Is bridging legal and safe?

[Greg Collins]

Deeps LOL - bar the ferry crossing, and the mud, for Pulborough RFC's 1st XV pitch is in wonderful nick, sounds like my game on Sunday morning... I felt somewhat guilty ordering a brandy for the interval!

 

[Greg Collins]

but now a serious question...

Do you ping bridging on a matter of principal, i.e. you see it you ping it, regardless of whether anyone has actually been obstructed or contest for the ball has been affected.

OR

Do you take the view that if the oppo haven't engaged at the ruck with the bridging or other player it's a call of "NO RUCK, play on" a wave of the arms and smile as the oppo walk around the bridger and swipe the ball from under the 9's nose? (Which I confess to doing three times on Sunday morning)

 

[Dickie E]

I'd like to hear views on whether bridging is legal and safe in Junior rugby (U13-U16.) To clarify what I mean:-

Tackled player, having gone to ground places the ball. First supporting player stays on his feet, leans over the ball and grabs the shirt of the tackled player, the ball is then protected from the opponents by the bridge created.

provided his weight remains through his hips and not through his shoulders - no problem.

 

[Dixie]

Do you ping bridging on a matter of principal, i.e. you see it you ping it, regardless of whether anyone has actually been obstructed or contest for the ball has been affected.

Junior level, I'll ping the first non-kickable immaterial instance I see, so I can set out the stall firmly and clearly to both sides. It's usually the county or academy players who offend - they are coached the ploy, and also that in using it they need to be aware they are "playing the ref".

Adult level, I tend to blow only when the bridge achieves its objective of sealing off the ball.

 

[Ian_Cook]

I would be very concerned if I saw

a. a coach teaching bridging a sealing off to Juniors
b. a referee allowing it to happen in a Junior game

This practice is illegal, not only because it prevents a fair contest for the ball, but it is dangerous as exposes the "bridger's" neck and shoulders to significant impact as opponents arrive at the breakdown. That might be sustainable at the elite levels of the game, but at the community level, especially juniors, where it need to be stood-on immediately.

There was another thread on this some time ago, and it had this "coaching" video in it;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtpPV4Qdb0k

This is the current USA National Women's coach teaching Community level players how to cheat. While she does show how the bridger can protect themselves from neck injury while they are cheating, this requires a degree of timing and co-ordination that is not readily apparent at the community level. They only have to get the timing slightly wrong and its broken neck time. There were at least a couple of junior girls at this coaching session. Not good.

The crack about "keeping it legal" made me smile. There is no legal way to bridge. Its cheating whichever way you slice it.. She seems to think that its only bridging if the player puts their hands on the ground or lays on the player in the ground. She's wrong. If the player puts their hand in the player on the ground, they are not standing in their feet unsupported... ping.

 

[Deeps]

I am with Dixie and very much so. Basically, until the ruck forms I want to see the ball available to all players on their feet. As soon as the ball becomes unavailable because it has been sealed off by player(s) who, in addition to their feet, have an 'other part of their body supported by the ground or players on the ground' [15.6(a)], then an offence has occurred.

Mind you if there is no contest for the ball and the ball is recycled before any contest ensues then the action is immaterial but if there is no contest because the opposition are prevented from doing so by the player's action then it is material.

So the trigger for me is 'Is the ball available at the break down?' 'If not, why not? Ruck/maul formed O.K., anything else, probably not O.K. - tackler? ball carrier? third man in?'

 

[scrumpox2]

From a simple coach's perspective, I'd much rather that first supporting player played what's in front of him and either:-
a. if opposition immediately threatening - initiate the ruck by contesting over the ball, in so doing set the offside lines
b. no opposition immediately threatening - pick and drive forward, look to move the ball away from the contact area

Coaching the player to bridge instead of option a (hopefully he has enough intelligence to take option b when it's on) means the onus for initiating the ruck switches to the opposition and there's only one way for that to happen - the bridging player is going to get smashed by the first (better the first two) player(s) in.

I go cold just thinking about it, how am I supposed to coach this? It appears that the opposition have to make it material by smashing the bridging player.

Whilst theoretically you could move alongside the bridging player and simply pick up the ball, there's no realism in that. That player would get cleared out as if it were a ruck even though there is no ruck. It's a potential flashpoint and the root cause (as with many) is the unpenalised offence.

Deeps - very enjoyable story, I'll be sure to buy you a rum at the quiz with thanks. I'm also sure ST's Damoclesian sword has many edges and is wielded with grace and understanding. The point here is that those 30 players afforded the opportunity to play, should all be playing the following week too.

 

[Greg Collins]

Junior level, I'll ping the first non-kickable immaterial instance I see, so I can set out the stall firmly and clearly to both sides. It's usually the county or academy players who offend - they are coached the ploy, and also that in using it they need to be aware they are "playing the ref".

Adult level, I tend to blow only when the bridge achieves its objective of sealing off the ball.

Dixie can I drop a mitten, rather than cast down a gauntlet? I think I understand the non-kickable immaterial side of things and assume it is similar to my first pinging for chat will be when it isn't a near certain 3 points to the oppo.

Are you saying that if the first time you saw it happen and it was kickable you wouldn't ping it but would manage it?

 

[ballsie]

Switch on the jammer who ever you are ......

 

[ballsie]

Deeps I did a Pitch inspection post night shift on sunday morning and binned the game at our local club, seeing the weather forecast for the afternoon when I left work I am suprised you got across to the IOW at all.YOU LOVE IT ..

 

[Davet]

Do you take the view that if the oppo haven't engaged at the ruck with the bridging or other player it's a call of "NO RUCK, play on" a wave of the arms and smile as the oppo walk around the bridger and swipe the ball from under the 9's nose? (Which I confess to doing three times on Sunday morning

)

Two points.

1) You may want to ask yourself why they are not engaging in a ruck; do they feel that its a pointless exercise given the bridge?

2) "At or near to a tackle..." is there not a gate in here somewhere that would preclude players wandering around and playing the ball from the opponents side?

 

[Greg Collins]

)

Two points.

1) You may want to ask yourself why they are not engaging in a ruck; do they feel that its a pointless exercise given the bridge?

2) "At or near to a tackle..." is there not a gate in here somewhere that would preclude players wandering around and playing the ball from the opponents side?

1) possibly, but this side didn't engage in rucks even when no bridges existed. Mauls on the other hand they attacked with relish.

2) when does a tackle end and the tackle zone cease to exist? Serious question. I'd contend that at some point immediately after the tackler has immediately released and the tackled player has immediately made the ball available open play must begin again if no ruck is formed.

 

[David J.]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtpPV4Qdb0k

This is the current USA National Women's coach teaching Community level players how to cheat. While she does show how the bridger can protect themselves from neck injury while they are cheating, this requires a degree of timing and co-ordination that is not readily apparent at the community level. They only have to get the timing slightly wrong and its broken neck time. There were at least a couple of junior girls at this coaching session. Not good.

The crack about "keeping it legal" made me smile. There is no legal way to bridge. Its cheating whichever way you slice it.. She seems to think that its only bridging if the player puts their hands on the ground or lays on the player in the ground. She's wrong. If the player puts their hand in the player on the ground, they are not standing in their feet unsupported... ping.

That video was posted over 3 years ago. Don't know when it was actually shot. I believe at that time bridging was pretty much accepted worldwide or had just started to be disapproved of.

 

[SimonSmith]

"Just started to be disapproved of..."

Some of us have been pinging that since it first came out. In fact, I like that the rest of the world caught up to me

 

[Deeps]

Deeps I did a Pitch inspection post night shift on sunday morning and binned the game at our local club, seeing the weather forecast for the afternoon when I left work I am suprised you got across to the IOW at all.YOU LOVE IT ..

I was helping Eamon out. He is seriously worried that the Colts there are going to fold through lack of interest because they are not getting games so it was important that the game went ahead. Totts made a big effort to get there and support and arguably had more supporters there than the home side. The standard is not so good and Totts put 47 points on them which would have been more in better conditions.

Good for your A team if they are looking for a game and don't mind the travel. We should support them.

 

[Davet]

when does a tackle end and the tackle zone cease to exist? Serious question. I'd contend that at some point immediately after the tackler has immediately released and the tackled player has immediately made the ball available open play must begin again if no ruck is formed.

So - Tackle, tackler releases and rolls away, tackled player places ball back, no ruck formed - since tackler's team refuse to engage, ball is available, tackler's team-mate is entitled to come in from wrong side of the gate?

Not too sure about that...

I would suggest the tackle phase lasts until another phase starts, a ruck is one option, or open play when the ball is played.

Interested to hear thoughts.

 

[OB..]

At our last meeting I asked when a tackle ends, and got confusing answers.

The basic problem is that the law does not say. If the ball leaves the tackle zone, then presumably the tackle is over, but the tackle zone is not defined - only the need to come through the gate. It seemed to be the case that if a player places the ball back and keeps his hand on it "to steady it",the tackle is not yet over. However what if both tackler and tackled player have got to their feet? Or just one of them?

The problem is most likely to arise when a last ditch tackle is made.

My thoughts (all predicating the absence of a ruck) are that the tackle is over if:
(1) the ball has moved >1 metre from the tackle; or
(2) all involved have got up or rolled away; or
(3) all involved have had adequate time to get up or roll away.

In case (3) any tackled sloth should be penalised for trying to force defenders to run round the tackle. Tackling sloths are only disadvantaging their own players, so referee's discretion.

 

[Ian_Cook]

At our last meeting I asked when a tackle ends, and got confusing answers.

The basic problem is that the law does not say. If the ball leaves the tackle zone, then presumably the tackle is over, but the tackle zone is not defined - only the need to come through the gate. It seemed to be the case that if a player places the ball back and keeps his hand on it "to steady it",the tackle is not yet over. However what if both tackler and tackled player have got to their feet? Or just one of them?

The problem is most likely to arise when a last ditch tackle is made.

My thoughts (all predicating the absence of a ruck) are that the tackle is over if:
(1) the ball has moved >1 metre from the tackle; or
(2) all involved have got up or rolled away; or
(3) all involved have had adequate time to get up or roll away.

In case (3) any tackled sloth should be penalised for trying to force defenders to run round the tackle. Tackling sloths are only disadvantaging their own players, so referee's discretion.

OB

What about?

(4) When a ruck forms
(5) When the Jackler picks up the ball

 

[scrumpox2]

(5) when any player entitled to do so picks up the ball?

 

[Greg Collins]

So - Tackle, tackler releases and rolls away, tackled player places ball back, no ruck formed - since tackler's team refuse to engage, ball is available, tackler's team-mate is entitled to come in from wrong side of the gate?

Not too sure about that...

neither am I but....

....If a bridger (or indeed other players from the tackled player's side) is in situ over the tackled player with the ball behind the rear foot, with a 9 standing over it doing an 'up periscope' scan of the horizon, I'd contend that if a tackler's team player comes through the gate the bridger and other colleagues in situ CANNOT touch him for to do so would be obstruction. In grabbing the arriving player they aren't forming a ruck because they aren't in contact over the ball.

I would suggest the tackle phase lasts until another phase starts, a ruck is one option, or open play when the ball is played.

Interested to hear thoughts.

post ruck, maul, tackle, pile up, etc., open play begins, surely, when the ball is available to be played. It is out when it is out; out = open play even if no one plays it.

Would like to know what others think....