Illegal Grounding/Double Movement

thepercy


Referees in America
Joined
Sep 21, 2013
Messages
923
Post Likes
147
Current Referee grade:
Level 1
I am not certain about "double movement" and/or illegal grounding. When a player is tackled short of the try line, what scenarios would result in a try and what scenarios would be illegal grounding and what sanction would you apply? Thanks.
 

Browner

Banned
Joined
Jan 20, 2012
Messages
6,000
Post Likes
270
I am not certain about "double movement" and/or illegal grounding. When a player is tackled short of the try line, what scenarios would result in a try and what scenarios would be illegal grounding and what sanction would you apply? Thanks.

I always watch the hips/ knees. If they lift and shunt forward then its a "not released" PK.

If ball placement ( in any direction) happens before that, then its good, unless the BC is taking an age wriggling around under a ' buying time' charade!
 

Dixie


Referees in England
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
12,773
Post Likes
338
Good question, The Percy

Tackled player has usually been heading for the line before being tackled short, so scenario is often that he hits the deck facing North/South in relation to the orientation of the pitch (i.e. parallel to the touchline). Let's look at the simple decisions.

- If, having hit the deck, he immediately reaches forward and grounds the ball on or beyond the goal line, award the try.
- If, having hit the deck, he recognises his reach will be insufficient, and so crawls forward and then reaches to ground the ball on or beyond the goal line, award a PK against his for failing to release the ball in the tackle.

Between these two simple decisions, there are myriad more nuanced ones. The thinking is the same though. It's either a try or a PK for failing to release in the tackle. It's impossible to legislate for every possibility, but I think it is possible to identify some principles - though some will doubtless be considered controversial.

- you can legitimately slide until you stop naturally, and then reach out to score
- if you use any part of your body to get your torso closer so your arms are within reach of the grounding, penalty against
- if you are tackled so you lie parallel to the goal line facing your own goal line, the permitted reach out can include the necessary half-roll
- if the tackler lies between you and the goal line, any attempt to score is most likely to result in a PK against
- If you reach out to score and fall short, you have exercised your option and cannot then drag it back to place it behind you - PK against for failing to release

Others will doubtless add a few, and debate a few.
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,804
Post Likes
3,145
The thinking is the same though. It's either a try or a PK for failing to release in the tackle. .

not necessarily, one common scenario is that the ball carrier exercises his right to reach and plant the ball, but it's short of the line.. and immediately covered in a pile up of defenders who were trying to prevent the try. So it's unplayable.
You could penalise people for leaving their feet?
Or unplayable, scrum attacking team ?
 

thepercy


Referees in America
Joined
Sep 21, 2013
Messages
923
Post Likes
147
Current Referee grade:
Level 1
How long after the tackle would you allow the tackled player to reach out to score the try.

The play which made me think about this, Black BC tackle by Red, Black BC ends up on her back. No Red players join to form ruck or grab for ball. Approx. 3 sec. later Black BC swings arms and ball up and over her head touching it down. My decision was no try, held up, scrum to Black. Should have been PK red or try?
 

Browner

Banned
Joined
Jan 20, 2012
Messages
6,000
Post Likes
270
3 secs is a long time, but if as you say no defending opposition players are nearby or attempted to gain possession or were denied possession then its not exactly crime of the century .... I could easily give TRY in that example.
 

Dixie


Referees in England
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
12,773
Post Likes
338
How long after the tackle would you allow the tackled player to reach out to score the try.

The play which made me think about this, Black BC tackle by Red, Black BC ends up on her back. No Red players join to form ruck or grab for ball. Approx. 3 sec. later Black BC swings arms and ball up and over her head touching it down. My decision was no try, held up, scrum to Black. Should have been PK red or try?

The answer depends on your thresholds elsewhere on the field. The law says "immediately" - but that's an imprecise concept. If your threshold is consistent, it's not a problem. If on halfway you'd allow a tackled player three seconds to decide whether to pass or release, then you are perfectly entitled to (and indeed should) adopt the same threshold close to the goal line.

3 secs is a long time, but if as you say no defending opposition players are nearby or attempted to gain possession or were denied possession then its not exactly crime of the century .... I could easily give TRY in that example.

I have some sympathy with this - but not because of intellectual rationalisation, but rather because of the difficulty in awarding the PK. Remember, the Failure to Release PK is really about making the ball available - particularly to the oppo. Even in a ladies game, there will be players who could easily have covered 22m in a 3-second sprint to defend the position. I suspect it only seemed that long. I doubt I could justify 3 seconds - and I doubt it would take a player 3 seconds to realise they are within arm's length of a try - but a short delay seems impossible to PK if there's no-one else around.

The scrum, however, seems just wrong. You said it was touched down, so held up seems a tough sell. If it was in-goal rather than just short (as specified in the OP), then held up is fine as there can be no tackle in-goal. But just in the field of play, the tackled player has to release, pass or get up. She did neither of the last two. If the release was OK it's a try. If not, it's a PK.
 

beckett50


Referees in England
Joined
Jan 31, 2004
Messages
2,514
Post Likes
224
Current Referee grade:
Level 6
How long after the tackle would you allow the tackled player to reach out to score the try.

The play which made me think about this, Black BC tackle by Red, Black BC ends up on her back. No Red players join to form ruck or grab for ball. Approx. 3 sec. later Black BC swings arms and ball up and over her head touching it down. My decision was no try, held up, scrum to Black. Should have been PK red or try?

I believe the LotG make reference to the word immediate.

However, without wishing to get into semantics, why would your expectation of speed of action be any less for a situation near the goal line to that anywhere else in the field of play? Don't get tied up in knots just because it's close to the goal line.
 

Pegleg

Rugby Expert
Joined
Sep 3, 2014
Messages
3,330
Post Likes
536
Current Referee grade:
Level 3
I believe the LotG make reference to the word immediate.

However, without wishing to get into semantics, why would your expectation of speed of action be any less for a situation near the goal line to that anywhere else in the field of play? Don't get tied up in knots just because it's close to the goal line.

Agreed. As you watch a tackle scenario go through your normal procedure. Tackler / Tackled player / Arriving players. Did they comply with their obligations. If so play on. If not were any offences material. If not do we "manage" with a word or are we past that by now and into PK land? If the offences were material give the PK.


The above applies to all players anywhere on the pitch, including the try zone. It's either immediate, in your opinion, or not. The try line is irrelevant to your call.
 

OB..


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
22,981
Post Likes
1,838
I believe the LotG make reference to the word immediate.

However, without wishing to get into semantics, why would your expectation of speed of action be any less for a situation near the goal line to that anywhere else in the field of play? Don't get tied up in knots just because it's close to the goal line.

Agreed. As you watch a tackle scenario go through your normal procedure. Tackler / Tackled player / Arriving players. Did they comply with their obligations. If so play on. If not were any offences material. If not do we "manage" with a word or are we past that by now and into PK land? If the offences were material give the PK.


The above applies to all players anywhere on the pitch, including the try zone. It's either immediate, in your opinion, or not. The try line is irrelevant to your call.
I strongly disagree with both. Context is an important factor.

In midfield it makes sense to use the standard sequence tackler, tackled-player, third man in. It helps the game flow better. However it is purely a convention, not law. The laws simply say both must act immediately.

If the tackled player can simply reach out and score once released, it is ludicrously unfair on the defender to demand that he should commit rugby suicide. Fairness trumps consistency in my book particularly when the latter is just a convention being unthinkingly applied.
 

RobLev

Rugby Expert
Joined
Oct 17, 2011
Messages
2,170
Post Likes
244
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
I strongly disagree with both. Context is an important factor.

In midfield it makes sense to use the standard sequence tackler, tackled-player, third man in. It helps the game flow better. However it is purely a convention, not law. The laws simply say both must act immediately.

If the tackled player can simply reach out and score once released, it is ludicrously unfair on the defender to demand that he should commit rugby suicide. Fairness trumps consistency in my book particularly when the latter is just a convention being unthinkingly applied.

Maybe the tackler should execute the tackle a foot further away from his own line? That way, he wouldn't have to give away a PK (or, rather, PT) by failing to release.
 

OB..


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
22,981
Post Likes
1,838
Maybe the tackler should execute the tackle a foot further away from his own line? That way, he wouldn't have to give away a PK (or, rather, PT) by failing to release.
You are trying to blame tackler for it?! Obviously he would have made the tackle earlier if it had been possible. You have to deal with the situation in front of you, not penalise the player for not dong something differently.

From the defender's point of view, he has brought off a try saving tackle, only to have the referee present the opponsition with a try based on a knee-jerk convention.
 

RobLev

Rugby Expert
Joined
Oct 17, 2011
Messages
2,170
Post Likes
244
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
You are trying to blame tackler for it?!

Not blame...

Obviously he would have made the tackle earlier if it had been possible.

...because of the skill/speed/effort of the tackled player, it wasn't possible. Why penalise the tackled player?

You have to deal with the situation in front of you, not penalise the player for not dong something differently.

From the defender's point of view, he has brought off a try saving tackle, only to have the referee present the opponsition with a try based on a knee-jerk convention.

But it's only a try-saving tackle if he's actually saved a try. He hasn't unless you referee inconsistently, by refereeing a tackle two feet from the line differently from one ten yards from the line.
 
Last edited:

OB..


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
22,981
Post Likes
1,838
...because of the skill/speed/effort of the tackled player, it wasn't possible. Why penalise the tackled player?
He is not getting penalised. He has been stopped before reaching the line, so to that extent he has failed. He would simply be benefitting from a refereeing convention that I see as clearly inappropriate to the situation. To me, fairness says a quick whistle and an attacking 5m scrum is usually the best solution.

Fortunately I have never yet had to deal with such a situation, but if I did, I would discuss it with refere afterwards and if necessary note it as a Critical Incident, and then bring the problem to the attention of the society at the next meeting.

But it's only a try-saving tackle if he's actually saved a try. He hasn't unless you referee inconsistently, by refereeing a tackle two feet from the line differently from one ten yards from the line.
You are putting consistency in applying a convention above fairness. I reject that approach.
 

RobLev

Rugby Expert
Joined
Oct 17, 2011
Messages
2,170
Post Likes
244
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
He is not getting penalised. He has been stopped before reaching the line, so to that extent he has failed. He would simply be benefitting from a refereeing convention that I see as clearly inappropriate to the situation. To me, fairness says a quick whistle and an attacking 5m scrum is usually the best solution.

Fortunately I have never yet had to deal with such a situation, but if I did, I would discuss it with refere afterwards and if necessary note it as a Critical Incident, and then bring the problem to the attention of the society at the next meeting.

You are putting consistency in applying a convention above fairness. I reject that approach.

How can the Laws applying to the tackle work if you do not apply the "convention" you refer to? It is, with respect, not a convention - it is the only interpretation of the Laws that makes them work.
 

ddjamo


Referees in Canada
Joined
Jun 29, 2008
Messages
2,912
Post Likes
135
agree OB...a quick whistle down there is the best approach. I also agree that we cannot uniformly apply the tackle sequence near the line.
 

Treadmore

Avid Rugby Lover
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
413
Post Likes
38
You are putting consistency in applying a convention above fairness. I reject that approach.
Fairness applies to both surely?

So if a defender puts in "try-saving" wrap tackle and stays wrapped so that the tackled player can't release the ball by any means, what do you give? An attacking 5m scrum?

How is it fair that illegal play has prevented the tackled player from legally scoring?
 

OB..


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
22,981
Post Likes
1,838
How can the Laws applying to the tackle work if you do not apply the "convention" you refer to? It is, with respect, not a convention - it is the only interpretation of the Laws that makes them work.
As far as I am concerned that is completely wrong. It is very definitely a convention, not a legal requirement, since there is no sequence specified in the laws. The convention is fine except in this problem situation, where it breaks down because it is immensely unfair to the defence.

You are again putting consistency above fairness and you have no chance whatever of convincinig me that is the best approach.
 

OB..


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
22,981
Post Likes
1,838
Fairness applies to both surely?
Your view is that having pulled off a successful last-ditch tackle, the defender should see it as fair to be forced by you to allow the attacker to reach out and score? To me, the attacking 5m scrum is fair because the attacker initially failed to score due to an effective, legal takle by the defender. That is fairness in action.

So if a defender puts in "try-saving" wrap tackle and stays wrapped so that the tackled player can't release the ball by any means, what do you give? An attacking 5m scrum?

How is it fair that illegal play has prevented the tackled player from legally scoring?
The flaw in your argument is the claim that the tackler acted illegally and implication the tackled player did not. Since the law actually requires both the players to act "immediately" then that is what you as a referee should require. Both should release and get to their feet before playing on. The tackled player's right to stretch out to score has been lost since he cannot do it immediately, being prevented by a legal tackle. He therefore has to release and get to his feet.
 

Pegleg

Rugby Expert
Joined
Sep 3, 2014
Messages
3,330
Post Likes
536
Current Referee grade:
Level 3
If you want to only apply laws in certain areas of the field, at least let's be fair. Convention becomes effectively law when all participants understand that to be the case. Players expect Tackler / tackled player / arriving players as do coaches,supporters etc. S owhy confuse tham matter just because we are in the try zone? Just be firm and fair. Yes call it early if you feel that is the right thing to do. But don't let a defender abuse his position because the try line is close. If the defender wants a quick unplayable why not try to engineer a maul and hold it up before the try line. After all if the attackers don't join the maul the defenders will certainly do so and drive the attacker back.

All players have choices, the law gives then those choices. If you can only tackle near to the line then The attacker has earned the right to have the tiny advantage the laws (through convention) gives him. It's the same for the other side when they get up to the other end so it all balanced out.

Why should a player not be able to kick out on the full with gain of ground Just because he is a foot outside his 22 why punish him jush because where he is? Daft argument? I agree. The laws (and rulings / clarifications / conventions) are what they are. Argue for change but don't cherry pick.
 
Top