Tackle In Goal?

[damo]

I had a slightly odd incident in yesterdays game. I was confident of my call at the time but after looking at the law book I am not so sure.

The game was a senior reserve game Red v Black.

Black winger made a long distance break and chipped the ball to within a metre of the tryline. The Red fullback grabbed the ball in the field of play, and was tackled backwards into the in goal. He was held up on his back, wholly in-goal, and could not get the ball down. The tackler in one motion stripped the ball and forced it for a try. There is no doubt that he never released the tackled player, and he did not get up to his feet before playing the ball

I hesitated, but awarded the try because I thought that once the ball got into the in-goal, the normal tackle and ruck restrictions on players do not apply. The players grumbled a bit but accepted my ruling in good heart.

The relevant law:

15.1 A tackle can only take place in the field of play

15.6 (a) After a tackle, all other players must be on their feet when they play the ball. Players are on their feet if no other part of their body is supported by the ground or players on the ground.

Sanction: Penalty kick

Exception: Ball goes into the in-goal. After a tackle near the goal line, if the ball has been
released and has gone into the in-goal any player, including a player on the ground, may
ground the ball.

(my emphasis)

What do we all think?

 

[Dead Keen]

As a novice, I would have done the same as you.

But sitting here with the law book in front of me, it is not as easy as I'd hoped.

I don't think that in your situation (i.e. assuming you mean he was grabbed in the field of play and fell in the in-goal) you had a tackle.

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

Reading this like a lawyer, a tackle can only occur when both conditions have been satisfied:

(i) the ball carrier is held, and

(ii) the ball carrier is brought to the ground.

If ball carrier is bought to the ground in-goal then there cannot have been a tackle because of:

15.1 WHERE CAN A TACKLE TAKE PLACE
A tackle can only take place in the field of play.

So, if there is no tackle there is no obligation to release and no obligation not to grab the ball and score. So, I'd say it is a try but I am still not comfortable with the law book so I read on.

This doesn't explicitly help as it is the wrong way around but it gives me comfort that I am right.

15.6 OTHER PLAYERS
(j) When a tackled player reaches out to ground the ball on or over the goal line to score a try,
an opponent may pull the ball from the player’s possession, but must not kick or attempt to
kick the ball.
Sanction: Penalty kick

Reading on further, while it is clear that the ruck restrictions do not apply in-goal, it says nothing about something that might be a tackle if it finished in the field of play.

22.6 SCRUM, RUCK OR MAUL PUSHED INTO IN-GOAL
A scrum, ruck or maul can take place only in the field of play. As soon as a scrum, ruck or
maul is pushed across the goal line, a player may legally ground the ball.This results in a
touch down or try.

For completeness, 22.4(f) is not helpful as it is the other way around and the player was tackled in the field of play.

22.4 OTHER WAYS TO SCORE A TRY
e) Tackled near the goal line. If a player is tackled near to the opponents’ goal line so that
this player can immediately reach out and ground the ball on or over the goal line, a try is
scored.
(f) In this situation, defending players who are on their feet may legally prevent the try by
pulling the ball from the tackled player’s hands or arms, but must not kick the ball.

So as a novice, I would have given the try.

But I'll let the experts tell me where I am wrong.

 

[Dixie]

Dead Keen, I like your thinking! Carry on like this and I can retire from the forums. We may just have to enhance your pedantry radar first, though.

The only relevant bit of the relevant law Damo posted is 15.1 - a tackle can only take place in the field of play. This was therefore not a tackle, so no other part of Law 15 applies. In-goal, the general rule is that all-in wrestling can apply - which is why we blow quickly. In deciding whether this was a good decision (I don't use the word correct, as in-goal is largely lawless), we can only ask whether you should have blown held-up before the strip. Only you can know that, but as written the stripping act was more or less instantaneous.

On the balance of the scenarios I can imagine, I'd have awarded the try.

 

[Ian_Cook]

I had a slightly odd incident in yesterdays game. I was confident of my call at the time but after looking at the law book I am not so sure.

The game was a senior reserve game Red v Black.

Black winger made a long distance break and chipped the ball to within a metre of the tryline. The Red fullback grabbed the ball in the field of play, and was tackled backwards into the in goal. He was held up on his back, wholly in-goal, and could not get the ball down. The tackler in one motion stripped the ball and forced it for a try. There is no doubt that he never released the tackled player, and he did not get up to his feet before playing the ball

I hesitated, but awarded the try because I thought that once the ball got into the in-goal, the normal tackle and ruck restrictions on players do not apply. The players grumbled a bit but accepted my ruling in good heart.

The relevant law:





(my emphasis)

What do we all think?

As you describe it Damo, I think it was a good call!

There is no tackle (noun) in-goal, therefore, none of the restrictions, options or obligations of Law 15 apply. The tackler does not have to get up before playing the ball. It applies both ways too, i.e. defender stripping potential try-scorer and grounding the ball.

You say that "the tackler in one motion stripped the ball and forced it for a try". I would be happy if he did that immediately, however as Dixie rightly says, if there were any delay, say more than a couple of seconds, I would expect you to call held up.

Prolonged wrestling for the ball should not be allowed (potential flash point etc).

 

[Phil E]

Agree with Dixie.

If it was done quickly, 'Try'.........the defender should have hung onto the ball (and then we would have blown for held up to prevent prolonged wrestling), or rolled over and grounded it (5m attacking scrum).

 

[Davet]

Definitely a Macbeth moment - whatever is done must be done quickly, or you would blow as held up.

No tackle law applies in goal - so since it seems to have been done quickly - good call

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

Definitely a Macbeth moment - whatever is done must be done quickly, or you would blow as held up.

No tackle law applies in goal - so since it seems to have been done quickly - good call

Ahhhhhhhhh hot potato, orchestra stalls, puck will make amends! Ahhh Ow ow ow ow.

 

[Davet]

Puck isn't in Macbeth

 

[Phil E]

Shhhhhh.....it's "The Scottish play". :Zip:

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

Puck isn't in Macbeth

Ahhhhhhhhh hot potato, orchestra stalls, puck will make amends! Ahhh Ow ow ow ow.

 

[Phil E]

He has to say that everytime you say Macbeth, so don't keep saying Macbeth.
Don't call it Macbeth, call it The Scottish Play, not Macbeth.

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

I would consider the decision to be based on timing. I would not allow an undue amount of wrestling on the floor but if it was done "immediately" I'd possibly go with the try.

Oh and.....



Ahhhhhhhhh hot potato, orchestra stalls, puck will make amends! Ahhh Ow ow ow ow.

 

[SimonSmith]

So we have to call it The Scottish Play?

 

[SimonSmith]

....... not MacBeth?

 

[Ian_Cook]

Ahhhhhhhhh hot potato, orchestra stalls, puck will make amends! Ahhh Ow ow ow ow.

Actually, I thought it was supposed to be "Pluck to make amends"

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

Actually, I thought it was supposed to be "Pluck to make amends"

You are probably correct and would go with the nose tweaking.

Have a listen.

 

[Davet]

OK - so we can't say Macbeth?

I'll try to remember.