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

[Jz558]

A cavalry charge could happen anywhere on the field as Phil E points out however in practice it only ever happened at 5m penalties because there was no point using it elsewhere as frankly the chosen behemoth usually ran out of puff after 5m.

We had the debate about charge down recently and having thought about it I now think changing the laws of the game based on colloquial terms is not particularly efficient. We all think we know what they mean but in reality have very different pictures in our head.

 

[Decorily]

A cavalry charge could happen anywhere on the field as Phil E points out however in practice it only ever happened at 5m penalties because there was no point using it elsewhere as frankly the chosen behemoth usually ran out of puff after 5m.

We had the debate about charge down recently and having thought about it I now think changing the laws of the game based on colloquial terms is not particularly efficient. We all think we know what they mean but in reality have very different pictures in our head.

Like what colloquial term have you in mind?

 

[L'irlandais]

Like the OP was aware that a flying wedge was illegal, but was unsure about the “single player” cavalry charge. While it looked dangerous, I have the feeling he may have awarded the try. Or not?

In 2011, a few RRF members were quite upset with Les Kiss’s choke tackle, because they mistakenly thought of it as the illegal seatbelt tackle. The former tactic being legal while the latter is dangerous. Although as pointed out recently on here, when the ball-carrier on a choke tackle tries to go to ground, the tacklers can end up holding him up way above the sholder line and so then it becomes dangerous play in the maul. (Strangling your opponent.)

The USA term saddle roll wasn’t used this side of the pond right from the off. That and many cross over terms they use from Gridiron. Recently too one US ref confused a American Football play called hand off with a legit tactic in Union. But I can see why he was confused we wouldn’t whistle for a hand off systematically.

In American football, a hand-off is the act of handing the ball directly from one player to another, i. e. without it leaving the first player's hands. Most rushing plays on offense begin with a handoff from the quarterback to another running back. The Southern Hemisphere game probably has terms we may not be entirely familiar with either.

In rugby a hand off is a fend. Context is important.

I am sure there are more examples if you have the patience to look for them. OB..’s advice in the other discussion, is relevant. If you penalize a team for using the Flying Wedge tactic then say “Dangerous Play” and explain to the Captain why it is dangerous. No need to use the specific term, which the player might not be familiar with. Use it if it helps, but be clear about why it’s dangerous. None of us want to get in a tiresome discussion at the bar after with a barrack room lawyer who objects to you saying it was a cavalry charge with it was only a single runner the number 8 in the OP. If you disallowed the try for dangerous play it cuts that discussion short.

 

[xxGoosexx]

FWIW, I think it's important that the word Cavalry is focused on when assessing illegality of a charge, otherwise it would just be called a 'charge' or 'Illegal charge'. Notwithstanding my lack of historical warfare knowledge, I believe the cavalry was effective because there were multiple points of attack, made with speed and mobility making it almost impossible to defend. The poor foot soldier did not know where to focus his defensive attention, giving the cavalry a massive advantage.

Now if we remove all of the cavalry but 1 cavalryman(?), does he have the same advantage? Of course not. Some would say he is at a disadvantage as all of the foot soldiers now have a single focal point and they can coordinate their defensive forces and strategy accordingly.

To suggest that a single person running before the ball is tapped is illegal and dangerous towards the defending team is, in my mind, unbelievable. As a defender on the goal line, I would cherish and encourage an attacker to run straight at me, feet planted a metre out from my goal line, with support either side of me. Guaranteed we wouldn't always be successful in defending but it would be a 50-50 contest with a great opportunity for a turnover with my whole forward pack there, ready to pounce.

Perhaps it comes down to which hemisphere you're from but in the southern, a single player charge is play on all day long.

- xxGoosexx

 

[crossref]

I love it

In post #57 there is a great argument making the case that a single charger is more dangerous than many

In post 84 an equally persuasive argument that a single charger is much less dangerous

So what's the answer ?
The Supreme Court says that the answer is to apply the Law as carefully written in the Law Book .
Multiple chargers bad
Single charger OK

 

[Jz558]

FWIW, I think it's important that the word Cavalry is focused on when assessing illegality of a charge, otherwise it would just be called a 'charge' or 'Illegal charge'. Notwithstanding my lack of historical warfare knowledge, I believe the cavalry was effective because there were multiple points of attack, made with speed and mobility making it almost impossible to defend. The poor foot soldier did not know where to focus his defensive attention, giving the cavalry a massive advantage.

Now if we remove all of the cavalry but 1 cavalryman(?), does he have the same advantage? Of course not. Some would say he is at a disadvantage as all of the foot soldiers now have a single focal point and they can coordinate their defensive forces and strategy accordingly.

To suggest that a single person running before the ball is tapped is illegal and dangerous towards the defending team is, in my mind, unbelievable. As a defender on the goal line, I would cherish and encourage an attacker to run straight at me, feet planted a metre out from my goal line, with support either side of me. Guaranteed we wouldn't always be successful in defending but it would be a 50-50 contest with a great opportunity for a turnover with my whole forward pack there, ready to pounce.

Perhaps it comes down to which hemisphere you're from but in the southern, a single player charge is play on all day long.

- xxGoosexx

That’s a perfectly valid point but I assume that in your scenario the foot soldiers would engage the lone cavalryman at a range which would ensure that he (or she) was brought to ground in good time. If they were compelled to wait until he was 5 metres out and could smell the horse’s breath before they could engage I suspect they would find it less successful and take more casualties.

I think an important point that I hadn’t given enough consideration to before is that tackle methods are very different now than when the cavalry charge was banned. Stand-up tackles are standard practice whereas previously the method of tackling the ball carrier head on was to take them over the shoulder (something obviously not very effective at a short penalty). I guess defenders are better equipped to deal with the tactic than they previously were.

It would be helpful if World Rugby would clarify the definition however I’d prefer it if they spent their valuable time sorting out the ruck out first.

 

[crossref]

.

It would be helpful if World Rugby would clarify the definition.

Umm, that's exactly what they did, in 2018 !