Seal Off legally?

[MiniRef]

Just reading a coaching tip sheet; selected extracts:

"the legal seal off"

"If their [your players'] hands are on the tackled players, it is not illegal, BUT they must not be grabbing them or putting weight on that player. Ideally, their hands are free to help them deal with incoming defensive threats"

"Illegal: Hips well above shoulders, neck exposed, cannot go forward. Legal: Hips and shoulders nearly in line, head looking forward, can go forward"

Your thoughts please?

 

[Simon Thomas]

Just reading a coaching tip sheet; selected extracts:

"the legal seal off"

"If their [your players'] hands are on the tackled players, it is not illegal, BUT they must not be grabbing them or putting weight on that player. Ideally, their hands are free to help them deal with incoming defensive threats"

"Illegal: Hips well above shoulders, neck exposed, cannot go forward. Legal: Hips and shoulders nearly in line, head looking forward, can go forward"

Your thoughts please?

bold words above spell it out.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Just reading a coaching tip sheet; selected extracts:

"the legal seal off"

"If their [your players'] hands are on the tackled players, it is not illegal, BUT they must not be grabbing them or putting weight on that player. Ideally, their hands are free to help them deal with incoming defensive threats"

"Illegal: Hips well above shoulders, neck exposed, cannot go forward. Legal: Hips and shoulders nearly in line, head looking forward, can go forward"

Your thoughts please?

I presume we are talking about Tackle Assists here, so I have an issue with this!!

How do you reconcile this with the requirement for the referee to "see daylight"?

Surely if the tackle assist stays were he is with his hands on the tackled player, then unless he is standing in the gate, he is not moving away from the tackle zone. Let this go unpunished, and I can see a smart coach getting one player to tackle the tackled player to ground, and two tackle assists getting their hands on the tackled player but remaining on their feet, and standing on the wrong side of the tackle, and facing the wrong way, thereby preventing arriving opponents from getting to the tackled player.

Following on from that, I see a potential flashpoint, as arriving players try to clean them out by slamming into their backs

 

[Dickie E]

I presume we are talking about Tackle Assists here, so I have an issue with this!!

No, I think we are talking about the team mate/s of the tackled player.

 

[haze222]

Sealing off is one of the things the RFU are trying to crack down on this season.

Players should be considered 'off their feet' if they're standing over, and holding on to a tackled player. In the few seconds I've got, I'm not going to be thinking 'hands are on, but how much pressure? Are they just touching or are they leaning' - it's killing the ball either way in my opinion, anyway. And players will always say 'I'm just touching ref, honest'...

I would say it's not in a coach's interest to be advising players that touching is okay, as they'll just get angry with the ref when they're pinged. And in my opinion, it would be fair to be pinged, leaning or not.

The consistency issue would be major on this after a match. I don't want debates on 'why did you ping me but not him' 'well, he was touching, you were leaning'...

 

[Dixie]

Sealing off is one of the things the RFU are trying to crack down on this season.

Players should be considered 'off their feet' if they're standing over, and holding on to a tackled player.

Haze222, I don't in any way disagree with the thrust and intent of your position, but can you justify this statement by reference to the Laws?

We both want the same outcome (PK for what I think of as "latching"), but I think refs are on stronger ground if they ping for preventing the grounded player from rolling away. That also suffers from not being specifically illegal - but for me it's a stronger argument than claiming the player is off his feet if he touches something. Otherwise (reductio ad absurdam), all mauls are technically collapsed rucks.

 

[haze222]

I was told at first society meeting of this year that holding/latching on to a grounded player (sealing off) meant you were off your feet as you weren't supporting yourself. Maul is different - you're bound on to another person in a contest. Sealing off is just blocking the ball. It's allowing no contest at all.

Regarding the laws, if 'off feet' - First of below would cover it, and second would also, if they're now considered grounded.

16.3 (a) Players in a ruck must endeavour to stay on their feet.
Sanction: Penalty kick

16.4 (d) Players on the ground in or near the ruck must try to move away from the ball....
Sanction: Penalty kick

Interestingly, I was also told that it was 'killing the ball' but in the laws it just states that that includes diving over/not rolling away, or deliberately falling over player/ball. So I'm not going to be using that one!

I think the RFU are, rather than putting in a new 'no sealing' law, trying to find a home for it in existing law, hence the 'off feet' inclusion.

I can see why as a player you would want to find a way round it, and say 'I was touching sir', but from being a player, and being coached in my early days to seal off, it's clear to me that there's no purpose to this 'touching' business except to seal off. Please do correct me if I'm wrong, I know I still have tons to learn!!! :biggrin:

 

[FlipFlop]

...... I think refs are on stronger ground if they ping for preventing the grounded player from rolling away. That also suffers from not being specifically illegal - but for me it's a stronger argument than claiming the player is off his feet if he touches something. Otherwise (reductio ad absurdam), all mauls are technically collapsed rucks.

The tackled player must exercise and option and then roll away and regain their feet. Law 15.5 a or b will do.

 

[crossref]

I reffed a team two weeks ago that had clearly been coached to do it (and on reflection I think I was naive and a bit slow in realising it was practiced, and not one off). I pinged once for tackled player not making effort to roll away (he hardly could for his team mates hanging on to him) and once for sealer deliberately going off his feet (v low shoulders and clear weight on arms)

they didn't complain, and the two PKs were enough for them to desist. I imagine the plan was simply to use the technique until/unless the ref stops you, and then don't. Or am I now cynical.

 

[Dixie]

The tackled player must exercise and option and then roll away and regain their feet. Law 15.5 a or b will do.

I think not, FlipFlop. Those provisions sanction the Tackler for failing to do what he should; they cannot themselves be used to sanction someone else for preventing the tackler from doing what he should.

 

[Andyp]

I think the coaching rule of thumb is latch until the ref tells you otherwise. Invariably this is a support player coming through the gate rather than a player invloved in the tackle.

I must admit I have been inclined to allow it up to the point a player is dragged as a result of a counter ruck as most players I've seen lose the latch after the initial contact.

 

[FlipFlop]

I think not, FlipFlop. Those provisions sanction the Tackler for failing to do what he should; they cannot themselves be used to sanction someone else for preventing the tackler from doing what he should.

Question: Has the tackler rolled away?
Yes - play on
No - PK

If he is prevented by HIS OWN TEAM then I have no problem saying that it is his fault for not rolling (it is a team game after all)

If he is prevented by the opposition (highly unlikely) he should be trying to roll anyway, and this will probably cause the oppo to fall over anyway, and get a PK.

Or to phrase it slightly differently (and not 100% accurately) - "I care not why you didn't roll away, only that you didn't" - after all it is his not rolling away has created an situation where his team have prevented a fair contest for the ball.

 

[haze222]

If there was no ruck, and no opp there, you could choose to ignore if it didn't affect play, but then make sure you tell them that you spotted it and give a warning that in a ruck/contest for ball that it would be a pingable offence...

I don't like the tackler not rolling away reason. It's not telling the players what's wrong. I would rather the team were clear on how to avoid it happening again. And the tackled player can't really do anything different to avoid it happening again. No win for that player.

And, say, one of the forwards regularly gets tackled with ruck forming, and the supporting teammate keeps sealing - you might end up in a position where you have to send the tackled player off for repeated infringements of not rolling away. That's hardly fair. Person sealing off knows he'll be the last man standing on the pitch, with everyone else going off first!

I'd say at least if you ping for deliberately going off feet/head below hips then the players know who's at fault, and have a chance to stop it.

 

[scrumpox2]

I imagine the plan was simply to use the technique until/unless the ref stops you, and then don't. Or am I now cynical.

Not at all cynical ... of you ... , I see this every weekend ... captain speaks to ref about sealing off, tackled player not rolling away and he mostly gets told "I'm happy with it, go away ..."

I think of latching as being the ball carrier being boosted (team mate bound on, also known as the 2 man drop in coaching circles) prior to the contact, both players go to ground in the tackle and wonder of wonders the latching player has sealed off the ball. It's not pinged because it's not intentionally going to ground, and he will regain his feet over the ball. There's no chance of contesting. In practice therefore it's a legal seal off.

 

[L'irlandais]

...I'd say at least if you ping for deliberately going off feet/head below hips then the players know who's at fault, and have a chance to stop it.

Hello haze222,
I agree, however as long as our youth players continue to see both these "techniques" allowed in the Elite game on telly, they are going to copy them ; irrespective of whether it's coached to them, not coached to them. I can't remember the last time I saw a legal ruck on the telly, it's that long ago.

 

[haze222]

L'irlandais, I agree. It's difficult when you see it happen on the telly!!!

As a low level ref, I am told not to try and emulate elite rugby refs as it's an entirely different game, skills/capability-wise (and the fact they have lots of assistants!). I hope that something happens whereby lower level coaches stop teaching their team advanced/cynical techniques 'just because premier league players do it'.

Example - A few times I have been asked why I pinged for squeezeball. 'It's not obstruction, ref!' - and saying they've seen it on the telly.

I say 'it wasn't the squeezeball I penalised you for, it was not doing it properly and blocking the ball in with your knees'...

 

[scrumpox2]

Unrealistic haze, what could possibly happen that would prevent coaches learning from other, better coaches?
We will always have copy-cat coaches and copy-cat players, maybe a few more copy-cat refs is the answer to get some consistency? :wink: :wink:

 

[andyscott]

L'irlandais, I agree. It's difficult when you see it happen on the telly!!!

As a low level ref, I am told not to try and emulate elite rugby refs as it's an entirely different game, skills/capability-wise (and the fact they have lots of assistants!). I hope that something happens whereby lower level coaches stop teaching their team advanced/cynical techniques 'just because premier league players do it'.

Example - A few times I have been asked why I pinged for squeezeball. 'It's not obstruction, ref!' - and saying they've seen it on the telly.

I usually say, when you are good enough to play on the tele, and i am good enough to ref on the tele, then we will play the game like on the tele. However we are not, so we wont.

 

[lawsons]

I'm fairly dim and have gotten confused with people talking about pinging tacklers for not rolling away after being prevented by the opposition (??), latchers (players supporting ball carriers) being allowed to seal and supporting players touching tackled players and being pinged for sealing. Sorry but I've got lost.

My view is :

If a player binds onto a ball carrier and both go to ground, the supporting player must not prevent access to the ball. ie his first movement if he does, is to be away - not to stand up over it and protect it. If that split second prevents a potential defensive opportunity he will be pinged.

If a supporting player holds onto or touches a tackled player (like a NFL stance), my decision is based upon whether his hold on the tackled player is helping him in anyway. ie if he is balanced on his feet, then no penalty, if he is using the dead weight of the tackled player for purchase as he rucks, then penalty.

I don't believe there is a hard or fast rule as to when it is a penalty or not. It is once again down to materiality. However, my gut feeling is that for the going to ground player, the burden of proof is with him to avoid the penalty.

Please correct me if you think I'm in error.

 

[Phil E]

Looking at the title of the thread.

"Seal-Off" and "Legally" are not normally words that you would put together? :chin: