Illegal Grounding/Double Movement

[Browner]

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...

Some place it behind their back (!) Some place it in front of them S-->N, those that lift their torso and try to smuggle underneath their trunk risk sanction.
Simple really.

 

[OB..]

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?

As I said previously, it is the primary aim of defence to prevent a try being scored. The argument is over the best way to interpret the laws/conventions concerned. You want the tackler to be forced to concede a try. I don't.

 

[RobLev]

As I said previously, it is the primary aim of defence to prevent a try being scored. The argument is over the best way to interpret the laws/conventions concerned. You want the tackler to be forced to concede a try. I don't.

Not quite correct. I want the tackler, if he has exhausted his legal means of preventing a try, to be prevented from resorting to illegal means. I see allowing him to do so as unfair; from my point of view, you appear to see reinterpreting the law (within a short distance from the line) so that his actions are not illegal as fair.

Sometimes there is no legal means of preventing a try; that does not make it fair to allow a defender to employ illegal means.

 

[Browner]

Sometimes there is no legal means of preventing a try.

RL has a case.

Ps...Switch off the floodlights as the opposition break free ?

 

[RobLev]

RL has a case.

Ps...Switch off the floodlights as the opposition break free ?

A machine-gun post at the corner flag to cover any breakaway tries did cross my mind, I have to say.

 

[OB..]

Not quite correct. I want the tackler, if he has exhausted his legal means of preventing a try, to be prevented from resorting to illegal means.

The argument is over what is illegal, of course.

I see allowing him to do so as unfair;

I see forcing him to allow it as grossly unfair.

from my point of view, you appear to see reinterpreting the law (within a short distance from the line) so that his actions are not illegal as fair.

I insist that context is a vital element of judgement in applying the laws.

Sometimes there is no legal means of preventing a try; that does not make it fair to allow a defender to employ illegal means.

The argument is still about what is legal in a specific context. We are at opposite poles on that.

 

[RobLev]

Some place it behind their back (!) Some place it in front of them S-->N, those that lift their torso and try to smuggle underneath their trunk risk sanction.
Simple really.

Placing behind the back sounds impractical; since the BC is doing this one-handed (the other shoulder/arm's underneath him) it is essentially presenting the ball on a plate to any opposition players in the vicinity.

Placing it forward isn't an option - that's the point of the proposed law change.

 

[Treadmore]

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".

How about a momentum try - as a tackled player slides towards the line they often reach-out to score as soon as possible; would that not be allowed under your law change?

Also, in-goal - at what point is the tackled player in-goal? Head on the line? Shoulders on the line? Or the held ball is over the line (c.f. maul)? Once in-goal your tackle law change won't apply so the player can reach forward to score (and that might be the only direction available to score). I think your suggested law change will require a definition of what-looks-like-a-tackle is in-goal.

 

[Treadmore]

The argument is over what is illegal, of course. I see forcing him to allow it as grossly unfair. I insist that context is a vital element of judgement in applying the laws.

The argument is still about what is legal in a specific context. We are at opposite poles on that.

But OB, even in the example posed of a wrap-tackler staying wrapped, so that the tackled player can't exercise any one of her obligatory options i.e. only the tackler is illegal, you would restart with an attacking 5m scrum? I don't understand that stance at all.

 

[RobLev]

The argument is over what is illegal, of course.

If so then, unless you reject the IRB's position, your position is the weaker.

I see forcing him to allow it as grossly unfair. I insist that context is a vital element of judgement in applying the laws.

The argument is still about what is legal in a specific context. We are at opposite poles on that.

Nope; the argument is about whether the rules change within a metre of the goal-line.

 

[OB..]

But OB, even in the example posed of a wrap-tackler staying wrapped, so that the tackled player can't exercise any one of her obligatory options i.e. only the tackler is illegal,

Why is the tackler unable to remove his arms from the ball ie release? The tackler cannot play the ball while still on the ground. The tackled player can get up (and so can the tackler). Play on.

you would restart with an attacking 5m scrum? I don't understand that stance at all.

I quoted 20.4 (d) earlier.

I have also said that if the situation arises, I recommend a quick whistle to prevent any struggling on the ground. Keeps everything simple.

 

[The Fat]

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...

I'll answer this one fellas.

You have described Kurtley Beale and therefore, based on years of evidence, the answer is clear, the referee does nothing as the ball is guaranteed to be turned over and the opposition will win the ball. Play on.

 

[OB..]

If so then, unless you reject the IRB's position, your position is the weaker.

As far as I am aware, the IRB has not addressed this particular issue. It differs from the general point precisely because of the highly significant difference in context.

Nope; the argument is about whether the rules change within a metre of the goal-line.

I believe I have mentioned the importance of context a number of times. It is something you obviously reject.

I am not sure if you are interpreting the laws/conventions to suit your preference, or feel constrained by some other consideration, but your view remains an interpretation. I see little point in us continuing to go round in circles.

You favour ordering the tackler to allow the score. I don't. Let's leave it there.

 

[RobLev]

As far as I am aware, the IRB has not addressed this particular issue. It differs from the general point precisely because of the highly significant difference in context.

I believe I have mentioned the importance of context a number of times. It is something you obviously reject.

...

You favour ordering the tackler to allow the score. I don't. Let's leave it there.

OB, your view is one I respect more than most on this forum; but I will not let you continue to misrepresent my position.

The IRB was clear in the June 2012 document, and accompanying video, that I have repeatedly referred to, that strict application of the Law requires that the tackler release first (as 15.7(a) makes clear).

I favour ordering the tackler to obey the Law. If that means that the tackled player scores, then so be it. I accept the relevance of context - but reject the idea that it allows the law to change, and an offence be ignored, as the ball gets closer to the goal-line.

Let's leave it there.

 

[RobLev]

I'll answer this one fellas.

You have described Kurtley Beale and therefore, based on years of evidence, the answer is clear, the referee does nothing as the ball is guaranteed to be turned over and the opposition will win the ball. Play on.

Is that a Bledisloe rule, or more general :biggrin:

 

[Treadmore]

Why is the tackler unable to remove his arms from the ball ie release?

did you mean the tackled player? If so, because she is wrapped/smothered is the scenario.

I quoted 20.4 (d) earlier.

I know, that's what I don't understand; it means that you are not using 15.8, a part of tackle law that gives a scrum restart...but only if there is doubt about failure to comply. Which implies to me that you are not in doubt about who failed to comply, you just don't like the answer.

 

[Ian_Cook]

How about a momentum try - as a tackled player slides towards the line they often reach-out to score as soon as possible; would that not be allowed under your law change?

Also, in-goal - at what point is the tackled player in-goal? Head on the line? Shoulders on the line? Or the held ball is over the line (c.f. maul)? Once in-goal your tackle law change won't apply so the player can reach forward to score (and that might be the only direction available to score). I think your suggested law change will require a definition of what-looks-like-a-tackle is in-goal.

The ball! If the ball is in-goal there is no longer a tackle so the prone player can do what he likes. In the case of the momentum try, if his momentum carries him in-goal then he is fine. If he stops short, I don't think he should be allowed to reahc out and place the ball over the line.


For claification, forward means towards the opponent's DBL. If the player ends up east/west short of the goal-line, IMO he should not be allowed to promote the ball over the goal-line.

 

[ChrisR]

The ball! If the ball is in-goal there is no longer a tackle so the prone player can do what he likes. In the case of the momentum try, if his momentum carries him in-goal then he is fine. If he stops short, I don't think he should be allowed to reahc out and place the ball over the line.


For claification, forward means towards the opponent's DBL. If the player ends up east/west short of the goal-line, IMO he should not be allowed to promote the ball over the goal-line.

Ian, that's a rather radical idea and has the merit of resolving this marathon debate. However, I like the drama of the last gasp reach and score and it would introduce the endless debate of "Did he reach forward?" and the physics of player in motion. No thanks. Let's just stick to hashing this one. A rare phenomena, anyway.

 

[Chris_j]

I'm in the uncomfortable position of disagreeing with both OB and Ian_Cook. First time for that. The law is clear, the tackled player can promote the ball forward. There are no restrictions or clarifications on that. It is also clear that the tackler cannot prevent that until he releases and gets back on his feet. Others can if they arrive legally but that is not at issue here.

If if we then introduce an artificial measure of 'is it too close to the goal line?' then we need also to consider 'was it Jacques Theroux or Martin Bayfield'. At a metre out one would be stretching every sinew, the other would have the ball tucked into the elbow and just falling on to the line. That is a recipie for disaster.

To stop the try the tackler needs to bring the player to ground short of their reach to the goal line.

 

[Treadmore]

The ball! If the ball is in-goal there is no longer a tackle so the prone player can do what he likes.

I would agree but now in the context of your proposed law change we will have situations to decide whether the ball was over the line as a consequence of the tackle or was promoted there after the tackle. Difficult in a dynamic situation.

In the case of the momentum try, if his momentum carries him in-goal then he is fine. If he stops short, I don't think he should be allowed to reahc out and place the ball over the line.

And whilst he is still sliding but not yet in-goal? I think your law change would unnecessarily lead to changing accepted practice in a momentum try (and also be difficult to decide).