Olly Woodburn 2nd YC vs Leicester

[crossref]

If we are saying the tackle was complete and he is an arriving player (which is reasonable) then he is off his feet at the tackle, entering from the side, and falling onto a player on the ground... take your pick for the penalty.

I basically agree
except that KD seems to have given something else completely - -13.4 which is (I think) a safety based Law.

 

[BCH24]

If the tackle was complete, why didn't he immediately release the ball? The laws don't say anything like '....the tackle's complete but you can keep sliding and don't have to release the ball until you stop'

 

[Phil E]

If the tackle was complete, why didn't he immediately release the ball? The laws don't say anything like '....the tackle's complete but you can keep sliding and don't have to release the ball until you stop'

First action is the tackler and/or tackle assist releasing and rolling/moving away.
Then the ball carrier can push, place or pass the ball.
Then we look at other players.

 

[didds]

interesting point... but then as we know no ref ever ever ever insists on an immediate release, but rather release when competed for by an opponent ie "holding on"
which is why tackled players are allowed

* to roll to present on their own side
* to keep a hand(s) on the ball at a ruck (to stop clod hopping second rows from just hoofing the ball accidentally away!)


so while strictly speaking thats correct, it isnt ever refereed that way

 

[crossref]

I actually think Law 14 is a red herring and the PK was for 13.4

 

[Phil E]

interesting point... but then as we know no ref ever ever ever insists on an immediate release, but rather release when competed for by an opponent ie "holding on"
which is why tackled players are allowed

* to roll to present on their own side
* to keep a hand(s) on the ball at a ruck (to stop clod hopping second rows from just hoofing the ball accidentally away!)


so while strictly speaking thats correct, it isnt ever refereed that way

Well it is actually.
If the tackler doesn't release then the ball carrier can't present the ball?
There has to be a certain amount of pragmatism to allow a game of rugby to break out, but the principles are adhered to:

1. Tackler
2. Tackled player
3. Other players

 

[Stu10]

If we are saying the tackle was complete and he is an arriving player (which is reasonable) then he is off his feet at the tackle, entering from the side, and falling onto a player on the ground... take your pick for the penalty.

I basically agree
except that KD seems to have given something else completely - -13.4 which is (I think) a safety based Law.

Not something else completely...

• off his feet at the tackle - law 14.8
• entering from the side - law 14.8
• falling onto a player on the ground - law 13.4

 

[didds]

Well it is actually.
If the tackler doesn't release then the ball carrier can't present the ball?
There has to be a certain amount of pragmatism to allow a game of rugby to break out, but the principles are adhered to:

1. Tackler
2. Tackled player
3. Other players

yes.
and then if there is no contest for the ball nobody gets pinged for still not releasing the ball. In a slide to the line post tackle, if nobody is contesting for the ball, why ping then and not for the tackle in midfield where nobody contests and the hand remains on the ball?

 

[Phil E]

yes.
and then if there is no contest for the ball nobody gets pinged for still not releasing the ball. In a slide to the line post tackle, if nobody is contesting for the ball, why ping then and not for the tackle in midfield where nobody contests and the hand remains on the ball?

I might be missing your point, but if no one is contesting for the ball, who is he not releasing to?

 

[didds]

wrong question.

the law says the tackled player must do one of three things (after being released by the tackler yadda yadda yadda).
However, tackled players are never pinged for not doing these things UNLESS an opponent is trying to play the ball.
So why is a tackle close to the line any different from a midfield tackle?

THAT's the question.

 

[Phil E]

wrong question.

the law says the tackled player must do one of three things (after being released by the tackler yadda yadda yadda).
However, tackled players are never pinged for not doing these things UNLESS an opponent is trying to play the ball.
So why is a tackle close to the line any different from a midfield tackle?

THAT's the question.

If no one is trying to play the ball they are not preventing anyone from doing anything. If we blew for that there would never be any rugby. It's not material. Similar to players being offside, but not actually interfering with play, yes we could penalise them for being offside, but the game wouldn't benefit from it.

Regarding field position, you could say one is match affecting (a potential score is involved) and one isn't.
This is no different to a deliberate knock on in the red zone, versus a deliberate knock on at the other end of the field. One could almost certainly affect the score, the other is highly unlikely to affect the score. So field position does affect decision making in some circumstances.

In the OP diving on the player near the goal line prevented a probably try.
Diving on the player at the half way line wouldn't, so penalty only, rather than penalty try and yellow card.

You have to remember that the laws are not black and white (much as coaches would like them to be when it benefits them), there are a lot of grey areas that give the referee a wide latitude to facilitate a game of rugby and allow a better game. This is the difference between rugby and many other sports. Safety, Enjoyment, Law....in that order.

 

[didds]

exactly my point phil
I ask only to ensure there are no assumptions being made, or we are going along with the accepted trends unqueried.

The bottom line here is really there was nothing anybody would/could do to stop this try despite however "unfair" or "inequitable" it may appear to some/could be argued. Aside form "dont let them get that close" of course
As I've also said above some of this is all because of unexpected consequences of well intentioned changes, which then lead to more changes with unintended consequences ad infinitum. Its just what it is

Putting it another way - indeed, yes ... once a player starts a slide 5m out to score there is nothing the defenders can do to prevent it. On a very VERY wet day that could even be 10m out.

 

[Decorily]

Putting it another way - indeed, yes ... once a player starts a slide 5m out to score there is nothing the defenders can do to prevent it. On a very VERY wet day that could even be 10m out.

Surely a defender (if in a position to do so) could just stand in path of the slider and allow the slider to collide with them thus possibly preventing a score.

 

[crossref]

Surely a defender (if in a position to do so) could just stand in path of the slider and allow the slider to collide with them thus possibly preventing a score.

Or dive in front the slider?

 

[didds]

Surely a defender (if in a position to do so) could just stand in path of the slider and allow the slider to collide with them thus possibly preventing a score.

Or dive in front the slider?

hmmm...

what happens then when the sliding attacker hits the legs/boots/knees/head/legs/arm/elbow of the standing/prone defender with the head?
That's contact with the ball carrier's head with force. Albeit force provided by the attacker of course.

And can that dive start BEHIND any tackle (see above) to end up in front of the attacker, or does the defender have to get "goal side" of the sliding attacker first?

I am intrigued!

 

[Stu10]

This is getting very technical now! Off the top of my head, if the ball carrier has not been tackled and slides, I believe a defender within the FOP that stays on his feet should be able to grasp the ball or the ball carrier. If that defender was in-goal then he could be on the ground.

If the ball carrier was first tackled, as per this OP, a second defender within the FOP would be an "others" player described in law 14.4.c; therefore that player must stay on feet and can play the ball but not the tackled player. If the defender is in-goal then he can be on feet or on the ground, and can grasp the ball or the ball carrier.

My interpretation of law 13.4 is that a defender cannot fall on or over the ball carrier in the FOP or in-goal. However, @Phil E has indicated falling on the player in-goal is OK (however, I may have misunderstood post #10). Also, an experienced ref in our local WhatsApp group has said that law 13.4 does not apply in-goal, but he hasn't replied to my query to explain this... can anyone here explain this interpretation, please?

 

[crossref]

13.3 does not apply in goal (it says so in the text)
13.4 does apply (no doubt because it's a safety Law)

 

[Stu10]

13.3 does not apply in goal (it says so in the text)
13.4 does apply (no doubt because it's a safety Law)

That's how I read it, so not sure why more experienced people are telling me 13.4 does not apply in-goal

 

[Stu10]

Possible a separate discussion, but (if 13.4 does apply in-goal) should there be more penalties for a defender falling onto the ball carrier after the try is scored? I'm not sure if this is a big issue at grass roots, but we see it all the time at elite level... or do we chalk this off as another law that is generally ignored, like on feet at rucks, which is maybe why KD has surprised everyone by pulling law 13.4 out of his pocket?

 

[didds]

Possible a separate discussion, but (if 13.4 does apply in-goal) should there be more penalties for a defender falling onto the ball carrier after the try is scored?

which would bring into play the mystical 10 point try!
mind you, a few of those and the flopping/falling/diving onto the try scorer would soon stop!

meanwhile back in 1992... (2:20 video time of the link doesn't work properly)