Lifting/raising a leg

[Scousebun]

I was refereeing a game the other day. During the game there was a tackle. Both players stayed on their feet and the attacking player kept moving forward. ( No ruck/ maul formed) Another defending player picked one leg up to stop him going forward. I told this player to release his leg as this could have been dangerous. The player released straight away and play continued. At the next breakdown this player asked me why I told him to release the leg to which I told him that it could have been dangerous play towards the attacking player. Was this the correct decision? I have looked through my laws book and cannot see anything about lifting a leg. Can somebody help me with this

 

[Pegleg]

There was no tackle in the first instance. A player or all involved must go to ground for there to be a tackle. The action of lifting a leg as you describe is dangerous play and should be pinged as such.

 

[Dixie]

There was no tackle in the first instance. A player or all involved must go to ground for there to be a tackle. The action of lifting a leg as you describe is dangerous play and should be pinged as such.

I strongly disagree. Lifting a leg in a maul risks bringing it to ground illegally, and is normally to be penalised (though Scousebun's preventative call seems to have been highly effective and would have been fine in most cases).

Where's the danger in lifting a leg? Do we worry that the ball carrier's leg might fall off, his pelvis might break or his hip might dislocate? I suspect that Pegleg and Scousebun are thinking the ball carrier might fall over - and of course, that is exactly what is intended. It's called a tackle, where the ball carrier is brought to ground by defenders. If the defence are prevented from doing that because "it's dangerous", then aren't we playing tiddlywinks?

 

[Rushforth]

Where's the danger in lifting a leg?

The danger is that when the first player smother-tackles (not a tackle in terms of law) and a second player starts lifting a leg, the ball-carrier can rotate beyond 90 degrees, that is to say with his head/neck in the direction of the ground.

Also it is rather common for a team mate of the ball-carrier to arrive at roughly the same time as the team mate of the smother-tackler, thus converting quickly from a legal situation - I agree it is normally not illegal in the tackle - to an illegal one in the ensuing maul.

As a rule of thumb, if a referee feels it is dangerous play - based on the situation - then no further justification is needed. Safety always comes first; players will (almost) always accept seemingly arbitrary decisions if there is a genuine safety concern.

 

[Pegleg]

Lifting the leg in a "tackle" runs the risk of a tip situation. Here we have something, whilst not maul (no player from the ball carrier's side), that is very similar 2 players from one side and one from the other. So dynamically it is very much like a maul. So why is it potentially any less dangerous?

Compare:


Ball Carrier + Teammate Vs Opponant = Maul - DANGEROUS and illegal to collapse

Ball Carrier Vs Opponant + Teammate = No Maul - Not DANGEROUS TO COLLAPSE?

If so, I'm impressed that "danger" can differentiate between shirt colours.

 

[Dixie]

So dynamically it is very much like a maul. So why is it potentially any less dangerous?

16 forwards in a maul, average weight 220lbs, close around the #10 carrying the ball. Total weight 3520 lb falling on that #10 when it collapses.

2 players, average weight 220 lbs, total weight 440lbs fall on the #10 in a tackle.

One of these situations is very much more dangerous to the #10 than the other. I leave it to you to try to figure out which one it is.

 

[RobLev]

16 forwards in a maul, average weight 220lbs, close around the #10 carrying the ball. Total weight 3520 lb falling on that #10 when it collapses.

2 players, average weight 220 lbs, total weight 440lbs fall on the #10 in a tackle.

One of these situations is very much more dangerous to the #10 than the other. I leave it to you to try to figure out which one it is.

It is dangerous play when there are only 3 players in the group, if two are from the BC's team. Why is it less dangerous when there are two from the opposition against the BC?

 

[Pegleg]

16 forwards in a maul, average weight 220lbs, close around the #10 carrying the ball. Total weight 3520 lb falling on that #10 when it collapses.

2 players, average weight 220 lbs, total weight 440lbs fall on the #10 in a tackle.

One of these situations is very much more dangerous to the #10 than the other. I leave it to you to try to figure out which one it is.

Ball Carrier + Teammate Vs Opponant = Maul - DANGEROUS and illegal to collapse

Ball Carrier Vs Opponant + Teammate = No Maul - Not DANGEROUS TO COLLAPSE?

What's the weight difference? I'll leave it to you to try to figure it out.

 

[Browner]

It is dangerous play when there are only 3 players in the group, if two are from the BC's team. Why is it less dangerous when there are two from the opposition against the BC?

Who cares, taking a player off his feet as part of a tackle is as old as the hills ...... Tipping/beyond horizontal is the current benchmark for safe technique, stay within that & stay legal.

I'm amazed I'm reading opinions suggesting the contrary

 

[Dixie]

It is dangerous play when there are only 3 players in the group, if two are from the BC's team. Why is it less dangerous when there are two from the opposition against the BC?

Ball Carrier + Teammate Vs Opponant = Maul - DANGEROUS and illegal to collapse

Ball Carrier Vs Opponant + Teammate = No Maul - Not DANGEROUS TO COLLAPSE?

What's the weight difference? I'll leave it to you to try to figure it out.

If I read these correctly, both RobLev and PegLeg take the view (by analogy with a maul) that a gang tackle is inherently dangerous and is to be penalised as a 10.4 offence (since there is no prohibition of the action in the law 15 dealing with the tackle). I find this view quite astonishingly extraordinary.

It seems obvious to me that the lawmakers are aware that collapsed mauls range from the utterly benign (ball carrier plus one from each side) to the worryingly dangerous. To avoid having referees adopt non-uniform judgements about where in the continuum the particular maul in questions falls, they have legislated that even the utterly benign is to be penalised. The fact that they have NOT prohibited a two-man tackle is clear evidence that the comparable lower end of the maul spectrum is NOT punished because it is dangerous, but rather for other policy reasons (which seems to me to be surprisingly wise for the iRB, perhaps indicative of a rare pre-lunch decision).

 

[Dixie]

To those who take the "dangerous" line, let me pose this scenario.

Thomas "The Tank" Waldrom is on a charge for Exeter against Quins. Danny Care gets in his way, but perhaps prudently declines to tackle low. The impact slows Waldrom, but does not stop him or bring him to ground. Care, seeing his chance, grabs Waldrom's leg as the latter tries to reassert his drive, and then himself drives forward, causing Waldrom to hop backwards and then be forced to offload.

How many are going to penalise Care for this action?

 

[ChrisR]

There was no tackle in the first instance. A player or all involved must go to ground for there to be a tackle. The action of lifting a leg as you describe is dangerous play and should be pinged as such.

Your first sentence is correct.
Your second sentence is inaccurate. The BC must go to ground (in law "brought to ground") in the grasp of an opponent.
Your third sentence is rubbish.

 

[Simon Thomas]

No tackle, no maul so it is open play until something changes that.

I am fully supportive of safety calls, and preventative refereeing, but in this case you were maybe over zealous to make him release totally ? Manage the contact positively and encourage a legal tackle to occur.

Good refereeing as far as I am concerned, as you made a judgement and positive decision allowing play to continue.

What happened next ?

 

[Pegleg]

Your first sentence is correct.
Your second sentence is inaccurate. The BC must go to ground (in law "brought to ground") in the grasp of an opponent.
Your third sentence is rubbish.

I respect your right to your opinion. However, I believe your final statement to be rubbish.

 

[Pegleg]

If I read these correctly, both RobLev and PegLeg take the view (by analogy with a maul) that a gang tackle is inherently dangerous and is to be penalised as a 10.4 offence (since there is no prohibition of the action in the law 15 dealing with the tackle). I find this view quite astonishingly extraordinary.

It seems obvious to me that the lawmakers are aware that collapsed mauls range from the utterly benign (ball carrier plus one from each side) to the worryingly dangerous. To avoid having referees adopt non-uniform judgements about where in the continuum the particular maul in questions falls, they have legislated that even the utterly benign is to be penalised. The fact that they have NOT prohibited a two-man tackle is clear evidence that the comparable lower end of the maul spectrum is NOT punished because it is dangerous, but rather for other policy reasons (which seems to me to be surprisingly wise for the iRB, perhaps indicative of a rare pre-lunch decision).

So what's the difference between these two scenarios? Second invitation to answer:

"Ball Carrier + Teammate Vs Opponant = Maul - DANGEROUS and illegal to collapse

Ball Carrier Vs Opponant + Teammate = No Maul - Not DANGEROUS TO COLLAPSE?

What's the weight difference? I'll leave it to you to try to figure it out."


If a 2 v 1 maul situation is dangerous to collapse, then a 2 v 1 non maul situation is just as dangerous to colapse.

 

[Pegleg]

No tackle, no maul so it is open play until something changes that.

I am fully supportive of safety calls, and preventative refereeing, but in this case you were maybe over zealous to make him release totally ? Manage the contact positively and encourage a legal tackle to occur.

Good refereeing as far as I am concerned, as you made a judgement and positive decision allowing play to continue.

I agree. You, as a referee, assess the situation. If you feel it dangerous manage it. A sharp call "Release his leg" is all it takes.

 

[RobLev]

If I read these correctly, both RobLev and PegLeg take the view (by analogy with a maul) that a gang tackle is inherently dangerous and is to be penalised as a 10.4 offence (since there is no prohibition of the action in the law 15 dealing with the tackle). I find this view quite astonishingly extraordinary.

It seems obvious to me that the lawmakers are aware that collapsed mauls range from the utterly benign (ball carrier plus one from each side) to the worryingly dangerous. To avoid having referees adopt non-uniform judgements about where in the continuum the particular maul in questions falls, they have legislated that even the utterly benign is to be penalised. The fact that they have NOT prohibited a two-man tackle is clear evidence that the comparable lower end of the maul spectrum is NOT punished because it is dangerous, but rather for other policy reasons (which seems to me to be surprisingly wise for the iRB, perhaps indicative of a rare pre-lunch decision).

There are degrees of danger; but two words - Alex McKinnon.

 

[Simon Thomas]

I agree. You, as a referee, assess the situation. If you feel it dangerous manage it. A sharp call "Release his leg" is all it takes.

There is nothing illegal about grabbing the leg so I would question such a specific call - so something like "red 7, stay legal" or similar would be my preferred choice.

 

[RobLev]

There are degrees of danger; but two words - Alex McKinnon.

I'd add that I'm perfectly happy that not all such occurrences are dangerous; but I was responding to a suggestion that no such occurrence was dangerous. The word "Tiddlywinks" was used.

 

[Pegleg]

There is nothing illegal about grabbing the leg so I would question such a specific call - so something like "red 7, stay legal" or similar would be my preferred choice.

Yes poor wording by me. I stand corrected.