Push in the back of the ball carrier

Rich_NL

Rugby Expert
Joined
Apr 13, 2015
Messages
1,623
Post Likes
501
Presumably these shoulder and collarbone injuries are incurred when the ball carrier falls over? If so, what makes you feel that these same injuries might not occur if the defender takes a different approach and grabs the ball carrier's ankles - again causing him to fall over? It seems to me that your argument is that it is dangerous to cause a ball carrier to fall over by executing a textbook tackle, because the ball carrier might get hurt. Rugby must a be a challenge for you - have you considered umpiring tennis or chess instead?

[EDIT] Sorry Rich NL - I had not checked your status as a newbie before swinging in with the sarcastic comment! My bad. But I retain the view that causing someone to fall over is one of the principle aims of rugby.

No worries on the sarcasm front, I've seen worse ;)

I'm saying that a shove in the back at full speed is more dangerous than a tackle at full speed, because you speed them up (and they hit the ground faster) whereas with a tackle you slow them down. It's why we put brakes on cars - removing energy. In addition, you have no control over the tackle, and the tackled player has nothing to react against - if you're being held you can curl and twist to land safely a lot more easily than if you're freefalling. I've done a fair bit of wrestling and judo, it's much easier to fall safely if you're held on the way down rather than flung across the room.

In my reading, pushing is meant to cover rucks, mauls, bundling players into touch... physically driving someone over the field. A sharp shove designed to knock someone over is an attempt to "[FONT=fs_blakeregular]knock down an opponent carrying the ball without trying to grasp that player.[/FONT]" (10.4(g))

Tap tackles are more dangerous (and banned for junior leagues here) but still not accelerating someone past their ability to stand.

The falling over is not, of itself, considered dangerous. It is only dangerous when the act of causing someone to fall over could itself cause injury before they fell - so a swinging arm to the head, a punch to the face or head, etc.

I disagree here - a tip tackle is a penalty if the player goes over 90 degrees in the air. There's nothing dangerous about being past 90 degrees in the air, it's the danger of injury when they land. Same goes for tackling a player in the air.
 

OB..


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
22,981
Post Likes
1,838
In my reading, pushing is meant to cover rucks, mauls, bundling players into touch... physically driving someone over the field. A sharp shove designed to knock someone over is an attempt to "[FONT=fs_blakeregular]knock down an opponent carrying the ball without trying to grasp that player.[/FONT]" (10.4(g))
You have quoted part of the paragraph, which is actually defining dangerous charging. You are choosing to equate that with a push, following your rationale about the latter being more dangerous. Is a push really more dangerous than some of the shoulder charges we have seen creeping into the game? In practise it is rare to see a push, so I am not aware of there being a general problem.

I disagree here - a tip tackle is a penalty if the player goes over 90 degrees in the air. There's nothing dangerous about being past 90 degrees in the air, it's the danger of injury when they land. Same goes for tackling a player in the air.
[LAWS]10.4 (j) [FONT=fs_blakeregular]Lifting a player from the ground and dropping or driving that player into the ground whilst that player's feet are still off the ground such that the player's head and/or upper body come into contact with the ground is dangerous play.[/FONT][/LAWS]This is how the law refers to what is known as a tip tackle. It requires a deliberate lift and a failure to let the player down safely. Nobody penalises going past 90 by itself, though in most case that will indeed end up badly.
 

damo


Referees in New Zealand
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
1,692
Post Likes
276
Hi damo,

I wondered when this would pop up - thanks,

Start by removing the word TAP, its a misdescription.

The "ankle tap thingy" is much more akin to a Trip (or more accurately 'normally a hand swipe that connects with one of the BC legs/feet , causing them to collide & then because he is moving at speed causes him to unbalance or stumble or fall or collapse' )

If the game wants to keep it ( im actually non plussed either way ) then it would be better to define and specifically permit it in TLoTG IMO.

However, the current position seems to be that the tripping of an opponent with your hand aka "the ankle tap" seems to be expressely permitted merely because the trip law 10.4(d) doesn't include the use of a hand, which I assume was a deliberate attempt by the lawwriters to permit the hand swipe/trip/tappy thing , although it does seem to fly against the "try to grasp" ethos of the game, of that I agree.

I suspect it exists because a desperately flailing tackle attempt often results in these inadvertant hand ( finger/arm) Trippings, so it was thought better to allow it rather than bar it.

So, to answer your question, 10.4(d) appears to have a exemption permission that makes it more applicable than 10.4(g) in dealing with the act you describe.

:shrug:
I think you are massively overcomplicating things. An ankle tap isn't illegal because it isn't specified as being illegal anywhere in the laws. Exactly the same as a push.
 

Ian_Cook


Referees in New Zealand
Staff member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
13,684
Post Likes
1,771
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
I think you are massively overcomplicating things. An ankle tap isn't illegal because it isn't specified as being illegal anywhere in the laws. Exactly the same as a push.


Besides which ankle tapping an opponent not the same as tripping an opponent.

The reason that a trip is dangerous play is NOT because it takes a player's feet out from under him, its dangerous play because it is kicking the opponent in the leg.

Anyone who thinks this is a difference that doesn't matter, please lie down on the ground while I first Gibbs-slap you on the back of the head, and then kick you in the back of the head. You can then be the judge of which is more dangerous.
 

Rich_NL

Rugby Expert
Joined
Apr 13, 2015
Messages
1,623
Post Likes
501
You have quoted part of the paragraph, which is actually defining dangerous charging. You are choosing to equate that with a push, following your rationale about the latter being more dangerous.

True, and you are choosing to see a shove from behind as not charging. It seems a matter of interpretation.

[LAWS]10.4 (j) [FONT=fs_blakeregular]Lifting a player from the ground and dropping or driving that player into the ground whilst that player's feet are still off the ground such that the player's head and/or upper body come into contact with the ground is dangerous play.[/FONT][/LAWS]This is how the law refers to what is known as a tip tackle. It requires a deliberate lift and a failure to let the player down safely. Nobody penalises going past 90 by itself, though in most case that will indeed end up badly.

True, that example was not relevant to "It is only dangerous when the act of causing someone to fall over could itself cause injury before they fell" - apologies. Tackling the jumper in the air remains a counterexample, though.
 

Browner

Banned
Joined
Jan 20, 2012
Messages
6,000
Post Likes
270
"Attempting to Grasp" is an easy line in the sand to judge. And Law expects similar ( ie a bind) within Maul/Ruck joining also.

IMO grasping should be the benchmark in the quest to curb (reverse the trend from) the smash/crash/injure/break/impact/concuss style of Maul/Ruck/Tackling, and the value to the code ( and participation longevity) is mistakenly overlooked/ignored IMHO.

Granted it won't satisfy those that get 'personally excited' by, or need a diet of chiropractor adverse bone jarring/crunchings in return for their spectator participation, but if they remain unquenched then there are other sports to watch.
 

OB..


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
22,981
Post Likes
1,838
True, and you are choosing to see a shove from behind as not charging. It seems a matter of interpretation.
I claim my interpretation is the standard one, and you are wanting to extend it to solve a particular situation you have a problem with.

I don't see that there is a problem that needs resolving. If a player is ever pushed dangerously, you do not need anything special anyway - just use 10.4 (m)
 

RobLev

Rugby Expert
Joined
Oct 17, 2011
Messages
2,170
Post Likes
244
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
I claim my interpretation is the standard one, and you are wanting to extend it to solve a particular situation you have a problem with.

I don't see that there is a problem that needs resolving. If a player is ever pushed dangerously, you do not need anything special anyway - just use 10.4 (m)

Do you see any meaning in the second limb of Law 10.4(g) that I emphasise below:

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

If I use the shoulder to knock another player down, I'm in breach of the "must not charge" limb whether or not he goes down. If I use my hands to knock him over, you say that that's always legitimate. If I use my head it's a breach of Law 10.4(a); ditto my elbow; if I use my legs, that's a breach of Law 10.4(a), (c) or (d); in each case whether he goes down or not. So what is left?
 

OB..


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
22,981
Post Likes
1,838
Do you see any meaning in the second limb of Law 10.4(g) that I emphasise below:

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

If I use the shoulder to knock another player down, I'm in breach of the "must not charge" limb whether or not he goes down. If I use my hands to knock him over, you say that that's always legitimate. If I use my head it's a breach of Law 10.4(a); ditto my elbow; if I use my legs, that's a breach of Law 10.4(a), (c) or (d); in each case whether he goes down or not. So what is left?
We are talking about pushing the ball carrier. 10.4 (a), (c), and (d) do not.

If you take 10.4 (g) to cover pushing, then we have the situation that if the player goes to ground it is a PK, but if he doesn't it is legal. That makes no sense (and it would encourage diving :mad:).

Pushing is rare because there is virtually always something better to do if you are that close. I think it is a non-problem, and we have already spent more than enough time on it. At worst this is a minor anomaly.
 

RobLev

Rugby Expert
Joined
Oct 17, 2011
Messages
2,170
Post Likes
244
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
We are talking about pushing the ball carrier. 10.4 (a), (c), and (d) do not.

If you take 10.4 (g) to cover pushing, then we have the situation that if the player goes to ground it is a PK, but if he doesn't it is legal. That makes no sense (and it would encourage diving :mad:).

Pushing is rare because there is virtually always something better to do if you are that close. I think it is a non-problem, and we have already spent more than enough time on it. At worst this is a minor anomaly.

Do I take it that your view is that you can remove "or knock down" from Law 10.4(g) with no change of meaning?
 

Dixie


Referees in England
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
12,773
Post Likes
338
Do I take it that your view is that you can remove "or knock down" from Law 10.4(g) with no change of meaning?
OB will respond for himself, but it is possible to knock down a player without charging him, but while committing the same basic offence. If I run at a guy and shoulder-charge him without wrapping, I am guilty of dangerous charging. If I stand still and let him run into my shoulder without wrapping, I am guilty of knocking him down - but not of dangerous charging. I would prefer the offence to be attempting a no-arms tackle, and ensuring that the definition of a tackle excludes a push.
 

RobLev

Rugby Expert
Joined
Oct 17, 2011
Messages
2,170
Post Likes
244
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
OB will respond for himself, but it is possible to knock down a player without charging him, but while committing the same basic offence. If I run at a guy and shoulder-charge him without wrapping, I am guilty of dangerous charging. If I stand still and let him run into my shoulder without wrapping, I am guilty of knocking him down - but not of dangerous charging. I would prefer the offence to be attempting a no-arms tackle, and ensuring that the definition of a tackle excludes a push.

With no movement into the opponent? I can see the "down", but am having trouble with the "knocking", which implies some movement on my part - taking us neatly into Law 10.4(a) territory.

Again, if the ball-carrier runs into me while I am stationary and unbraced, and he falls over and I don't, it's more likely that the laws of physics have been broken than the Laws of Rugby Union, surely?
 
Top