Nagging Question

[RussRef]

Red 5 carries the ball into contact, where's he's wrapped up by Blue 3. Blue players, but no Red players, arrive shortly thereafter. Red 5, trying to take the ball to ground, stops supporting his own weight with his feet but does fall to the ground because Blue 3 is holding him (and the ball) up. I am tempted to let play continue because, under law 17, Red 5 is not "brought to ground": he does not have a knee on the ground nor is he sitting on someone on the ground. So no tackle, and no maul because no Red players have joined the party. Yet Red 5 is not supporting his own weight with his feet, which in other situations would deem him to be on the ground. (I can't find the law references for this, but I think I'm right.) And if he's on the ground, maybe Blue 3 has an obligation to release (?)

Would anyone whistle this, and for what reason?

 

[menace]

As described, provided it wasn't dangerous to the player being held up, then I would let it play out for a bit. (For eg if a major dangerous looking collapse was looming Id consider pulling it up). But don't forget that

[LAWS]15.3 BROUGHT TO THE GROUND DEFINED
(a) If the ball carrier has one knee or both knees on the ground, that player has been ‘brought to ground’.
(b) If the ball carrier is sitting on the ground, or on top of another player on the ground the ball carrier has been ‘brought to ground’.[/LAWS]

So although possible it would be hard to imagine that the ball carrier was being held high enough such that his knee did not touch the ground? So as soon as I saw a knee touch the ground I would be calling "tackled" and calling the 'tacklers' to release. If they didn't release ball carrier within a reasonable time, I would then ping em for not releasing.

 

[The Fat]

As described, provided it wasn't dangerous to the player being held up, then I would let it play out for a bit. (For eg if a major dangerous looking collapse was looming Id consider pulling it up). But don't forget that

[LAWS]15.3 BROUGHT TO THE GROUND DEFINED
(a) If the ball carrier has one knee or both knees on the ground, that player has been ‘brought to ground’.
(b) If the ball carrier is sitting on the ground, or on top of another player on the ground the ball carrier has been ‘brought to ground’.[/LAWS]

So although possible it would be hard to imagine that the ball carrier was being held high enough such that his knee did not touch the ground? So as soon as I saw a knee touch the ground I would be calling "tackled" and calling the 'tacklers' to release. If they didn't release ball carrier within a reasonable time, I would then ping em for not releasing.

Saved me from writing pretty much the same thing.

Now I'll throw the curly question at Russref. If you did decide to blow for safety reasons (let's say we are talking juniors here), you would restart with a scrum. Who would you award the feed to?

 

[OB..]

Yet Red 5 is not supporting his own weight with his feet, which in other situations would deem him to be on the ground. (I can't find the law references for this, but I think I'm right.)

There are certain actions which require a player to be on his feet, and some situations where a player is required to try and stay on his feet, but this is neither. He is entitled to go to ground if he can.

 

[ChrisR]

... and Blue are entitled to prevent him from going to ground. There is no cause for a whistle except perhaps a dangerous situation developing.

Agree that if Red gets a knee to the ground it's "Tackle, release!"

 

[Browner]

... and Blue are entitled to prevent him from going to ground. There is no cause for a whistle except perhaps a dangerous situation developing.

Agree that if Red gets a knee to the ground it's "Tackle, release!"

No way ........... If BLUE aren't 'bringing him' to ground then RED doesn't get 'brought to ground' 15.3[a] protection. Blue seem to be trying to keep him up, & the game is supposed to be played on feet, so reward those attempting it.

 

[OB..]

No way ........... If BLUE aren't 'bringing him' to ground then RED doesn't get 'brought to ground' 15.3[a] protection.

[LAWS]If the ball carrier has one knee or both knees on the ground, that player has been ‘brought to ground’.[/LAWS]
Nothing there says the opponent has to be actively bringing the ball carrier to ground. It simply covers a situation that can arise when the ball carrier is being held.

Blue seem to be trying to keep him up, & the game is supposed to be played on feet, so reward those attempting it.

By doing what?

 

[Taff]

This question nagged me for months and months; if you do a search I'm pretty sure that there's a looong thread on here where I tried (unsuccessfully as it turned out) to argue that being "brought to ground" was not the same as "going to ground".

My logic was that if opposition players are doing their best to hold up a ball carrier (BC) they should not be required to release - even if the BC managed to get a knee to the ground. I raised the question wherever I could and when we had a visiting international retired WRU ref give us a talk at a monthly meeting, I raised it again.

His answer disappointed me in a way, but flicked a switch at the same time. Legally going to ground has the exact same effect as being "brought to ground" ie the BC is considered tackled ... and the non-tacklers (don't forget they didn't go to ground themselves) are obliged to let him go.

However, as the top man mentioned, the opposition can use this to their advantage. That's all the opposition need to do as soon as the BC gets a knee to the ground is let him go (ie they've released him) and for the player in the gate to immediately go for the ball .... and there's sod all the BC can do about it. If he releases the ball he obviously loses possession; and if he holds onto it, he gets penalised for errr ... holding on.

Either way, the players on their feet win. epper:

 

[Browner]

[LAWS]If the ball carrier has one knee or both knees on the ground, that player has been ‘brought to ground’.[/LAWS]
Nothing there says the opponent has to be actively bringing the ball carrier to ground. It simply covers a situation that can arise when the ball carrier is being held.By doing what?

15.3[a] was written to remove debate over what was considered a half tackle etc.... & someone who brings a Ball Carrier "to the ground" via one knee is now within this law. HOWEVER the definition of "brought to ground" is a fundamental part of the definition of a tackle [LAWS] A tackle occurs when the ball carrier is held by one or more opponents and is brought to ground [/LAWS] For the purpose of this law 'intention ' is of paramount importance.

 

[menace]

Why do you insist on ignoring what is defined by 'bought to ground'?? Regardless of what you think it is or should be, the law makers are, for once, very clear of the intention so much so that they created a law number for it, rather than tossing it into the 'defs' section?
This is one definition you can make up yourself with symantics.

 

[Browner]

Why do you insist on ignoring what is defined by 'bought to ground'?? Regardless of what you think it is or should be, the law makers are, for once, very clear of the intention so much so that they created a law number for it, rather than tossing it into the 'defs' section?
This is one definition you can make up yourself with symantics.

Menace, if you can't see the subtle difference ,it ain't my fault. Do you honestly think this law was designed to reward ball carriers who went to ground voluntarily? , if so then we do indeed differ [LAWS] A player who brings a player to ground who is carrying the ball is not a tackler (Definition), however, this player has completed a tackle. [/LAWS] brings/takes/grounds all imply a deliberate act by the 'tackler' of intending to put the BC on the floor, in the example quoted such intention is absent, therefore I stand by my understanding of the intention of law.

 

[OB..]

15.3[a] was written to remove debate over what was considered a half tackle etc.... & someone who brings a Ball Carrier "to the ground" via one knee is now within this law. HOWEVER the definition of "brought to ground" is a fundamental part of the definition of a tackle [LAWS] A tackle occurs when the ball carrier is held by one or more opponents and is brought to ground [/LAWS] For the purpose of this law 'intention ' is of paramount importance.

"Brought to ground" is defined, so we can replace it in the definition:

A tackle occurs when the ball carrier is held by one or more opponents and has one knee or both knees on the ground.

(Of course you then also have to include other ways of being on the ground.) However you slice it, the law describes an outcome rather than an action.

Nevertheless I have often said I do not believe the law is precisely worded. To me it makes more sense from a refereeing point of view to avoid asking the referee to judge intent more than is necessary. Here it is not necessary and just confuses the issue.

 

[menace]

Menace, if you can't see the subtle difference ,it ain't my fault. Do you honestly think this law was designed to reward ball carriers who went to ground voluntarily? , if so then we do indeed differ [LAWS] A player who brings a player to ground who is carrying the ball is not a tackler (Definition), however, this player has completed a tackle. [/LAWS] brings/takes/grounds all imply a deliberate act by the 'tackler' of intending to put the BC on the floor, in the example quoted such intention is absent, therefore I stand by my understanding of the intention of law.

To be honest, I've given up trying to figure out what the law makers 'intent' was, that's too subjective. So in this case I revert back to what is written...and it seems quite clear to me. If it means the ball carrier under pressure is smart enough to voluntarily put a knee down and can be saved with that law then so be it. Good for him to use the laws to his advantage. (the law makers have had plenty of time to close your interpretation of that loophole if they wanted to).

Don't forget that it can work against the BC too! Where a tackler holds the ball carrier and only brings them down halfway, to one knee, but the BC still has sufficient balance and strength that he is able to continue, in fact can't do so and must use use one of his options. If not he gets pinged for holding on.

I think the definition clears up for both situations and evens it out.

 

[Browner]

"Brought to ground" is defined, so we can replace it in the definition:

A tackle occurs when the ball carrier is held by one or more opponents and has one knee or both knees on the ground.

(Of course you then also have to include other ways of being on the ground.) However you slice it, the law describes an outcome rather than an action.

Nevertheless I have often said I do not believe the law is precisely worded. To me it makes more sense from a refereeing point of view to avoid asking the referee to judge intent more than is necessary. Here it is not necessary and just confuses the issue.

Not for me OB, you've omitted the word 'Brought'... it's the key word .......... Try this

A tackle occurs when the ball carrier is held by one or more opponents and has been brought onto one knee or brought onto both knees or brought to the ground

.......... I cannot believe the lawwriters intended to curtail the attempts of players on their feet to keep a Ball Carrier on his feet.

 

[Taff]

Browner, I have some sympathy with you, but have you read my Post 8?

 

[Browner]

Browner, I have some sympathy with you, but have you read my Post 8?

Yes Taff, & I understand the 'same outcome' potential, and if it were guaranteed there would be less of an issue. But it's not, we both see BC's given inordinate time to land on /roll/twist/reposition/wedge between legs etc , all done to buy time for supporting players to arrive to clear away potential Jacklers. Contrast this with the more certain outcome of 'wrapping' the BC up & getting the scrum feed turnover ............ I was an invited guest at a Prem club where this landing on/roll/twist/wedge training was measured on the stopwatch, scored & and the players challenged on their ability to 'improve'[lengthen] their presentation delay time [whilst appearing law compliant], serious coach bollocking for anyone not achieving long delay periods! ................ the day comes when immediate means immediate, then i'll adjust my need for a different interpretation of the definition.

 

[The Fat]

Menace, if you can't see the subtle difference ,it ain't my fault. Do you honestly think this law was designed to reward ball carriers who went to ground voluntarily? , if so then we do indeed differ

The laws provide some reward for the ball carrier who intentionally goes to ground as a maul forms.

 

[Stuartg]

Browner - i'm on your side here. The ball carrier is given too much leniency and the result is a dull, predictable style of game. Thevact of tackling a player is a positive (and often brave) event and should be recognised. We need a less predictable outcome.

 

[john g]

Not for me OB, you've omitted the word 'Brought'... it's the key word .......... Try this

A tackle occurs when the ball carrier is held by one or more opponents and has been brought onto one knee or brought onto both knees or brought to the ground

.......... I cannot believe the lawwriters intended to curtail the attempts of players on their feet to keep a Ball Carrier on his feet.

But wasn't that what they did when they mentioned about a clear release for the assisted tackles?

 

[Account Deleted]

... and Blue are entitled to prevent him from going to ground. There is no cause for a whistle except perhaps a dangerous situation developing.

If you deem the ball to be unplayable you can blow. Who get the put in (maul law does not apply!)

20.4 THE TEAM THROWING THE BALL INTO THE SCRUM

(d) Scrum after any other stoppage. After any other stoppage or irregularity not covered by
Law, the team that was moving forward before the stoppage throws in the ball. If neither
team was moving forward, the attacking team throws in the ball.