Interesting one

[Dave Sherwin]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYSXdoNc-Xs

 

[Dave Sherwin]

Please excuse my technological ineptitude - I meant what follows to be in the same post as above.

This clip has been the basis of much animated discussion (if it is elsewhere on here, I apologise). Thoughts?

 

[Taff]

If you went to the 10 that's fine.

Where does it say that then?

I still don't understand why some people make this difficult - if he stayed at least 1m from the tackle, he's fine.

 

[Dickie E]

Where does it say that then?

No, what he meant was "if you went to where the opposition #10 was positioned to intercept the pass, that would be OK"

 

[RobLev]

Please excuse my technological ineptitude - I meant what follows to be in the same post as above.

This clip has been the basis of much animated discussion (if it is elsewhere on here, I apologise). Thoughts?

Why no penalty against Blue #4 for playing the first player - who didn't approach the tackle too close - without the ball?

 

[chrismtl]

I have more issues with what blue #4 did than what either of the players did.

Let's take him out of the picture, then I don't really see any argument to penalize unless you want to go for the acts contrary to good sportsmanship line. Both players are close to 1m away from the tackle area and I don't think that if they were 90cm away that it should result in a penalty otherwise we're opening up a whole new can of worms. The 1m understanding is to prevent someone from being a few cm's away, not for being almost 1m. Anyways, I would argue that both players were 1m away from the tackle zone. While it might not look "right", I think they were a bit hard done by a ref who just didn't like what he saw.

 

[Ian_Cook]

This looks messy, and it will only get worse as teams catch on to the idea that if they don't commit any players to the tackle, no ruck formed, therefore no offside lines appear so they can stand anywhere they like. Its effectively a tackle version of the tactic of not competing at a line-out; the players make sure they don't engage opponents.

Its a difficult one that is not going to be easy for WR to deal with without some Law changes around the tackle area. Some solutions might be

1. Revisit the Offside at the Tackle ELV.
It has its own bad side effects with regard to midfield breaks being undefendable, but there might be ways around that, for example if the Law was written such that, when a tackle takes place
a. a player who is onside at the tackle must not move into an offside position.
b. a player who is offside at the tackle must not remain there, he must commence retiring to the offside line.
c. exception: if the ball is cleared or passed at least 1m from a tackle, a player in the act of retiring is immediately put onside.

and/or

2. The tackler must remain in the tackle zone. Remove the option of the tackler rolling or moving away. Make his only option to get to his feet and remain in the tackle zone where an opponent can grab him to form a ruck. Should also apply to the tackle assist.

 

[The Fat]

I have referenced this tactic by the Chiefs previously in another thread and it would seem they are working on it at training as it is now part of their arsenal of tactics. Don't like it myself. As Ian said, "This looks messy, and it will only get worse as teams catch on to the idea that if they don't commit any players to the tackle, no ruck formed, therefore no offside lines appear so they can stand anywhere they like. Its effectively a tackle version of the tactic of not competing at a line-out; the players make sure they don't engage opponents".

I can see where Jaco Peyper is coming from. He is saying to the Chiefs captain that "...the players are approaching the tackle", meaning they are now within the "tackle zone". I tend to agree with him that Kaino was within the 1m zone just before the Stormers' #4 grabbed hold of him. Therefore, JP is pinging him for incorrect entry (i.e. not through the gate).
This is at 10 seconds on the youtube clock. The clock is still on 10 seconds when blue 4 grabs Kaino so it is as close as Kaino gets to the tackle.
View attachment 3197

 

[menace]

But doesn't Kaino breach
[LAWS]15.6 (g)
Any player who first gains possession of the ball at the tackle or near to it may be tackled by an opposition player providing that player does so from behind the ball and from directly behind the tackled player or the tackler closest to that player’s goal line.
Sanction: Penalty kick
[/LAWS] As soon as he tackles blue #9 (if he want so unceremoniously removed from the area). But until he does so isn't he legal?

 

[crossref]

Before changing the Law perhaps we could think about how to play against this tactic.. which is presumably to pick up the ball and trundle down the field with it

 

[didds]

that is eventually where it will go I am sure - in the meantime the majority pof players - and it seems some refs! - just have a "does not compute" moment and just can't handle it.

I'm not sure which player is being penalised here (as in name) but I think its the bloke that blue #4 grabs and pulls away. If that was < 1m it was probably 95cm from the ball... You refs better have your measuring tapes ready... The guy with the ginger/blonde highlights seemed to know what he was doing as he hornpiped his way about the rear space...



didds

 

[Ian_Cook]

Before changing the Law perhaps we could think about how to play against this tactic.. which is presumably to pick up the ball and trundle down the field with it

This won't work. Stormers have four/five players committed at the tackle. All the Chiefs need to do is line up four/five players in a line side by side two metres away from the tackle zone and spanning a man wider than the width of the tackle zone. Then a few more get in positions ahead of the tackle zone on left and right to cut off passes from the tackle. If a blue player does what you are suggesting, one or two Chiefs players run forward when he picks up the ball and bring him down on the same spot, the rest stay away.


The only practical way I can see around this is to force a ruck to form in order to create offside lines. If the tackler (or tackle assist) is made to get to (or stay on) his feet but is forbidden to leave the tackle zone, that will give the opponents that opportunity to grab him and form a ruck. He's near the ball so 15.7 (d) allows opponents to play him without the ball.

As an aside, its about time WR clearly defined a Tackle Assist rather then just lump him in with "other players"

 

[RobLev]

that is eventually where it will go I am sure - in the meantime the majority pof players - and it seems some refs! - just have a "does not compute" moment and just can't handle it.

I'm not sure which player is being penalised here (as in name) but I think its the bloke that blue #4 grabs and pulls away. If that was < 1m it was probably 95cm from the ball... You refs better have your measuring tapes ready... The guy with the ginger/blonde highlights seemed to know what he was doing as he hornpiped his way about the rear space...



didds

I'm not sure it was that player (W2) he penalised. Blue #4 had already fouled him (10.4(f)) and he was going back for orange/blondie (W3) when the whistle went, several seconds later.

For me, even if W2 had offended, B4's actions merited a PK under 10.4(f) - or, if he claims he was reacting to the encroachments, 10.4(l). If the ref was going to penalise White, he should IMHO then have reversed the penalty for that foul play.

 

[crossref]

The only practical way I can see around this is to force a ruck to form in order to create offside lines."

yes, so pick up the ball and start trundling down the field : assuming the oppo don't allow you to get all the way to the goal line, this is going to force a tackle (and then a ruck.. or repeat) or a maul.

 

[The Fat]

I'm not sure it was that player (W2) he penalised. Blue #4 had already fouled him (10.4(f)) and he was going back for orange/blondie (W3) when the whistle went, several seconds later.

For me, even if W2 had offended, B4's actions merited a PK under 10.4(f) - or, if he claims he was reacting to the encroachments, 10.4(l). If the ref was going to penalise White, he should IMHO then have reversed the penalty for that foul play.

I think he penalised the player that was grabbed by blue 4 so if that was W2 thanks for picking up his number (I think I may have incorrectly identified him as the captain in an earlier post). The only reason it looks like W3 was pinged, IMO, is because I believe Jaco Peyper was processing what was happening with regard to the white team's players proximity to the tackle zone and there was a delay in blowing his whistle. If W2 had been OK, then as you say, blue 4 would have been the 1st offence.

I wonder if the Chiefs have run this tactic by a local referee before using it in a game?

EDIT: Have just checked my earlier post #8 and I have incorrectly identified W2 as the Chiefs captain Jerome Kaino. That may not raise an eyebrow with the northerners but it may have had the SH lads scratching their heads.

 

[Ian_Cook]

EDIT: Have just checked my earlier post #8 and I have incorrectly identified W2 as the Chiefs captain Jerome Kaino. That may not raise an eyebrow with the northerners but it may have had the SH lads scratching their heads.

Well, this comment made me scratch my head too.... Jerome Kaino plays for the Blues! I think you mean Liam Messam.

 

[menace]

EDIT: Have just checked my earlier post #8 and I have incorrectly identified W2 as the Chiefs captain Jerome Kaino. That may not raise an eyebrow with the northerners but it may have had the SH lads scratching their heads.

Oops. I also repeated your observation...my bad.

 

[didds]

I
I wonder if the Chiefs have run this tactic by a local referee before using it in a game?

the blonde highlights player seems to kn ow EXACTLY what he is doing - he knows he is not offside and he staying a way back from the tackle.

on that basis whoever it was pinged is probably equally as au fait and just encroached a tad too close for the ref's liking - he just got it a bit wrong. I guess this is where in reality "1m" needs to be probably "2m" to leave no possibility of being interpreted as too close. But certainly the encroacher doesn't need to go and stand over beside the fly half!

didds

 

[crossref]

I think the lesson here is, when executing this ploy : don't try and stand between the ball and the opposing #9.
-- If you are not going for ball, this is obstruction
-- and you can't go for the ball, as you can't approach the tackle from that direction.

so if you stand between the #9 and the ball you are going to get pinged. As the ref says : stand between the 9 and the 10...

 

[Phil E]

Can someone teach SA Referees how to spell?

Clip 2 The Chiefs stand of a tackle but are penalised and the referee explains to Messam
SAReferees

"Off", not "of"