[Law] Tap penalty to player already running: allowed?

[Decorily]

This is what happens on RRF, so as to be little help to new refs who ask very good questions. My point was that the charge isn’t allowed. Not allowed for attackers nor for defenders. The law is funny like that encourages fair competition for the ball.

All for helping new refs and old alike.

However, giving incorrect advice isn't helpful.

 

[L'irlandais]

What was incorrect in my original answer?

While crossref is correct in saying if the Law doesn’t forbid it, then it is allowed.

However I think it depends, did it look dangerous to you? I get the feeling this is why you asked the question. If you think it was dangerous then perhaps
[LAWS]Law 9.11 Players must not do anything that is reckless or dangerous to others.[/LAWS]Just above the law forbidding cavalry charges and flying wedges. This are not allowed for reasons of player safety, defenders would get hurt attempting to stop them. If the same were true of a one man charge, you might consider it foul play.

The Laws of the game are all about creating fair competition for possession of the ball. Is it not a bit unfair that the opposition cannot move until the free-kick is taken and yet we allow his teammate to run on to the kick and pop pass?
[LAWS]Law 20.16 As soon as the kicker initiates movement to kick, the opposing team may charge and try to prevent the free-kick being taken by tackling the kicker or to block the kick.[/LAWS]

20.16 was entirely relevant. SAR mention the same point. If you feel they are wrong, then take it up on their website. I am bowing out of the discussion.

 

[didds]

At the majority of rucks if you take 6-7m to bring the ball carrier down that is acceptable and so the tackle technique can be adjusted.

??

At a ruck 5m out (the same distance as in the OP) that's a try?

didds

 

[didds]

If he crosses the line we play advantage and move the mark 10m

except the OP had a 5m PK tap. So there is no 10m to advance.

didds

 

[crossref]

except the OP had a 5m PK tap. So there is no 10m to advance.

didds

Yea in this case we give him a YC and take the PK again

 

[crossref]

The op was about a 1 man cavalry charge , and is it legal

It's a great question

irlandais you side tracked us into a discussion about what the defenders can and cannot do. Which really isn't relevant, I apologise to everyone for getting dragged in (but FWIW the answer is they can move about freely as long as they remain behind their offside line )

The original question is good one

My best answer is

- before 2018 a one man charge was a example of a cavalry charge and it was illegal, but in 2018 they changed the definition of a cavalry charge and since then a one man charge is legal.

- caveat . Refs have quite wide discretion to stop something they feel is dangerous, especially in youth games, and probably you won't have many people objecting if you put a stop to this

 

[Decorily]

What was incorrect in my original answer?


20.16 was entirely relevant. SAR mention the same point. If you feel they are wrong, then take it up on their website. I am bowing out of the discussion.

I think it's clear I wasn't trying to clarify your original answer....rather I was trying to clarify your assertion that it is illegal for a defender to rush forward from deep behind the OS line, while staying onside, until after the kick is taken. You are however avoiding clarifying or backing up this assertion.


Since you did ask what was incorrect in your original answer though I would like to point out that your point about opposition not being able to move until a free kick is taken is incorrect!

 

[Rich_NL]

I disagree that it's the same in practice as a pop from a ruck. I also don't think the law has changed because it's become safer. So either it was always safe, and mistakenly included before, or the laws were not written with the care and attention we might hope for.

I've only ever come across it myself in youth games, at a level that I could reset the penalty and advise them on why. If it looks like it's going that way at a 5m penalty in an adult game I'll say "no cavalry charge" to manage it, which until now has worked.

I'd be open to a clarification that it was always safe because defenders can team up on a lone runner, which they can't on multiples, but until then I'd favour safety. Although thinking about it... if a 10-stone fullback takes it at speed straight into the opposition's back row, it's not the defenders' safety I'd be worried about. It's an interesting point to ponder.

 

[crossref]

I disagree that it's the same in practice as a pop from a ruck. I also don't think the law has changed because it's become safer. So either it was always safe, and mistakenly included before, or the laws were not written with the care and attention we might hope for.

I've only ever come across it myself in youth games, at a level that I could reset the penalty and advise them on why. If it looks like it's going that way at a 5m penalty in an adult game I'll say "no cavalry charge" to manage it, which until now has worked.

I'd be open to a clarification that it was always safe because defenders can team up on a lone runner, which they can't on multiples, but until then I'd favour safety. Although thinking about it... if a 10-stone fullback takes it at speed straight into the opposition's back row, it's not the defenders' safety I'd be worried about. It's an interesting point to ponder.

It may or may not be safe .. but its not a cavalry charge

 

[Rich_NL]

But... but nothing's changed in that law since 2017...

 

[Jz558]

For what it's worth I manage it the same as Rich_NL. If it is being lined up I stop it prior to the tap although as I mainly ref youth rugby it is an easier sell.

 

[crossref]

But... but nothing's changed in that law since 2017...

Of course you could take the Orwellian approach that Ian did at the time

Changes in wording are not changes in Law, they are clarifications of existing Law. [...]
Law 10 > 9 - The Cavalry Charge has always referred to multiple players

The wording may be different, the Laws are the same.

Anyway who cares what the Law Book said in 2017, there have been many changes since then

It's what the Law Book says now that matters

 

[L'irlandais]

Exactly. And since the FourOaksBookworm deemed it dangerous enough to ask the question, then correct answer is No try! Dangerous play. Law 9.11. as per the SAR video.

 

[crossref]

why is it more dangerous than the same #8 running full tilt in open play toward a stationary #15?

 

[L'irlandais]

Because first off the laws tell us so. But common sense should tell you to, white line fever, with shorter distances greater force as the 8 is running at full tilt, over 8 or 10meters. but the defenders are determined to get in the all important try saving tackle despite all of us knowing it is impossible to stop the ball carrier now. A big forward running 25 meters into the 22 at a full back is already slowing because of his bulk. Also no one will criticize the full back if he attempts a tackle but slips off, it is an entirely different situation. Open play rugby is not against the law. I understand now why you sought to confuse the issue, because you insist that this is a welcome change to the law. I am not convinced. If it’s dangerous then it is against the LoTG.

 

[crossref]

You are penalising under 9.11 and there has been no change to 9.11

My best answer to the OP is #46 , where I say that if you think it's dangerous then you have wide latitude to stop it

I was wondering if there is any other scenario where a lone ball carrier runs at a defender that you would also consider dangerous, and PK under 9.11

 

[Jz558]

What's interesting about this thread is whether or not the move involves a single player or a line of players is a bit of a red herring. The move, known as a cavalry charge, was set up with the scrum half standing over the ball at or close to the 5m line and at his signal at least one, but more normally a number of players ran forward. At the requisite time, the ball was tapped and passed to the chosen ball carrier who by now was going at full tilt and his job was to keep going until he hit the try line. So unlike the flying wedge where pre-binding was involved the cavalry charge only ever involved one ball carrier moving at speed and going into contact on his own. Whether one or 5 players run forward the impact on the eventual tackler is the same and largely undefendable.


Perhaps counter-intuitively, the more confusion about who the final recipient of the pass will be can actually make the move safer. More dangerous is the set piece (the vast majority at grass roots level) where the intended recipient is bleeding obvious as the one man charge ensures that collision is inevitable. There are clearly better physicians/mathematicians on this site than me able to work out the forces involved/probability of success involved when player A weighing xxx kgs achieves his maximum velocity 5 metres from the opposition try line and player B who cant move until the ball is tapped then tries to tackle him. There was a very good reason why the cavalry charge was made illegal.

 

[crossref]

What's interesting about this thread is whether or not the move involves a single player or a line of players is a bit of a red herring. The move, known as a cavalry charge, was set up with the scrum half standing over the ball at or close to the 5m line and at his signal at least one, but more normally a number of players ran forward. At the requisite time, the ball was tapped and passed to the chosen ball carrier who by now was going at full tilt and his job was to keep going until he hit the try line. So unlike the flying wedge where pre-binding was involved the cavalry charge only ever involved one ball carrier moving at speed and going into contact on his own. Whether one or 5 players run forward the impact on the eventual tackler is the same and largely undefendable.


Perhaps counter-intuitively, the more confusion about who the final recipient of the pass will be can actually make the move safer. More dangerous is the set piece (the vast majority at grass roots level) where the intended recipient is bleeding obvious as the one man charge ensures that collision is inevitable. There are clearly better physicians/mathematicians on this site than me able to work out the forces involved/probability of success involved when player A weighing xxx kgs achieves his maximum velocity 5 metres from the opposition try line and player B who cant move until the ball is tapped then tries to tackle him. There was a very good reason why the cavalry charge was made illegal.

I like this analysis
But then why did they specifically change the law to mention only multiple players?

 

[Jz558]

I have no idea but maybe because the 12 year old who drafted it can't remember what cavalry charges actually looked like and didnt know his arse from his elbow.

 

[L'irlandais]

I like this analysis
But then why did they specifically change the law to mention only multiple players?

How sure are you that rewording a poorly written law means change? There is a school of thought that says the rewording was not at all a change, only tidying up. And I deliberately chose 9.11 because it hasn’t changed. Dangerous play in 2016 is still dangerous today and we still have a duty to safeguard player safety. Nuff said.

If you manage it in time, you would not have to PK or disallow the try.