[CLUB RUGBY] Tackle?

[winchesterref]

Bit of a rib tickler.

 

[ChuckieB]

It's that grey area of a player making the last ditch effort to prevent an attacker grounding of the ball for a try. Unless he tries to kick it out of his hands then what we are left with is the rule book being thrown out of the window!

A "bundling" off the park, no arms, seems to pass every time.

 

[didds]

 

[Pegleg]

The first tackle was a closer call some arm movement, But did he try to bind?

JPR's would be illegal today. Different times different laws. We used to send kids down mines that's not allowed anymore either.

 

[Taff]

Personally, I reckon the first one is OK - just.

There was some (but not a lot) attempt at grasping, but to me it failed the "clear and obvious" test ie it wasn't a clear and obvious shoulder charge.

 

[didds]

Personally, I reckon the first one is OK - just.

There was some (but not a lot) attempt at grasping, but to me it failed the "clear and obvious" test ie it wasn't a clear and obvious shoulder charge.

I'm not sure it was a clear and obvious attempt to tackle

didds

 

[Shelflife]

Shoulder charge into touch for me, no effort to wrap, arm going across is just window dressing. suprised it wasnt looked at.

PT and a YC for me.

 

[TheBFG]

I think with one look on a Saturday afternoon we'd potentially miss that, but with the TMO i'd be looking for it. I think it's one that is missed too often!

 

[crossref]

There does seem to am increasing trend that a defender can get away with anything if the ball carrier is scoring

On Saturday I YC a defender who high tackled a try scorer. The try was scored, but to me it's still a YC

 

[ChuckieB]

I think with one look on a Saturday afternoon we'd potentially miss that, but with the TMO i'd be looking for it. I think it's one that is missed too often!

That the try wasn't awarded and there wasn't a hint of a review for the attempt suggests to me that such an attempt, from behind at least, rightly or wrongly, is an acceptable way to attempt preventing a try from being scored.

That last ditch "failed" (yet dubious) tackle attempt under the, "Goal line "Red Mist" changes everything Law"!

 

[SimonSmith]

Or, plausibly close enough to be shoulder to shoulder?

 

[Pegleg]

Or, plausibly close enough to be shoulder to shoulder?

Not allowed to shoulder charge a ball carrier.

10.1 OBSTRUCTION
(a) Charging or pushing. When a player and an opponent are running for the ball, either
player must not charge or push the other except shoulder-to-shoulder.
Sanction: Penalty kick

10.4 DANGEROUS PLAY AND MISCONDUCT
(g) Dangerous charging. A player must not charge or knock down an opponent carrying the
ball without trying to grasp that player.
Sanction: Penalty kick

 

[didds]

Pegleg beat me to it

shoulder to shoulder is OK only IF they are both chasing a ball - not if someone is carrying it


didds

 

[Camquin]

I would compare it to the Uruguayan tackle that led to a YC for Ormaechea and PT for Fiji in the RWC match at MK.

http://www.rugbyworldcup.com/video/107461

I think this is worse, so I am in the YC / PT camp.

 

[Christy]

Penalty try , no attempt to wrap arms ..

 

[The Fat]

Not allowed to shoulder charge a ball carrier.

10.4 DANGEROUS PLAY AND MISCONDUCT
(g) Dangerous charging. A player must not charge or knock down an opponent carrying the
ball without trying to grasp that player.
Sanction: Penalty kick

Another instance of the governing body knowing what they want to say and then not being able to adequately put that into words that don't conflict with other parts of the Laws or offer an inadequate description.

Pegleg has found the part of the Law that, for all intents and purposes, covers the "shoulder charge". However, the requirement to attempt to grasp the ball carrier is contradicted in the very next clause,


(g) Dangerous charging. A player must not charge or knock down an opponent carrying the ball without trying to grasp that player.

(h) A player must not charge into a ruck or maul. Charging includes any contact made without use of the arms, or without grasping a player

and also part of Law 7.1

Any player may tackle, hold or push an opponent holding the ball.

Regarding the OP, it is not a shoulder charge, although it is not far off, but the defender has made no attempt to grasp the ball carrier either and is therefore not an attempt to tackle. So we are left with Law 7.1. Greg Garner and the TMO must have both believed that the defender used the arms sufficiently to "push" the ball carrier into touch.

 

[Camquin]

This is why you need an editor who has not played rugby - and who is awkward enough to dig their heels in when the words do not make sense.
Get the subject matter expert to explain what thy mean and let the editor write something that actually means that to the uninitiated.

 

[Paule23]

No arms tackle preventing a probable try, PT and YC for me.

There's also something to say about the attacker putting his shoulder/elbow into the tackling player, but it's not the worst offence so I'm penalising the tackler.

 

[Pegleg]

Another instance of the governing body knowing what they want to say and then not being able to adequately put that into words that don't conflict with other parts of the Laws or offer an inadequate description.

Pegleg has found the part of the Law that, for all intents and purposes, covers the "shoulder charge". However, the requirement to attempt to grasp the ball carrier is contradicted in the very next clause,


(g) Dangerous charging. A player must not charge or knock down an opponent carrying the ball without trying to grasp that player.

(h) A player must not charge into a ruck or maul. Charging includes any contact made without use of the arms, or without grasping a player

and also part of Law 7.1

Any player may tackle, hold or push an opponent holding the ball.

Regarding the OP, it is not a shoulder charge, although it is not far off, but the defender has made no attempt to grasp the ball carrier either and is therefore not an attempt to tackle. So we are left with Law 7.1. Greg Garner and the TMO must have both believed that the defender used the arms sufficiently to "push" the ball carrier into touch.

Pushing (with the hands) and barging are very different. A shouldder to should as two players are running and the "JPR special" are very different. I think the law makers understood what that were aiming for (for once).

 

[ChuckieB]

Pushing (with the hands) and barging are very different. A shouldder to should as two players are running and the "JPR special" are very different. I think the law makers understood what that were aiming for (for once).

The dictionary sets out that a push, while generally understood in the context of, "especially use of the hands" as covering other situations i.e. "to moveforcefully, especially in order to cause someone or something that is in your way to move, so that you can go through or past them".

Barging has a slightly "lesser" connotation, would you believe, i.e. "to hurry somewhere or through a place in a rude and forceful way"

Sorry, I couldn't find "JPR Special" in the dictionary!

Don't you just love the English Language!

TMO was for all intents and purposes silent on the matter!

Doesn't resolve my concerns and I remain torn on the matter. It looks wrong in any place other than the goal line?