This phrase was called out by WB in the SF more than once.
What is the point?
Or that a.maul had not formed and that tackler(s) and b/c have to release/roll.
IMO the top refs are over-using this 'tackle-only' call
Easy; it's to remind players that just because the BC is on the ground it's still a tackle and hasn't changed into a ruck - because the requirements for a ruck haven't been met. Sadly, too many people assume that as soon as the BC is on the ground, we now have a Ruck.This phrase was called out by WB in the SF more than once. What is the point?
Easy; it's to remind players that just because the BC is on the ground it's still a tackle and hasn't changed into a ruck - because the requirements for a ruck haven't been met. Sadly, too many people assume that as soon as the BC is on the ground, we now have a Ruck.
Why is this important? At a tackle there are obligations (tackler must release, BC must release etc) but there are also rights which don't exist at a ruck - eg as long as they come in through the gate and stay on their feet, players can play the ball - which they can't do if the tackle has changed into a ruck.
In fairness to Barnes, he explains this a lot and I think it helps.
This phrase was called out by WB in the SF more than once.
What is the point?
To let everyone know there is no offside line.
No, I don't think it means it wasn't a ruck
It means there wasn't a *maul*, so no turnover, and everyone has to release as per a tackle.
it is intended to keep the game going
I agree. When the ball-carrier is being helped to take the ball to ground by a supporting player I think that is fair, but when there are more than 1 players from his side joining it then as much as I dislike the choke tackle you have to call it a maul according to the laws, surely ?
OTOH, I like that the choke-tackle is almost eliminated because of this, and it keeps the game flowing.