[Law] Pushing ("supporting") your own ball carrier into the opposition tacklers

[DocY]

Re: Pushing ("supporting") your own ball carrier into the opposition tacklers

Sorry, I can't type fast enough before the site times me out. i had a long reply how rugby is mirroring the fall of Western Civilization with over regulation, cowardice, and placing the burden on the referee.

I hate watching the game fail, but I have about 30 yrs left and I'm not gonna change much if I can't type quickly

I agree that there's too much regulation (and the rate of new regulation seems to be accelerating), but I think didds' point (with which I agree) was that we shouldn't be adding more.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

Re: Pushing ("supporting") your own ball carrier into the opposition tacklers

I agree that there's too much regulation (and the rate of new regulation seems to be accelerating), but I think didds' point (with which I agree) was that we shouldn't be adding more.

Timed out again, sorry I cannot offer a reply

Disappointed

 

[Nigib]

Re: Pushing ("supporting") your own ball carrier into the opposition tacklers

Timed out again, sorry I cannot offer a reply

Disappointed

If it's the logistics of making a post? Suggest you prepare the text of your post offline, then copy/paste it in. Much quicker than typing directly into the post...

 

[didds]

Re: Pushing ("supporting") your own ball carrier into the opposition tacklers

Timed out again, sorry I cannot offer a reply

Disappointed

type it up in advance in notepad/word whatever

Crtl-C

login in

click reply

Ctrl-V

send

close


didds

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

Re: Pushing ("supporting") your own ball carrier into the opposition tacklers

Anyway gentlemen.
I think the flying wedge was outlawed because it is clearly dangerous for a mass of bodies at pace to hit one prospective standing tackler. But I get the nanny state point as it has never been reciprocated for a number of tacklers hitting a ball carrier.
I might just have changed my mind!

 

[DocY]

Re: Pushing ("supporting") your own ball carrier into the opposition tacklers

I might just have changed my mind!

This is no place for that!

 

[tim White]

Re: Pushing ("supporting") your own ball carrier into the opposition tacklers

The laws protect the ball-carrier to some extent by making the tackler attempt to grasp; perhaps they should protect the tackler from a shoulder charge from two or more bound players?
Reducing the possibility of serious injury is another man's 'Nanny State'.
A simply written law limiting binding to the ruck or maul could remove this (rather than a law written by simpletons?). I accept it seems to be used simply to ensure the ball carrier is still going forward at the next imminent breakdown rather than a full speed cavalry charge.

 

[Paule23]

Re: Pushing ("supporting") your own ball carrier into the opposition tacklers

This action has been common for sometime and I would say manage it.

If you have players binding on either side, then its a wedge and you follow the specific law preventing this. If we are talking about a forward effectively pre-binding onto a team-mate to go into contact, I would let it go. They are normally doing this from fairly close proximity to the opposition, and the aim is not to be a complete battering ram, but more to ensure the ball carrier is not immediately overrun or isolated in the tackle.

Unless there is something specific in the action that you perceive to be dangerous, or they are binding from miles away from the opposition anfdgetting up a real head of steam (i.e. a wedge but missing a player!) then my view is this isn't dangerous, play on.

 

[Chris_j]

Re: Pushing ("supporting") your own ball carrier into the opposition tacklers

If a teammate is bound to the ball carrier there can never be a tackle. By definition as soon as an opponent binds it is a maul.

I always call maul and turn the ball over if it is not immediately available. It makes for a cleaner breakdown as the bound teammate invariably goes off his feet, often on the wrong side of the ball. It manages penalties out of the game.

 

[DocY]

Re: Pushing ("supporting") your own ball carrier into the opposition tacklers

If a teammate is bound to the ball carrier there can never be a tackle.

Not sure I agree with that - you can tackle a player without binding onto them (below the hips being the clearest way, but I'd consider a quick 'sacking' around the chest to be a tackle), but even if it is a maul, it's going to collapse and the ball get to the ground so quickly that it doesn't much matter.

 

[Christy]

Re: Pushing ("supporting") your own ball carrier into the opposition tacklers

If a teammate is bound to the ball carrier there can never be a tackle. By definition as soon as an opponent binds it is a maul.

I always call maul and turn the ball over if it is not immediately available. It makes for a cleaner breakdown as the bound teammate invariably goes off his feet, often on the wrong side of the ball. It manages penalties out of the game.

i think you would have a lot of player & ref discussions on the pitch
if by a team mate binding on to ball carrier { when opposition hasnt },, and calling maul as soon as opposition attempts a tackle .
for me a maul has not commenced ,, infact team mate binding player to ball carrier needs to watch he not obstructing tackler { penalty } .. i do agree if tackle is not immediately ish successful , and ball carrier able to stay on feet , you would now have a maul providing there still ball carrier & a player from each team all bound . but i wouldn't personally be content in calling maul straight away

 

[OB..]

Re: Pushing ("supporting") your own ball carrier into the opposition tacklers

If a teammate is bound to the ball carrier there can never be a tackle. By definition as soon as an opponent binds it is a maul.

DocY is right - tackling round the legs is not "binding" and therefore does not create a maul.

The formal definition of "binding" is clearly aimed mainly at the scrum, but even there the #8 usually binds around the hips of the second row ie not technically "between the hips and the shoulders". Binding in rucks will often be more like the #8 technique. In practice, there are accepted ways of tackling the ball-carrier without forming a maul.

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

Re: Pushing ("supporting") your own ball carrier into the opposition tacklers

I'm changing my mind again, just looked a a clip on the sa refs website where a lone "tackler" at the back of a line out is penalised for pulling the maul down as the catcher has teammates bound to him so when the tackler grabs the ball carrier and wrestles him down, he is penalised for pulling the maul down.
Technically the ref is correct but morally and in the spirit of the game this is now an unfair contest.
So if a ball carrier has a teammate bound to him near the line in our typical pick and drive scenario and you tackle him say around the waist you can't bring him to ground?
Fundamentally something wrong here.

 

[liversedge]

Re: Pushing ("supporting") your own ball carrier into the opposition tacklers

Fundamentally something wrong here.

I agree. The "latch" is the problem. Its basically a flying wedge, but not penalised because its become so entrenched.
I go with the flow on it, but call "tackle only" unless they stay on their feet and are joined by another player.

So if the ball carrier is brought to ground its play on and tackle laws apply. The latcher must roll-away or be on feet, otherwise its likely to lead very quickly to a sealing off penalty.

Mark

 

[DocY]

Re: Pushing ("supporting") your own ball carrier into the opposition tacklers

I really don't see this as being a huge issue. It just takes a bit of common sense to sort out.

I think it's pretty easy to tell whether the 'tackler' (using the term loosely) is trying to bring the BC to ground or to hold him up. If the latter, it's probably a maul, if the former, a tackle.

Yes, technically it might be a maul, but a) giving an unexpected decision because "technically blah blah blah..." is going to end badly, whatever the situation and b) it's not going to be held up anyway.

I don't hold with the idea that it's a flying wedge. That law was introduced to forbid a very specific practice, but (as with so many laws) worded badly so it can *technically* be applied to situations it wasn't intended for.

 

[liversedge]

Re: Pushing ("supporting") your own ball carrier into the opposition tacklers

I really don't see this as being a huge issue. It just takes a bit of common sense to sort out.

I think it's pretty easy to tell whether the 'tackler' (using the term loosely) is trying to bring the BC to ground or to hold him up. If the latter, it's probably a maul, if the former, a tackle.

Yes, technically it might be a maul, but a) giving an unexpected decision because "technically blah blah blah..." is going to end badly, whatever the situation and b) it's not going to be held up anyway.

I don't hold with the idea that it's a flying wedge. That law was introduced to forbid a very specific practice, but (as with so many laws) worded badly so it can *technically* be applied to situations it wasn't intended for.

I agree with you on all points except the last. Until the description is changed, it *is* a flying wedge.

Agree it is worded badly and agree it would cause huge issues if penalised. Putting technically in double quotes is just a rhetorical device to introduce opinion.

 

[crossref]

Re: Pushing ("supporting") your own ball carrier into the opposition tacklers

I certainly think it IS possible to form an flying wedge in open play, and that would be illegal

But it would take quite a lot of organisation and I can't generally see that it would be worthwhile, so in practice you don't see it (I don't think that what happens from the base of a ruck can really be called 'flying'),

So as a ref I don't think I'm very likely to see a dangerous flying wedge in open play, but if I did see it I feel that I have the back up in Law I need to blow my whistle and stop it.

 

[DocY]

Re: Pushing ("supporting") your own ball carrier into the opposition tacklers

Putting technically in double quotes is just a rhetorical device to introduce opinion.

I highlighted the word as I'd cautioned against using it in the previous paragraph. My point was that this is an example where doing exactly what the lawbook says would not be appropriate.

If we started taking the lawbook as it's written, rather than as it's intended we'd be in for no end of trouble - though we'd hopefully get a better lawbook at the end!

 

[OB..]

Re: Pushing ("supporting") your own ball carrier into the opposition tacklers

Until the description is changed, it *is* a flying wedge.

[LAWS][FONT=fs_blakeregular]‘Flying Wedge’. [/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular]The type of attack known as a ‘Flying Wedge’ usually happens near the goal line, when the attacking team is awarded a penalty kick or free kick.[/FONT][/LAWS]The wording is not that of a formal definition. "type of attack", "known as", "usually happens" are too vague. What follows that is a typical example, not a definition. That is not very satisfactory.

My recommendation is that you penalise a play if you think it is dangerous. Don't say "It *is* a Flying Wedge", but explain why it looked dangerous and what they must avoid in future. Don't get drawn into arguments over the wording of the so-called definition.

For the record, in English U19 rugby the Flying Wedge was banned in 1983, the Cavalry Charge in 1987. They were first banned in all forms of the game in 1996.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

Re: Pushing ("supporting") your own ball carrier into the opposition tacklers

For the record, in English U19 rugby the Flying Wedge was banned in 1983, the Cavalry Charge in 1987. They were first banned in all forms of the game in 1996.

It was banned in gridiron in 1894. Did you mean 1883, and 1887?