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

L'irlandais

, Promises to Referee in France
Joined
May 11, 2010
Messages
4,724
Post Likes
325
Recurring theme in the modern game?

Perhaps teams stop jumping on the opposition LO, because the ref ignores squint throw ins.
In the same way players stop competing at the breakdown, because they feel the Laws are stacked against them.
We need to ensure a balance between contest and continuity, surely ? World Rugby consider these the principles of the game.

[LAWS]This balance of contestability and continuity applies to both set piece and general play.[/LAWS]
Possession is only 50% of the Laws of the Game. Contrary to the old adage; Possession is nine-tenths of the law. Referees not enforcing the laws that keep defensive teams onside, undermines these fundamental principles.

From RWC 2019
It has been desperate to see the unfortunate Hamish Watson invalided out of the tournament after being hurt, without the ball, in a double clear‑out by two Irish front-rows but here is hoping the Scotland flanker’s injury will lead to greater focus on the breakdown and underline the vulnerability of those being blasted or twisted out of the way.
Source

It comes back to Marc’s point, tough to decide if the player is/was entitled to do what he did on the fly. Only 50 to 60% of the calls we make are correct, [Mascarenhas et al,.2005b.] Look it up, sports science is fascinating if we only had the luxury of video analysis to verify them post match. What about all the non-decisions, how confident are we of the immateriality of the ones we didn’t call. When in fact we didn’t blow, simply because we arrived too late and were poorly positioned to see what could in hindsight have been foul play. Yet we rumble on past and award the try. C&O is a poor excuse, when our fitness is to blame.
 
Last edited:

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
12,154
Post Likes
1,843
Possession is only 50% of the Laws of the Game. Contrary to the old adage; Possession is nine-tenths of the law. Referees not enforcing the laws that keep defensive teams onside, undermines these fundamental principles.



Within the principles of play, "Possession" means not just havimg the ball but the contest FOR the ball. So holding the ball is circa 50% of the game over all time - ish... but "possession" is a 100% principle whether in attack or defence


I agree entirely about no-jumping becasue the perception of a squint throw is there etc. bang on. I recall discussing this in a refs meeting several years ago as the invited coach - and i was met with a sea of stunned faces who had clearly never considered that issue :) WE also discussed the impact of an early jump by the defenders and how just "palying on" may not afddress the disturbance to the actual action eg front peel and runner en route then early jump sdo front jumper cant/doesnt go up - but now the runner has over run the point of reception. Playing on then means the opportunity is gone ... aother stunned soilence :) It was a really good meeting - but they never asked me back :)

didds
 
Last edited:

Zebra1922


Referees in Scotland
Joined
Dec 20, 2017
Messages
718
Post Likes
234
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
I think we, referees, do implement the tackle law. It's players that offend which cause disruption and problems in the game.
 

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
12,154
Post Likes
1,843
so the question then is ... if ALL refs implelemnt the tackle law ALL the time - why do players conitnually offend becasue they would ALWAYS be giving away PKs (or advantage) ?

(that doesnt condone those that do oiffend )

Or is this a classic "elite end don't, grass roots do and the two games are different" discussion?

didds
 
Last edited:

SimonSmith


Referees in Australia
Staff member
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
9,405
Post Likes
1,521
so the question then is ... if ALL refs implelemnt the tackle law ALL the time - why do players conitnually offend becasue they would ALWAYS be giving away PKs (or advantage) ?

(that doesnt condone those that do oiffend )

Or is this a classic "elite end don't, grass roots do and the two games are different" discussion?

didds

maybe not that binary. But I would see a continuum with grass roots community at one end and Elite at the other; I suspect that different standards are applied according to the level within the Community game.
 

Jarrod Burton


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jun 19, 2013
Messages
725
Post Likes
208
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
so the question then is ... if ALL refs implelemnt the tackle law ALL the time - why do players conitnually offend becasue they would ALWAYS be giving away PKs (or advantage) ?

(that doesnt condone those that do oiffend )

Or is this a classic "elite end don't, grass roots do and the two games are different" discussion?

didds

All refs implement the tackle law all of the time, but as it is a highly dynamic part of the game applying the laws without some level of flexibility or game management would result in a sh*t fight and a highly broken, whistle heavy game.

I think there is a level of elite vs grassroots here. Anyone who has spoken to elite level referees or ref coaches will know that its about the spectacle for TV, not the minutiae of law application. IMO, elites are too far towards the level of spectacle, players latched on to the BC as the trailer, or coming in like bulls on the clear out with no attempt to stay on their feet and little incentive for the jacklers apart from getting their head smashed and a PK against them makes it boring for me. Grassroots rugby can be more of a contest between teams and I think better application of the laws as they need to be made IMO.
 
Top