No Wrap - into Touch

[Dickie E]

it's the penultimate button on on the little tool bar -- select the text and hit the button

once you find the antepenultimate button - its the one to the right of that

 

[Patrick]

A lawyers response....


A referees response...

Fantastic - I don't belong to that many sites and that little ball icon is most certainly not on the other ones I subscribe to.

Thank you!

- Patrick

- - - Updated - - -

once you find the antepenultimate button - its the one to the right of that

Yep, yep - thanks - found it!

- Patrick

 

[OB..]

once you find the antepenultimate button - its the one to the right of that

Anoter Flanders and Swann trigger:

Then there flashed though her mind what her mother had said
With her antepenultimate breath:

 

[RobLev]

Anoter Flanders and Swann trigger:

Then there flashed though her mind what her mother had said
With her antepenultimate breath:

...but I like red wine! (and Madeira, as it happens).

 

[Patrick]

Reviving this thread.

Okay Guys and Gals,

Please define:
- Shove
- Knock down
- Push
- Grasp

This relates JUST to ball-carrier being (pick a word from above) shoved into Touch

As of right now, on World Rugby, there is no longer a Law 7 - Mode of Play. That one stated it was OK to push or shove.

Specifically, I'm addressing:
Law 9 - Foul Play - .16 - Dangerous Play
A player must not charge or knock down an opponent carrying the ball without attempting to grasp that player.

This is now more relevant to the Touch Line since the Laws have been sufficiently 'adjusted' to reflect that a tackler must keep in contact with a ball-carrier all the way to the ground (one knee, butt on ground, etc.). Shoving a ball-carrier in open play doesn't stop the player from rolling, getting up and continuing to run.

Can't wait to hear your replys to the definitions.

Patrick

 

[crossref]

Hi Patrick
It's a great question.. its one of many possibly accidental differences in the new Law Book

However forensic reading of 9.15 will probably lead you to the conclusion that players do still have the right to push a ball carrier.

 

[Patrick]

Hi Patrick
It's a great question.. its one of many possibly accidental differences in the new Law Book

However forensic reading of 9.15 will probably lead you to the conclusion that players do still have the right to push a ball carrier.

I know - right! Zero consistency - huge problem.

Anyway, Law 9.15 [FONT=fs_blakeregular, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Except in a scrum, ruck or maul, a player who is not in possession of the ball must not hold, push, charge or obstruct an opponent not in possession of the ball.[/FONT]

[FONT=fs_blakeregular, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Yes, if you say 'well, Law 9.15 is this, therefore, the opposite must be true'.

[/FONT]Unfortunately, that would a false interpretation.

[FONT=fs_blakeregular, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]And, don't forget, because I LOVE forensic interpretations of the Laws, the Tackle was originally and for decades, stopping the ball-carrier - including if the ball-carrier never 'went down'.[/FONT]

[FONT=fs_blakeregular, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The overriding principal is Fair Access to the ball and if you are not moving the ball forward, then you must give your opponent fair access to the ball.
[/FONT]
[FONT=fs_blakeregular, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]That's right, a tackle of a standing player was allowed.

[/FONT]So, let's define those words first then move to the next logical part of the question.

Can't wait to see what comes!

Patrick

 

[crossref]

It's a tricky one

The 2018 Law Book removed the text
[LAWS]2017/7 Any player may tackle, hold or push an opponent holding the ball.[/LAWS]

What should we make of that ?

Seems to me there are several possibilities

1 - they saw it as a contradiction to 2018/9.16 and they say in the press release that one of the purposes of the 2018 Laws was to resolve contradictions, so they resolved this one by deciding that pushing amounts a no-arms tackle and shouldn't be allowed. So they deleted the phrase and banned pushing. (They didn't notice pesky 9.15 which seems to still allow pushing. d'Oh! )

2 - they thought it was so completely obvious that pushing is allowed they deleted the text as it's just not needed. Part of the aim of shortening the book

3 - they thought that 9.15 said the same thing, but more clearly, so deleted Law 7

4 - they deleted the whole of Law 7 because, let's face it, that Law as a whole didn't add much, without stopping to think carefully about that one paeticualr phrase which was, in fact, rather important.


My bet is on (1), they intended to ban pushing as its unseemly and possibly dangerous - but (4) is also plausible.

 

[VM75]

lots of readers would have seen these steel pegs holding barrier rope, would you want your sibling running along the wing & being shoved so hard that he/she accelerates into this piece of unyielding metal?

so i'd favour a Law change that outlawed the shoving into touch from which the aforementioned acceleration occurs, most will have seen what i'm describing.

Tackling [provided the grasp attempt commences within the field of play] a player into touch would remain allowable of course.

 

[didds]

Shoving a ball-carrier in open play doesn't stop the player from rolling, getting up and continuing to run.[/COLOR]

That was always the case (at least for three for decades anyway). A tackle has "always" been "held and brought to ground."


didds

 

[didds]

That's right, a tackle of a standing player was allowed.

I'm not following this.

If a ball carrier was standing still he could be tackled? Of course - and still can.
If a ball carrier was not on the ground ie vaguely upright he could be tackled? Of course - and he still can.

??

And merely stopping the ball carrier, but not putting him on the ground was/is not a tackle [maybe it was 100 years ago ? ] and hasn't been for a very long time - which is why a ball carrier stopped but not brought to ground can maintain hold of the ball.

didds

 

[chbg]

because I LOVE forensic interpretations of the Laws,

The overriding principal is Fair Access to the ball and if you are not moving the ball forward, then you must give your opponent fair access to the ball.

How do you reconcile those two statements?

 

[SimonSmith]

Another question that has been posted on the Fiefdom of Idiots on facebook...

 

[Patrick]

That was always the case (at least for three for decades anyway). A tackle has "always" been "held and brought to ground."


didds

I beg to differ on this point - even though it's off topic - held and brought to ground was in the 'green' definition bit - the only part of a Law that most people read. Thank god they got rid of the greed definition crap.

No, held, in the full Law refers to how a ball-carrier was eventually brought to ground as defined (one knee, two knees, butt or butt on a person).

Again, off topic - sorry for contributing to an interesting rabbit hole.

Patrick

 

[Patrick]

I'm not following this.

If a ball carrier was standing still he could be tackled? Of course - and still can.
If a ball carrier was not on the ground ie vaguely upright he could be tackled? Of course - and he still can.

??

And merely stopping the ball carrier, but not putting him on the ground was/is not a tackle [maybe it was 100 years ago ? ] and hasn't been for a very long time - which is why a ball carrier stopped but not brought to ground can maintain hold of the ball.

didds

Didds, old Fella, you missed it. The Law used to reflect the an advancing ball-carrier could be considered tackled if the ball-carrier was stopped, not necessarily by bringing them to ground.

The overall concept goes all the way back to the idea that the advancing team had to continue to advance or give fair access to the ball - hence, if you're still standing but not advancing, you have to release the ball - standing or otherwise.

No, not a hundred years a go.

I don't have the time to find the Law year but I'll check my library and get back to you.

Regardless, off topic.

Patrick

 

[Patrick]

How do you reconcile those two statements?

I think I did that in the reply to Didds.

Let me know if I'm not being clear enough - I can try again.

Patrick

 

[crossref]

Getting back to Patricks original question ...

Is it ok to push the ball carrier into touch ?

 

[Pinky]

Getting back to Patricks original question ...

Is it ok to push the ball carrier into touch ?

Yes, I think it is, as it is also OK for a maul to be pushed into touch. But I draw a distinction between a push, which I think is like in a scrum or ruck/maul where there is some persiting contact and applied pressure, and a shove which I think of as primarily the arms and letting go once the momentum has been imparted. I don't like the concept of a shove (as I see it) and I think it is potentially dangerous in speeding a player up so they will fall over or will leave the pitch with the possibility of collision with spectators.

 

[OB..]

That was always the case (at least for three for decades anyway). A tackle has "always" been "held and brought to ground."


didds

1871[LAWS]18. In the event of any player holding or running with the ball being tackled and the ball being fairly held he must at once cry down and there put it down. [/LAWS]The law has evolved somewhat since then.

[...][FONT=fs_blakeregular] I LOVE forensic interpretations of the Laws,[/FONT]

If you are at all familiar with Statute Law, you will know that the laws of rugby are not written in such terms. The aim is for the average person to be able to understand them, and they need to be read so as to make sense in terms of the game.

 

[crossref]

Yes, I think it is, as it is also OK for a maul to be pushed into touch. But I draw a distinction between a push, which I think is like in a scrum or ruck/maul where there is some persiting contact and applied pressure, and a shove which I think of as primarily the arms and letting go once the momentum has been imparted. I don't like the concept of a shove (as I see it) and I think it is potentially dangerous in speeding a player up so they will fall over or will leave the pitch with the possibility of collision with spectators.

I don't really understand your distinction between a push and a shove ..

The two Laws that I think deal with question are

[LAWS]9.15 Except in a scrum, ruck or maul, a player who is not in possession of the ball must not hold, push, charge or obstruct an opponent not in possession of the ball.

9.16 A player must not charge or knock down an opponent carrying the ball without attempting to grasp that player.[/LAWS]

So my answer is that
- you can push the ball carrier
- but you can't charge or knock him down

What's the difference? A push is where contact is made with the hands (only) and the arm is initially bent. The force comes not from the initial contact but from subsequently, um, pushing

Of course when you push a running ball carrier you are very likely to push him over . Does that amount to knocking him down (illegal) ? It's a grey area.