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.
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.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?
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?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.
In the example I gave the tackled player was prevented from acting legally!The flaw in your argument is the claim that the tackler acted illegally and implication the tackled player did not.
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.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.
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).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?
Nowhere else on the field can you score without getting up again first. The context is vital.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?
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.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)).
Well spotted!I know we won't convince you OB but...
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.No, not forced by me
20.4(d)Why a 5m attacking scrum? 15.8?
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.In the example I gave the tackled player was prevented from acting legally!
It could be a tough decision, which is why I advocate a quick whistle to prevent struggling on the ground.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?
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.If so then it seems there is nothing the tackled player can legally do already.
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.
Law 15.7 (b) does not use the word "place". It is not a synonym of "release".The Law - not I - equates place and release. I gave you the Law reference.
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.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.
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.
Why a 5m attacking scrum? 15.8?
20.4(d)
I'm stunned(d) Scrum after any other stoppage. After any other stoppage or irregularity not covered by Law, the team that was moving forward before the stoppage throws in the ball. If neither team was moving forward, the attacking team throws in the ball.
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.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.
...
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, ...
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.
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.
...
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.
I would be intrested to see the actual circumstances. I have never come across the sitaution myself.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!".
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.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").
And yet again I have to point out that the laws require BOTH plyers to act immediately, not just the tackler.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.
Impunity? My view is that the attackers should get a 5m scrum. The defence is still under pressure.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.
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.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.