No Wrap - into Touch

[Balones]

As far as I’m concerned if you can hand off (push) someone when you are attacking (ball carrying), it only seems fair to allow it when defending.

 

[Ian_Cook]

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.

1. Lots of readers would have seen these steel pegs holding barrier rope, would you want want to tackle an opponent into touch and end up landing on this piece of unyielding metal?

2. Lots of readers would have seen these steel pegs holding barrier rope, would you want to to fended off by a ball carrier running along the wing & being shoved so hard that you accelerate into this piece of unyielding metal?

If you are going use this as a basis to outlaw pushing a ball carrier into touch, then in order to remain consistent with such a safety approach, you will also have to outlaw players tacking a ball carrier into touch, and outlaw a ball carrier fending an opponent into touch.

For mine, I would favour the simpler approach.... a Regulation outlawing the use of these pieces of unyielding metal to hold barrier ropes along touchlines.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Patrick

You need to realise that the word "tackle" has two meanings in Rugby Union and is used in two ways;

1. Verb: The act of grasping an opponent. e.g. "he tackled the player around the waist"; "that was a copybook tackle"

2. Noun: a Law 14 situation where the ball carrier has been brought to ground and held by and opponent e.g. "tackle only", "the tackled player can place, pass, push or release the ball"; "players must approach the tackle area from their own side of the ball"

The idea that a standing player whose forward progress has been halted is a "tackled" player is still a part of Rugby League Laws...

SECTION 11: THE TACKLE AND PLAY-THE-BALL
1. A player in possession may be tackled by an opposing player or players. It is illegal to tackle or
obstruct a player who is not in possession.

2. A player in possession is tackled:

(a) when he is held by one or more opposing players and the ball or the hand or arm holding the ball
comes into contact with the ground.

(b) when he is held by one or more opposing players in such a manner that he can make no further
progress and cannot part with the ball.

(c) when, being held by an opponent, the tackled player makes it evident that he has succumbed to
the tackle and wishes to be released in order to play the ball.

(d) when he is lying on the ground and an opponent already grounded places a hand on him.

...but it has not been a part of Rugby Union Laws for well over 100 years.

 

[crossref]

As far as I’m concerned if you can hand off (push) someone when you are attacking (ball carrying), it only seems fair to allow it when defending.

Of course a hand off is only legal provided excessive force is not used.

There is no equivalent restriction on the pusher . Probably there should be ? Perhaps that's the difference between a push and what Pinky calls a shove

[LAWS]9.24 A ball-carrier is permitted to hand off an opponent provided excessive force is not used[/LAWS]

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Patrick does the law forbid you to push a ball carrier?

Consider WR's position that the re-write is clarification and not change.


Think about those two points and they, surely, lead you to the conclusion that it is stll ok. There is, as always, a caveat: If any action is considered by you, as the referee, to be "dangerous" then it becomes illegal, even allowed in principle.

 

[Balones]

Of course a hand off is only legal provided excessive force is not used.

There is no equivalent restriction on the pusher . Probably there should be ? Perhaps that's the difference between a push and what Pinky calls a shove

[LAWS]9.24 A ball-carrier is permitted to hand off an opponent provided excessive force is not used[/LAWS]

I think there is a range of restrictions on the defender/pusher to prevent illegal activity. ‘Push’ above the shoulder line and it is high tackle. Also, to ‘push’ you do have to use your (open) hands/arms which in itself prevents a degree of dangerous play. To ‘push’ you have to be in contact with the ball carrier for a period of time as well which could equate to a ‘grip’. A ‘push’ cannot be an instant or immediate action in practice; or theory for that matter.

 

[crossref]

Push a ball carrier in the face and it's a high tackle PK

Hand off (push) a defender in the face , play on

It doesn't really make sense



The Law Makers should establish symettry here , so the same Laws apply to both.

 

[ChrisR]

The Law Makers should establish symettry here , so the same Laws apply to both.

. . . except the body postures are not symmetrical. If a defender is coming in to tackle at the waist or lower then the fender's target is the top of the shoulder. Fair as a fend but not for a tackler.

Locally we have prohibited fends to the face (or head? Not sure.) for youth.

 

[crossref]

I am not sure there is a difference , ball carriers also sometime dive low, especially close to the try line , and tacklers still get penalised for a high tackle.

I think it's the same problem both ways

We need to end up in a place where contact above the neck is banned, but with reasonable allowance made when a person dives at last minute

 

[ChrisR]

When ball carriers dive in low they are not fending.

Trying to address tackler and ball carrier as two parts of a symmetrical object doesn't work. They are very different in form and intent.

 

[crossref]

But the risk (contact with eyes being the risk here, right) is the same .

It's probably not a coincidence that we have had a recent high profile court case surrounding loss of eye in a hand off to the face (legal) but we haven't had any similar case surrounding a push to the ball carrier in the face (illegal)

 

[ChrisR]

No, it's not.

 

[OB..]

The idea that a standing player whose forward progress has been halted is a "tackled" player[...] has not been a part of Rugby Union Laws for well over 100 years.

Surprisingly it was more recent than that. Before 1977 a player was tackled if so held that he could not play the ball - what we now call a "choke tackle". Perhaps we should change the law back again!

 

[didds]

Surprisingly it was more recent than that. Before 1977 a player was tackled if so held that he could not play the ball - what we now call a "choke tackle". Perhaps we should change the law back again!

how did it "work" OB? Did the ref just call "tackled" and the player had to release/pass the ball immediately?

didds

 

[Balones]

Push a ball carrier in the face and it's a high tackle PK

Hand off (push) a defender in the face , play on

It doesn't really make sense



The Law Makers should establish symettry here , so the same Laws apply to both.

Except that the law does allow a hand off as long as excessive force is not used. It does not specify any area not allowed. A very forceful hand off to the shoulder will be let go but a similar hand off to the head/face will/could be penalised. ‘Excessive force’ is down to the ref to interpret and while doing so take into account the location.

 

[crossref]

Then perhaps we should have an excessive force offence for tackling ?

 

[thepercy]

Then perhaps we should have an excessive force offence for tackling ?

We do, in a way. Generic Dangerous Tackling

 

[crossref]

I don't think excessive force is the same thing as dangerously, otherwise they would have said dangerously. Or not said anything at all, because , as you say, we already have generic laws against dangerous play

This would be a good Law to ask for a Clarification, in fact : please give some examples of excessive force, is it different from dangerously ?

 

[Zebra1922]

Except that the law does allow a hand off as long as excessive force is not used. It does not specify any area not allowed. A very forceful hand off to the shoulder will be let go but a similar hand off to the head/face will/could be penalised. ‘Excessive force’ is down to the ref to interpret and while doing so take into account the location.

I had a situation like this at the weekend where a hand off contacted with the neck. I did not penalise as in my view it was not dangerous (I know there is a view any head/neck contact is inherently dangerous) the hand off was not stiff arm, it just contacted chest and rode up to neck area but was not particularly forceful.

Would you all normally penalise this?

 

[crossref]

No,
I don't think I have ever penalised a hand off.
but generally speaking I would be more likely to going forward , with the new offence in the Law Book