Olly Woodburn 2nd YC vs Leicester

[Arabcheif]

But Woodburn slid in?

yes but he did so in a way that he engaged the player with wrapping his arms... I mean sliding feet first. or in any other completely uncontrolled way using his/her back, shoulder etc.

 

[Flish]

No additional ban (sending off sufficient) and charged under 13.3 and 13.4

https://www.englandrugby.com/dxdam/fa/fabfe641-576d-4d59-8056-eeaf18982500/WoodburnExeterChiefsJudgmentApr23(final).pdf

 

[chbg]

So 14.11 states -

1. The tackle ends when:
   1. A ruck is formed.
   2. A player on their feet from either team gains possession of the ball and moves away or passes or kicks the ball.
   3. The ball leaves the tackle area.
   4. The ball is unplayable. If there is doubt about which player did not conform to law, the referee orders a scrum. The throw is taken by the team moving forward prior to the stoppage or, if no team was moving forward, by the attacking team.

Since none of these criteria have been met. Then I'd conclude that the tackle was still in progress. S0 WB was a 2nd tackler. I also don't think he dived on the Ball Carrier. He tackled him, from the side. No where does it state that a tackler needs to remain on his feet during a tackle. For me, this was a perfectly legitimate attempt at a tackle, which had the desired outcome, no try scored.

I think that the crus of this is when is the tackle completed? If it as soon as the BC is brought to the ground, then we'd need to ref that as such and rule out any tries that are scored after a tackle is "completed" (when the Law 14.1/2/3 conditions for the tackle are completed. Or the tackle isn't completed till the BC is stationary, which is how we ref it.

The other video that "should've" been penalised, again shouldn't be. If you penalise that one, then you need to have the requirement of the player regaining his feet before the try can be scored in this scenario. As he's been tackled (a tap tackle is still a tackle). Which would be a poor requirement to have. If either the player in the 2nd video that wasn't penalised or BW had tackled in a dangerous manner - shoulder/no arms or slid feet 1st, then fine that's a different issue. That is not what happened here though.

There is a major difference between a tackle having 'completed' -take that has having occurred - and having 'ended'. Once a BC has been tackled "held and taken to ground" there is an obligation on 'other players' (14.8) who cannot then become 2nd/3rd/4th tacklers, even though the tackle has not yet ended.

 

[chbg]

No additional ban (sending off sufficient) and charged under 13.3 and 13.4

https://www.englandrugby.com/dxdam/fa/fabfe641-576d-4d59-8056-eeaf18982500/WoodburnExeterChiefsJudgmentApr23(final).pdf

That's the normal entry point for two technical YCs (or even 1 technical and 1x Foul Play). But thank you.

Still think that 14.8 is more appropriate, as a tackle had occurred.

 

[Volun-selected]

No additional ban (sending off sufficient) and charged under 13.3 and 13.4

https://www.englandrugby.com/dxdam/fa/fabfe641-576d-4d59-8056-eeaf18982500/WoodburnExeterChiefsJudgmentApr23(final).pdf

Just curious, a question for those closer to the RFU process - any reason why the ruling cites “9.7a A player must not intentionally infringe any law of the game” for both YCs rather than citing specific offenses such as 11.3 for the knock-on and 13.4/14.8 (take your pick) for falling on a player with the ball?

 

[didds]

Just curious, a question for those closer to the RFU process - any reason why the ruling cites “9.7a A player must not intentionally infringe any law of the game” for both YCs rather than citing specific offenses such as 11.3 for the knock-on and 13.4/14.8 (take your pick) for falling on a player with the ball?

purely a guess... becasue that then becomes a subjective call rather than an objective call which could be disproved?

 

[crossref]

Just curious, a question for those closer to the RFU process - any reason why the ruling cites “9.7a A player must not intentionally infringe any law of the game” for both YCs rather than citing specific offenses such as 11.3 for the knock-on and 13.4/14.8 (take your pick) for falling on a player with the ball?

I think that Law is basically there to enable refs to give PK for anything that would normally be a scrum or FK offence, when the ref feels the offence was deliberate/repeated/cynical

 

[Arabcheif]

There is a major difference between a tackle having 'completed' -take that has having occurred - and having 'ended'. Once a BC has been tackled "held and taken to ground" there is an obligation on 'other players' (14.8) who cannot then become 2nd/3rd/4th tacklers, even though the tackle has not yet ended.

Then at that point the BC needs to release. As you've said as soon as he's taken down and held, there are responsibilities on numerous players. One of which is to immediately make the ball available. This would mean that when he's taken down and held he needs to release even if he's sliding over the ground. As far as I'm concerned, if you're moving forward a 2nd and 3rd tackler can attempt a tackle. As long as the normal requirements for a tackle are met.

 

[didds]

Then at that point the BC needs to release. As you've said as soon as he's taken down and held, there are responsibilities on numerous players. One of which is to immediately make the ball available. This would mean that when he's taken down and held he needs to release even if he's sliding over the ground. As far as I'm concerned, if you're moving forward a 2nd and 3rd tackler can attempt a tackle. As long as the normal requirements for a tackle are met.

I would have agreed - but see above ... others are saying that requirement to release is not needed until the tackler has released first. I confess that was news to me.

 

[Phil E]

I would have agreed - but see above ... others are saying that requirement to release is not needed until the tackler has released first. I confess that was news to me.

I would also add there is no reason to release if no one is attempting to play the ball (in which case he has to release).
In fact if he releases the ball while still sliding he risks a knock on, so would be mad to do so.

 

[didds]

I would also add there is no reason to release if no one is attempting to play the ball (in which case he has to release).
In fact if he releases the ball while still sliding he risks a knock on, so would be mad to do so.

absolutely agree Phil! hence my points earlier about nobody pings a tackled player in mid0field for not releasing/holding the ball down UNTIL an opponent tries to play it and that occurs

 

[smeagol]

I would have agreed - but see above ... others are saying that requirement to release is not needed until the tackler has released first. I confess that was news to me.

The way I have been instructed re: tackle sequence, the onus is first on the tackler to release and (if on the ground) clear the area, then the BC is required to play the ball.

 

[belladonna]

World Rugby has confirmed that professional match official, Karl Dickson, correctly applied the Law during the Leicester Tigers versus Exeter Chiefs game which saw the penalty try and a yellow card awarded. Law 13.4 is clear that players cannot fall on or over players on the ground and tackle law 14.8 says arriving players at a tackle must come from the direction of their own goalline and stay on their feet.

Nowell fined £10,000 for online comments

www.exeterchiefs.co.uk

 

[Arabcheif]

World Rugby has confirmed that professional match official, Karl Dickson, correctly applied the Law during the Leicester Tigers versus Exeter Chiefs game which saw the penalty try and a yellow card awarded. Law 13.4 is clear that players cannot fall on or over players on the ground and tackle law 14.8 says arriving players at a tackle must come from the direction of their own goalline and stay on their feet.

Nowell fined £10,000 for online comments

www.exeterchiefs.co.uk

Wow, that seem wrong to me. The tackle has not been completed yet. Therefor its impossible for a defender to comply with a moving offside line. This is a crazy decision, but not unexpected. Their hardly gonna throw a MO under a bus are they. They do need to be seen to back them. Even when they've been blatantly wrong in the past.

 

[didds]

I( suppose at least now its been clarified. Dive 5m/10m out with sufficient slide and you've scored (unless you knock on etc). I'm not sure how anybody on their feet can realistically halt them - im not convinced the "stand upright in the way" will satisfy a head contact no-PK (and thus PT) decision (though I am happy to be convinced otherwise )

 

[didds]

The way I have been instructed re: tackle sequence, the onus is first on the tackler to release and (if on the ground) clear the area, then the BC is required to play the ball.

exactly my thoughts in #69 as gleaned from this very thread

 

[Phil E]

I( suppose at least now its been clarified. Dive 5m/10m out with sufficient slide and you've scored (unless you knock on etc). I'm not sure how anybody on their feet can realistically halt them - im not convinced the "stand upright in the way" will satisfy a head contact no-PK (and thus PT) decision (though I am happy to be convinced otherwise )

You stand in front of him and grab the ball.

 

[didds]

You stand in front of him and grab the ball.

without connecting with his head at all ?
Good luck with that.

I remain unconvinced

 

[crossref]

one way to resolve the problem would be to remove the requirement to put the ball down on the ground to score a try....

once that's done, it would be illegal for a ball carrier to dive to the ground (game is for players on their feet etc)

 

[didds]

one way to resolve the problem would be to remove the requirement to put the ball down on the ground to score a try....

once that's done, it would be illegal for a ball carrier to dive to the ground (game is for players on their feet etc)

except presumably to dive on a loose ball in-goal? (ah - apologies - you said BC of course )