Interesting one

[winchesterref]

A) no attacking player was blocked from getting the ball
B) the Chiefs' players didn't play the ball so entry into tackle zone doesn't appear to me to be fully relevant

Menace- existing laws support the play as being legal. I'm all for that. I don't see how we can penalise something because we don't like how it looks if the laws don't support that.

If it quickly becomes a blight on the game then look at it again in the future, but the options for attacking coaches to counter it are nearly endless. Flood the channels to draw a PK (defenders can't prevent tackled players passing etc), pick and go round the fringes in units, 2+ players pick up at the back and offload around the defenders, form a maul etc. Sooner or later someone will have to engage, form a ruck to halt the attack. After 4 games I'm not convinced it is a massive issue, or that it is illegal, and I think JP was looking at it thinking "this must be wrong and now I've got to convince everyone"

 

[winchesterref]

Anyway in the original clip if the 9 was any good he'd have picked and gone right early!

 

[Ian_Cook]

but it will work! - it's not really that magical : each tackle gains you a few metres, so if the oppo don't form a ruck or a maul ... then repeat until you reach the try-line !

At least half the time, I would expect the tacklers to drive the ball carrier backwards because the ball carrier would be slowed down by having to step over his own players, so the tacklers will get to him before he has made any ground . Your idea sounds good in theory. I practice it would not work very well otherwise the Chief opponent would have done it already. Its just pick and drive; teams don't use that much these days outside of the last couple of minutes when they are in the lead and trying to shut the game down.

 

[didds]

I'll wager the chiefs (and whoever else uses it) will have tried it out in training to try and find the weaknesses - ie is it suceptible top pick and drive?

didds

 

[didds]

The immediate coujter is a pick and maul, ball with the front player until engaged, thus creatoing an offside line.

However, this tacxtic is probably only intendeed for use when the attackers (ball carriers) have over committed to the non-ruck . In that clip blue had FIVE players over/immediately around the ball. That only leaves three to set that mini-maul up, and if that team happened to have one in the bin then its almost a non starter.

the immediate riposte to the above is that any engagement with the attempted mini-maul HAS to be a tackle on the frront ball carrier to bring him to ground. Then the attackers slipping the ball leaves a 2 man drive with SIX team mates elsewhere.

Might be something to play with as an end of season bit of fun at training

didds

 

[talbazar]

I've made that point in the past, and got short shrift. The view most commonly held is that whatever the wording of the law actually says, in practice you have to come through the gate, even if you have no intention of playing the ball but merely acting as a potential blocking rucker. As a pedant, I like the argument; as a referee with the best interests of the game at heart, I agree with my detractors.

../..Menace- existing laws support the play as being legal. I'm all for that. I don't see how we can penalise something because we don't like how it looks if the laws don't support that.../..

That's exactly my point: I always have a problem with making the law say what they don't because "it doesn't look good"..

Come on guys, we all complain all the time that players and coaches don't know the law. We mock them at least as much for the same reason.

For once we've got a team reading the law and defining a tactic according to the law and we want to blow the whistle because "it doesn't look good"...
So much for Law 6.A.4.(a) :sad:

 

[Browner]

but it will work! - it's not really that magical : each tackle gains you a few metres, so if the oppo don't form a ruck or a maul ... then repeat until you reach the try-line !

But if the scrum half picks up then he will either have own players in front of him, or he'll get tackled by the guy sitting on his shoulder waiting 1.05m from the ball for the 9 to pick up !!

But wait........ I've got an idea , as a defender try and go and get the ball that is 'freely available' on the ground after a tackle ..... You can't :shrug: x2 opponents are stood there guarding it both obstructing you from seeking to retrieve it ....... :deadhorse:

 

[thepercy]

Could the ruck move down field, keeping the ball in, similar to a push over try? The defenders would have to engage to prevent this.

 

[menace]

Could the ruck move down field, keeping the ball in, similar to a push over try? The defenders would have to engage to prevent this.

Percy - we are talking about it being a tackle only....if it was a ruck then they're offside and we wouldn't be discussing this.

 

[menace]

But if the scrum half picks up then he will either have own players in front of him, or he'll get tackled by the guy sitting on his shoulder waiting 1.05m from the ball for the 9 to pick up !!

Ok but as I said earlier ...

But doesn't Kaino (Messam) 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?

or have I misinterpreted what that means?

If not then the SH can move off with the ball and milk a PK...or if he has space then pass the ball and Chiefs now have 2 players out of their defensive line and possible overlap exists?

 

[ChrisR]

and Chiefs now have 2 players out of their defensive line and possible overlap exists?

No, because attacking team is committing too many over the ball.

 

[menace]

I get your point and I bow to your expertise of knowing there isn't, but I couldnt say for sure if there was or wasn't as the clip I was looking at didn't show position of all players, and hence my use of the word 'possible' as opposed to 'definite'. But you already know that.

 

[didds]

and Chiefs now have 2 players out of their defensive line and possible overlap exists?

No, because attacking team is committing too many over the ball.

that's the crunch. The tactic would only be used when the attackers have way overcommitted. This leaves their backline at best man on man, and very limited forward support to try and rumble.

didds

 

[didds]

I get your point and I bow to your expertise of knowing there isn't, but I couldnt say for sure if there was or wasn't as the clip I was looking at didn't show position of all players, and hence my use of the word 'possible' as opposed to 'definite'. But you already know that.

But the clip shows FIVE blue players committed, presumably plus a scrumhalf = SIX players. There are two other blue players in shot, fairly close then to the non-ruck.That leaves seven for other duties.

Versus one white player (tackler) on the ground (who pretty quickly gets up and back). The defenders at worst have fourteen men on their feet to defend.

Sure we don;t know if way out of shot to our right blue haven't got three men in the far 5m channel versus no whites at all there. But its a reasonable guess that 7 v 14 probably suggests no overlap.

didds

 

[crossref]

I think people are really making heavy weather of this.

If defending team are intent on avoiding a ruck or a maul, then their only weapon is a tackle (and a very quick, accurate tackle at that, lest a maul develops)

If the attacking team simply pick and go after each tackle then tackle by tackle they are going to slowly make ground (yes, perhaps not every sinlge tackle, but on average)

Sooner or later the defenders are going to have to create a ruck, or a maul.

 

[OB..]

Ok but as I said earlier ...

or have I misinterpreted what that means?

If not then the SH can move off with the ball and milk a PK...or if he has space then pass the ball and Chiefs now have 2 players out of their defensive line and possible overlap exists?

15.6 (g) MUST be interpreted to apply only to the ball carrier while he is at or near the tackle (otherwise only those who had legally entered the tackle are would be entitled to tackle him).

Kaino might indeed have breached that provision, given the chance.

 

[didds]

If the attacking team simply pick and go after each tackle then tackle by tackle they are going to slowly make ground (yes, perhaps not every sinlge tackle, but on average) .

IF... they have sufficient numbers to do so. There are 5 blue players+scrumhalf around that ball. One more not that far away. Everyone else effectively out of shot. Two whites clsoe by ready to pounce, the other 13 available to defend.

Pick and go, with 6 chums unavailable to help but all the opposition ready and waiting... your call.

I'm not saying don't do it. But... its an interesting place to go!

didds

 

[menace]

15.6 (g) MUST be interpreted to apply only to the ball carrier while he is at or near the tackle (otherwise only those who had legally entered the tackle are would be entitled to tackle him).

Kaino might indeed have breached that provision, given the chance.

Thanks OB. That's what I thought. I can't tell for sure where Messam (misidentified as Kaino) was..but he looked pretty 'near' and if the BC went into his arms then 'could possibly' milk a PK.

 

[crossref]

IF... they have sufficient numbers to do so. There are 5 blue players+scrumhalf around that ball. One more not that far away. Everyone else effectively out of shot. Two whites clsoe by ready to pounce, the other 13 available to defend.

Pick and go, with 6 chums unavailable to help but all the opposition ready and waiting... your call.

I'm not saying don't do it. But... its an interesting place to go!

didds

but the objective is to force a ruck/maul, right ? So commit some players.

 

[Browner]

Ok but as I said earlier ...

or have I misinterpreted what that means?

If not then the SH can move off with the ball and milk a PK...or if he has space then pass the ball and Chiefs now have 2 players out of their defensive line and possible overlap exists?

No youve not, I hadn't spotted that, nice 1.