[Tackle] tackled without ball?

[Dickie E]

In my game yesterday. Red vs. Blue.

Red running with ball and ball carrier sells the best dummy ever which had everyone (inc. me) fooled.

Blue defender (quite understandably, IMO) tackles the Red player that we all thought now had the ball, but, of course, didn't.

Legal or no?

 

[Phil E]

Play on.
If everyone thought he had the ball you can't really blame the defence for tackling him.
Also was it material, bearing in kind that the ball carrier achieved his aim...to fool the defence into thinking he had passed.
I am guessing no one expected a penalty....so did it pass the clear, obvious and expected criteria?

 

[Balones]

Always an interesting question this.
Should the opposition be able to assess the situation and take appropriate action in the likelihood of something happening? The jump/catch situation is one of them. What the player did in law was illegal but could he have stopped himself or should he have read the situation and waited until it was clear that the player had or did not have the ball. Outcome plays a part in your decision making. Did the attacking side (side in possession) gain an advantage by the action of the defending side? I.e. tackled the wrong player so allowed a gain in ground. However, by tackling the non-ball carrier did the defender prevent support for a return pass and even more ground gain or even a scoring opportunity? So, as Phil as intimated in his response there is no right or wrong answer. It will depend on context and expectation. The one thing that is definite is that it is illegal in law. - Tackling a player without the ball. But then so are many other things that are allowed to go because of context.

 

[leaguerefaus]

Penalty every time.

You could say that's the attacker's reward for the best dummy you've ever seen!

 

[ChrisR]

Play advantage.

If the BC gets the break then advantage over.

If, in the next few steps, he gets nailed and his support has just been tackled then back to the PK.

(Technically that is the correct response. Emotionally: "Play on!")

 

[Pegleg]

THe Ball carrier is trying (in a sense) to "con" the defender into tackling the wrong man. If it works and the dummy is bought why shouldhe get a second bite at the cherry? As Balones suggests context is king here and timing is important.

 

[crossref]

it's not impossible for a defender to buy a dummy, realise he's be caught in time to avoid the tackle, but proceeds to make the tackle anyway.

yes, you have to be there, see it, and make a call

 

[Balones]

I don't automatically take a hard line on penalising the defender because it is the ball carrier that has caused his team mate to be tackled and not the defender himself through deliberate foul play or intent. If the defender has some time to pull out then that is different. Also if there is some definite intent to tackle the supporting player regardless then that is a different matter also.
I also like to consider the scenario where the ball carrier suddenly changes direction and goes behind a team mate (crossing/obstruction) but the defender carries on his line and clatters the player in front instead of the ball carrier. The first offence is obstruction but we don't reverse the penalty for the next and probably more serious offence of tackling a player without the ball. (Probably quite heavily as well.)

 

[DocY]

I don't automatically take a hard line on penalising the defender because it is the ball carrier that has caused his team mate to be tackled and not the defender himself through deliberate foul play or intent. If the defender has some time to pull out then that is different. Also if there is some definite intent to tackle the supporting player regardless then that is a different matter also.

I think it's different only insofar as in the situations you describe we're probably talking a YC for intentional infringement, which wouldn't be the case if he'd tackled the wrong man in good faith.

I also like to consider the scenario where the ball carrier suddenly changes direction and goes behind a team mate (crossing/obstruction) but the defender carries on his line and clatters the player in front instead of the ball carrier. The first offence is obstruction but we don't reverse the penalty for the next and probably more serious offence of tackling a player without the ball. (Probably quite heavily as well.)

If he didn't clatter (or at least make some contact with) the obstructing player, it probably wouldn't be obstruction at all. It's a bit of a different situation - in the dummy situation the BC hasn't committed any sort of infringement.

It's more like trying to take a player man and ball and getting it slightly early - not an intentional infringement, but still an infringement (but probably without much scope for advantage).

 

[didds]

Frankly if you are going to ping a defender for tackling a non ball carrying opponent because of a well executed dummy, then maybe you should also be considering that newish law preventing players from creating a situation whereby the oppo give away a PK / tricking the ref into giving them a PK.



didds

 

[DocY]

Frankly if you are going to ping a defender gor tackling a non ball carrying opponent because of a well executed dummy, then maybe you should also eb considering that newish law preventing players from creating a situation whereby the oppo give away a PK / tricking the ref into giving them a PK

didds

I take it you're joking?

Imagine the following situation:
10 dummies to 12, 12 is taken out by his opposite number, 10 goes through and (before advantage is over, assuming you deemed you'd play advantage) is in a 1-1 with the fullback and looking for his supporting 12 to pass to.

I struggle to see how you'd justify not giving a penalty there.

 

[didds]

So basically you hand 3 points to the attackers because they chose to use a dummy in the full knowledge of its potential outcomes?

I take it you are joking? You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs.

didds

 

[ChuckieB]

Play advantage.

If the BC gets the break then advantage over.

If, in the next few steps, he gets nailed and his support has just been tackled then back to the PK.

(Technically that is the correct response. Emotionally: "Play on!")

....."in the next few steps"?

Setting aside the technical infringement for a moment.

At grass roots, and the real world, I am just wondering if I might reasonably see less opportunity to see advantage accruing and hence likely end up foreshortening the period compared to what we are tending to see in the elite game?

Is that people's experience?

 

[DocY]

So basically you hand 3 points to the attackers because they chose to use a dummy in the full knowledge of its potential outcomes?

I take it you are joking? You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs.

didds

I'd hand a penalty to the attackers because the defenders tackled their man without the ball. I'd only consider the circumstances under which the tackle off the ball happened when deciding if I need to produce a card.

If you're going to go down the route of saying "play on, he dummied", at what point do you decide it was a legitimate dummy and not looking round for options, or wanting to pass but deciding not to because the opposition came up so fast? Both of which I've seen have the same effect as a dummy, even if they weren't intentional.

 

[DocY]

At grass roots, and the real world, I am just wondering if I might reasonably see less opportunity to see advantage accruing and hence likely end up foreshortening the period compared to what we are tending to see in the elite game?

Is that people's experience?

Not IME - if a player has made a break at grass routes levels the defence often don't make as much effort to track back as they do at higher levels, so breaks often go a lot further.

But if there isn't a break the lack of skill means the chances of a knock on scuppering any advantage are higher.

 

[didds]

I'd hand a penalty to the attackers because the defenders tackled their man without the ball. I'd only consider the circumstances under which the tackle off the ball happened when deciding if I need to produce a card.

Well I know what we'll be concentrating on in pre season... attacking up the central area of the pitch making dummy passes on the tackle line and win PK after PK as the dummied receiver gets tackled time after time and the ref will be duty bound to award a PK

That's an easy win - unless of course the oppo do the same thing and we'll end up with scorelines of 42-39.

didds

 

[DocY]

If you can make opponents buy dummies regularly enough to form a game plan around it, you'll have easy wins anyway!

 

[didds]

only if the break is made of course. E.G. If D12 tackles A12 (BC and dummier) and D13 tackles A13 (dummy receiver) every time then no break is made but a PK is won. Its easier than collapsing scrums to win a PK even.

didds

 

[ChuckieB]

I think you are presupposing somewhat that D13 is not capable of learning from his mistake.

 

[DocY]

only if the break is made of course. E.G. If D12 tackles A12 (BC and dummier) and D13 tackles A13 (dummy receiver) every time then no break is made but a PK is won. Its easier than collapsing scrums to win a PK even.

didds

I'd humbly suggest they have a problem with their defensive system if they're tackling two players at once. But if the BC has already been tackled it'd be difficult to see how the defence benefited so play on (assuming they're not adopting this tactic frequently).

And if they feel forced to tackle a man without the ball every time someone throws a dummy then they're beyond help.