Ireland

[Taff]

... Try (ball in-goal throughout; unregulated wrestling allowed by players on the floor

But I seem to remember reading that continued wrestling was not allowed ie the ref had to make a decion PDQ whether it was a try or not. I forget the exact wording, but that's the gist of it. Watching it live I kept thinking "that's held up surely" as it just seemed to take too long. In fact I thought it was superb defending by the Scottish player. :clap:

 

[OB..]

So you are saying there was a tackle in the field of play. Did you see the Scotland player release the tackled player (Bowe) to allow him to exercise his options? Penalty Try in your view, I take it?

I have argued strongly against that view in the past. The law does not require the tackler to release first. It requires both players to act immediately. In this situation I think it is ludicrous to require a player to commit suicide. Blow the whistle for "held up".

And of course once the ball has crossed the line, there is no tackle anyway.

 

[RobLev]

So you are saying there was a tackle in the field of play.

Yes.

Did you see the Scotland player release the tackled player (Bowe) to allow him to exercise his options? Penalty Try in your view, I take it?

I don't know. The tackler never let go of Bowe or got up; but he didn't prevent Bowe exercising his options (save one), the only one of which, surprisingly, he wanted to take (if that was an option) being to try to ground the ball in goal.. Genuine questions: (i) Does it make a difference that the tackler's momentum took him entirely in goal (whereas Bowe wasn't entirely so); and (ii) is he entitled from that position to prevent Bowe grounding for a try, while leaving all his (other) options open.

 

[Dixie]

I have argued strongly against that view in the past. The law does not require the tackler to release first. It requires both players to act immediately. In this situation I think it is ludicrous to require a player to commit suicide. Blow the whistle for "held up".

And this event clearly shows the wisdom of your view. But the referee did not blow for Held Up, so we need to analyze the play in the absence of such a sensible tack.

And of course once the ball has crossed the line, there is no tackle anyway.

Well, that's open to interpretation. The law says:

[LAWS]15.1 WHERE CAN A TACKLE TAKE PLACE
A tackle can only take place in the field of play.[/LAWS]

If the tackle took place in the FOP but the particpants then slid into in-goal, we don't know the status of the play at that point. Does it remain a tackle? If not, does Law 14 apply? This is the key issue. If it remains a tackle and both players were intransigent, equity says attacking scrum. If Law 14 applies, what is the status of the player who is lying on the ball carrier, preventing him from exercising his options? He wouldn't be allowed to get into that position in the absence of the earlier tackle - is he now allowed to do what law 14 tries to prevent a player from doing? Hence my tjhinking that this needs to be clarified officially - way too many open questions.

 

[OB..]

The law says:

[LAWS]15.1 WHERE CAN A TACKLE TAKE PLACE
A tackle can only take place in the field of play.[/LAWS]

If the tackle took place in the FOP but the particpants then slid into in-goal, we don't know the status of the play at that point. Does it remain a tackle? If not, does Law 14 apply? This is the key issue. If it remains a tackle and both players were intransigent, equity says attacking scrum. If Law 14 applies, what is the status of the player who is lying on the ball carrier, preventing him from exercising his options? He wouldn't be allowed to get into that position in the absence of the earlier tackle - is he now allowed to do what law 14 tries to prevent a player from doing? Hence my tjhinking that this needs to be clarified officially - way too many open questions.

We know that a scrum or maul ends when the ball crosses the line. It seems obvious that we should use the same criterion for a tackle. How else would you clarify it? Tackle made in the field of play and both players slide completely into the in-goal area. Do you still apply the tackle law?

 

[Dixie]

We know that a scrum or maul ends when the ball crosses the line. It seems obvious that we should use the same criterion for a tackle. How else would you clarify it? Tackle made in the field of play and both players slide completely into the in-goal area. Do you still apply the tackle law?

That, of course, is exactly the question. But I don't think yuor example of a scrum or maul helps. Assume at a maul that the ball crosses the line for a second, then the maul is pushed back into the field of play. The original maul has ceased to exist, but we now have a new one in that all the criteria are met. It's asking a bit much for a ref to blow Held Up within the 1 second that the ball was in-goal; I suggest that in most cases, we'd carry on with the maul. The scrum is far less likely to happen, as one side or t'other would ground the ball as soon as it hit the line; but if it were pushed back in-field, then we don't have a scrum any more, the scrum having ended and not been re-set. We'd have a ruck. Presumably then we'd carry on with the ruck? None of this is clear-cut.

I like the idea that the tackle ends when the ball crosses the goal line. But what then? As there's no tackle and Bowe is in possession of the ball on the ground, does Law 14 come into play? If so, is it legitimate that the Scottish player can prevent him exercising his options, which seems to violate the spirit of law 14? If law 14 doesn't apply in-goal (I'm not aware of any law to say it doesn't), then does it become applicable when the ball comes back into the field of play (which is almost analagous to the maul or scrum being pushed back). I feel this is such unertain territory that it requires a ruling.

 

[Davet]

Law 14 doesn't apply - Law 14 is ball on ground no tackle - the ball was not on the ground - that's the problem.

If a player goes to ground to get the ball when the ball is in goal then inevitably it is either a try or a touch-down; so again law 14 is not relevant.

 

[Dixie]

Law 14 doesn't apply - Law 14 is ball on ground no tackle - the ball was not on the ground - that's the problem.

If a player goes to ground to get the ball when the ball is in goal then inevitably it is either a try or a touch-down; so again law 14 is not relevant.

That's an unrealistically strict view of law 14.

[LAWS]This situation occurs when the ball is available on the ground and a player goes to ground to gather the ball, except immediately after a scrum or a ruck.
It also occurs when a player is on the ground in possession of the ball and has not been tackled.[/LAWS]

The bit in red exactly covers our scenario