Tackle just outside of in-goal

[RussRef]

How would you call this:

Having broken away, Red 12 is tackled from behind by Blue 7 just outside of Blue's in-goal. Although the tackle definitely occurs in the field of play, both players slide in goal, with Blue 7 winding up underneath Red 12 and preventing Red 12 from grounding the ball.

It's perfectly clear that Blue 7 never released Red 12 at any point, but it's also clear that Blue 7 prevented the grounding in goal.

Do you: a) penalize Blue 7 for not releasing even though doing so in the field of play was probably impossible and b) award a penalty try to Red for the penalty; or c) award a scrum, with Red throwing in, for ball held up in goal? If anyone chooses a) and b), would you YC Blue 7 as well?

 

[Dixie]

This is classic OB territory. I'll agree with him first, then let him explain exactly what I agree with.

In essence, it seems unreasonable for the law to require a player to commit rugby suicide.

 

[PaulDG]

How would you call this:

Held up. 5m scrum Red.

It's perfectly clear that Blue 7 never released Red 12 at any point

It's also perfectly clear that Blue 7 never "held" Red 12 either or they wouldn't be in in-goal.

Held up. 5m scrum Red.

 

[L'irlandais]

Two aspects to this :

A tackle can only occur on the field of play, once it ends up in-goal the tackle law no longer applies.

[laws]22.10 Ball held up in-goal

When a player carrying the ball is held up in the in-goal so that the player cannot ground the ball, the ball is dead. A 5-metre scrum is formed. This would apply if play similar to a maul takes place in in-goal. The attacking team throws in the ball.[/laws]

 

[Dickie E]

c (msf)

 

[Taff]

Held up. 5m scrum Red. It's also perfectly clear that Blue 7 never "held" Red 12 either or they wouldn't be in in-goal.

For what it's worth I agree with Paul DG.

Blue may be required to release "immediately" but the whole thing must have happened PDQ to end up in-goal. Did he even have a chance to release in the split second it took to slide into in-goal?

This is classic OB territory. I'll agree with him first, then let him explain exactly what I agree with. In essence, it seems unreasonable for the law to require a player to commit rugby suicide.

Funnily enough I thought of OB too, before I'd read your post. :biggrin:

While I can sympathise with the logic, something about it doesn't sit comfortably. In effect what is being suggested is that there is a narrow area (perhaps half a metre to a metre) just outside in-goal where the laws are suspended by the mad scramble to prevent a goal. By the same logic, we would tolerate a rolling maul being collapsed just before it goes into in-goal. See my point?

 

[Browner]

My 2p

If a BC still has momentum sufficient to keep sliding then he has no obligation to release the ball until his momentum ends (is.. The whole momentum try scoring scenario)

Its therefore equitable that the tackler hasn't actually completed his tackle until he's stopped the ball carrier from moving forward, and by the time that's happened the OP says they are both over the line, so stopping the ball (when over the line ) being grounded seems reasonable.

No try. Held up.scrum 5m red.

 

[talbazar]

Regarding the OP: not try, held up, scrum 5 attacking ball.

While I can sympathise with the logic, something about it doesn't sit comfortably. In effect what is being suggested is that there is a narrow area (perhaps half a metre to a metre) just outside in-goal where the laws are suspended by the mad scramble to prevent a goal. By the same logic, we would tolerate a rolling maul being collapsed just before it goes into in-goal. See my point?

I wouldn't. That's exactly the scenario where I would be convinced enough that try would have been scored and I would definitely run between the posts!

--- Edit ---
In my opinion, I would tend to believe the exact other way around: This metre before the line is where the law must be applied sharply in a goal of fairness:
- that's why we penalise the "double movement" (teckler not releasing the ball)
- that's why we (I've seen it several time) we would penalise the attacking team for "hands in the ruck" when a player grabs the ball within the ruck and place it over the line.
- etc...

 

[didds]

surely its "held and brought to ground" ... so in the OP the tackle has been made and the BC was held?

eg if I hold your legs and you come down - that is "HABTG". What happens when we both end up on the ground is seperate to that?

didds

 

[Browner]

surely its "held and brought to ground" ... so in the OP the tackle has been made and the BC was held?

eg if I hold your legs and you come down - that is "HABTG". What happens when we both end up on the ground is seperate to that? Didds

Then your arguing against the momentum try, ....... You're brought down, so release the ball immediately & before the slide has concluded!

 

[didds]

no... I was merely suggesting that because the two players are sliding doesn't mean the BC wasn't held.

If it was a blazing hot day in early September with concrete for ground the tackle would be exactly the same - but probably no sliding.

The only difference is the ground conditions.

In a similar fashion if the BC is held and brought to ground, that doesn't mean a VERY immediate letting go may allow the BC to just get up and carry on whilst holding the ball. That tackle HAS been effected - the BC was HABTG.

The issue bing debated here in the OP is whether the tackler may continue to hold on if a slide is in operation. But that is post-tackle ie the held bit has been and gone. ie in response to PaulDG's query I don't think "held" has anything to do with the sliding scenario.

 

[Ian_Cook]

While I can sympathise with the logic, something about it doesn't sit comfortably. In effect what is being suggested is that there is a narrow area (perhaps half a metre to a metre) just outside in-goal where the laws are suspended by the mad scramble to prevent a goal. By the same logic, we would tolerate a rolling maul being collapsed just before it goes into in-goal. See my point?

One solution might be for the lawmakers to deem that if the either the tackled player or the tackler have any part of their body, including their feet, on or beyond the goal-line, then the whole tackle is deemed to be in the in-goal. I'm not sure how to word it or apply it, but I think it could work, and would take the "corridor of uncertainty" a little further way from the goal line.

 

[Dickie E]

One solution might be for the lawmakers to deem that if the either the tackled player or the tackler have any part of their body, including their feet, on or beyond the goal-line, then the whole tackle is deemed to be in the in-goal. I'm not sure how to word it or apply it, but I think it could work, and would take the "corridor of uncertainty" a little further way from the goal line.

For that to be of value the ball carrier would generally need to be facing his own goal line when tackled or be driven backwards in the tackle once he's crossed the goal line. That doesn't happen very often.

 

[RobLev]

no... I was merely suggesting that because the two players are sliding doesn't mean the BC wasn't held.

If it was a blazing hot day in early September with concrete for ground the tackle would be exactly the same - but probably no sliding.

The only difference is the ground conditions.

In a similar fashion if the BC is held and brought to ground, that doesn't mean a VERY immediate letting go may allow the BC to just get up and carry on whilst holding the ball. That tackle HAS been effected - the BC was HABTG.

The issue bing debated here in the OP is whether the tackler may continue to hold on if a slide is in operation. But that is post-tackle ie the held bit has been and gone. ie in response to PaulDG's query I don't think "held" has anything to do with the sliding scenario.

In which case, surely, the BC having been tackled before he reaches the line, presumably (as Browner says) he must exercise his options (pass or release) whilst sliding, and must not wait until he stops? Insisting that the tackler must release whilst not insisting that the BC do so is hardly equitable.

 

[Dixie]

where's OB when you need him? :shrug:

 

[crossref]

In which case, surely, the BC having been tackled before he reaches the line, presumably (as Browner says) he must exercise his options (pass or release) whilst sliding, and must not wait until he stops? Insisting that the tackler must release whilst not insisting that the BC do so is hardly equitable.

this is OB's mexican stand off : do we realistically expect the tackler to release the BC and thus allow him to reach and score.

 

[L'irlandais]

..The issue bing debated here in the OP is whether the tackler may continue to hold on if a slide is in operation. ...

Interesting approach. If the Ball carrier is legally allowed to keep possession of the ball for the duration of the slide and still ground the ball for a try once in-goal à la 22.4 Other ways to score a try [laws](d) Momentum try. If an attacking player with the ball is tackled short of the goal line but the player’s momentum carries the player in a continuous movement along the ground into the opponents’ in-goal, and the player is first to ground the ball, a try is scored.[/laws]Why would the tackler be treated differently by the LoTG? Can somebody confirm that similar to a maul, the tackle law no longer applies in-goal? (I'm looking for a Law reference)

@ Dickie, Is that c (msf) a French or a Spanish acronym ? Médicos Sin Fronteras or Médecins Sans Frontières
(Doctors Without Borders) or perhaps means something else entirely.

 

[didds]

I agree RobLev. Its an example of the laws not covering some actualities.

Thing is - if we say "immediate" should happen when sliding ... what happens to the normal tackles where BCs are bing permitted to roll over gaining a metre and support time (and keeping the ball away from jacklers). I see it at level 6 so this isn't some elite thing - layers are being allowed to do it So if a BC is being given time to roll once, why not time to slide a metre or two?


didds

 

[Browner]

OB's mexican stand off .

There are two listed in their squad Senor's Carner & Collavizza !

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico_national_rugby_union_team

 

[Browner]

I agree RobLev. Its an example of the laws not covering some actualities.

Thing is - if we say "immediate" should happen when sliding ... what happens to the normal tackles where BCs are being permitted to roll over gaining a metre and support time (and keeping the ball away from jacklers). I see it at level 6 so this isn't some elite thing - layers are being allowed to do it

didds

Most law bending permission (aka cheating) is invented at the top, where the margins are pushed and then cascaded to the lower levels, school teachers coach the same 'technique' at my lads school to u13s!...once the pro guys have let the genie out.....

So, on a separate note, reclaim the outlawing , as we did the straight feed !!!!