Jackler surviving the clear out

[number11]

I've been improving my understanding of the breakdown lately. Here's the March 2020 clarification:

Law Application Guidelines | World Rugby Laws

Law application guidelines for the game of rugby union.

www.world.rugby

Referees will not now expect the jackler to ‘survive the clear out’

Can someone clarify what this means? I assume it's that once the jackler achieves all the priorities listed, he can hold on to the ball even if driven off his feet?

 

[crossref]

I think it means the jackler can win a PK before the clean out happens, even though the clean out knocked him off his feet

 

[Decorily]

Crossref is correct (ish!)

I think really the legal jackler should be rewarded early....ie BEFORE the cleanout.

Don't wait until they are knocked off their feet.

 

[crossref]

I seem to recall that prior to the clarification there was a view that a jackler had to be firmly enough on their feet to survive a clean out ? Hence the clarification.

Anyway, whatever they meant , I agree that your post #3 is exactly the right way to ref it

 

[Decorily]

I seem to recall that prior to the clarification there was a view that a jackler had to be firmly enough on their feet to survive a clean out ? Hence the clarification.

Anyway, whatever they meant , I agree that your post #3 is exactly the right way to ref it

Exactly. ...prior to clarification!

Rightly so in my opinion. ...

The jackler is now either deemed to be legally entitled to 'have' the ball or not.

No need for them to be pummelled to prove their entitlement/legality!

 

[Dickie E]

Noting too that the jackler needs to have sufficient grasp of the ball to demonstrate to the ref that the ball carrier is not releasing

 

[Locke]

The USAR GMGs state, “Jackler should only be rewarded if they clearly lift/pull the ball up.” Presumably to demonstrate that their weight is on their feet.

 

[SimonSmith]

The USAR GMGs state, “Jackler should only be rewarded if they clearly lift/pull the ball up.” Presumably to demonstrate that their weight is on their feet.

More so to stop them pulling the ball into the tackled player and appealing for the decision.

It was a coached technique

 

[Dickie E]

The USAR GMGs state, “Jackler should only be rewarded if they clearly lift/pull the ball up.” Presumably to demonstrate that their weight is on their feet.

Its guidance to the referee not to reward the jackler for just getting a finger on the ball

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

Here's why they are trying to protect the jackler. End of Retallick's tour

 

[Arabcheif]

Here's why they are trying to protect the jackler. End of Retallick's tour

I really don't like the way this has been manufactured, it seems. We need to do away with the jackler completely. First player step over and protect the ball, next player can pick up or bind onto his own player. ATM I feel that the tackling team has an advantage based on the way the jackler can go for the ball (head below hips, unlike when the ruck has formed).

 

[Arabcheif]

I've been improving my understanding of the breakdown lately. Here's the March 2020 clarification:

Law Application Guidelines | World Rugby Laws

Law application guidelines for the game of rugby union.

www.world.rugby

Can someone clarify what this means? I assume it's that once the jackler achieves all the priorities listed, he can hold on to the ball even if driven off his feet?

To answer your question, essentially yes. Once he's/she's legally got hands on the ball. He/She can keep hold of he ball. Even if driven off his feet, but then has the same responsibilities as a tackled player.

 

[chbg]

Don't forget that the jackler "must be attempting to lift the ball" (quoted form the Guidelines) - not just placing hands on top of the ball.

 

[DocP]

Don't forget that the jackler "must be attempting to lift the ball" (quoted form the Guidelines) - not just placing hands on top of the ball.

I actually used that on the weekend. As ever there were appeals from the defending player asking for a penalty turn over at a ruck. Reminded him there must be an attempt to lift. He didn't seem to agree and thought that just being in position meant he should of been rewarded. Was a good tempered match so not much else was said.
I wanted to catch up with him in the bar afterwards to explain but he was on the away team who shot pretty much straight off.

 

[Phil E]

If they are lifting it also serves to demonstrate that they are supporting their own weight, as you can't lift if you aren't.

 

[Stu10]

I actually used that on the weekend. As ever there were appeals from the defending player asking for a penalty turn over at a ruck. Reminded him there must be an attempt to lift. He didn't seem to agree and thought that just being in position meant he should of been rewarded. Was a good tempered match so not much else was said.
I wanted to catch up with him in the bar afterwards to explain but he was on the away team who shot pretty much straight off.

@crossref has started a very interesting thread (link) about whether penalties are a reward for one team or a sanction against the other team.

Regarding the jackal, the penalty is against the tackled player for not releasing, not for the jackler getting hands on the ball. If the defender stands over him and simply puts hands on the ball, that does not clearly demonstrate that the tackled player is not releasing... the defender must act to take the ball, and thus demonstrate that the tackled player is not releasing..., at least, that's my view of it.

 

[Zebra1922]

Noting too that the jackler needs to have sufficient grasp of the ball to demonstrate to the ref that the ball carrier is not releasing

What I see a lot is the jackler getting hands on the ball, then expecting a penalty even though they’re not lifting the ball the the tackled player isn’t holding onto the ball. I let it continue until something else happens, either jackler decides to actually try and lift the ball, tackled player does hold on, or most likely the jackler gets driven off and then complains I didn’t reward them, despite there being no offence.

 

[DocP]

At the end of the day, as referees, we surely want the contest of rugby be to happen rather than a penalty fest. If the jackler is unimpeded but decides not to lift the ball then as you say @Zebra1922 just wait it out. No law at that point is being broken. What you describe is basically what I said in my post above except the jackler never attempted to lift. So just play on for me and deal with the cries of foul afterwards