Illegal Grounding/Double Movement

[ianh5979]

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.

Menace, I would add if he grounds it short he then cannot bring it back and place it behind him for his forwards to get at.

 

[SimonSmith]

I agree with OB and Jamo; I'd also add that anyone who makes a blanket "it must be thus" statement without acknowledging the complexities inherent in the issue is grossly oversimplifying.

The tackle law places obligations and rights on all participating players. It does not, as written, give the tackled player extra flex in the definition of "immediately" over the tackler.

However: a convention has been adopted that the referee prioritize his decision making, or what he looks at. Tackler first. Only after being satisfied that the tackler is compliant does the referee look at the tackled player. Why? It isn't enshrined in law. But the convention came down that that was the way to look at the tackle because it was easier for decision making, and lent itself to greater continuity and less spoiling from the defence.

I'm not personally convinced that the priority for continuity exists in proximity to the goal line. I would, as others have, argue that equity places an equal burden on both the tackler and tackled player to comply with the law. Is this a different standard than we apply in midfield. Yes it is; and I don't think that's uncommon.

 

[ChrisR]

It is not by law but convention that has the referee requiring the tackler to release before the tackled player. We do this in general play to improve continuity and the flow of the game.

In a smother tackle near goal the BC's options may be limited to releasing the ball as he is released by the tackler. I don't see a requirement for the tackler to release first and give the BC all his options. If the BC releases and the tackler continues to hold on then you have a case for penalty.

When both release immediately then scoring or preventing a try will depend on players ability to get to their feet to play the ball or supporting players arriving at the tackle.

Awarding the attacking 5m scrum seems equitable when neither players complies with the law.

 

[crossref]

When both release immediately then scoring or preventing a try will depend on players ability to get to their feet to play the ball or supporting players arriving at the tackle.

.

but no - because the nub of this issue is that the tackled player doesn't have to get to his feet, he's allowed to pass, or place the ball while still on the ground.

 

[menace]

Menace, I would add if he grounds it short he then cannot bring it back and place it behind him for his forwards to get at.

Agree Ianh, that's what I meant by "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." But my poor wording is perhaps not obvious.

 

[ChrisR]

Menace, my point is that the smother tackle has limited the BC's options to releasing. If it didn't, and the BC could place the ball forward and score, then we wouldn't be having the debate.

 

[RobLev]

As with OB, I too am finding it frustrating thinking through and preparing posts whose points are ignored. One more time only. (Sorry to pick on your response, Simon, but it encapsulated what I am being frustrated by).

...

The tackle law places obligations and rights on all participating players. It does not, as written, give the tackled player extra flex in the definition of "immediately" over the tackler.

However: a convention has been adopted that the referee prioritize his decision making, or what he looks at. Tackler first. Only after being satisfied that the tackler is compliant does the referee look at the tackled player. Why? It isn't enshrined in law. But the convention came down that that was the way to look at the tackle because it was easier for decision making, and lent itself to greater continuity and less spoiling from the defence.

...

NO, IT IS NOT A CONVENTION. I am sorry for shouting, but this keeps on being repeated, and my response is being ignored.

Firstly, it is an interpretation of the Law, and it is the only way to make sense of the Law - unless someone wants to take up my challenge of providing an alternative interpretation that works. It is Law, not convention. As for, say, materiality, how much more material an offence can you get than preventing a try being scored.

The tackler is prohibited from preventing the tackled player from releasing (which includes placing - which is what matters). Allowing the tackler to prevent the tackled player from placing the ball over the goal-line (or anywhere else) is allowing him directly to breach the plain unvarnished words of Law 15.7(b). That is why the tackler must release first - not only must he release immediately (15.4(a) and (b)), he can't hold on so as to prevent the tackled player from releasing the ball (15.7(b)).

Secondly, in 2009, the great and the good of the IRB (the IRB HP Referees and Tier One Rugby Coaches) decided that this is what the Law actually meant. They said that the Law did not need to be rewritten; the Laws as they stood needed to be strictly applied. The document issued in June 2012 is very clear - tackler releases first. That is what a strict application of the Laws looks like, they say.

I also put a scenario in an earlier post which I'll flesh out now. Red make a break, they have two backs on one. No-one else close enough to interfere. Blue's FB tackles the Red BC 10 metres out, but holds on so Red BC can't pop a pass to his team-mate. Letting go would be rugby suicide. It is however a clear breach of 15.7(a):

[LAWS](a) No player may prevent the tackled player from passing the ball.[/LAWS]

so you pretty much must award a penalty try. Why would you not do so for a breach of 15.7(b) (which is in fact an identical action from the tackler's point of view - holding the BC's arms) closer to the line?

 

[RobLev]

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.

...

It means that placing is a subspecies of releasing; so preventing placement is preventing release. That is the relevant context.

 

[OB..]

It means that placing is a subspecies of releasing; so preventing placement is preventing release. That is the relevant context.

Of course it isn't. There are other ways of releasing and he is liberty to adopt those.

 

[OB..]

NO, IT IS NOT A CONVENTION.

I have responded that the law does not specify a sequence. Because it doesn't.

Firstly, it is an interpretation of the Law

That is surely what a convention is? An agreement among referees on how to deal to deal with a particular situation not covered well enough in any law

it is the only way to make sense of the Law - unless someone wants to take up my challenge of providing an alternative interpretation that works.

I have challenged your view several times by pointing out that the convention breaks down in the situation we are discussing.

In midfield the disadvantabe to the defence in applying the conventional sequence is relatively small. It improves the attack's chances of retaining the ball, but the defenders are expecting that.

With a wrap tackle in reaching distance of the goal-line the situation is radically different. Your view completely removes any semablance of balance betweeen attack and defence. You as referee effectively say to the tacker "Well done. Now let the tackled player reach out to score or I will award a PT". The convention produces a result that is monstrously unfair in my estimation.

It is Law, not convention.

Then where in the Law is the conventional sequence laid down? I am aware of general guidelines, but those are not Law.

As for, say, materiality, how much more material an offence can you get than preventing a try being scored.

As long as there is nothing illegal, preventing tries is in fact a major aim of the defence.

The tackler is prohibited from preventing the tackled player from releasing (which includes placing - which is what matters).

I have dealt with this before. Placing being one way of releasing does not mean that particular action MUST be allowed. The attacker could simply take his hands off the ball and get up.

Allowing the tackler to prevent the tackled player from placing the ball over the goal-line (or anywhere else) is allowing him directly to breach the plain unvarnished words of Law 15.7(b).

No it isn't. It depends on your interpetation which equates placing unequivocally with releasing. A view I reject.

Secondly, in 2009, the great and the good of the IRB (the IRB HP Referees and Tier One Rugby Coaches) decided that this is what the Law actually meant. They said that the Law did not need to be rewritten; the Laws as they stood needed to be strictly applied. The document issued in June 2012 is very clear - tackler releases first. That is what a strict application of the Laws looks like, they say.

Laws, yes (when unambiguous, where is unfortunately too rare). Conventions are different. What is the wording of this pronouncement you are relying on?

I also put a scenario in an earlier post which I'll flesh out now. Red make a break, they have two backs on one. No-one else close enough to interfere. Blue's FB tackles the Red BC 10 metres out, but holds on so Red BC can't pop a pass to his team-mate. Letting go would be rugby suicide. It is however a clear breach of 15.7(a):

[LAWS](a) No player may prevent the tackled player from passing the ball.[/LAWS]

That is not the situation we are dealing with, but I will respond. There is a known conflict between15.7 (a) and 15.5(e) which says the tackled player may not refuse to release the ball to another player who is on his feet. My resolution to this is to interpret the law as saying the opponent playing the ball may prevent passing in the execrcise of his own right, but may not hold the tackled player's arms to prevent a pass.

Your two-on-one situation also allows the supporting player to simply bend down and take the ball. I don't think it helps at all.

 

[OB..]

That last post took so long that I timed out 4 times. I took the precaution of copying my repy before attempting to review it so that I could simply paste it back again, but frankly it is no longer worth the bother unless something genuinely new turns up.

 

[RobLev]

...

That is surely what a convention is? An agreement among referees on how to deal to deal with a particular situation not covered well enough in any law I have challenged your view several times by pointing out that the convention breaks down in the situation we are discussing.

The view of the IRB is that the situation is covered well enough in the Laws as they stand. Convention takes over where interpretation breaks down. That's the difference between convention and interpretation. It carries the corollary that you can't simply discard an interpretation; you have to have some reason in law to do so.

...

Then where in the Law is the conventional sequence laid down? I am aware of general guidelines, but those are not Law. As long as there is nothing illegal, preventing tries is in fact a major aim of the defence.

Laws 15.7(a) & (b) can only sensibly be interpreted as requiring release by the tackler first. Preventing tries by illegal actions has never been permitted by the Laws; and the existence of the penalty try provisions shows what the correct attitude is to permittign illegal actions to prevent tries. I don't accept that what is illegal on the 22 is legal 1 metre out.

...

Laws, yes (when unambiguous, where is unfortunately too rare). Conventions are different. What is the wording of this pronouncement you are relying on?

[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]

At: http://www.irblaws.com/index.php?domain=9&guideline=4

June 2012 - "Five key areas of refereeing"

As to the tackle:

[LAWS]All areas of the tackle law to be strictly applied

Tackler to release tackled player immediately
Tackled player to release or pass ball immediately
Assist tacklers to release tackled player immediately
Arriving players from both sides to enter through the gate

Ball winning team should not prevent a contest by “sealing off”
Arriving players should not be obstructed

Reason: Quick ball at breakdown for teams wishing to play the game at pace and to allow a contest.[/LAWS]

The video accompanying and forming part of the document shows clearly that tackler release has to happen first.

That is not the situation we are dealing with, but I will respond. There is a known conflict between15.7 (a) and 15.5(e) which says the tackled player may not refuse to release the ball to another player who is on his feet. My resolution to this is to interpret the law as saying the opponent playing the ball may prevent passing in the execrcise of his own right, but may not hold the tackled player's arms to prevent a pass.

We are agreed on yoru last sentence.

Your two-on-one situation also allows the supporting player to simply bend down and take the ball. I don't think it helps at all.

How can the supporting player simply bend down and take the ball when the tackler has still got his arms wrapped around the BC's arms that are perforce still wrapped around the ball, and the defence is scrambling back?

And you haven't answered the question; it's penalty try there, even though the defender commits rugby suicide by releasing the BC's arms. Why is it not PT closer to the line?

Whether it is just and equitable to advantage the defender who makes his tackle closer to the line (and I disagree that it is) is in one sense neither here nor there; the tackler's action is identical, and it is identically illegal.

 

[menace]

RobLev....I can sympathise your view, I truly can, but you're applying a very strict lawyers interpretation of the written word and forgetting about the intent of the laws and the intent of the game, and what you suggest just isn't going to wash with players.

The way to fix it it to apply the RL standard, and that is once you are tackled you cannot promote the ball at all, but if you applied that to rugby then there will be no pop passes and you lose the continuity of the game and the fabric of rugby. Therefore you need to accept that the laws need to bend a bit to have a convention to allow equity.

 

[Ian_Cook]

RobLev....I can sympathise your view, I truly can, but you're applying a very strict lawyers interpretation of the written word and forgetting about the intent of the laws and the intent of the game, and what you suggest just isn't going to wash with players.

The way to fix it it to apply the RL standard, and that is once you are tackled you cannot promote the ball at all, but if you applied that to rugby then there will be no pop passes and you lose the continuity of the game and the fabric of rugby. Therefore you need to accept that the laws need to bend a bit to have a convention to allow equity.

I agree with OB on this one.

Some years ago, the iRB introduced offside lines at the tackle (an ELV). I agreed with it, and OB didn't. As it turns out, he was right, because while it seemed a good idea in the open field, it was a disaster near the goal-line, and in that respect, it is not unlike the scenario we are discussing here. Defenders found it impossible to prevent a try being scored if a player made a line break and was tackled near the goal-line; if he popped a pass to a following receiver, all the retiring opponents were offside and a PT would result if they tackled the receiver. It was dropped the following year.

There is another way to fix it; a very small change to the Law. Just apply the same conditions to 15.5 (c) that we do to 15.5 (d), so (changes in red)

[LAWS]LAW 15.5
(c) A tackled player may release the ball by putting it on the ground in any direction except forward provided this is done immediately.
Sanction: Penalty kick
(d) A tackled player may release the ball by pushing it along the ground in any direction except forward, provided this is done immediately.
Sanction: Penalty kick
[/LAWS]

and remove 15.5 (g) from the Law book

[LAWS](g) If a player is tackled near the goal line, that player may immediately reach out and ground
the ball on or over the goal line to score a try or make a touch down. [/LAWS]

There is no good reason for a tackled player to place the ball forward anywhere else in the FoP, so why do we allow them to do it near the goal line? If we remove the tackler's right to place the ball in a forward direction, the problem will disappear.

I can't see any possible "unintended consequences".

 

[OB..]

Some years ago, the iRB introduced offside lines at the tackle (an ELV). I agreed with it, and OB didn't. As it turns out, he was right, because while it seemed a good idea in the open field, it was a disaster near the goal-line, and in that respect, it is not unlike the scenario we are discussing here. Defenders found it impossible to prevent a try being scored if a player made a line break and was tackled near the goal-line; if he popped a pass to a following receiver, all the retiring opponents were offside and a PT would result if they tackled the receiver. It was dropped the following year.

My recollection is that after three examples of the disastrous consequence they immediately rescinded it.

 

[OB..]

Thanks to menace and Ian, I am not going to attempt the monumental task of replying in detail to RobLev's #52.

Clearly the root problem is that I see the goal line situation as being totally different from that elsewhere on the field. Nowhere else would the tacle dplayer dream of placing the ball forward; nowhere else can he score a try. RobLev either does not think this difference matters, or is not bothered by the consequences of his leglalistic approach. Given that fundamental difference in the starting poinrt, I think we have exhausted the subject.

 

[RobLev]

I agree with OB on this one.

Some years ago, the iRB introduced offside lines at the tackle (an ELV). I agreed with it, and OB didn't. As it turns out, he was right, because while it seemed a good idea in the open field, it was a disaster near the goal-line, and in that respect, it is not unlike the scenario we are discussing here. Defenders found it impossible to prevent a try being scored if a player made a line break and was tackled near the goal-line; if he popped a pass to a following receiver, all the retiring opponents were offside and a PT would result if they tackled the receiver. It was dropped the following year.

There is another way to fix it; a very small change to the Law. Just apply the same conditions to 15.5 (c) that we do to 15.5 (d), so (changes in red)

[LAWS]LAW 15.5
(c) A tackled player may release the ball by putting it on the ground in any direction except forward provided this is done immediately.
Sanction: Penalty kick
(d) A tackled player may release the ball by pushing it along the ground in any direction except forward, provided this is done immediately.
Sanction: Penalty kick
[/LAWS]

and remove 15.5 (g) from the Law book

[LAWS](g) If a player is tackled near the goal line, that player may immediately reach out and ground
the ball on or over the goal line to score a try or make a touch down. [/LAWS]

There is no good reason for a tackled player to place the ball forward anywhere else in the FoP, so why do we allow them to do it near the goal line? If we remove the tackler's right to place the ball in a forward direction, the problem will disappear.

I can't see any possible "unintended consequences".

This might surprise OB, but that seems sensible to me.

But as a final comment on the position as it now stands; I'm not comfortable that a Law of a game with a specific meaning according to its governing body can be ignored precisely when strict application is at its most important. That is not my legalism, which I admit to (but not in this instance); it's my sense of fairness.

 

[Phil E]

I'm not comfortable that a Law of a game with a specific meaning according to its governing body can be ignored precisely when strict application is at its most important. That is not my legalism, which I admit to (but not in this instance); it's my sense of fairness.

If we all refereed strictly by the letter of the law we would never move from the half way line and rugby would die a slow lingering death!
Materiality and contextuality are taught on all referees courses.

 

[RobLev]

If we all refereed strictly by the letter of the law we would never move from the half way line and rugby would die a slow lingering death!
Materiality and contextuality are taught on all referees courses.

Somewhat overstated, but it doesn't affect the thrust of my comment. Indeed, it reinforces my comment. How much more material can an offence be than preventing a try being scored?

 

[RobLev]

I agree with OB on this one.

Some years ago, the iRB introduced offside lines at the tackle (an ELV). I agreed with it, and OB didn't. As it turns out, he was right, because while it seemed a good idea in the open field, it was a disaster near the goal-line, and in that respect, it is not unlike the scenario we are discussing here. Defenders found it impossible to prevent a try being scored if a player made a line break and was tackled near the goal-line; if he popped a pass to a following receiver, all the retiring opponents were offside and a PT would result if they tackled the receiver. It was dropped the following year.

There is another way to fix it; a very small change to the Law. Just apply the same conditions to 15.5 (c) that we do to 15.5 (d), so (changes in red)

[LAWS]LAW 15.5
(c) A tackled player may release the ball by putting it on the ground in any direction except forward provided this is done immediately.
Sanction: Penalty kick
(d) A tackled player may release the ball by pushing it along the ground in any direction except forward, provided this is done immediately.
Sanction: Penalty kick
[/LAWS]

and remove 15.5 (g) from the Law book

[LAWS](g) If a player is tackled near the goal line, that player may immediately reach out and ground
the ball on or over the goal line to score a try or make a touch down. [/LAWS]

There is no good reason for a tackled player to place the ball forward anywhere else in the FoP, so why do we allow them to do it near the goal line? If we remove the tackler's right to place the ball in a forward direction, the problem will disappear.

I can't see any possible "unintended consequences".

One thought though - how do you referee the BC who is tackled and lands East-West facing the opposition's goal line with no way of rolling back the other way; he has to let go of the ball (since he can't place it), but it will inevitably roll forward...