SCO v WAL: penalty at the tackle?

[Agustin]

Have a look at this tackle: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSyPqDmL3mk

Would you give a penalty against the ball carrier for not releasing the ball? Would you give one against the tackler for not releasing the ball carrier? Or would you give no penalty, like the referee of the day did?

 

[Ian_Cook]

Have a look at this tackle: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSyPqDmL3mk

Would you give a penalty against the ball carrier for not releasing the ball? Would you give one against the tackler for not releasing the ball carrier? Or would you give no penalty, like the referee of the day did?

Red 13 was tackled by Blue 21

Blue 21 got to his feet and may have been about to release, but we'll never know because Red 13 got up and went again, which he is not entitled to do. He is allowed to push, pass, place or release. He did none of these, and getting up and going again is not an option.

PK against Red 13 for not releasing.

PS: Had Red 13 not tried to get to his feet and go again, then possibly PK against Blue 21 for not releasing the tackler.

 

[Phil E]

Advantage Red..........penalty.

Tackler never released the ball carrier at any point and from the tackle lay all over him to slow things down.

 

[Account Deleted]

Penalty against Red. He was not prevented from complying with his obligations under the tackle law. He chose not to comply. It's time senior refs stopped allowing the tackled player to get up in this way.

 

[Phil E]

First obligation is on the tackler to completely release the ball carrier and get to his feet.

He did neither.

Whatever the ball carrier does is irrelevant until the tackler does his thing.

 

[Ian_Cook]

First obligation is on the tackler to completely release the ball carrier and get to his feet.

He did neither.

Whatever the ball carrier does is irrelevant until the tackler does his thing.

So you would have been happy enough for Red 13 to get completely back to his feet and carry on running toward the goal-line?

I hear a very distinctive sound in the distance.....

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

 

[Account Deleted]

First obligation is on the tackler to completely release the ball carrier and get to his feet.

He did neither.

Whatever the ball carrier does is irrelevant until the tackler does his thing.

No Material effect. Had Roberts got up and scored the material effect would be quite significant.

Tacklers hang on, in part, because we fail to ping the tackled player, rather we shout "not held" and let the cheat get away with it.

 

[OB..]

Both players had significant momentum. I would certainly not expect Lamont to release while they were still sliding along the ground, whereas Roberts seemed to be instantly trying to regain his feet without releasing. However I agree that Lamont seemed to be trying to climb over Roberts. Six of one an half a dozen of the other, with Roberts possibly the greater transgressor.

Quite a good case for not blowing the whistle!

 

[ROY T]

Lamonts hands are always in contact, he does not release Roberts at any point so penalty advantage red.

 

[Agustin]

Five responders and three different answers! Just goes to show you, it's not an easy game to ref!

I'd lean towards a penalty against Red 13 myself. It's true that Blue did not fully release the ball carrier, but that did not prevent him from placing/etc. the ball.

However, it's obviously not clear-cut.

 

[Ian_Cook]

IMO, there is no doubt that Roberts was repositioning himself to play squeezeball i.e. he was deliberately setting himself up over the ball to deny the Scot access to the ball... PEEP!!!

Someone needs to tell Lamont that he didn't need to swing around to his own side of the tackle. As the tackler, he was perfectly entitled to stand up and take the ball off Roberts from the Welsh side of the tackle.

Also, I would be having a word with the player who flew in from the Welsh side at 0:19 --- no attempt to bind

 

[Account Deleted]

I can understand the "one offence each so get on with it argument". Pinging the Scot makes the least sense to me. The offence by Him does have a material effect on the game so play on and have a word later. Roberts tries to keep going and if he had complied someone else could have played the ball.

But yes it does go to show how difficult it is to call in a split second during a game. I did call it as a Scotland penalty live".

 

[ROY T]

Lamont is entitled to stand up and take the ball from Roberts and as the tackler he does'nt have a 'gate' to worry about BUT he must first RELEASE him first and I did,nt see any release in the clip.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Lamont is entitled to stand up and take the ball from Roberts and as the tackler he does'nt have a 'gate' to worry about BUT he must first RELEASE him first and I did,nt see any release in the clip.

LAW 15: DEFINITIONS
A tackle occurs when the ball carrier is held by one or more opponents and is brought to ground.

A ball carrier who is not held is not a tackled player and a tackle has not taken place.

I have a real problem with a growing trend among some tackled players to simply get back to their feet the moment the tackler complies with Law and releases them.

It is a split-second thing

► If the tackler lets go a moment before the ball carrier goes to ground, the ball carrier is not tackled (not held is the term usually used) and he can simply get to his feet again.

► If the tackler doesn't let go immediately the ball carrier is grounded, he is PK for not releasing.

In this case, however, Roberts got to his feet and repositioned himself to cover the ball with his body before Lamont even had a chance to release. That he did it before Lamont released him makes his offence even worse. IMO Roberts never had any intention of doing anything else other than make sure he got his body over the ball to deny his opponents access to the ball

Lamont breaks 15.4

15.4 THE TACKLER
(a) When a player tackles an opponent and they both go to ground, the tackler must immediately release the tackled player.

Roberts breaks 15.5

15.5 THE TACKLED PLAYER
(a) A tackled player must not lie on, over, or near the ball to prevent opponents from gaining possession of it, and must try to make the ball available immediately so that play can continue.

And they both do so almost simultaneously.

By penalising Lamont, you are saying its OK for a player who has been tackled to just get back to his feet if the tackler hasn't released yet.

Robert's action was obvious. IMO he was the first not to comply. I have no way of knowing whether Lamont was going to release, but I saw that Roberts got up with the ball, so I PK him.

Even live, I saw that as a PK against Red 13. replays only strengthened that view.

 

[Ricardowensleydale]

It may be getting unnecesarilly pedantic but 15.5 c says that "A tackled player may release the ball by putting it on the ground in any direction, provided this is done immediately." Couldn't it be argued that Roberts chose to, immediately, put the ball on the ground directly behind him, which necesitated him raising his body out the way. I'm just asking, personally I thought it looked like a penalty against red!