[Tackle] missed something since lockdown

[mugsey]

Please can someone illuminate me about what professional referees are doing with the breakdown since September? Lots and lots of penalties for the player on the ground holding on, but none for the jackler, that I have seen, going off their feet in order to get their hands on the ball.

 

[Decorily]

One focus point for referees this season is to reward the jackler quicker. Of course the jackler should be on their feet with 2 hands on the ball and in a strong position. .... clearly some of that doesn't always occur!

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Normal this. Reward the team in possession. Then people complain so the is a 180 degree turn and reward the tacklers team. Next season it will be back the other way again.

Suggestion: Require all players at the breakdown to comply.

 

[Dickie E]

90% ball retention at the breakdown I think is a good target. Less than that, team in possession will be encouraged to kick; more than that, team not is possession less likely to commit to breakdown and will clog backline

 

[Marc Wakeham]

There should be a fair contest. If the ball carrying side wants 90% retention, they need to work at it.

 

[Zebra1922]

I've got no particular problem with legislators asking for certain things to be focussed on, such as tacklers holding/rewarding jacklers, but this should not be to the detriment of application of other laws. Jacklers are frequently getting away with either not clearly releasing having been part of the tackle, putting hands down beyond the ball and coming back, or placing hands on the ball and making no attempt to play, pretending the tackled player is holding on. Needs referees to be zealous in application of all laws.

 

[Decorily]

Exactly. ...in fairness "legislators " never asked that we ,referees, ignore other requirements (laws) when they ask for 'focus' on certain new elements of the game! !!

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

You will see a lot more penalties against the ball carrier for doing an extra roll before presenting he ball, in effect coached and buying time for being isolated

 

[didds]

You will see a lot more penalties against the ball carrier for doing an extra roll before presenting he ball, in effect coached and buying time for being isolated

and quite rightly too.

Which rather begs the quesation how this "tactic" was permitted in the first place?

Or if you like, if it was beign coached, and used, it was being permitted by people carrying a whistle. This wasnt only an elite thing either - I saw people coachig this to bloody U17s in the community gamne - so presumably it was being NOT penalised at U17s at community level. So that suggests it was a broadly accepted thing to do agreed across referees societies.

So whilst i agree it was beign coached and its insidious and frankly shit, nonetheless a huge tranche of rugby officials across the board was acceoting it as permissable. Including by defintion referees. Sio lets not pretend this is a one directional "thing" only incolving evil coaches.

didds

 

[crossref]

I penalize it, and have to explain why, to bemused 17 year olds who are only doing what they have been coached

 

[didds]

I penalize it, and have to explain why, to bemused 17 year olds who are only doing what they have been coached

yes. I get that.

But why are they being coached it if it would always histrically been pinged?

Coaches only coach stuff - in the past - that has been allowed. there is nothing to gain by coaching something that will be pinged at all times.

QED coaches have coached it (well some do!, not all!), because its a tactic that will have "worked" . And it has "worked" because refs wont have been pinging it.

Both sides are equally culpable.

A straigjht answer to your question is I suppose "Beforehand my society said to allow it. Now they tell me to ping it. So I've pinged it. Got any problems with that take it up with the society.

didds

 

[Rich_NL]

Agreed. I've been coached to take the extra roll - literally "it's not technically allowed, but it's *never* pinged". First penalty I blew after the "new enforcement" came in was rolling with the ball.

 

[didds]

Agreed. I've been coached to take the extra roll - literally "it's not technically allowed, but it's *never* pinged". First penalty I blew after the "new enforcement" came in was rolling with the ball.

Like.

 

[Flish]

I penalize it, and have to explain why, to bemused 17 year olds who are only doing what they have been coached

I think, from my experience this does come from the Elite game, but sneaks down to grass routes through the Academy / DPP programs, and then age grade coaches take what their DPP kids are doing and don’t / daren’t discourage it, and then other kids copy. Same goes for arriving players going off feet (leaning on forearms) when first attacker at the break down, crocodile rolls, and flying clear outs. I never see any of this coached at my club, but when I ref the Colts players I see it, and I know which players are on the pathway.

Could be wrong, but the patterns match in my areas. For all I know this is just DPP coaches trying to be clever (I’ll admit to having problems with the quality of the coaching in these programs, Ego’s everywhere, but they are volunteers too) but the end results I’d the same

 

[didds]

I think, from my experience this does come from the Elite game, but sneaks down to grass routes through the Academy / DPP programs, and then age grade coaches take what their DPP kids are doing and don’t / daren’t discourage it, and then other kids copy. Same goes for arriving players going off feet (leaning on forearms) when first attacker at the break down, crocodile rolls, and flying clear outs. I never see any of this coached at my club, but when I ref the Colts players I see it, and I know which players are on the pathway.

Could be wrong, but the patterns match in my areas. For all I know this is just DPP coaches trying to be clever (I’ll admit to having problems with the quality of the coaching in these programs, Ego’s everywhere, but they are volunteers too) but the end results I’d the same

accept that reasoning.

This however still doesnt explain why the players were not pinged at their community club level for it when they did it?

Is that becasue elite refs trickle down to some DPP equivalent too, and then those refs ref the community games and their colleagues who are just honest to goodness community level refs follow suit? And nobody from the society knows about it?

Its not a one way street fellas.

Somebody somewhere has historically accepted it and instructed refs to allow it. So (some) community coaches have then actively coached it rather than watched their DPP players do it and the others copy them. Or at least realise its an arms race so if club X is coaching it so had they better to even the field up.

Of course its a bit chicken and egg in reality - but we had reached the stage where we had both chickens and eggs and seemingly the other partner in that equation was to blame

 

[Flish]

That of course probably depends on the refs appointed to colts games in your area, in mine this is mostly Sunday refs which is a different pot to Saturday, and I’d suggest in my area that some are more susceptible to peer pressure than others from coaches that are known to be part of that DPP or similar process. Either way there probably isn’t always a consistent standard.

I certainly have had some interesting conversations around my decisions from some coaches who should know better but I think try to abuse their perceived ‘power’, they don’t like it when a ref is confident, correct, and stands up to them.

 

[didds]

I think youve hit a nail on the head there then - seeing as it clearly from that isnt society pushed.

Some refs do, some refs dont, nobody eg society addressed it, yet everyone is amazed that some sides/coches/players do it - who then are a tad confuised when one ref allows it and another doesnt.

Do you perceive those refs that are allowing this are not society refs?

Like I said - both sides are eqyally culpabale.

[some] "Evil nasty" copaches only do stuff cos [some] "<insert description of choice>" refs permit them to do so.

 

[didds]

oh - I've only mentioned colts becasue I have actually seen someone coaching rolling to an U17s squad and was frankly appalled (on many levels and many reasons).

I've seen it from u16 certainly and up to level 7 at least and all points in between. Many of those games WOULD have been reffed by society refs

 

[Flish]

Not sure County are aware of it to be honest, assessors and ref coaches are only really appointed round me in Saturday’s, so whilst all County Refs it’s generally a different pot (I do both through my other roles at my sons club) and generally the Junior / County games where I see this are on Sundays.

Don’t want to do down Sunday refs, but the average level of referee appointed is lower, as is the average game standard. So you have a perfect of egos, standards, experience (perceived and real!) for frustration.

For what it’s worth I’ve always penalised double rolls and coached sealing off, certainly if remotely material, and warned players when not - so glad that there’s a wind change that will hopefully get passed down. Of course that makes me part of the consistency problem in the past &#55358;&#56631;*

 

[SimonSmith]

I penalize it if there is a defender close enough to want the ball.
If not, I question the materiality.