Tackle off Feet - Diving to Score

[vimpe22]

In the attached clip there was a cross kick and player in red and blue gets off feet to collect the ball. Blue and Yellow the defender tackles him while he is landing on the ground but the Blue and red is over the line with the momentum and scores .
Referee allows the try .

There is a school of thought that the referee should have given a penalty try . I do not see a reason for same .
There is also an argument that the act of taking a man i off hos feet deserves yellow card.

I think the action of the tackle is too be considered in equity as the ball carrier is deemed to dive and then can be tackled . Refer clarification 3 0f 22 which may is about diving over a tackle to score.
Would appreciate any comments on the video attached in slow motion.

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

Look at the actions of the tackler. Never looking for the ball, takes the man in the air.
I could justify a Penalty try as he's the only defender there.
Diving for the line means you are in possession and diving from feet on the floor and that is legal to attempt to tackle.

 

[Jz558]

For me he isnt diving for the line he was tackled in the air whilst catching the ball. So, as the tackler didn't prevent a try from being scored, I would probably have awarded the try and yellow carded the tackler for playing the attacker in the air.

 

[Volun-selected]

Certainly the law is clear that you cannot tackle (or touch, push, etc.) a player with feet of the ground - but when a try is scored we often seem to let the errant player off the hook.

If this had been in the Red-Blue team's half and they were taken out like this - we’d almost certainly have seen a penalty, and since they land on their side, a YC (under the USAR guidelines).

 

[Decorily]

From the clip it's hard to tell....but it seems possible that the try could have been scored in a more advantageous position so a penalty try could be the correct decision.

 

[didds]

i think the real answer is

"make a decision - sell it"

 

[Marc Wakeham]

It a jumper taken in the air = Penalty.

If you play "beam me up Scotty" it is a PT and YC

However, there is a school of thought that says WR removed "beam me up Scotty" (I can't find anything in writing to back this up) then you have to say the tackle did not prevent a try being socre in a better place. SO it is a try and possible YC in this case.

 

[smeagol]

Bang on, PT/YC.

However, there is a school of thought that says WR removed "beam me up Scotty" (I can't find anything in writing to back this up) then you have to say the tackle did not prevent a try being socre in a better place. SO it is a try and possible YC in this case.

I think the YC is easily justifiable - never attempted to play the ball, clearly took him out in the air.

The PT, I think you can lean on the fact that the BC never had a chance to score in a better position to give it.

 

[crossref]

i think that properly it's a PT - but probably not many people are expecting one.. so..

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Bang on, PT/YC.


I think the YC is easily justifiable - never attempted to play the ball, clearly took him out in the air.

The PT, I think you can lean on the fact that the BC never had a chance to score in a better position to give it.

Agreed - if you apply "beam me up Scotty". If you don't then it is not. Can anyone cloe the discussion on "beam me up" was it removed?

 

[Dickie E]

1. To the OP. That is definitely foul play and not an attacker diving for the line
2. In all my years, where an attacker successfully scores a try, I have never seen a PT awarded for "might have scored it in a better position". And usually no card
3. If the attacker had not scored the try (eg knocked it on after contact by the defender) then certainly a PT & card

 

[Phil E]

We have had this discussion before.

Generally speaking (there are always exceptions), diving for the line is a head down, pointing to the ground sort of position.
In the video he is jumping upwards, head to the sky position, so not a dive for the line.

So we have a jumper taken out in the air, deal with it on that basis.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

1. To the OP. That is definitely foul play and not an attacker diving for the line
2. In all my years, where an attacker successfully scores a try, I have never seen a PT awarded for "might have scored it in a better position". And usually no card
3. If the attacker had not scored the try (eg knocked it on after contact by the defender) then certainly a PT & card

1: YEP
3: Yep
2: We had it in a game I played a long while back:

Our full back and their winger chasing a ball kicked in to in goal. Our full back tackled the winger before he got to the ball. Winger fell forward and scored. Ref still went under the post saying "if there was no foul play the winger could have picked the ball up and run under the posts". He applied the "BMUS" principle taking our full back out of the picture. He also sent out full back off. One of ony two sendings off Iremember us having. Don't think there were any cards in those days

But yes very very rare indeed.

Re the "usually no card" bit, I think this is a referee failing. We stil lshould treat the offence on its own meritregardlesss of a score. This also applies to a situation such as repeated offsides wit hrepreated advantages. Finaly a try is scored and the ref "forgets" that he has warned the team "next one goes". Not a good look for me.

 

[Mipper]

It is rare although last year I did award a PT when a try had been scored.

It was a ladies game, and the kicking was not great. The attacking winger running for the corner, FB coming across, winger steps inside resulting in a neck-high tackle on the try line. Attacker makes it over the line and scores despite the FB hanging on to her neck.

My thought process - I remember it well - was;
high tackle
penalty
if she doesn't score then thats a PT
she scores
yellow card
penalty from KO
oh hang on, the kicker is never converting from there, she could have gone under the posts, PT.

It is rare - and that was evidenced by the questions from the defending team and a lot of the spectators

 

[Dickie E]

penalty from KO

Not sure about that

 

[Decorily]

Not sure about that

Not correct based on my interpretation of scenario.

 

[didds]

aye. not foul play after the score.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

It is rare although last year I did award a PT when a try had been scored.

It was a ladies game, and the kicking was not great. The attacking winger running for the corner, FB coming across, winger steps inside resulting in a neck-high tackle on the try line. Attacker makes it over the line and scores despite the FB hanging on to her neck.

My thought process - I remember it well - was;
high tackle
penalty
if she doesn't score then thats a PT
she scores
yellow card
penalty from KO
oh hang on, the kicker is never converting from there, she could have gone under the posts, PT.

It is rare - and that was evidenced by the questions from the defending team and a lot of the spectators

The bold bit is simply wrong. You can only award a Penalty in place of the KO if the offence is AFTER the try is scored. This was not, your only choice is Try (with a card if you consider appropriate) or PT because the try could have been scored in a more advantageous place but for the foul play and a compulsory card.

 

[Mipper]

The bold bit is simply wrong. Yo ucan only award a Penalty in place of the KO if the offence is AFTER the try is scored. This was not you only choice is Try (with a card if you consider appropriate) or PT because the try could have been scored in a more advantageous place but for the foul play and a compulsory card.

Thats interesting Mark, I wasnt aware of this. To be clear, I did not award the PT from KO as the PT was awarded instead.

However, let's suppose that PT was not part of it, ie the try was scored under the posts.

Lets accept also that the high tackle was worthy of a yellow card on its own - which it was, regardless of the PT question.

Does this mean that Try is scored, Yellow Card is issued, Conversion taken and then Restart as usual with the 'sanctioned' team taking the kick?

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Thats interesting Mark, I wasnt aware of this. To be clear, I did not award the PT from KO as the PT was awarded instead.

However, let's suppose that PT was not part of it, ie the try was scored under the posts.

Lets accept also that the high tackle was worthy of a yellow card on its own - which it was, regardless of the PT question.

Does this mean that Try is scored, Yellow Card is issued, Conversion taken and then Restart as usual with the 'sanctioned' team taking the kick?

To answer I have to repeat part of my last answer:

You can only award a Penalty in place of the KO if the offence is AFTER the try is scored. So, sorry, but I am not sure how else to put it.