[Tackle] tackled without ball?

[ChrisR]

This is getting more complicated than it has to. The BC dummies to elude a would be tackler, not to cause a teammate to be tackled.. I've seen tacklers buy a dummy even when there is no player in support.

So remove the dummy from the equation for a moment. Did the defender tackler a support player without the ball? Yes, and they are liable for penalty. Play advantage.

With a well executed dummy advantage is likely to occur.

 

[didds]

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

so next time D13 deliberately doesn't tackle A13 ... who this time does get the ball on the tackle line instead and runs through and scores you mean? And D13 will take that risk? really?

didds

 

[didds]

This is getting more complicated than it has to. The BC dummies to elude a would be tackler, not to cause a teammate to be tackled.. I've seen tacklers buy a dummy even when there is no player in support.

So remove the dummy from the equation for a moment. Did the defender tackler a support player without the ball? Yes, and they are liable for penalty. Play advantage.

With a well executed dummy advantage is likely to occur.

Is this a new directive? Ive not seen a well executed dummy tackled dummy receiver ever win a PK. In 40 years.

didds

 

[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.

the teams you support/played for and against never ever played on the tackle line then obviously.

Nuff sed and that explains why you think the above. I understand now.

didds

 

[ChuckieB]

so next time D13 deliberately doesn't tackle A13 ... who this time does get the ball on the tackle line instead and runs through and scores you mean? And D13 will take that risk? really?

didds

I'm perhaps advocating, if he isn't consistently reading those situations very well, as a coach you might be encouraging him into a position that suits his skillsets better.

We have a lad in my sons' side who's tackling technique is as robust and secure as you would hope for but he is better suited to tacking in predictable situations because his reading of the game isn't quite there.

 

[ChrisR]

Is this a new directive? Ive not seen a well executed dummy tackled dummy receiver ever win a PK. In 40 years.

didds

didds, I'm not sure that I understand your post and the reference to a 'directive'.

The scenario in the OP is rare enough and if the dummy is that effective it would be even more likely for the BC to get the line break so the chances of going back for the PK are pretty slim. It's been 60 years for me and no recollection of a PK.

But that doesn't change how the law should be applied.

 

[DocY]

the teams you support/played for and against never ever played on the tackle line then obviously.

Nuff sed and that explains why you think the above. I understand now.

didds

I'm not saying collisions between defenders and attackers without the ball should be penalised - I'm saying defenders who mis read a play, hold a non ball carrier and bring him to ground are liable to be penalised. I don't think there's anything controversial in that position.

Yes, I've played for a team who regularly defended on the tackle line - we had to time our tackles so opponents got the ball before (or as) they were being made.

 

[didds]

didds, I'm not sure that I understand your post and the reference to a 'directive'.

The scenario in the OP is rare enough and if the dummy is that effective it would be even more likely for the BC to get the line break so the chances of going back for the PK are pretty slim. It's been 60 years for me and no recollection of a PK.

But that doesn't change how the law should be applied.

But even so its never been applied that way for 60 years?

whatever...

didds