Non immediate tackler turnovers

[TNT88]

There was one penalty against James Howill in the Wallabies game last week.

He made a tackle, went to ground, an attacker then arrived at the tackle area stepping over Horwill. At this point Howill got to his feet and played the ball.

Barnes penalized him and said it was a "timing issue", or something along those lines.

I agree with the idea that if an attacking player arrives at the tackle, the tackler's time to play the ball has expired.

Is this a sensible interpretation? Or, what is the official line?

When I get to a computer I'll link the incident in question.

 

[TNT88]

To clarify, the defenders can still play the ball before a ruck forms. I'm just talking about the tackler's right to rise to his feet and play the ball from any direction, when does it expire?

 

[TNT88]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVLaVab42Hc#t=36m35s

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

Barnes says there was a ruck, there clearly wasn't so it should have been play on

 

[OB..]

When Horwill plays the ball, a couple of Argentine players are ahead of the ball is a sort of pre-emptive clear out move. One of them made contact with an Australian, but they were not over the ball.

If that sort of clear out is allowed, as seems to be the case, I suppose an extended concept of forming a ruck must be allowed as well.

Not that I like either.

 

[menace]

To clarify, the defenders can still play the ball before a ruck forms. I'm just talking about the tackler's right to rise to his feet and play the ball from any direction, when does it expire?

As soon as a ruck forms.

I think WB got it wrong, possibly was expecting a ruck to form with that many players in the area (lesson: never assume!)

 

[damo]

Is the contact that the Blue 9 makes with Horwill just prior to his picking the ball up not sufficient for a ruck?

 

[menace]

Good point. I thought I recalled Horwill grabbed the ball at about the same time as the 9 touched him, play on IMO, and as he was the 'first' on it he doesn't have to let go when the ruck forms.

Perhaps this was the timing thing WB was referring to, and he assessed it as the 9 formed the ruck before Horwill was onto the ball? Perhaps fair enough if that was WBs assessment, but I still think Arg was rewarded when under pressure from their lack of support play?

 

[TNT88]

The law says he can get up immediately to play the ball. If he lies there until the support comes, surely the chance has gone?

To me it just doesn't look right and would struggle to let that go. If i was playing I'd just roll away.

 

[menace]

The law says he can get up immediately to play the ball. If he lies there until the support comes, surely the chance has gone?

To me it just doesn't look right and would struggle to let that go. If i was playing I'd just roll away.

Horwill did do that? Ie got up ASAP and played at the ball (and IMO that was before the ruck formed). It was great play to try and get a cheap turnover. That's the sort of thing you want your break-always to do?

If a tackler lies there waiting for support (from either side) then a ruck will inevitably form ..so yes his chance will be gone if he waits?

I'm not sure what you're getting at now? If tackler releases and gets to feet and prior to a ruck forming he's permitted by law to now play at the ball? I'd he's quick enough and good enough to do it....then why wouldn't he have a crack?

 

[TNT88]

If the defenders are slow to the ruck, it gives the tackler more time. They could do this deliberately and it could be a turnover every time.

If this is how everyone else sees it I don't mind. There are lots of laws I enforce that I don't always agree with. Just putting the idea out there.

 

[TNT88]

As for Howill, I think he was slow to get up in a case where the attacking support was really quick to arrive at the tackle, hence why it didn't look right to me initially.

 

[menace]

If the defenders are slow to the ruck, it gives the tackler more time. They could do this deliberately and it could be a turnover every time.

If this is how everyone else sees it I don't mind. There are lots of laws I enforce that I don't always agree with. Just putting the idea out there.

I see what you're getting at. I guess that's the game. But I wouldn't expect that to be a sensible tactic.

BTW there was nothing stopping the 9 from cleaning out Horwill off the ball though? 9 made a decision to stand there rather than deal with the threat. Horwill was vulnerable and wouldn't have taken much to move either.

 

[Account Deleted]

Barnes was wrong for me. Just a simple mistake but wrong none the less. His powers continue to wane. I still hope he regains his form.

 

[winchesterref]

Barnes had a very good few opening weekends in the premiership, nothing consistent to suggest his form has been terrible or powers waning so far this year

 

[Account Deleted]

I've not seen his prem stuff this season. But for a couple of years or so at international and HEC level he has not been at the high standards he previously set. He once one of the top two or three in the world. He is not at the moment and has not been for a while.

 

[The Fat]

I've watched him do a few games in the Aviva Prem this year and he has been very good. I don't think he was that bad in the test but definitely think he got the Horwill PK wrong. But let's be serious about this, if he only gets something like that wrong every once in a while, he's still going OK. Mr Poite, not so much.

 

[damo]

There are more mistakes in the application of this law than any other. Either the tackler is allowed to grab the ball after the ruck has formed - and the ref says "he's the tackler - play on", or the tackler is pinged incorrectly for grabbing the ball when there was actually no ruck, or a player who doesn't go to ground releases and then comes in from the side. I believe that more than half the time, referees make a mistake in applying this law.

Whilst the law is a good one in principle, I think in practice it is too hard to officiate. I would just remove the right of the tackler to play the ball from any angle, and make him have to go back like everybody else.

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

Whilst the law is a good one in principle, I think in practice it is too hard to officiate. I would just remove the right of the tackler to play the ball from any angle, and make him have to go back like everybody else.

So would I.

 

[Browner]

I would just remove the right of the tackler to play the ball from any angle, and make him have to go back like everybody else.

:nono: we want more contests for possession, leave unchallenged possession carries to rugby league ! ..................... Horwill didn't do it immediately 'enough' for WB ..... that's all. WB got it right about right IMO