Jackalling HCF

[Browner]

Steffon Armitage MoM performance in the HCF seemed to 'rest' on his Jackalling success.

In every occasion I saw, his hips were way ahead of his feet (remembering IC's fab analysis picture) and I can't image AR didn't see that, so do we think that the 'theft window' is so narrow that elite refs are effectively ignoring the 'support own bodyweight' requirement?

 

[didds]

Its been clear for ages that at least up this side of the planet at elite refs have always ignored the support own bodyweight requirement.

Its a mockery.

didds

 

[Andrew1974]

Whilst I agree in general I think Steffon Armitage has an almost unantural ability to support his own weight when many others would not be able to do so, there were a couple of occasions in this game where he came up with the ball that was simply excellent work.

Personally I think that is the attacking player is isolated then the man on his feet should be given a little lattitude.

 

[Wert Twacky]

Agree with Andrew1974 - the core strength of many of those boys is immense and the very nature of them as professionals allows them to practice and perfect it. While most of us would fall flat on our face, they are able to adopt positions that allow them to jackal while supporting their own weight.
Not saying they're always legal, but Armitage was superb.

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

Agree with Andrew1974 - the core strength of many of those boys is immense and the very nature of them as professionals allows them to practice and perfect it. While most of us would fall flat on our face, they are able to adopt positions that allow them to jackal while supporting their own weight.
Not saying they're always legal, but Armitage was superb.

There's a diffference between immense core strength and physically impossible to do.

In the recent Highlanders v Crusaders game just before RMC got roughed up by Hoeata he (RMC) was shown a-jackling with his arse further forward that his heels which were directly above his toes ie feet like a ballerina - supporting his own body weight my arse!

That said he's in good company - everyone gets away with it at showbiz level.

 

[Dixie]

What do the NZ boys think of the fact that England will travel to see their long white clouds without the European Player of the Year to win us turnover ball if we lose the set piece, but with a coterie of untried and untested FR's who are quite likely to lose us the set piece. Will you pay the full price just to see the poms get whipped, or would you prefer to save some cash until some rugby comes along?

 

[Browner]

the core strength of many of those boys is immense and the very nature of them as professionals allows them to practice and perfect it. While most of us would fall flat on our face, they are able to adopt positions that allow them to jackal while supporting their own weight.
.

The worlds strongest gymnasts would fail some of those tests, so I'm not taking this suggestion seriously, if you believe it then that's your prerogative.

 

[Browner]

Here, SA referees are seemingly questioning whether you can use the ground to get you into a position to win the jackal steal, if no one is close enough to be materially disadvantaged

http://www.sareferees.com/laws/view/2830843/

They then use this to criticise inconsistency ( fair point) but also to suggest why it should be allowable

http://www.sareferees.com/laws/view/2830841/

Discuss

 

[Gracie]

For me hands on the ground at any tackle for the 'jackal steal' is a Penalty. I see plenty of evidence of elite players, dragging their hands back along the ground in what I read Sean Edwards calls "spidering" but for me it is easy - 15.6 after a tackle, all other players must be on their feet when they play the ball. Players are on their feet if no other part of their body is supported by the ground or players on the ground. Anything else creates a reason for a debate that just does not need to happen.

 

[menace]

For me hands on the ground at any tackle for the 'jackal steal' is a Penalty. I see plenty of evidence of elite players, dragging their hands back along the ground in what I read Sean Edwards calls "spidering" but for me it is easy - 15.6 after a tackle, all other players must be on their feet when they play the ball. Players are on their feet if no other part of their body is supported by the ground or players on the ground. Anything else creates a reason for a debate that just does not need to happen.

That sounds a little black and white, and not sure you apply it that rigidly do you?
I would have thought letting a game of rugby break out would be one reason for a little latitude..if not then you must have an awful lot of PKs in your games?
For me, if they put hands on the ground past the ball, maintain a strong position, and get back onto the ball before being/attempted cleaned out then I'm allowing it. (As opposed to bridging past the ball waiting to be cleaned out and scooping the ball with them..I'm not allowing that).

 

[Dickie E]

a slight tangent:

Blue ball carrier tackled by Red tackle assist.
Red tackle assist releases then legally looks to pick up the ball (ie becomes jackler)
An arriving Blue player wishes to clean out the Red jackler. What is the maximum angle of entry that we would allow him to do so? (lets say 0° entry is from Blue side & is parallel to touchline and 90° entry clearly from the side & is parallel to goal line).

 

[Ian_Cook]

a slight tangent:

Blue ball carrier tackled by Red tackle assist.
Red tackle assist releases then legally looks to pick up the ball (ie becomes jackler)
An arriving Blue player wishes to clean out the Red jackler. What is the maximum angle of entry that we would allow him to do so? (lets say 0° entry is from Blue side & is parallel to touchline and 90° entry clearly from the side & is parallel to goal line).

Angle should theoretically not matter if we look at the Law

[LAWS]15.6 (d) At a tackle or near to a tackle, other players who play the ball must do so from behind the
ball and from directly behind the tackled player or the tackler closest to those players’ goal
line.[/LAWS]

"Behind the ball" is technically anywhere in the 180° arc between the ball and Blue's goalline, but limited by the width of the gate, which is itself determined by the angle at which the tackled player and tackler (if any) are lying.

IMO, players joining at "A" would be more restricted in entry angle than players joining at "C" otherwise how on earth would "C" players ever be able to get to the ball or to clean out a jackler.

 

[Dickie E]

I think the implication of what Ian is saying is that ANY angle >0° (plus or minus) is illegal. However, the red arrow in the southeast position would be a very common entry point for a cleaner-outer.

 

[FlipFlop]

For me hands on the ground at any tackle for the 'jackal steal' is a Penalty. I see plenty of evidence of elite players, dragging their hands back along the ground in what I read Sean Edwards calls "spidering" but for me it is easy - 15.6 after a tackle, all other players must be on their feet when they play the ball. Players are on their feet if no other part of their body is supported by the ground or players on the ground. Anything else creates a reason for a debate that just does not need to happen.

I agree with this. And we are seeing it penalised more and more at the elite level as well. And WB on The Rugby Club also said they are looking for the hands to go the ball, and not the ground beyond it. If you have to go to ground, and then come back up, you are going off your feet at the tackle.

I penalise it, and it stops. And the ruck ball is quicker. And less flare ups at the breakdown. And yes - less turnovers, but those turnovers would be illegal in my view, so not a bad thing.

Of course I need to spot the hands on the ground. Not sure I always get it right, but that is my aim.

 

[RobLev]

Angle should theoretically not matter if we look at the Law

[LAWS]15.6 (d) At a tackle or near to a tackle, other players who play the ball must do so from behind the
ball and from directly behind the tackled player or the tackler closest to those players’ goal
line.[/LAWS]

"Behind the ball" is technically anywhere in the 180° arc between the ball and Blue's goalline, but limited by the width of the gate, which is itself determined by the angle at which the tackled player and tackler (if any) are lying.

IMO, players joining at "A" would be more restricted in entry angle than players joining at "C" otherwise how on earth would "C" players ever be able to get to the ball or to clean out a jackler.

Just for clarity - I don't think it affects your answer - but is not "cleaning-out" a jackler tackling him - in which case it's Law 15.8(g), not (d), that would apply:

[LAWS](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.[/LAWS]