[CLUB RUGBY] Tackle?

[crossref]

The real issue of this incident is that the TMO and ref didn't seem to even consider whether the 'tackle' was legal.
the entire focus was on whether at try had been scored

 

[BikerRef]

Because of the lack of an attempted wrap it's a PT for me, but I don't think it reaches the level of YC. There's no contact with the head, the end result wasn't an injured player and there's a sort of a quasi-reach toward a wrap.

 

[Taff]

... There's no contact with the head, the end result wasn't an injured player and there's a sort of a quasi-reach toward a wrap.

Given that the BC was so close to the line, I reckon the defender was trying to flip the BC onto his back into touch. So minimal "wrapping" with his right hand, while the left hand goes underneath.

 

[Drift]

Because of the lack of an attempted wrap it's a PT for me, but I don't think it reaches the level of YC. There's no contact with the head, the end result wasn't an injured player and there's a sort of a quasi-reach toward a wrap.

If it's a PT then it needs to be a YC.

 

[Pegleg]

Because of the lack of an attempted wrap it's a PT for me, but I don't think it reaches the level of YC. There's no contact with the head, the end result wasn't an injured player and there's a sort of a quasi-reach toward a wrap.

The bold bit:

Intentional foul play resulting in a PT is a minimum of a YC so it has reached the level if you are saying PT.

10.2 UNFAIR PLAY
(a) Intentionally Offending. A player must not intentionally infringe any Law of the Game, or
play unfairly. The player who intentionally offends must be either admonished, or cautioned
that a send off will result if the offence or a similar offence is committed, or sent off.
Sanction: Penalty kick
A penalty try must be awarded if the offence prevents a try that would probably otherwise
have been scored. A player who prevents a try being scored through foul play must either be
cautioned and temporarily suspended or sent off.

The underlined bit:

THe injury or not outcome is not relevant to any cards.

 

[Pegleg]

Given that the BC was so close to the line, I reckon the defender was trying to flip the BC onto his back into touch. So minimal "wrapping" with his right hand, while the left hand goes underneath.

Why not wrap and drive into touch?

 

[OB..]

The bold bit:

Intentional foul play resulting in a PT is a minimum of a YC so it has reached the level if you are saying PT.

10.2 UNFAIR PLAY
(a) Intentionally Offending. A player must not intentionally infringe any Law of the Game, or
play unfairly. The player who intentionally offends must be either admonished, or cautioned
that a send off will result if the offence or a similar offence is committed, or sent off.
Sanction: Penalty kick
A penalty try must be awarded if the offence prevents a try that would probably otherwise
have been scored. A player who prevents a try being scored through foul play must either be
cautioned and temporarily suspended or sent off.

The underlined bit:

THe injury or not outcome is not relevant to any cards.

[LAWS]Clarification 9 2004

Ruling in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee
Ruling 9-2004
Union / HP Ref Manager
IRFU
Law Reference 10,22

Date 23 December 2004

Request
The IRFU has requested a ruling with regard Law 10-Foul Play and Law 22-In Goal.

Rewrite and amendment of 10.2(a), and consequential addition to Law 22.

The first paragraph states:
Intentionally Offending. A player must not intentionally infringe any Law of the Game, or play unfairly. The player who intentionally offends must be either admonished, or cautioned that a send off will result if the offence or a similar offence is committed, or sent-off. After a caution a player is temporarily suspended from the match for a period of ten minutes playing time. After a caution, if the player commits the same or similar offence, the player must be sent-off. Penalty: Penalty Kick

The final paragraph states:
A penalty try must be awarded if the offence prevents a try that would probably otherwise have been scored. A player who prevents a try being scored through foul play must either be cautioned and temporarily suspended or sent off.

The final paragraph does not appear to offer the possibility of an 'admonishment' by the referee; nor does it refer to 'intentionally'.

The clarification sought is:
Is it the intention of the Law (as now rewritten) to ensure that in each and every circumstance, where a penalty try is awarded, that the offending player is temporarily suspended, whether or not the foul is intentional?

Is it the intention to remove the discretion of the referee to admonish, rather then temporarily suspend or send off a player in such circumstances?

The reason clarification is sought is that there are circumstances where the offence is not intentional: e.g. mistimed (early or late, but not dangerous) tackle; unintentional instinctive high, but not dangerous, tackle -when an attacker steps inside a defender; certain incidences of scrum collapsing.
In these circumstances, the sanction of a penalty try, and a temporary suspension appear exceptionally severe. While it will not be a frequent occurrence, the effect on a match outcome could be hugely significant. It could also, in the event of a front row forward, lead to uncontested scrums.

Finally, it would appear inconsistent for an offence which, taking place in mid-field, would not merit a temporary suspension but would merit a temporary suspension close to a goal-line.

Ruling in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee
Law 10.2(a) is Unfair Play relating to Intentional Offending.

The two paragraphs in Law 10.2(a) must be read in conjunction, having due regard to the heading 'Intentionally Offending'.

Therefore, if a penalty try is awarded as the result of a player intentionally offending, then the player must be either be cautioned and temporarily suspended or sent off.

Examples of this would be after penalty tries resulting from:
• a collapsed scrum
• a collapsed maul
• a defending player intentionally offside
• a defending player intentionally knocking down the ball.

If a penalty try is awarded as the result of a player unintentionally offending, the player, as well as being liable to cautioning and temporary suspension or send off, can be admonished by the referee.

Examples of this may be after penalty tries resulting from:
• mistimed tackle (early or late, but not dangerous)
• unintentional reactionary high tackle, but not dangerous.
[/LAWS]

The second para in the current 10.2 (a) was added after this Clarification was issued. Note the bits in red.

 

[ChuckieB]

Current wording is 10.2 (a)

Intentionally Offending. A player must not intentionally infringe any Law of the Game, or play unfairly. The player who intentionally offends must be either admonished, or cautioned that a send off will result if the offence or a similar offence is committed, or sent off.
Sanction: Penalty kick


A penalty try must be awarded if the offence prevents a try that would probably otherwise have been scored. A player who prevents a try being scored through foul play must either be cautioned and temporarily suspended or sent off.

Combined with law 22:


"Foul play by the defending team.

The referee awards a penalty try if a try would probably have been scored but for foul play by the defending team.


.......


A player who prevents a try being scored through foul play must either be cautioned and temporarily suspended or sent off."

So you really need to know and understand the clarification in that case, as the laws make no easy direct reference to unintentional foul play allowing for admonishment only!

 

[Pegleg]

[LAWS]Clarification 9 2004

Ruling in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee
Ruling 9-2004
Union / HP Ref Manager
IRFU
Law Reference 10,22

Date 23 December 2004

Request
The IRFU has requested a ruling with regard Law 10-Foul Play and Law 22-In Goal.

Rewrite and amendment of 10.2(a), and consequential addition to Law 22.

The first paragraph states:
Intentionally Offending. A player must not intentionally infringe any Law of the Game, or play unfairly. The player who intentionally offends must be either admonished, or cautioned that a send off will result if the offence or a similar offence is committed, or sent-off. After a caution a player is temporarily suspended from the match for a period of ten minutes playing time. After a caution, if the player commits the same or similar offence, the player must be sent-off. Penalty: Penalty Kick

The final paragraph states:
A penalty try must be awarded if the offence prevents a try that would probably otherwise have been scored. A player who prevents a try being scored through foul play must either be cautioned and temporarily suspended or sent off.

The final paragraph does not appear to offer the possibility of an 'admonishment' by the referee; nor does it refer to 'intentionally'.

The clarification sought is:
Is it the intention of the Law (as now rewritten) to ensure that in each and every circumstance, where a penalty try is awarded, that the offending player is temporarily suspended, whether or not the foul is intentional?

Is it the intention to remove the discretion of the referee to admonish, rather then temporarily suspend or send off a player in such circumstances?

The reason clarification is sought is that there are circumstances where the offence is not intentional: e.g. mistimed (early or late, but not dangerous) tackle; unintentional instinctive high, but not dangerous, tackle -when an attacker steps inside a defender; certain incidences of scrum collapsing.
In these circumstances, the sanction of a penalty try, and a temporary suspension appear exceptionally severe. While it will not be a frequent occurrence, the effect on a match outcome could be hugely significant. It could also, in the event of a front row forward, lead to uncontested scrums.

Finally, it would appear inconsistent for an offence which, taking place in mid-field, would not merit a temporary suspension but would merit a temporary suspension close to a goal-line.

Ruling in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee
Law 10.2(a) is Unfair Play relating to Intentional Offending.

The two paragraphs in Law 10.2(a) must be read in conjunction, having due regard to the heading 'Intentionally Offending'.

Therefore, if a penalty try is awarded as the result of a player intentionally offending, then the player must be either be cautioned and temporarily suspended or sent off.

Examples of this would be after penalty tries resulting from:
• a collapsed scrum
• a collapsed maul
• a defending player intentionally offside
• a defending player intentionally knocking down the ball.

If a penalty try is awarded as the result of a player unintentionally offending, the player, as well as being liable to cautioning and temporary suspension or send off, can be admonished by the referee.

Examples of this may be after penalty tries resulting from:
• mistimed tackle (early or late, but not dangerous)
• unintentional reactionary high tackle, but not dangerous.
[/LAWS]

The second para in the current 10.2 (a) was added after this Clarification was issued. Note the bits in red.

Indeed. Not that unintentional is relevant here.

 

[Pegleg]

Current wording is 10.2 (a)

Intentionally Offending. A player must not intentionally infringe any Law of the Game, or play unfairly. The player who intentionally offends must be either admonished, or cautioned that a send off will result if the offence or a similar offence is committed, or sent off.
Sanction: Penalty kick


A penalty try must be awarded if the offence prevents a try that would probably otherwise have been scored. A player who prevents a try being scored through foul play must either be cautioned and temporarily suspended or sent off.

Combined with law 22:


"Foul play by the defending team.

The referee awards a penalty try if a try would probably have been scored but for foul play by the defending team.


.......


A player who prevents a try being scored through foul play must either be cautioned and temporarily suspended or sent off."

So you really need to know and understand the clarification in that case, as the laws make no easy direct reference to unintentional foul play allowing for admonishment only!

The bit in bold makes it quite clear that the "madatory card" refers to intentional offending and not unintentional offending.

 

[ChuckieB]

The bit in bold makes it quite clear that the "madatory card" refers to intentional offending and not unintentional offending.

I am pointing out that:

"If a penalty try is awarded as the result of a player unintentionally offending, the player, as well as being liable to cautioning and temporary suspension or send off, can be admonished by the referee."

is in the clarification only and so hardly clear!

 

[Pegleg]

But LAW 10 makes it clear that the mandatory card is applicable to INTENTIONAL offending not "offending". It is reasonable to read from the specifying of INTENTIONAL that non intentional is not included in the mandatory card reference.

Yes it was included in the clarification as, presumably, some were not able to come to that logical conclusion. With the best will in the word, however you write things someone will not understand. Here, for a change, I feel the fault lies, not with World Rugby, but with the reader.

 

[BikerRef]

If it's a PT then it needs to be a YC.

Respectfully? I'm not certain I completely agree with that. Intent is a factor, and IMHO there I was no intent to infringe demonstrated here.

 

[ChuckieB]

But LAW 10 makes it clear that the mandatory card is applicable to INTENTIONAL offending not "offending". It is reasonable to read from the specifying of INTENTIONAL that non intentional is not included in the mandatory card reference.

Yes it was included in the clarification as, presumably, some were not able to come to that logical conclusion. With the best will in the word, however you write things someone will not understand. Here, for a change, I feel the fault lies, not with World Rugby, but with the reader.

Sufficiently clear perhaps, that they then felt no need to respond with a clarification.

In law sometimes, you do just have to state it. It cannot always be implied, as is now the situation, or so it seems, in this case. Admonishment is thus confirmed as legitimate additional option, in addition to the caution and temporary suspension or send off in the case of unintentional foul play where a penalty try is awarded.

 

[Pegleg]

If you feel it is clear (and it is) why would you feel the need to clarify it? That's simply nonsense. Of course when a union asked they clarified it for them.

The law that was added to 10.2 back around 2004 refered to the specific offence of INTENTIONAL offending. That is the crucial word INTENTIONAL. Why some people felt that a law refering to INTENTIONAL offending could also apply to UNINTENTIONAL offending is slightly odd to say the least.

What part of:

Intentionally Offending. A player must not intentionally infringe any Law of the Game, or play unfairly. The player who intentionally offends must be either admonished, or cautioned that a send off will result if the offence or a similar offence is committed, or sent-off. After a caution a player is temporarily suspended from the match for a period of ten minutes playing time. After a caution, if the player commits the same or similar offence, the player must be sent-off. Penalty: Penalty Kick

A penalty try must be awarded if the offence prevents a try that would probably otherwise have been scored. A player who prevents a try being scored through foul play must either be cautioned and temporarily suspended or sent off.

This particular law is clearly referring to, guess what INTENTIONAL offending and not UNINTENTIONAL OFFENDING. They made it pretty clear Although the IRFU looked for clarification. Wether it was it or some of its members who did not understand the references to INTENTIONAL I can't say.

We are going in circles here. For me the law was and is very clear. They are talking about intent. Plain an simple.

 

[ChuckieB]

If it's a PT then it needs to be a YC.

Pegleg

Just exploring this individual post in a bit more detail. How did you see this incident?

On it's own, it's a very brief and sweeping statement and you, along with Beckett50, marked "liked this post".

I think I know your answer.

Viewed without any further clarification, Drift, in this instance, beckett50 perhaps (I suspect not), but more probably other readers including the IRFU, might be viewing it that every PT needs a YC?

I an effort to improve the laws, as someone who thinks he is reasonably understanding of the game but is unfettered by some of the issues that have arisen over many a year, I am just suggesting where people might still see the law is short on clarity without taking into account the specifics of the clarification.

So why not just say it in the face of the laws perhaps, i.e. admonishment may be considered in instances of unintentional foul play in a penalty try scenario?

 

[Pegleg]

I'm not sure how many times it needs to be said but here goes.

The offence was deliberate and it was worth a PT. Therefore the law:

"Intentionally Offending. A player must not intentionally infringe any Law of the Game, or play unfairly. The player who intentionally offends must be either admonished, or cautioned that a send off will result if the offence or a similar offence is committed, or sent-off. After a caution a player is temporarily suspended from the match for a period of ten minutes playing time. After a caution, if the player commits the same or similar offence, the player must be sent-off. Penalty: Penalty Kick

A penalty try must be awarded if the offence prevents a try that would probably otherwise have been scored. A player who prevents a try being scored through foul play must either be cautioned and temporarily suspended or sent off."

Means it must be a YC as a minimum.

There is no contradiction between Drift's comment "If it's a PT then it needs to be a YC." and my position. If it was not a PT the ref COULD have taken the warning line. If a PT he could not.

HAD the referee felt it was not deliberate (had he thought it was accidental) he could have awarded a PT (unintentional foul play preventing a probable try) and given a warning or a YC or a RC.

And now on this thread I'm out.

 

[ChuckieB]

:biggrin:

I'm not sure how many times it needs to be said but here goes.

The offence was deliberate and it was worth a PT. Therefore the law:

"Intentionally Offending. A player must not intentionally infringe any Law of the Game, or play unfairly. The player who intentionally offends must be either admonished, or cautioned that a send off will result if the offence or a similar offence is committed, or sent-off. After a caution a player is temporarily suspended from the match for a period of ten minutes playing time. After a caution, if the player commits the same or similar offence, the player must be sent-off. Penalty: Penalty Kick

A penalty try must be awarded if the offence prevents a try that would probably otherwise have been scored. A player who prevents a try being scored through foul play must either be cautioned and temporarily suspended or sent off."

Means it must be a YC as a minimum.

There is no contradiction between Drift's comment "If it's a PT then it needs to be a YC." and my position. If it was not a PT the ref COULD have taken the warning line. If a PT he could not.

HAD the referee felt it was not deliberate (had he thought it was accidental) he could have awarded a PT (unintentional foul play preventing a probable try) and given a warning or a YC or a RC.

And now on this thread I'm out.

Please don't go.................:sad:

You are saying it is deliberate and worth a penalty try.

Separately you have said....

"There is no contradiction between Drift's comment "If it's a PT then it needs to be a YC." and my position. If it was not a PT the ref COULD have taken the warning line. If a PT he could not."

"If it was not a PT the ref COULD have taken the warning line." Agreed.

If a PT he could not.(on its own actually a contradiction). Actually, yes he could......and you yourself have then ultimately looked to confirm by introducing terminology in line with the what is written into the clarification rather than the body of law itself.

Exactly my point. Not so clear for the masses then, unless you end up saying it. That's all I think I was ever trying to suggest.

I agree. Let's check out on this one!

By the way do we have absolute understanding of what an admonishment is? It is a severe reprimand rather than a warning.

 

[ChuckieB]

Unfortunately I am being tagged with the brush of deliberately misquoting. If it was an erroneously forgetful use of quotation marks, for that I apologise.

Apparently too late, or so I fear

Just simply trying to express a point where the laws could very well be made clearer as I thought should be our want? If it was as clear as some think we wouldn't even be doing this.

Best.

CB

 

[Drift]

Respectfully? I'm not certain I completely agree with that. Intent is a factor, and IMHO there I was no intent to infringe demonstrated here.

Yep intent is a factor, however the intent of the player here is to get the ball carrier into touch. He could have made a legal tackle to do so, however he chose to make an illegal tackle. Not my problem he did that, it's his. If I am going under the sticks for a PT for foul play then that player is also getting a YC.