[Tackle] Tackle holding on a ball

[mich]

I am sorting out the tackle-holding-on-a-ball situation.

Here is a representative situation:

A ball carrier (BC), Buck, in a Red (attacking) team runs into an opponent player, Rip, in a Blue (defending) team, who attempts to rip the ball. Buck resists and voluntarily drops to his one knee, while Rip is still upright and has a grip only on the ball. Then, clearly after Buck's knee drop, Rip has ripped the ball away from Buck.

• No other players from Red was binding to Buck so no maul was formed.
• Buck clearly had an option to stay standing but didn't do so but dropped his knee.

a) Does holding only on a ball means holding the BC?
b) Does BC continuously have a ball possession until the ball is completely ripped off?
c) Does voluntarily going to ground make the tackled situation?

My understanding is generally all yes to the 3 questions above (for me question b can be no). Thus, it is a penalty on Rip for tackle holding (14-8a). Ref should have called “Tackle. Release holding.” Even when it is not called for some reasons, it is the same penalty.

My ruling could be "Play on." with this situation if I cannot see some registance by BC while he is on his knee but I can accept the all-yes judging as well if consistent. No acceptance for "Not releasing the ball", though.

Any thoughts?

 

[Dickie E]

3 yes's for me.

 

[crossref]

It's a real edge case that would be difficult to identify and diagnose in real time

But I would say that, technically, there is no tackle as the ball carrier was neither held, nor brought to ground


But probably all thirty players are expecting you to say "tackle! release! " and in practice that would be the best call.

 

[mich]

But I would say that, technically, there is no tackle as the ball carrier was neither held, nor brought to ground

Oh. So for you, they are technically a) no, b) - and c) no, but you still rule it as tackle holding as convention?

It is acceptable as a consequence, but let me give technically sound interpretation on these.

Technically the ball can be a part of BC (and cannot be by another interpretation), so BC is (or can be interpreted as) hold. BC has no choice (except releasing the ball) to run forward as held on his ball. I believe regarding the ball a part of BC is the convention anyway, even without explicit support from laws.

Brought to ground is clearly defined as:

14.2 Being brought to ground means that the ball-carrier is lying, sitting or has at least one knee on the ground or on another player who is on the ground.

Intensions of Rip and Buck are irrelevant technically (as defined), and practically as we can see many situations where an opponent player like Rip has no intent to bring BC to ground (but hold BC up or rip a ball) and BC intentionally goes to ground. I believe that intentionally going to ground is BC's good skill to control timing and posture for safety and tactics.

 

[Phil E]

As soon as his knee touches the floor it's a tackle and the standing player (tackle with no tackler situation) has to release.

If he rips the ball before the knee, play on.
If he rips the ball after the knee, Penalty.

 

[Flish]

Think you have to assume that ball carrier and ball are 'one' in this scenario, so blue is holding the red player + ball combo, as soon as this combo gets a knee we have 'ball carrier held on the ground' so a tackle, blue must release (then red).

However, timing is key, and in reality if blue rip that ball in the same moment as red touches the ground it's probably a successful rip and play on. Massively helped if you can manage it with a call of 'tackle release', although in my experience that's the exact moment the ball rips clear and it becomes a penalty cos you've called it!

 

[OB..]

As soon as his knee touches the floor it's a tackle and the standing player (tackle with no tackler situation) has to release.

If he rips the ball before the knee, play on.
If he rips the ball after the knee, Penalty.

An eminently pragmatic approach, though that does not mean it is easy to apply.

 

[Phil E]

An eminently pragmatic approach, though that does not mean it is easy to apply.

Timing and communication are everything :wink:

 

[didds]

we had a similar thread very recently I seem top recall?

The consensus there seemed to be rip on ball only, BC knee to ground = "tackle" and played as such ie rip must release the ball.

didds

 

[mich]

we had a similar thread very recently I seem top recall?

The consensus there seemed to be rip on ball only, BC knee to ground = "tackle" and played as such ie rip must release the ball.

didds

Yep. I knew it.
http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?20008-Should-the-tackler-have-released

The majority might have consensus of penalizing a ripper but a bit of debate was there. Anyway, the situation of clear ripping intent and gripping "only" on a ball might be a bit new here to go to a further edge case. This happens a lot in Mini rugby I am coaching BTW.

 

[crossref]

If the question refers to mini rugby the answer might be different..

 

[mich]

If the question refers to mini rugby the answer might be different..

Sure. The question was on the rules for seniors. Mini rules vary for regions - even ripping itself may be prohibited for some countries. Not the case in Japan, though.

 

[ChrisR]

I think that in 'dual possession', where both players are grasping only the ball, then the player that gets a knee on the ground has taken himself out of the game and must cede the ball.

 

[Flish]

Happened to me 3 times today in a juniors game, exact moment I called tackle the ball got ripped - played on, not like the players had disobeyed my instruction, or indeed would have been under any obligation to release prior - all a matter of timing really

 

[BrummieRef]

I had this a few weeks back in a junior game. BC was being ripped and was about to loose the ball so he dropped to one knee. I waited a second to see what happened before calling tackle release, but he let go of the ball. If I had called TR I would of expected both to release.

Not to much difference to some delaying calling maul at this level.

 

[Rich_NL]

I call tackle promptly so that the BC can place/pass, if he's not supported the defenders can turn over, and the ball gets recycled quickly without any messy wrestling.
I call maul more slowly because it slows things down and often leads to a scrum anyway, so slows everything down and takes the ball out of play longer.

 

[mich]

I think that in 'dual possession', where both players are grasping only the ball, then the player that gets a knee on the ground has taken himself out of the game and must cede the ball.

So you would put a not-releasing-the-ball penalty on the ex-BC if he would resist? I believe this has been minority ruling nowadays. hmm...

 

[ChrisR]

Two players, Red and Blue, have equal possession of the ball. Blue puts his knee to the ground.

There are two views of this:

a. A tackle has occurred and the standing player(Red) must release his opponent(Blue).
b. No 'tackle' has occurred and the player 'off his feet' (Blue) must cede the ball to the standing player (Red)

Pick one. I pick b. Neither player is in the 'grasp' of the other. Blue was not 'brought to ground' by Red.

I understand that trying to determine if players are grasping only the ball may be difficult and so seeing a knee on the ground as a tackle is an easy out. But . . .I think that's a poor choice.

 

[crossref]

Convention is to pick A

 

[mich]

Two players, Red and Blue, have equal possession of the ball. Blue puts his knee to the ground.

There are two views of this:

a. A tackle has occurred and the standing player(Red) must release his opponent(Blue).
b. No 'tackle' has occurred and the player 'off his feet' (Blue) must cede the ball to the standing player (Red)

Pick one. I pick b. Neither player is in the 'grasp' of the other. Blue was not 'brought to ground' by Red.

I understand that trying to determine if players are grasping only the ball may be difficult and so seeing a knee on the ground as a tackle is an easy out. But . . .I think that's a poor choice.

I believe "grasping only on the ball" is conventionally regarded as grasping BC, by interpreting a ball is a part of BC. Also, the first possession of the ball (thus by BC) continues until the ball is released by BC or ripped away, again, conventionally. I agree this could be technically a debating point.

"Brought to ground" forms regardless of players' intention.
Brought to ground is clearly defined as:

14.2 Being brought to ground means that the ball-carrier is lying, sitting or has at least one knee on the ground or on another player who is on the ground.

regardless of intentions of a ripper nor BC, I believe, technically and conventionally. In fact in practice, BCs voluntarily go to ground in many other cases, while opponents, trying to rip or hold up, often have no intent to bring BC to ground.