Ruck of tackle - official guidance

[OB..]

I have just received the following non-secret email from our training officer. (Hope it helps :smile

Special update on the Tackle/Ruck – 03/03/2017Welcome to a special update, which is being distributed following the England v Italy 6 Nations game last weekend.
The following has been sent out to all National 1 and 2 Clubs so they are aware that we discussions have been had and how things will be managed going forward. The Premiership and Championship clubs have received exactly the same.
According to law 16:
The definition of a ruck is a phase of play where one or more players from each team, who are on their feet, in physical contact, close around the ball on the ground. Open play has ended.
In view of the England v Italy Six Nations game at the weekend, where one or both teams decided not to compete at the breakdown, we have discussed this issue within our referee groups and we will be taking the following approach this weekend:
The referees will not on every occasion call ‘tackle only’ or ‘ruck’. If a player runs around the breakdown and a ruck has been formed, the referee will either PK that player or play advantage and will not be telling the player to go back. If an AR calls midfield offside against a defender, the referee can respond by ‘tackle only’ therefore it is play on.
I would also like to bring to your attention that the player acting as number 9 cannot be tackled or have a kick charged down by players on the wrong side at a ‘tackle only’ situation.
Also attached are some further notes to help your members prepare for their next game and to build a better understanding with coaches and players.
Please circulate to your members and clubs they will be ref’ing this weekend. Do contact us for any clarification at; laws@rfu.com
Yours in ref’ing,
Michael
Michael D Patz
RFU Match Official Development Manager




Tackle Only Messages Us – Consistent, Calm, don’t shoot the messenger – ‘Professional’

1. Know the law
2. Practice Pictures – e.g. England v Italy
3. Consistent Comm’s – Succinct, not a commentary
4. We are not going to “call players back” if a ruck forms and they are offside

Other Areas to Consider

1. Players voluntarily to ground
2. Tackle only
   a. Can’t play the 9 unless from own side
   b. Beware players pulling in defenders
   c. If the 9 runs into a player looking for a penalty – NOT a penalty d. Charge down – can’t interfere as law above

Ruck
2 players in contact/on feet/over the ball
Communication



There will be times when referees will use “Ruck”, “Tackle” as normal and to clarify when there is an offside line

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

From the update:

I would also like to bring to your attention that the player acting as number 9 cannot be tackled or have a kick charged down by players on the wrong side at a ‘tackle only’ situation.

I haven't looked yet, but is that 15.6 somewhere?


Poorly writ also, what is the wrong side of tackle situation? Are the players away from the tackle and in passing line of player acting as scrumhalf on the wrong side?

 

[Taff]

I would also like to bring to your attention that the player acting as number 9 cannot be tackled or have a kick charged down by players on the wrong side at a ‘tackle only’ situation.

Why not?

If the opponent is onside (and the Italians for example were) once the ball has left the tackle area he can do what he likes within the laws of the game. I don't get it.

7.1 Playing a match
After the kick-off, any player who is onside may take the ball and run with it.

 

[beckett50]

Why not?

If the opponent is onside (and the Italians for example were) once the ball has left the tackle area he can do what he likes within the laws of the game. I don't get it.

Because the #9 (or player standing at half-back) is (normally)NEAR the tackle area and so can't be interfered with

Near being defined in Law as within 1m

 

[crossref]

you CAN tackle the 9 - but you have to come through the gate to do it.

[LAWS]15.6 (g)
Any player who first gains possession of the ball at the tackle or near to it may be tackled by an opposition player providing that player does so from behind the ball and from directly behind the tackled player or the tackler closest to that player’s goal line.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/LAWS]

 

[merge]

My question is what about the tackler? It appears they're applying 15.6 that other players must play the ball from their own side, but if there's no ruck 15.4(c) applies and the tackler can play the ball from any direction? If so can the tackler tackle the scrum half if the scrum half plays the ball first?

 

[didds]

I don't see why not.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

I don't see why not.

I think rugby refs agree, but a blanket statement from RFU is poorly written. Without an exemption of the tackler, one would believe he also is not permitted to tackle. Misleading statements or insufficient statements from Michael D Patz, RFU Match Official Development Manager is rather comical considering his ref audience would prefer clarity and unambiguous.

As per special update:

I would also like to bring to your attention that the player acting as number 9 cannot be tackled or have a kick charged down by players on the wrong side at a ‘tackle only’ situation.

 

[Taff]

Because the #9 (or player standing at half-back) is (normally)NEAR the tackle area and so can't be interfered with. Near being defined in Law as within 1m

I'm pretty sure once the SH has picked up the ball from the tackle area, that most will be more than 1m away when they box-kick it.

OK if they are still in the tackle area, I can see that the opponents can't touch them (unless they come through the gate - as explained by Crossref) but the e-mail just says they "cannot have a kick charged down" with no mention of distances.

 

[Rich_NL]

My question is what about the tackler? It appears they're applying 15.6 that other players must play the ball from their own side, but if there's no ruck 15.4(c) applies and the tackler can play the ball from any direction? If so can the tackler tackle the scrum half if the scrum half plays the ball first?

If the tackler's back on his feet and going for the ball, it's hard to see why there'd be no ruck - the discussion assumes players from the BC team are present to stop the defenders just marching through the gate anyway. If the SH wants to be there first to the tackle to pick the ball by himself, he doesn't get any extra protection than a forward running a pick&go.

 

[crossref]

If the tackler's back on his feet and going for the ball, it's hard to see why there'd be no ruck

that's a good point!

 

[TheBFG]

Not sure if this one got covered in the Eng v ITA thread, but in that game there was a case where a blue player tried to charge a (box?) kick and ref gave a PK for "charging the kicker", so was this right under this guidance? As others have said the player was over a meter away so where's the issue :chin:

 

[OB..]

Not sure if this one got covered in the Eng v ITA thread, but in that game there was a case where a blue player tried to charge a (box?) kick and ref gave a PK for "charging the kicker", so was this right under this guidance? As others have said the player was over a meter away so where's the issue :chin:

Didn't he pass within 1m of the tackle zone to get to the scrum half?

 

[didds]

As I asked on one of the EvI / co-ruck threads, it would seem that in reality 1m is probably 2m or even 3m in the interests of allowing play to flow etc. This would certainly seem to the case for steve walsh in the oft mentioned chiefs clip where the "poacher" (guy that runs between 9 and 10 at a no-ruck) is certainly not within 1m of the ball. (that doesn't make SW correct incidentally!)

if that is the case why they don;t change the definition to be 2m or whatever I dunno

didds

 

[crossref]

if that is the case why they don;t change the definition to be 2m or whatever I dunno

didds

I really don't think there is a any problem presented by the Italian tactic that justifies a Law Change.

The tactic only looked so clever/effective because England were clueless on how to react to it.

It will always remain a useful tool to have in a team's play-book : if used judiciously and unexpectedly it's capabable of creating some temporary confusion in the minds of the oppo - confusion that can then be exploited --- but that's rugby all over isn't it? Loads of moves and ploys in rugby are founded on creating some confusion.

But that's all it is -- a tactic, a ploy. Italy did NOT find some loophole in the Law that gave them an invincible weapon, impossible to defend against, a legal hole that needed to be plugged. (even if England did make it appear that way for a long while)

 

[ChuckieB]

I think the only thing we can be sure of is that we still have no official clarity around of the charge down attempt.

He was not offside. You couldn't really prove he actually entered the "TZ". He didn't attempt to tackle the first BC in possession after the tackle. He just charged it down.

However, it was given by the ref, and I don't think we have proved it contradicts/conflicts with existing laws. Along with the RFU development office directive, which stated you can't do it (for all it is worth) as is the way any laws (certainly UK laws ) which give credence to precedent as they evolve, when there is doubt and you have a precedent the decision is easier to defend in a court of law.


I haven't seen the SW incident but I never had a good feeling that he was up with the top refs but I was always only ever watching him in relation to England games and he was always pinging us!

In my mind the SH carrier can't have endless protection and must become fair game at some point after he steps back. If player is not offside i.e. has a right to be there, and can actively disrupt a passing channel, why should a charge down (not making contact) outside 1m then be singled out? There is certainly no contact intent on the part of the charger. The SH is not hugely at risk.

 

[DocY]

I really don't think there is a any problem presented by the Italian tactic that justifies a Law Change.

The tactic only looked so clever/effective because England were clueless on how to react to it.

It will always remain a useful tool to have in a team's play-book : if used judiciously and unexpectedly it's capabable of creating some temporary confusion in the minds of the oppo - confusion that can then be exploited --- but that's rugby all over isn't it? Loads of moves and ploys in rugby are founded on creating some confusion.

But that's all it is -- a tactic, a ploy. Italy did NOT find some loophole in the Law that gave them an invincible weapon, impossible to defend against, a legal hole that needed to be plugged. (even if England did make it appear that way for a long while)

No, in fact I watched a game this weekend where one team tried it (excessively) for one half. They lost. By not competing at the breakdowns the opposition had about 80% possession and a gain line efficiency of close to 100% from picking and going and getting quick ball.

 

[Taff]

... if that is the case why they don;t change the definition to be 2m or whatever I dunno

I really don't think there is a any problem presented by the Italian tactic that justifies a Law Change. ... The tactic only looked so clever/effective because England were clueless on how to react to it.

I'm with Crossref.

I'm always a bit twitchy when some people start talking of law changes on the basis of one game. Lets see how teams adapt to the new tactic before we even think of a law change. For all we know, teams could adapt to the Italian tactic brilliantly and make for a more exciting game.

... In my mind the SH carrier can't have endless protection and must become fair game at some point after he steps back. If player is not offside i.e. has a right to be there, and can actively disrupt a passing channel, why should a charge down (not making contact) outside 1m then be singled out?

Exactly.

 

[didds]

My point was not solwly because of the Italian no-ruck tactic.

its C&O that "1m" is closer to 2m generally in the way that its generally blown. 1m is actually a very small distance and most scrum halves I would suggest have at least one foot more than a metre from the ball when extracting it.

The no-ruck tactic has highlighted it however!

didds

 

[Pinky]

For me, I would regard a pick and box kick as being played from within the tackle zone, so I would only allow a charge down by a player coming from behind the ball and behind the tackler/tackled player. Someone standing in the 9-10 channel to disrupt a pass in tackle only is onside and OK to be there, but is not permitted to enter the tackle zone to play the ball. He can of course play the ball if it is passed away from or tackle the "9" once he starts to run away from the tackle zone.