How the urban Myth's get spread!!

[Davet]

I think that the plain english expresion 'you've got to let him up' is ambiguous, and may in some respects be right, and in others wrong

The expression is unambiguously wrong.

You are not required to allow the player to get to his feet.

 

[collybs]

The expression is unambiguously wrong.

You are not required to allow the player to get to his feet.

Q: When a player drops to the ground to secure a loose ball, must the opposition let him get to his feet before tackling him? Frequently I see a player bravely go down on the ball, only to be jumped on by opponents and then penalised for holding on!
David, Sydney

But the answer to the OP's question (above) is Yes, you must let him up before tackling him.

Peter

 

[Agustin]

The expression is unambiguously wrong.

You are not required to allow the player to get to his feet.

You are required not to prevent the player from getting to his feet.

To allow and to not prevent are two slightly different things, but they can be confused. I think this is the ambiguity that is being referred to.

 

[SimonSmith]

You can't dive on the man on the ground.

The man on ground must:
Release the ball OR move away OR get off the ground.

He has no absolute right to any of these. If I straddle him and put hands on the ball, he has to surrender it.

 

[Zulu_Bravo]

I think you'll find all refs on this site agree that you can't dive on a player on the floor!

Unfortuntely there are no elite referees (that I know of) who come on here so it is difficult to get a perspective from their point of view and besides that, anything that is agreed on by the referees on this forum cannot by itself be regarded as absolute and should not be regarded as absolute. Two things on this issue:

1) It is not a worldwide 'myth'. Ask people from the southern hemispere about this 'let him up' business and you'll most likely get a blank look back. It is predominantly a British isles issue but because the majority of the refs on here are based in the British isles, that is perhaps how it can look like more of an issue than it is.

2) A number of elite refs have been heard to use the expression 'let him up' on numerous occasions in TV matches. Sure enough, it gets a few tuts on this website but I imagine the very fact that they continue to do it suggests that the people who assess those referees maybe have a slightly different opinion.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with anything that has been previously written in this thread but would encourage you to ask why do elite referees use that phrase. What are the benefits of using it? (As opposed to something like 'play the ball')

 

[Davet]

But the answer to the OP's question (above) is Yes, you must let him up before tackling him.

Peter

But that isn't the question asked, it was merely one that the respondent chose to answer. And it isn't correct anyway. All you may not do is fall on top of the player, if that is what the respondent means by tackle then he is right. If however he is suggesting that you cannot touch the player on the ground then he is wrong.

 

[Pinky]

I think we find the source of the "got to let him up" in age-grade rugby. Frequently (and certainly in Scotland) primary school age rugby does not allow targetting of the ball, that is all tackles have to be below the waist and not catch the ball in, allowing the tackled player to pass.

Now look at what happens where a player goes to ground and gathers the ball. An opposition player in these circumstances is not allowed to grab the ball, but "has to let him up" before he can tackle him below the waist.

I think coaches and players frequently don't relearn that "player on their feet is king" (perhaps they are too keen to play the ball on the ground?)

 

[jeff]

Zulu bravo)
I was with an elite ref at a match this season we were both doing their 1st team and their academy teams one after each other.
and during his game he called let him up, after the game I didnt ask him i bollocked him why did he say that in the game when in my game i explained to the players that they didnt have to let a player up.(which was before his)
And he agreed you dont have to let him up and he was wrong to say it and should have said play the ball or contest the ball.
But he did explain that at the top level they would expect the player to let him up as the game could continue for the fans to watch an open flowing game, but yes i was right you do not have to let the player up. just dont go off your feet.

 

[didds]

Zulu bravo)
I was with an elite ref at a match .. he did explain that at the top level they would expect the player to let him up as the game could continue for the fans

OFFICIAL: The lunatics HAVE taken over the aylum.

didds

 

[crossref]

look at it another way if the player who goes to ground plays completely to the laws then
- he goes to ground
- you arrive on the scene
- he releases the ball
- and now you've got to let him up....

 

[Rit Hinners]

This is one place where I feel my explination is best.

You do have to let him up.
You do NOT have to let him keep the ball while he gets up.

 

[jeff]

RIT HINNERS,
You are wrong, you do not have to let him up, if he goes to ground and you place an hand on the player then he can not get up with the ball as he is deemed held.
And also by straddleing the player and going for the ball and the player then places the ball you dont have to move just because he's underneath you as long as your going for the ball its the player on the ground that should have moved a lot earlier not you, your on your feet and doing something positive by attempting to play the ball.

 

[Zulu_Bravo]

But he did explain that at the top level they would expect the player to let him up as the game could continue for the fans to watch an open flowing game, but yes i was right you do not have to let the player up. just dont go off your feet.

I'm not sure how you can conclude so emphatically that you were right when it is so clearly tolerated within the elite game. Are you suggesting that open flowing rugby is only for the pros? What's wrong with a bit of open flowing rugby below level 5? (those questions of course are rhetorical; my point is that your elite ref's explanation is less than convincing )

It appears more to be a case of (in the elite game) when a player falls on the ball in open play and the ref calls 'let him up' that nobody is really bothered by it. And I suppose - playing devil's advocate - why should they be? Everyone knows what is meant by it and everyone knows that if the guy on the floor fails to do something immediately that he will be done for not releasing.

I'd go back to my earlier point - is it better to make a comment specifically to the guy on his feet (even if it is not strictly by the letter of the laws) than to make a more ambiguous call ('play the ball') that is closer to the letter of the laws but which is less clear both in terms of who it is directed at and what it is the player(s) are being told to do?

I appreciate the argument that 'play the ball' is aimed at both players but this flies in the face of everything else we do. Assessors are always saying that instructions to players should ideally come with a colour and a number. That level of precision helps the players. But in this case it is okay to make a remark which either player could think is directed at the other?

Moreover, is there an argument that the phrase 'let him up' encourages the guy on the floor to take positive action as he then knows what the referee is expecting to see from him?

Personally I am less bothered by what gets said and more by what gets done - how the referee deals with that situation (including the effects of anything he says). 'Let him up' / 'Play the ball' need to be judged in the context of the match in which they are used. I think there are circumstances where either or both would work.

 

[Zulu_Bravo]

RIT HINNERS,
You are wrong, you do not have to let him up, if he goes to ground and you place an hand on the player then he can not get up with the ball as he is deemed held.

How so? It isn't a tackle. If he is making a genuine attempt to get to his feet (within the referee's interpretation of 'immediately'!) then play on.

 

[jeff]

Zulu bravo) At the elite game i know refereeing is done somewhat different to what the book says. how many time have you seen a non existent ruck at the elite level and they will still have an offside line. where at our level we will allow the players to go around and get the ball as theres nothing formed, but watch at the top level and they will get penalised if they come around.
Theres laws for the elite game which is different lower down and thats where a lot of problems come from as players coach's and spectators see it on the tv and think it is acceptable lower down.

 

[Phil E]

I'm not sure how you can conclude so emphatically that you were right......

Show me where in the law book the words "let him up" appear?

They don't, because you don't have to.

 

[Dixie]

look at it another way if the player who goes to ground plays completely to the laws then
- he goes to ground
- you arrive on the scene
- he releases the ball
- and now you've got to let him up....

Are you arguing that the call of let him up is correct, because you're not allowed to spend the next 80 minutes pinning him to the ground? On that basis, shouldn't you shout "Don't kill him", as that is the more serious, equally unlikely offence?

 

[Dixie]

I'm not sure how you can conclude so emphatically that you were right when it is so clearly tolerated within the elite game. Are you suggesting that open flowing rugby is only for the pros? What's wrong with a bit of open flowing rugby below level 5?

Open flowing rugby is best ensured by preventing the defense from tackling. But the game is intended to be a contest regulated by the laws. Simply preventing the contest in the interests open rugby leads you to the idea of preventing the tackle. If you are not comfortable with that .. it's because your starting point is dodgy.

Everyone knows what is meant by it

Really? I wonder what you think is meant by it? When I encounter it, everyone expects that the attacking player must arrive at the scene, adopt a neutral attitude while the defender gets up, and then play restarts. This, of course, is totally opposite to what the law requires - which is that the man on his feet is king, adn has all the rights if he can make positive steps for the ball - while the man on the ground has to relese that ball, unless he's able to act before the attacker can make his own positive move.

 

[Dixie]

RIT HINNERS,
You are wrong, you do not have to let him up, if he goes to ground and you place an hand on the player then he can not get up with the ball as he is deemed held.

Jeff, this is also an interpretation that can't be fully supported in law. I don't say it is wrong - just that it is open to question.

If the grounded player has got both knees and hands off the ground, and is then returned to the ground and held - it's a tackle. But if he was always on the ground (one knee will do) and a hand is placed on him, he's not tackled because he was not "brought to ground and held" as required by Law 15. If law 15 were to be brought into play, the attacker would then have to release the tackled player before going for the ball.

In this situation, I prefer to work exclusively with law 14 unless a genuine tackle has clearly been made after the defender has fallen on the ball. The requirement under Law 14 is for the attacker to remain on his feet. The defender has three options, none of which is a right. If he can't get up because he's held down, he has to either pass or release. If there's no-one to pass to, he has to release. If he's prevented from releasing ... the attacker's an idiot, but not an illegal one. Play on.

 

[Blackberry]

I interpret it this way
The player on his feet can instantly contest for the ball as long as the player on the ground has had the "more instantly" chance to play the ball. As the player on his feet contests, the player on the ground may be trying to get up, but as long as the player on his feet purely contests the ball, its fine with me.

The instant the player getting up has his weight on his feet, its game back on.

I reckon some confusion comes because people interpret "you must let him up " incorrectly as meaning "you must let him up .....before you can contest for the ball". It is wrong for the player on his feet to stop the one on the ground getting up, but if correctly coached he wouldn't bother, he would contest for the ball, hoping he started swiftly enough to get the player on the ground pinged for not releasing.

Any thoughts?