Tackling the support player.

B

Balones

Referee Advisor / Assessor
Joined
Oct 24, 2006
Messages
1,491
Post Likes
531
A couple of scenarios:-
1.) A ball carrier has a player latched onto him to provide extra weight. A tackler comes across and ploughs into both players and brings them both to ground. He makes contact with the support player first.
2.) As above but the tackler tackles the 'latch' and it is the latch that brings the ball carrier to ground.

Any difference between them? Tackle okay? In both cases it was not the ball carrier that was tackled.
 
I think the tackler is fine. Not sure I could completely justify it in law, but it seems to me that a guy who is bound onto the ball carrier is fair game to be tackled as if he were the actual ball carrier.

Of course if the bound player were in front of the ball carrier it would be obstruction. Interested to hear arguments about whether it could be obstruction if the bound player is behind the ball carrier, or if it is necessarily illegal for some other reason.
 
damo said:
I think the tackler is fine. Not sure I could completely justify it in law, but it seems to me that a guy who is bound onto the ball carrier is fair game to be tackled as if he were the actual ball carrier.

Of course if the bound player were in front of the ball carrier it would be obstruction. Interested to hear arguments about whether it could be obstruction if the bound player is behind the ball carrier, or if it is necessarily illegal for some other reason.
Click to expand...

This is the essence behind my query. The ref in question played on in the first scenario and awarded a penalty for tackling the player without the ball in the second. When asked to justify after the game he said basically 'because it looked wrong'. When asked why it wasn't obstruction there was nothing to base it on except that the supporting player did not change his line of running, but in normal circumstances that relates to open play and not to a 'latched' player.
 
The discussion, as you expect in a bar, turned to extended circumstances, some far fetched but interesting.
Such as, what if there were two latched on players like a front row which stopped access to the ball carrier from both sides? What if it was a complete scrum formation? Etc. You can't collapse a maul but can you collapse a 'group' from behind if the ball is at the front? And so on.
 
Last edited:
If WR is going to allow the practise of pre-binding of players onto ball carriers (IMO its potentially danegrous and it should not be allowed) then IMO the binder is fair game for a tackle, he makes himself a "de-facto" ball carrier.
 
Balones said:
This is the essence behind my query. The ref in question played on in the first scenario and awarded a penalty for tackling the player without the ball in the second. When asked to justify after the game he said basically 'because it looked wrong'. When asked why it wasn't obstruction there was nothing to base it on except that the supporting player did not change his line of running, but in normal circumstances that relates to open play and not to a 'latched' player.
Click to expand...

He didn't need to; he was intentionally preventing the opponent from tackling the ballcarrier just fine where he was - no change of direction is required...

Law 10.1(c):

[LAWS]Blocking the tackler. A player must not intentionally move or stand in a position that prevents an opponent from tackling a ball carrier. [/LAWS]
 
RobLev said:
He didn't need to; he was intentionally preventing the opponent from tackling the ballcarrier just fine where he was - no change of direction is required...

Law 10.1(c):

[LAWS]Blocking the tackler. A player must not intentionally move or stand in a position that prevents an opponent from tackling a ball carrier. [/LAWS]
Click to expand...
I thought it was agreed that a genuine support runner was legal even if his positioning had the side effect of blocking a would-be tackler. He becomes illegal if he deliberately changes his position in order to block an opponent.
 
Ian_Cook said:
If WR is going to allow the practise of pre-binding of players onto ball carriers (IMO its potentially danegrous and it should not be allowed) then IMO the binder is fair game for a tackle, he makes himself a "de-facto" ball carrier.
Click to expand...

^^^^^^ This, 100%
 
OB.. said:
I thought it was agreed that a genuine support runner was legal even if his positioning had the side effect of blocking a would-be tackler. He becomes illegal if he deliberately changes his position in order to block an opponent.
Click to expand...

If he's a genuine support runner, whose positioning only blocked the tackler as a side effect then it would be difficult to argue intentionality. If, however, this doesn't apply, and he intentionally starts off on a line which blocks the tackler, surely no change of direction is needed?
 
The intention in both cases here was to provide extra weight and force to the ball carrier rather than to block a tackler. That was secondary to the purpose behind the latch.

If we permit tackling the latch as well as the ball carrier , what happens if we have two players latched on? (Like a truck.) is it then obstruction?
 
Balones said:
The intention in both cases here was to provide extra weight and force to the ball carrier rather than to block a tackler. That was secondary to the purpose behind the latch.

If we permit tackling the latch as well as the ball carrier , what happens if we have two players latched on? (Like a truck.) is it then obstruction?
Click to expand...

The "support player" doesn't need to intend to block - he just needs intentionally to be in a position that does block.
 
RobLev said:
The "support player" doesn't need to intend to block - he just needs intentionally to be in a position that does block.
Click to expand...
I disagree. That is a possible interpretation of the wording, but AIUI that is not the one to be applied. I think it makes life impossible if the support runner has to be careful to get out of the way of a defender coming from behind him.
 
RobLev said:
The "support player" doesn't need to intend to block - he just needs intentionally to be in a position that does block.
Click to expand...

I'm with RobLev here, intent is not relevant. For me the latcher puts themselves at risk of being blocker and if they are between the tackler and the ball carriers, from whichever angle the tackler is approaching, I see it as blocking and a penalty. I can appreciate the comments of others but see this as akin to the way in NFL a person can block access to the ball carrier running downfield.As noted previously what would stop two/three or four latchers going in?
 
as it is not specifically covered in law, if he's latched on in open play to a ball carrier, I would consider him a ball carrier and would never penalise a tackler from any angle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top