Illegal Grounding/Double Movement
- Thread starter thepercy
- Start date
RobLev
Rugby Expert
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2011
- Messages
- 2,170
- Post Likes
- 244
- Current Referee grade:
- Select Grade
How is it possible for the Laws to work if you interpret them to mean that the tackled player is forced to place/pass the ball while still wrapped up by the tackler?
As an attacking player, I would consider it immensely unfair if I were denied a try because a player did something that anywhere else on the field would be a PK to me. If for example he'd failed to release 5m out when I had a supporting player to pop the ball to, he'd have given away a PK at minimum, and a PT if I had my rights. Why should he be advantaged by the fact that he failed to tackle me until I was able to reach the tryline by placing it?
EDIT: And how do you factor in 15.7(b); which says that the tackler mustn't prevent the tackled player from immediately placing the ball in any direction.
[LAWS]No player may prevent the tackled player from releasing the ball and getting up or moving away from it.
Sanction: Penalty kicK[/LAWS]
Surely that is precisely what you say the tackler must be allowed to do (given that "place" = "release" - 15.5(c)).
Last edited:
Treadmore
Avid Rugby Lover
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2008
- Messages
- 413
- Post Likes
- 38
I know we won't convince you OB but...
No, not forced by me; the defender has to find a legal way to prevent a score; no one is asking the defender to allow a score by not doing something legal.
Why a 5m attacking scrum? 15.8? But that is about doubt who failed to comply, you have no doubt just don't think it is fair. So on what basis a 5m attacking scrum?
In the example I gave the tackled player was prevented from acting legally!
I get that and it is a good point but are you saying that if following a legal wrap tackle, the tackler then did release and then the tackled player reached out to score that you would not allow the score? Because it wasn't immediate? If so then it seems there is nothing the tackled player can legally do already.
Pegleg - you are still arguing that consistency in applying a CONVENTION is more important than fair play, equity, jutice. Your various examples are irrelevant.
In this case a defender has legally prevented an attacker from scoring. Now you, as referee, step in and effectively order him to allow the attacker to score. I see that as an intolerable injustice. It puzzles me that you think it is fair. Equity trumps law. Even more reason for fairness to trump consistency.
Consistency in applying the Laws is a different matter, but there is still a need to exercise judgement as to matraiality and contextuality. referees should know the Laws and apply them sensibly.
In this case a defender has legally prevented an attacker from scoring. Now you, as referee, step in and effectively order him to allow the attacker to score. I see that as an intolerable injustice. It puzzles me that you think it is fair. Equity trumps law. Even more reason for fairness to trump consistency.
Consistency in applying the Laws is a different matter, but there is still a need to exercise judgement as to matraiality and contextuality. referees should know the Laws and apply them sensibly.
I expect referees to use their judgement in applying the Laws. I therefore expect exactly the same when applying a convention (which is weaker than the laws).
Nowhere else on the field can you score without getting up again first. The context is vital.
The fact that you need to equate "place" and "release" gives the game away. It is blindingly obvious that in this case placing the ball is crucial and is different from simply releasing it.
Well spotted!
You are the one choosing to apply the convention. I think that is inappropriate judgement which tips the balance much too far in favour of the attacker.
20.4(d)
We all agree that although it is legal for a player to get up with the ball if he has fallen on it, there is no obligation on an opponent to wait for him to do so. The fact that an act is legal does not mean it is illegal to prevent it. You need to argue that the prevention is illegal, and you are doing that by relying on a convention which for me is being used in the wrong context.
It could be a tough decision, which is why I advocate a quick whistle to prevent struggling on the ground.
The attacker's attempt to score has been foiled. I see it as a Mexican stand-off which is best resolved with an attacking 5m scrum.
RobLev
Rugby Expert
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2011
- Messages
- 2,170
- Post Likes
- 244
- Current Referee grade:
- Select Grade
The Law - not I - equates place and release. I gave you the Law reference.
I have now asked the direct question more than once; how can you interpret the Laws so that they work if you do not require the tackler to release first - irrespective of where they are on the pitch? In particular given that the tackler is obliged not to prevent immediate release/placing of the ball by the tackled player.
Law 15.7 (b) does not use the word "place". It is not a synonym of "release".
If you are relying on 15.5 (d), then your problem is that it does not say it is illegal to prevent the player placing the ball. it is, for exmaple, perfectly legal for a defender on his feet to pull it from his grasp.
And I keep pointing out that both Laws and conventions must be applied with due regard to both materiality and context. In this case the context is a critical one and I object strongly to an approach that tips the balance 100% in favour of the attacker. I am unable to see it as in any way equitable. What happens elsewhere on the field is not relevant because the context is dramatically different.
RobLev
Rugby Expert
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2011
- Messages
- 2,170
- Post Likes
- 244
- Current Referee grade:
- Select Grade
15.5(c) reads:
[LAWS]A tackled player may release the ball by putting it on the ground in any direction, provided this is done immediately.[/LAWS]
which equates "place" with release" (unless you are going to argue that "putting it on the ground" is different from "place").
15.7(b) prevents a tackler from preventing the tackled player from releasing/placing the ball. If he has got to his feet, he can positively try to take it from the tackled player's grasp; but he cannot, while not on his feet, negatively hold the tackled player such that he cannot place/release the ball.
I would object strongly to an approach that tips the balance 100% to the defender by allowing him to breach 15.7(b) with impunity just because in doing so he is preventing a try. Just as I would object to a defender being allowed to breach 15.6(j) with impunity. Equity requires the attacker to be allowed to do near the tryline exactly what he would be allowed to do anywhere else on the field. Happily, equity and the Law coincide.
Treadmore
Avid Rugby Lover
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2008
- Messages
- 413
- Post Likes
- 38
I'm stunned
You're the one not relying upon law, not us
In the example I gave the prevention is caused by to failure to comply with 15.4. I don't need to argue it is illegal.
The convention is all yours, namely your convention that you don't want to see "rugby suicide" and will stop the game for no reason in law (given you would restarting under 20.4(d) - I think your case is stronger under 15.8).
Everyone arguing against OB are also arguing against what happens in most games at all levels week in week out. What you are all effectively saying is that as soon as the attacking side get to within an arms reach of the goal line, there will be a try scored. Sorry guys, that is not how it happens in the real world. I'm with OB on this one. It's a bit like the guys who want to call maul the milli-second that a BC's team mate makes contact during a tackle. We would have 100 collapsed mauls per game.
I'm surprised that those arguing against OB haven't raised their concerns every week re every tackle that occurs near the goal line.
I'm surprised that those arguing against OB haven't raised their concerns every week re every tackle that occurs near the goal line.
RobLev
Rugby Expert
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2011
- Messages
- 2,170
- Post Likes
- 244
- Current Referee grade:
- Select Grade
Sorry - missed this in your response to Treadmore:
Law 15.7(b) makes it illegal for the tackler (or indeed any player) to maintain his grip on the tackled player so as to prevent him releasing (including placing - Law 15.5(c)) the ball.
Law 15.7(b) makes it illegal for the tackler (or indeed any player) to maintain his grip on the tackled player so as to prevent him releasing (including placing - Law 15.5(c)) the ball.
RobLev
Rugby Expert
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2011
- Messages
- 2,170
- Post Likes
- 244
- Current Referee grade:
- Select Grade
How often does it happen one-on-one with the tackler still on the ground wrapping the tacklee up as the only player preventing the try being scored?
Or, to put it another way - I think you're overstating the claim.
And OB is (if I recall correctly) with those who consider that an attempt by a tackler to tackle above the hips a BC who already has a team-mate bound on thereby creates a maul - immediately. I'm happy to be corrected if my recollection is wrong.
Last edited:
Pegleg
Rugby Expert
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2014
- Messages
- 3,330
- Post Likes
- 536
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 3
Sorry OB you'll not convince me that a defender has carte blanche to ignore the laws request for him to act immediately. The Law book find it right to spell out that the tackled player may reach out and score near to the line and the same law makers who introduced that "try line "caveat" chose NOT to give the tackler similar license to act in defence. Why not? Your argument that the laws are "incomplete" does not wash here as the lawmakers envisaged the "try line issue". Do you really think they only considered half of the scenario?
Pegleg
Rugby Expert
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2014
- Messages
- 3,330
- Post Likes
- 536
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 3
And I've seen plenty of Pro games where the tackler had been presented with a card for not rolling away in such situations. I gave one last year (not at that level!!) and both the "offending" coach and captain said the call was spot on and "You had no choice!".
RobLev
Rugby Expert
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2011
- Messages
- 2,170
- Post Likes
- 244
- Current Referee grade:
- Select Grade
...and that is precisely the interpretation that the IRB place on the relevant Laws in the June 2012 "Five key areas of refereeing" document. In the video accompanying number 1 "All areas of the tackle law to be strictly applied", the offence by the tackler of not releasing the tackled player immediately is described by the caption as "Not allowing release". The preamble to the document reads:
[LAWS]In 2009 the IRB HP Referees and Tier One Rugby Coaches agreed that the laws of the game of Rugby did not need to be changed but that five key areas of the game needed to be refereed more strictly. It was the belief that if these five key areas were refereed in strict accordance with Law then teams who wished to use the ball quickly and in space would be entitled to do so[/LAWS]
So, for what it's worth, the IRB's considered view is that the Laws strictly applied require the tackler to release first. We are not talking about convention here, but about what is the correct interpretation of the Law.
I would be intrested to see the actual circumstances. I have never come across the sitaution myself.
It actually says placing can be one way of releasing. It does not equate the twio, neither does it make preventing placement in itself illegal, as I pointed out earlier.
And yet again I have to point out that the laws require BOTH plyers to act immediately, not just the tackler.
Impunity? My view is that the attackers should get a 5m scrum. The defence is still under pressure.
You view of equity says that if an attacker is prevented by a perfectly legal tackle from reaching the goalline, the referee should step in and insist that either he be allowed to reach out and score, or a PT will be awarded. That is several parsecs away from my view that equity is about maintaining a fair balance.
This thread is going round in circles. It is boring to take time constucting a reply only to find when I come to submit it that I have been timed out, so I have to start again from scratch. It is also boring to have to keep making points that are not being disputed, but just get overlooked.
I remain astonished that people are so keen to use refereeing powers to effectively award a try when an attacker has been legally stopped within reach of the goal line.
I remain astonished that people are so keen to use refereeing powers to effectively award a try when an attacker has been legally stopped within reach of the goal line.
menace
Referees in Australia
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2009
- Messages
- 3,657
- Post Likes
- 633
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 2
In this whole argument I think both sides make very valid points about law vs equity/fairness and 'convention'.
While I agree with OBs interpretation that the Tackler needs some leeway to prevent the try, but the problem with that is that it needs the referee to either be told it or experience it before refereeing it because they simply can't garnish it purely from the laws as they are written. That's where RobLev has a reasonable argument to claim that what a referee applies at the 10m line they should apply at the try line.
It all gets rubbery when we have this word in the laws that say "immediately" but it applies to a number of laws that applies to different players involved but yet it happens concurrently. As refs we've all but prioritised those supposedly 'immediate' actions with an order (although they're not written as such in the laws!), because if we didn't then we'd have more of a sh!t fight at what call would be made at the breakdown than what we have now!.
Ie in brief summary
1) tackler release
2) tackler roll
3) tackled player release the ball (and roll - that never happens!)
4) arriving players join correctly
5) ruck laws..etc
At each of those stage, which happen potentially within a few seconds, we might manage each of those stage with a quick verbal or at least a 'second or 2' to allow compliance.
Therefore the difference I see in all of this argument, and the way I view the BC reaching out at the try line vs the tacklers obligations are thus. Normally we would not expect the BC to reach out and place the ball in front of them when they are tackled anywhere else on the field except near the try line. Therefore when this happens I'm adding in a stage 0).
Ie 0) BC reaches out to ground the ball.
At stage 0) I will give him a half-second to do so, and if he grounds it in goal, then bingo he gets the try. He's not getting multiple seconds to do this. (Also if he reaches out then I'm expecting him to place it even if short, such that if it touches the ground then he's letting it go.)
If not an absolute immediate place then I take that quick pause and THEN apply from point 1) onwards.
For eg, if the BC can't reach and make it then I'll call him short and tackled. Tackler is now safe to release etc.
That way I feel I apply equity and fairness, and also apply the tackle laws.
Of course there will be others screaming that it all happens in a flash and I won't have time to say anything and so players won't know who does what. I would answer that by saying that is f it happened all that quickly then it was probably obvious what the result should be. I guess in that case I apply as above and let the player know why I PKd them afterwards (BC is he tried for too long to ground it, or for tackler for hanging on too long).
Am I way off the mark by applying this process?
While I agree with OBs interpretation that the Tackler needs some leeway to prevent the try, but the problem with that is that it needs the referee to either be told it or experience it before refereeing it because they simply can't garnish it purely from the laws as they are written. That's where RobLev has a reasonable argument to claim that what a referee applies at the 10m line they should apply at the try line.
It all gets rubbery when we have this word in the laws that say "immediately" but it applies to a number of laws that applies to different players involved but yet it happens concurrently. As refs we've all but prioritised those supposedly 'immediate' actions with an order (although they're not written as such in the laws!), because if we didn't then we'd have more of a sh!t fight at what call would be made at the breakdown than what we have now!.
Ie in brief summary
1) tackler release
2) tackler roll
3) tackled player release the ball (and roll - that never happens!)
4) arriving players join correctly
5) ruck laws..etc
At each of those stage, which happen potentially within a few seconds, we might manage each of those stage with a quick verbal or at least a 'second or 2' to allow compliance.
Therefore the difference I see in all of this argument, and the way I view the BC reaching out at the try line vs the tacklers obligations are thus. Normally we would not expect the BC to reach out and place the ball in front of them when they are tackled anywhere else on the field except near the try line. Therefore when this happens I'm adding in a stage 0).
Ie 0) BC reaches out to ground the ball.
At stage 0) I will give him a half-second to do so, and if he grounds it in goal, then bingo he gets the try. He's not getting multiple seconds to do this. (Also if he reaches out then I'm expecting him to place it even if short, such that if it touches the ground then he's letting it go.)
If not an absolute immediate place then I take that quick pause and THEN apply from point 1) onwards.
For eg, if the BC can't reach and make it then I'll call him short and tackled. Tackler is now safe to release etc.
That way I feel I apply equity and fairness, and also apply the tackle laws.
Of course there will be others screaming that it all happens in a flash and I won't have time to say anything and so players won't know who does what. I would answer that by saying that is f it happened all that quickly then it was probably obvious what the result should be. I guess in that case I apply as above and let the player know why I PKd them afterwards (BC is he tried for too long to ground it, or for tackler for hanging on too long).
Am I way off the mark by applying this process?