Joining at tackle….

[rab60bit]

Last Sunday I lost my usual dispassionate demeanour whilst watching Ireland dispatch England.
Craig Joubert must be the top official in our game but his treatment of the tackle breakdown left me reaching for the bottle.
I didn't pick him out specifically but for 40 minutes Devin Toner repeatedly arrived at the tackle quickly (2nd or 3rd arrival much of the time) and got away with joining (I maintain, illegally) from the side. From the safety of my armchair it was obvious but having read/listened to a range of post match reports/comments no-one else appears to have watched the same match.
I'm approaching officiating 50 matches already this season (which includes losing about 4 weeks due injury/illness) and concerned I'm getting it all terribly wrong.
My understanding is: early arrivals must enter thro' the gate, the gate being defined as behind the ball or the tackler/team mate if he is on the ground between the ball and the joiner; the width of a players shoulders is the tolerance about the ball. Anyone on their feet may join alongside a team mate or behind them.
DT was, at best, joining from 45 deg. but nowhere near behind the ball and at 6' 11" that is a huge advantage. Like most of us I was not party to CJ's pre-match brief so for my benefit what is his reasoning?
No doubt, the best team won and deservingly so - but initially helped by the momentum that a flow of dubious breakdown possession gave them (and a string of more clear infringements in the opposite direction). The Irish have already been credited (by James Haskell) with pushing to the edge of the Laws during this match (what's new) - which is fine, you get away with what you can - but how is this particular treatment of a Law justified.

 

[Dixie]

Last Sunday I lost my usual dispassionate demeanour whilst watching Ireland dispatch England.
Craig Joubert must be the top official in our game but his treatment of the tackle breakdown left me reaching for the bottle.
I didn't pick him out specifically but for 40 minutes Devin Toner repeatedly arrived at the tackle quickly (2nd or 3rd arrival much of the time) and got away with joining (I maintain, illegally) from the side. From the safety of my armchair it was obvious but having read/listened to a range of post match reports/comments no-one else appears to have watched the same match.
I'm approaching officiating 50 matches already this season (which includes losing about 4 weeks due injury/illness) and concerned I'm getting it all terribly wrong.
My understanding is: early arrivals must enter thro' the gate, the gate being defined as behind the ball or the tackler/team mate if he is on the ground between the ball and the joiner; the width of a players shoulders is the tolerance about the ball. Anyone on their feet may join alongside a team mate or behind them.
DT was, at best, joining from 45 deg. but nowhere near behind the ball and at 6' 11" that is a huge advantage. Like most of us I was not party to CJ's pre-match brief so for my benefit what is his reasoning?
No doubt, the best team won and deservingly so - but initially helped by the momentum that a flow of dubious breakdown possession gave them (and a string of more clear infringements in the opposite direction). The Irish have already been credited (by James Haskell) with pushing to the edge of the Laws during this match (what's new) - which is fine, you get away with what you can - but how is this particular treatment of a Law justified.

Welcome to the forum Rab60bit. Congratulations both on finding us and on racking up close to 50 games a season. That's no mean feat, and presumably gives a lot of schoolchildren a lot of pleasure.

I noted in regard to the Wales v England match that "side entry" offences appear to be more prevalent this year, and wondered whether the refs have received "advice" in the run-in to the RWC later this year. I agree that Craig appeared to continue the trend.

You observe that Devin Toner was often 2nd or 3rd arrival, and failed to respect the "gate". The so-called Gate is a construct of Law 15 (tackle) only, and disappears as soon as law 16 (ruck) is drawn into play. If Toner was joinng a ruck (3rd arrival or later), then he would not necessarily be as constrained on angle as he would be in a tackle. This may account for some of the observed entries - but I reiterate my agreement that refs seem to be less strict on it this year.

 

[rab60bit]

Welcome to the forum Rab60bit. Congratulations both on finding us and on racking up close to 50 games a season. That's no mean feat, and presumably gives a lot of schoolchildren a lot of pleasure.

I noted in regard to the Wales v England match that "side entry" offences appear to be more prevalent this year, and wondered whether the refs have received "advice" in the run-in to the RWC later this year. I agree that Craig appeared to continue the trend.

You observe that Devin Toner was often 2nd or 3rd arrival, and failed to respect the "gate". The so-called Gate is a construct of Law 15 (tackle) only, and disappears as soon as law 16 (ruck) is drawn into play. If Toner was joinng a ruck (3rd arrival or later), then he would not necessarily be as constrained on angle as he would be in a tackle. This may account for some of the observed entries - but I reiterate my agreement that refs seem to be less strict on it this year.

Dixie thanks for that.
It's almost 50 matches 'to date' (not season) including only 3 school's fixtures, one of which was DM U18's, one team of which then got to the NatW last 16!
Most of my observed instances were not rucks but in supporting first arrival Ireland players. If you are correct and 'they' have been advised to be more forgiving/lenient in the run up to the RWC then everyone wises-up, the stretched Law becomes acceptable at Club and grassroots level and tackle breakdowns get much more messy and difficult despite the 'Law' as it stands.
I'll stick to my pre-match brief - it includes asking players to tell me where the gate is and how I'll referee it (btw that gets their attention) - want to guess the % of 'correct' answers:wow:

 

[Taff]

... I'll stick to my pre-match brief - it includes asking players to tell me where the gate is and how I'll referee it (btw that gets their attention) - want to guess the % of 'correct' answers:wow:

I'll have a go. Perhaps 15%?

 

[crossref]

I'll stick to my pre-match brief - it includes asking players to tell me where the gate is and how I'll referee it (btw that gets their attention)

well, I have heard a lot of PMB, and never before heard of a ref asking Law questions to the players !

 

[rab60bit]

Nop. Based on average squad size of 20 players, it's less than 5%

 

[rab60bit]

Why not try it? If you want to know how I pose the question happy to provide a suggested script (it no more than 20 seconds 'extra')

 

[Browner]

Why not try it? If you want to know how I pose the question happy to provide a suggested script (it no more than 20 seconds 'extra')

Hi Rabbit

Similar to Crossref, I wouldn't, as once the referee opens up the subject of interpretation up in the briefing then by the time you've finished clarifying potential events or interpretations that players might get wrong, then it might be getting very very dark !.

I expect players to know their 'trade' , therefore the only re-education of players (via captains) is done verbally ( but loud enough for other participants to hear) as the match progresses.

 

[Taff]

well, I have heard a lot of PMB, and never before heard of a ref asking Law questions to the players !

I've seen it. Funnily enough it was a tall Ref with a Royal Navy shirt - for a minute I thought he was Phill E, but it wasn't. :biggrin:

During the PMB he picked on one of the FR players to explain how they should bind. I got the impression that was the only time the players really started listening - up until that point it was white noise.

 

[rab60bit]

Hi Rabbit

Similar to Crossref, I wouldn't, as once the referee opens up the subject of interpretation up in the briefing then by the time you've finished clarifying potential events or interpretations that players might get wrong, then it might be getting very very dark !.

I expect players to know their 'trade' , therefore the only re-education of players (via captains) is done verbally ( but loud enough for other participants to hear) as the match progresses.

You've just answered the question - they very often apparently don't know their trade (depends on level of game too). Each to his own, very simply you encourage the players to get the point as you clarify what you want to see; no real discussion but clear mental engagement when often there can be blank looks (white noise one contributor called it) - tidier game, no dissent "….6 blue, just as we agreed in the brief".