[Tackle] I wonder how the game would be if we, referees, actually implemented the Tackle Law?

[Mr Danes]

Tackle Law

PLAYER RESPONSIBILITIES

Tacklers must:

Immediately release the ball and the ball-carrier after both players go to ground.​

Immediately move away from the tackled player and from the ball or get up.​

Be on their feet before attempting to play the ball.​

Allow the tackled player to release or play the ball.​

Allow the tackled player to move away from the ball.​

Sanction: Penalty.

Tacklers may play the ball from the direction of their own goal line provided they have complied with the above responsibilities and a ruck has not formed.

Tackled players must immediately:

Make the ball available so that play can continue by releasing, passing or pushing the ball in any direction except forward. They may place the ball in any direction.​

Move away from the ball or get up.​

Ensure that they do not lie on, over or near the ball to prevent opposition players from gaining possession of it.​

Sanction: Penalty.

How much of this do you see happening in your games, or on televised games?

 

[Arabcheif]

There's alot of talk about "Surviving the Clear-out." Surely if I've got hands on the ball when the tackled player's support comes in to "clear me out" I'll take the ball with me if the tackled BC has adhered to his responsibilities.

 

[Rich_NL]

There's alot of talk about "Surviving the Clear-out." Surely if I've got hands on the ball when the tackled player's support comes in to "clear me out" I'll take the ball with me if the tackled BC has adhered to his responsibilities.

Not if you're cleared out properly. Ask a decent second- or third-rower for a demonstration

Re: the OP: penalties around the tackle/tackler releasing are not uncommon. Assuming you only whistle what's material, I'm not sure what you're missing in normal grassroots games; it's implemented. In terms of tackled player rolling way, that's usually only material if a teammate has latched on and is using them as an anchor or broom to sweep the ball back on a losing ruck.

"Immediately" being taken as clear-and-obvious, that is to say about the time it takes to say "immediately", of course; if you tighten it up to a tenth of a second then you're going to get a lot of penalties, mess, spilled balls, borderline calls and frustration. And I'm not sure what point or improvement you'd be making...

 

[SimonSmith]

Not necessarily. If I target your arms in the clearout, there's every chance you drop the ball.

 

[Arabcheif]

Fair enough, but if I drop it, that most likely means that the BC is still holding it too. I don't think I've ever seen a scenario where the jackeler has the ball cleanly and been cleared out to the point of the tackled team being able to retain the ball from the original tackle. It usually because the BC still has a hold of the ball and preventing quick play by stopping his opponent from winning the ball. It lies in the Law that says the BC needs to have an opportunity to play the ball, so they get the chance to hold on for about a second or 2 to do just that. I do think that's fair enough if there's no-one competing for the ball.

 

[damo]

I don't see the problem with how the laws at the tackle are currently being enforced.

This aspect of Rugby is good at the moment. Leave it alone is my view.

 

[Ian_Cook]

This has been a subject of much discussion over the years. It is a very much a case of getting the Laws and interpretations to balance fairly (which does not necessarily equate to equally) between the retaining of possession and the contesting of possession.

If the Laws and interpretations are made such that jackle turnovers are too easy to get, coaches become unwilling to have their players take the ball into contact. This was the case in the early to mid 2000s - players did not want to risk getting jackled in their own territory. What resulted was a game of "forceback" - a boring exhibition of aimless punting up and down the field. The 2007 RWC Final was a fine example, where England and South Africa managed to kick the ball away in play about 97 times - one aimless kick every 49 seconds!

On the other hand, if the Laws and interpretations make it too difficult to get a turnover, teams don't bother trying - the risk of giving away a PK is not worth the prize. We end up with one team having a "procession of possession" for multiple phases, while the other team put minimal players in the breakdown, and, just as boring as the kickfest, line the defensive trenches trying to force an error.

IMO, the Laws balance, interpretation and application is about right now

 

[TigerCraig]

This has been a subject of much discussion over the years. It is a very much a case of getting the Laws and interpretations to balance fairly (which does not necessarily equate to equally) between the retaining of possession and the contesting of possession.

If the Laws and interpretations are made such that jackle turnovers are too easy to get, coaches become unwilling to have their players take the ball into contact. This was the case in the early to mid 2000s - players did not want to risk getting jackled in their own territory. What resulted was a game of "forceback" - a boring exhibition of aimless punting up and down the field. The 2007 RWC Final was a fine example, where England and South Africa managed to kick the ball away in play about 97 times - one aimless kick every 49 seconds!

On the other hand, if the Laws and interpretations make it too difficult to get a turnover, teams don't bother trying - the risk of giving away a PK is not worth the prize. We end up with one team having a "procession of possession" for multiple phases, while the other team put minimal players in the breakdown and, just as bring as the kickfest, lines the defensive trenches trying to force an error.

IMO, the Laws balance, interpretation and application is about right now

Agree, although I would like to see some emphasis on arriving teammates of the BC keeping their feet rather than belly flopping over the contest

 

[Mr Danes]

Well, I can be rather smug because World Rugby have published guidelines, which in effect say: "Apply the Tackle Law strictly & consistently".

https://laws.worldrugby.org/index.p...Wv8ITuQSWYj7TFSevzT-hanJM9-ClbYdrF7y7xxw1LHKI

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

Well, I can be rather smug because World Rugby have published guidelines, which in effect say: "Apply the Tackle Law strictly & consistently".

https://laws.worldrugby.org/index.p...Wv8ITuQSWYj7TFSevzT-hanJM9-ClbYdrF7y7xxw1LHKI

Well, smug is a state of mind. It does seem that WR agrees with you, BUT right now 6 APR 20, no-one absolutely no-one is applying tackle laws at all. Unless maybe in Sweden.

however, in that corona regard, maybe this hiatus will produce some rational thought toward the overreaching laws that have become damaging to a once enjoyable game

 

[Dickie E]

Well, smug is a state of mind. It does seem that WR agrees with you, BUT right now 6 APR 20, no-one absolutely no-one is applying tackle laws at all.

Well, I'm missing rugby so much I moved onto the missus' side of the bed just to hear someone yell "ROLL AWAY!"

 

[Jarrod Burton]

I hadn't seen this thread before...

I've always interpreted it as if the jackler has time to arrive over a player on th eground, place their hands cleanly on the ball and clearly attempt a pick up (ie. pull towards their own chest, not drive it into the tackled player's body to lock it in) then that is more than enough time for the tackled player to release and I'm looking for reasons not to PK the tackled player (no roll, holding on, was the tackle sufficiently complete when the jackler arrived - had the player actually had the time to play the ball). If there is nothing materially stopping the BC from playing it/releasing - PK. Unfortunately it can mean messy games can get pedantic so needs careful application at the start of matches to prevent me making a rod that I have to carry around for 80 minutes!

 

[thepercy]

Well, I'm missing rugby so much I moved onto the missus' side of the bed just to hear someone yell "ROLL AWAY!"

Hands Off! You are off your feet.

 

[Mr Danes]

I understand your comment about over-reach, the Laws are overly complicated such as having options of a scrum back, kick-again or line-out for a re-start kick that goes out without bouncing. However, having said that the Tackle Law is as simple as it could be and ticks almost every box, particularly with the recent guidance, which states: apply the law!

 

[L'irlandais]

Although, I am not dealing with the same public. (Mini/midi/maxi, me). Jackling isn’t really part of their skillset in this age group. But I agree with you. We had a study here on the fundamentals of why rugby as a game works. One of the points was that the tackled player had to release the ball, for player safety. Getting trampled on isn’t safe.

Folks have lost sight of the basics, obliging the tackler to release, increases the number of incomplete tackles, in a game where the BC unfairly continues crawling/rolling along the ground.

Let’s enforce current law, changes to the Law to adapt to players cheating, is not the way to go.

 

[didds]

Hands Off! You are off your feet.

Leave it alone number 6.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Tackle Law

PLAYER RESPONSIBILITIES

Tacklers must:

Immediately release the ball and the ball-carrier after both players go to ground.​

Immediately move away from the tackled player and from the ball or get up.​

Be on their feet before attempting to play the ball.​

Allow the tackled player to release or play the ball.​

Allow the tackled player to move away from the ball.​

Sanction: Penalty.

Tacklers may play the ball from the direction of their own goal line provided they have complied with the above responsibilities and a ruck has not formed.

Tackled players must immediately:

Make the ball available so that play can continue by releasing, passing or pushing the ball in any direction except forward. They may place the ball in any direction.​

Move away from the ball or get up.​

Ensure that they do not lie on, over or near the ball to prevent opposition players from gaining possession of it.
​

Sanction: Penalty.

How much of this do you see happening in your games, or on televised games?

Question: Define the word immediately. If I ask 100 people I'll get 30 or so different answers to that one. For me Jarrod Button answers it in the bit underlined below. "Immediate" is a "movable feast. How long is dependent on what is happening around the scenario.

I hadn't seen this thread before...

I've always interpreted it as if the jackler has time to arrive over a player on the ground, place their hands cleanly on the ball and clearly attempt a pick up (ie. pull towards their own chest, not drive it into the tackled player's body to lock it in) then that is more than enough time for the tackled player to release and I'm looking for reasons not to PK the tackled player (no roll, holding on, was the tackle sufficiently complete when the jackler arrived -had the player actually had the time to play the ball). If there is nothing materially stopping the BC from playing it/releasing - PK. Unfortunately it can mean messy games can get pedantic so needs careful application at the start of matches to prevent me making a rod that I have to carry around for 80 minutes!

Indeed (the bit in bold) Australia, in particular, but not exclusively, had two flankers who were extremely adept at winning turnovers close to the opposition line (giving scoring opportunities) but near their own line they cleverly held on to the ball to the ball carrier thus getting penalties allowing their team to kick to touch gaining ground with possession 30 / 40 / 50 metres upfield.
Often it is a bit of both. The BC is holding but the Jackler is trying to win the Penalty and not the ball.

There's a lot of talk about "Surviving the Clear-out." Surely if I've got hands on the ball when the tackled player's support comes in to "clear me out" I'll take the ball with me if the tackled BC has adhered to his responsibilities.

Se the comment about the Aussie flankers. Not everything is done with pure intentions. If you are milking the PK you will not survive the clear-out

Furthermore, jackling is not that productive a tactic. A few seasons ago the then coach of Bristol came to our society to give a talk on forward play. He told a story about the then Bristol openside who was, according to the player, one of the best jacklers in the Championship. Whilst not disagreeing with the basic point, the coach produced the stats from the season. YES, the 7 was at the top of the Bristol list of jacklers. However, his success rate was negligible. This we were told was pretty consistent across the game. Coach wanted the player to time the jackel. Use it as a selective weapon when it was more likely to be successful and effective.

The point being, to suggest: "Surely if I've got hands on the ball when the tackled player's support comes in to "clear me out" I'll take the ball with me if the tackled BC has adhered to his responsibilities." is perhaps a tad naive.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

I understand your comment about over-reach, the Laws are overly complicated such as having options of a scrum back, kick-again or line-out for a re-start kick that goes out without bouncing. However, having said that the Tackle Law is as simple as it could be and ticks almost every box, particularly with the recent guidance, which states: apply the law!

The tackle is one of the most dynamic phases of the game. A lot is going on. The words (the law) are easy to read in your living room with a coffee in your hand and chocolate digestive ready to dunk. In the heat of a game, after a 30 yard sprint and with players partly blocking your view, some "possibly cheating" it's a different animal.

 

[didds]

Furthermore, jackling is not that productive a tactic. A few seasons ago the then coach of Bristol came to our society to give a talk on forward play. He told a story about the then Bristol openside who was, according to the player, one of the best jacklers in the Championship. Whilst not disagreeing with the basic point, the coach produced the stats from the season. YES, the 7 was at the top of the Bristol list of jacklers. However, his success rate was negligible. This we were told was pretty consistent across the game. Coach wanted the player to time the jackel. Use it as a selective weapon when it was more likely to be successful and effective.

I guess the crux is "define successfull" - if (that coach?) means actually win the ball Id agree - the majority of attempts clearly fail otherwise wed have turnover cointsantly. However - add/replace that with "win a PK" then its possibly slightly higher as a successful tactic. Define it as "slow down the delivery" then the stats probablyt get qiuite high, even if only by a second or two.


Whatever it is - watch any game at any level and somebody jackles at pretty much any tackle they can get close enough to. The coach's thouhgts are very interestin through - thanks for the "anecdote" Marc.

didds

 

[Jarrod Burton]

There's alot of talk about "Surviving the Clear-out." Surely if I've got hands on the ball when the tackled player's support comes in to "clear me out" I'll take the ball with me if the tackled BC has adhered to his responsibilities.

Having your hands on the ball at the tackle/ruck is not equal to having control or the ability to take possession of the ball. BC team infringements aside, if you aren't actively attempting to take possession of the ball as a jackler IMO you have no rights to the ball (in much the same way that if you refuse to jump at the oppo LO, I'm going to be a bit more lenient to the throwing hooker). It is similar to us turning a blind eye to the BC holding on to the ball briefly until the initial tackle momentum/movement has settled down before placing it, if we were asking for immediate release on hitting the ground, there would be so many scrums for lost forward that even the FR would be sick of cuddle time.