent b. and c. by attempting to take possession of the ball.

 

[Nigib]

The player who held the ball in to the guy of the floor in the first place. If the player on the ground has had the chance to comply fair enough. That is not what is being described. But change the scenario when you've lost the debate if you wish.

The player on their feet makes the ball unplayable by wrapping around the gatherer and holding the ball - the gatherer is prevented from doing anything they are allowed to, including release the ball, and thereby the wrapper is attempting to induce a pk. So, pk against player on their feet.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

The player on their feet makes the ball unplayable by wrapping around the gatherer and holding the ball - the gatherer is prevented from doing anything they are allowed to, including release the ball, and thereby the wrapper is attempting to induce a pk. So, pk against player on their feet.

So, what law are you applying. 14.3 inducing a penalty? Read the definitions in law14, who made the ball unplayable? the player who went to ground

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

NKW, I appreciate your sentiments. However:

I'm British, having arrived in the USA at the tender age of 18. I know that the Brits are trying very hard not to be confused with Europeans.

I first played The Game in 1955, first coached & refereed in 1974.

I've participated in this forum since whenever, first as Marauder until I recognized that posting under my real name was better than skulking around anonymously.

So, fellow American (as I now consider myself), you must have me confused with someone else.

PS. I agree with your position on this issue.

18 yrs old? Were you sitting next to Ringo on the plane?

I can't use my real name as I not PC in regard to rugby. Kurt Weaver is a very capable US ref, I am not he.

Glad you are here, American you are, but not a Yank. I gathered as Marauder that you were in California, so I have to explain that bit about fresh ideas and POTUS was sarcasm.

 

[Nigib]

So, what law are you applying. 14.3 inducing a penalty? Read the definitions in law14, who made the ball unplayable? the player who went to ground

Good challenge. However, it's the player on their feet who makes it unplayable, not the player on the ground. Chances are that in wrapping, some part of the player's lower legs contact the gatherer, who is still on the deck - so 14.2 (a) Falling over the player on the ground with the ball. Failing that, I'll rely on 10.4 (m) acts contrary to good sportsmanship.

 

[SimonSmith]

Tread lightly yank, remember we are dealing with Europeans. These gentlemen do not use the same thought process as you.

These men have experience in their corner. Sometimes they will tell you exactly how many years of playing and coaching. When challenged by a yank, you can become shunned.

Our ignorance works in our favor, as we do not have years upon years of reinforced misguidance to shape our ideas. Ours is a fresh slate and fresh ideas, just like those of Barack Obama. you and I are the millennials in this crowd.

Careful at all times with your wording, I do not think OB realizes how his response could be misinterpreted by the uninformed

In what is a very crowded field, this is in the running for biggest pile of wank I've read on here, Chopper included