...
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.