Is this a Red?

[Browner]

To get a RC for a late tackle it has to be blatant, not just slightly mistimed. You don't expect a quantum leap from perfectly legal to RC, bypassing warning, PK, YC.

Spot on OB.

Many people seem to forget the range of sanctions to work through, possibly they see elite tv refs often going straight to cards.

 

[crossref]

I think the Reffing is fine, but the coaching is suspect. CL approach will lead to cards.

He was lucky in that game, not lucky with the decision, which was spot on, but lucky that his tackle ended up so well timed. Another fraction of a second later and he would have been facing a RC. His judgement isn't that fine, he was fortunate.

Get RC in any RWC game and we could be out of the tournament

To get a RC for a late tackle it has to be blatant, not just slightly mistimed. You don't expect a quantum leap from perfectly legal to RC, bypassing warning, PK, YC.

That's true.
When CL gets one i will be resurrecting this thread!

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

I think you need to take the plank from your own eye first, NKW.
I am not familiar with this plank reference

The implications of your approach - that any tackle that arrives after the ball is no longer in the ball-carriers hands is late and should be PK'd - make defence impossible. Difficult but not impossible, it would certainly require tacklers to be cognitively involved. It the Lawes attempted it should come as no surprise that the #10 may pass, but the defender has to also be aware #10 may run.

I'll take the case defending Courtney Lawes and the ref who takes no action over his tackle, if you agree to take the case of defending the players who conduct a gang attack on Courtney Lawes that puts him out of the game - the approach you advocate - and the ref who overlooks that attack. Mine's a cakewalk..
I think we all know Lawes was just saying "hello", I think (not as a referee) that the French should have also gave a greeting in response. I suspect they were also intimidated or unable.


.

Couple of years ago, I posted a thread on an Ashton try in 6N, that he raised a hand at the halfway line in celebration. Was it you that was concerned about anti England bias?

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

Couple of years ago, I posted a thread on an Ashton try in 6N, that he raised a hand at the halfway line in celebration. Was it you that was concerned about anti England bias?

Ah, wasn't you, my bad. I was ready to go on a rant, but it fell through.

 

[SimonSmith]

I think you need to take the plank from your own eye first, NKW.
I am not familiar with this plank reference

The implications of your approach - that any tackle that arrives after the ball is no longer in the ball-carriers hands is late and should be PK'd - make defence impossible. Difficult but not impossible, it would certainly require tacklers to be cognitively involved. It the Lawes attempted it should come as no surprise that the #10 may pass, but the defender has to also be aware #10 may run.

I'll take the case defending Courtney Lawes and the ref who takes no action over his tackle, if you agree to take the case of defending the players who conduct a gang attack on Courtney Lawes that puts him out of the game - the approach you advocate - and the ref who overlooks that attack. Mine's a cakewalk..
I think we all know Lawes was just saying "hello", I think (not as a referee) that the French should have also gave a greeting in response. I suspect they were also intimidated or unable.

Jesus exhorted his followers to not remove the plank from their neighbor's eye until they had removed the mote from their ow.n Or vice versa.

The no 10 MAY do anything. If Lawes holds off the tackle because of that and Plisson goes off on a quintessentially French jinking run,Lawes would be derelict. I honestly can't understand why you want to penalize this. It smacks of the worrying trend of American referees MSU to suit their personal moral view of the game

 

[didds]

"The implications of your approach - that any tackle that arrives after the ball is no longer in the ball-carriers hands is late and should be PK'd - make defence impossible."

=====

absolutely.

Red holds ball.

Blue approaches.

red holds ball.

Blue gets really close

red holds ball.

blue starts tackle procedure.

At the very last moment red now pops the ball to his team mate adjacent to him, and the tackle arrives half a nano second later, but makes contact when red as previous ball carrier no longer has the ball.

PK.

You could score tries or win by penalty kicks just by walking up the pitch with a teammate beside you and you being very aware of what was happening. You'd either a PK "every" attempted tackle, or you'd walk the length of the field untouched as you couldn't in reality be tackled.

didds

 

[beckett50]

"The implications of your approach - that any tackle that arrives after the ball is no longer in the ball-carriers hands is late and should be PK'd - make defence impossible."

=====

absolutely.

Red holds ball.

Blue approaches.

red holds ball.

Blue gets really close

red holds ball.

blue starts tackle procedure.

At the very last moment red now pops the ball to his team mate adjacent to him, and the tackle arrives half a nano second later, but makes contact when red as previous ball carrier no longer has the ball.

PK.

You could score tries or win by penalty kicks just by walking up the pitch with a teammate beside you and you being very aware of what was happening. You'd either a PK "every" attempted tackle, or you'd walk the length of the field untouched as you couldn't in reality be tackled.

didds

This reminds me of the ROE we had to contend with in Kosovo!!

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

"The implications of your approach - that any tackle that arrives after the ball is no longer in the ball-carriers hands is late and should be PK'd - make defence impossible."

=====

absolutely.

Red holds ball.

Blue approaches.

red holds ball.

Blue gets really close

red holds ball.

blue starts tackle procedure.

At the very last moment red now pops the ball to his team mate adjacent to him, and the tackle arrives half a nano second later, but makes contact when red as previous ball carrier no longer has the ball.

PK.

You could score tries or win by penalty kicks just by walking up the pitch with a teammate beside you and you being very aware of what was happening. You'd either a PK "every" attempted tackle, or you'd walk the length of the field untouched as you couldn't in reality be tackled.

Fair enough, I'll join in. When the BC uses this ploy, the defender can also fake a tackle, defenders could also then catch the pass or tackle the receiver early by commiting to the tackle before it is caught if they catch it, but thye may be smart enough to miss the pass and get the PK

didds

You mean like this one

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FM94Tkbjkw4

Do ya see a difference between this one and the 6N video?

 

[Browner]

You mean like this one

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FM94Tkbjkw4

Do ya see a difference between this one and the 6N video?

Or Nonu v Fekitoa recently ???

Yes, if you mean

A few milliseconds ?
The body angles/directions of the participants ?
Impact velocity differences ?
Etc...

In none of these cases was it reasonable to expect a potential tackler to be able to 'reverse' the moment the BC releases the ball.

Define : Late Tackle in a rugby context.

Arguably its one where : the attemptee could reasonably have been expected to have pulled out ??
& that's a judgement based on each case , helped by playing/watching experience.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

[/I]

[/COLOR]Jesus exhorted his followers to not remove the plank from their neighbor's eye until they had removed the mote from their ow.n Or vice versa. Thx gotta figure it out still


. It smacks of the worrying trend of American referees MSU to suit their personal moral view of the game[/I]

MSU (Michigan State Univ), Is there a clarification or interpretation that uses "commited to the tackle". I stand corrected if so. Or is this"commited tackle" something everyone knows is not made up.

I've been using the attempted late tackle and playing man w/o ball. Is there more that is not made up.


Remember in this video, NO asked for a second. A French admin of some type also asked for review. In real time, I would have blown it up immed, for fear of dead player, Crunch

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

Try this one, along the same lines as late,

How do you decide whether a defender has obstructed a kicker or made legal contact?

Is it when ball has left the foot? Is when when the tackler has shaped his body to tackle? Or when the defender has left the ground to block the kick? is it when the ball left the hands of kicker? or when the kickers kicking foot is down?

I'm not interested in an answer, and the situations are different. each has one variable that is the same. The ball.

We consistently overload the referee with law tid bits and interpretations. When it should be simplified.

The ball is one thing that can be judged equally be everyone.

"commitment to a tackle" can have 30 different appearances. Some props can't bend over and tackle with bearhug, a former h.s. wrestler can run about the park consistantly at waist level.

 

[thepercy]

I've read some posters previously indicate that they'd card someone for a "potentially dangerous " act as opposed to actual offending - its a bit of a quantum leap i know, but maybe CL's mere presence in a match is always deemed potentially dangerous for opponents and therefore preventative carding should be introduced for him cos of his match playing style , it would maybe satisfy the "potentialists" amongst the audience !

:sarc:

We do this to an extent with player bans, you are playing too dangerously, take a few weeks off and think about your actions.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

Or Nonu v Fekitoa recently ???

Yes, if you mean

A few milliseconds ?
The body angles/directions of the participants ?
Impact velocity differences ?
Etc...

In none of these cases was it reasonable to expect a potential tackler to be able to 'reverse' the moment the BC releases the ball.

Define : Late Tackle in a rugby context.

Arguably its one where : the attemptee could reasonably have been expected to have pulled out ??
& that's a judgement based on each case , helped by playing/watching experience.

Or we use lawbook, 10.4 e and f , which says the ball ; of course we could MSU that is subjective and everyone can interpret uniquely

 

[OB..]

When you drive in for a tackle, there is a moment when you put your head down and can no longer see if the opponent still has the ball; moreover it is usually physically impossible to change your drive since you have deliberately overbalanced to put power into the tackle. That is the reality we have to deal with and it means that trying to make the position of the ball the deciding factor is unrealistic.

A parallel case is when a dummy is so good and the defence up so fast that you buy the dummy and tackle the expected receiver. I don't see anybody giving penalties for that.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

A parallel case is when a dummy is so good and the defence up so fast that you buy the dummy and tackle the expected receiver. I don't see anybody giving penalties for that.

http://laws.worldrugby.org/content/video_popup_ver6.php?v=laws/2039-opponent-without-ball

 

[WombleRef]

The two questions I ask myself if I am going to penalise a late tackle is - did they commit before or after the ball was passed. Was the commitment sensible. E.g. Not committing 25 meters away.

If the answer to those questions was - A) After and B) No. Then you're at least getting sent back 10.

 

[JJ10]

I'm really loathe to have a pop at anyone on here - its a great vehicle for discussion and debate; but this is just daft.

NKW - Have you ever played the game? In playing terms, the difference between Lawes' fantastic tackle on Jackson (thanks for the vid - superb technique and great defence) is EXACTLY the same as the tackle on Plisson. Lawes commits, head down, as both players have the ball in their hands. He smashes both. In one, the ball is just about leaving the hands, in the other, its just about left. Both are example of great committed defence.

And I play as a fly half!

Those tackles for me show everything about the game we all love. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to play (or referee) RL where high shots, shoulder charges and really dangerous play, deliberately and intentionally designed to take the opponent off the park, go unpunished. Those tackles are not that. They are examples of good technique (unlike Leigh Halfpenny with his head the wrong side - far more dangerous) and good defence. In both cases, the BC got smashed, and stopped running down that channel for the rest of the game. It's up to a good fly half to avoid defenders like that, OR draw defenders like that to create space outwide. End. Of. Story.

 

[OB..]

http://laws.worldrugby.org/content/video_popup_ver6.php?v=laws/2039-opponent-without-ball

Hard to see any signs of a dummy there. The tackler was "over-committed".

The point is that a dummy passer intends the opponents to be fooled. If he succeeds, he can't really complain.

 

[RobLev]

MSU (Michigan State Univ), Is there a clarification or interpretation that uses "commited to the tackle". I stand corrected if so. Or is this"commited tackle" something everyone knows is not made up.

I've been using the attempted late tackle and playing man w/o ball. Is there more that is not made up.


Remember in this video, NO asked for a second. A French admin of some type also asked for review. In real time, I would have blown it up immed, for fear of dead player, Crunch

No, NO didn't ask for a second look at the tackle. He was perfectly satisfied with it in real time, and said so. He wanted a look at the thuggery from the French - the thuggery you would excuse.

 

[RobLev]

Try this one, along the same lines as late,

How do you decide whether a defender has obstructed a kicker or made legal contact?

Is it when ball has left the foot? Is when when the tackler has shaped his body to tackle? Or when the defender has left the ground to block the kick? is it when the ball left the hands of kicker? or when the kickers kicking foot is down?

I'm not interested in an answer, and the situations are different. each has one variable that is the same. The ball.

We consistently overload the referee with law tid bits and interpretations. When it should be simplified.

The ball is one thing that can be judged equally be everyone.

"commitment to a tackle" can have 30 different appearances. Some props can't bend over and tackle with bearhug, a former h.s. wrestler can run about the park consistantly at waist level.

NFL has a rule about roughing the passer. You'll know how it works; and that quarterbacks don't dummy passes with oppo players in close proximity. Is your claim that Rugby Union players are more skilful and/or have more control of their bodily movements than NFL defense players?