through the gate "backwards"

[didds]

red attacking is tackled by blue.

another blue following play and running towards his own goal line but "in front" of the ball[1] and tackler approaches the tackle and runs straight over the tackled player and ball - he does NOT make any attempt to play the ball or touch the tackled player.

all OK?

didds


[1] ball is between him and his own goal line.

 

[chbg]

Liable for penalising if he interferes in any way (until he turns around and comes back through the gate). But that partially depends on how deliberate his approach to the tackle was - was it his natural line backwards, which he was not able to deviate from? Or did he deliberately turn to take a line over the tackle area? If the latter, then it is worth a warning at the minimum, dependent on the level of game, to advise him not to make a habit of it.

 

[Dave Sherwin]

I see your point in that 15.6(d) refers to players who "play the ball". I'm going to spectacularly dodge the bullet by saying that context and materiality would be everything in these circumstances. If the retreating player runs directly over the tackle, does not touch any player or the ball and neither the tackled player, the tackler or any other offensive player is looking to gain access to the ball (ie, he influences matters no more than if he were a puff of wind), then I am not going to penalize him. However, is he blocks a clearing attacker I would probably penalize him and use the phrase currently in vogue - "taking the space". If pressed, this would come under 10.1(d) on the basis that he denied the clearing player an opportunity to play the ball. If he impedes the tackler who is trying to get to his feet to play the ball, I would also penalize him under 10.1(d). Would I remember to a signal other than that for "entering a tackle from the wrong direction" (and I think it is instructive that the signal guide uses this language which, of course, does not refer to playing the ball)? Probably not.

 

[Pegleg]

Two tidy answers to the OP.

 

[Ronald]

Agree with 1st two answers...if he doesn't impede any other player's access to the ball, play on. I would have a quiet chat next break of play and warn him to be careful, and rather run around.
Had similar incident in game I was AR for last year, with a twist! Red centre broke the line, tackled 2 metres short of goal line by blue fullback. Red's centre partner following up, only player close to action, bending to pick up ball and score. Blue winger falling back took him out from the wrong side. Ref had no hesitation, PT and yellow card for intentionally offending!

 

[didds]

cheers guys - what I suspected.

2ndary Q... blue backtracker runs a line back over the tackled player as described. Before a ref has had a chance to blow (advantage etc) a red player shoves blue out of the way in order to take a pop pass ... thoughts?

Or red shoves blue over onto the red tackled player so that blue is off his feet, over the ball as red arrives to play the ball away but cannot do so immediately due to the blue player laying there... thoughts?

didds

 

[Dave Sherwin]

We're getting into a realm where there a significant number of varying factors which can impinge upon the safety, materiality etc. aspects and thus a response based on bald law becomes a little dangerous. BUT, all things being equal, in scenario (1), I would say the blue player is initially liable to penalty for "taking the space" (see above), but that it may well go unpenalised on the basis of materiality if the red player takes the pop cleanly and heads off otherwise unhindered (NOTE: as mentioned, there are all sorts of other things which could be going on which could mean you would in fact penalize the blue player etc. I'm almost imagining there is no-one else other than our particular actors on the field). In scenario (2), Blue put himself there unlawfully in the first place, so I am still more likely to penalize blue. This comes back a little bit to the general principle of which team is doing more right in order to win the contest. To me, it would seem that red has is likely being a bit better at his job, so probably is a little more deserving of reward.

 

[didds]

so no thoughts of an isdue with red for playing a man without the ball ie when red shoves blue aside in order to take the offload?

merely clarifying...

didds

 

[Dave Sherwin]

No - if blue is over the top of the contact area, preventing access to the ball, red has a right to remove him and blue is arguably already offending. 10.4(f) provides the exception to the "playing the man without the ball" law for rucks and though one might argue that a push in this circumstance does not technically constitute a ruck, I would have no issue being comfortable in my mind that red is making more effort to comply with the laws and doing a better job of winning the contest than the blue player. Again, I would caveat all this with safety, equity, materiality etc., and am imagining no other players on the park, but viewed in isolation I would be completely happy with this.

 

[Browner]

so no thoughts of an issue with red for playing a man without the ball ie when red shoves blue aside in order to take the offload?

merely clarifying...

didds

That shove wouldnt be necessary IF Blue hadn't 'blocked'( taken the space) of a bonafide pass support running line. So I'd ignore it provided it wasnt dangerously executed.

 

[FlipFlop]

This scenario is one of those classic scenarios where the best advice to any ref is - WAIT. Don't blow, and wait to see what happens. There are numerous outcomes, but the best one is where play continues. So wait until you see what has happened. The 5 second delay might save you from having to make that decision, and calling a "gotcha" PK.

 

[Dave Sherwin]

This scenario is one of those classic scenarios where the best advice to any ref is - WAIT. Don't blow, and wait to see what happens. There are numerous outcomes, but the best one is where play continues. So wait until you see what has happened. The 5 second delay might save you from having to make that decision, and calling a "gotcha" PK.

100% agreed, hence all the materiality, equity, context caveats etc. so many factors (of which the various outcomes are only some) that you just want to see the whole picture develop.

 

[Dixie]

OK - let me put the alternative view.

This idea of "taking the space" is of very limited scope. Didds's original post wondered whether Blue commits an offence by passing through the tackle zone in order to get to the right side of it. The answer is broadly no - as the law stipulates (what we simplify as) a gate only for players who attempt to the play the ball:

[LAWS]15.6(d) At a tackle or near to a tackle, other players who play the ball must do so from behind the ball and from directly behind the tackled player or the tackler closest to those players’ goal line.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/LAWS]

His secondary question asks whether Red is entitled to push, shove or otherwise interfere with a Blue player who is between the Red potential receive and the tackled player wishing to offload. In my view, this is wholly illegal and liable to penalty:

[LAWS]10.4(f) Playing an opponent without the ball. Except in a scrum, ruck or maul, a player who is not in possession of the ball must not hold, push or obstruct an opponent not carrying the ball.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/LAWS]

The situation is a tackle. There is no offside line. Blue is perfectly entitled to stand between the tackled player and a Red potential receiver, with a view to disrupting the pass - just as Blue 10 is entitled to stand right next to Red 10 once they've got their line organised. Just as Red 10 would be penalised for shoving Blue 10 before the ruck formed (making Blue 10 offside), so the Red potential receiver must be penalised for shoving the Blue player out of the way. Blue has committed no prior offence at all (let alone a material one) which the ref can come back to as the first offence. Indeed, there is a very powerful argument to say that the shove should always result in a whistle - either to penalise the shove itself, or to penalise the first offence by Blue that caused the second by Red. How many would allow a Red knock-on to go unpunished just because it was preceded by a Blue knock-on? If you wouldn't let that go, why let Red's violation of 10.4(f) go unpunished just because Blue had earlier committed an offence - particularly one like "taking the space" which is not covered in the law book?

 

[Dixie]

That shove wouldnt be necessary IF Blue hadn't 'blocked'( taken the space) of a bonafide pass support running line. So I'd ignore it provided it wasnt dangerously executed.

Law please? Manu Tuilagi breaks the line from inside centre, and charges towards the full back. George North turns, and knowing MT will look to pass to his winger, North runs a line between MT and that winger. He has (in your words) " 'blocked'( taken the space) of a bonafide pass support running line.". Presumably then, you'd see nothing wrong in Christian Wade shoving North in the back to get him out of the way?

 

[FlipFlop]

You forget the part of the law that allows you to play a opponent without the ball in, and when forming, a maul or ruck. You are allowed to clear out. The shove is a clearout if it happens in the tackle zone. So there is nothing wrong with it.

And the "to play the ball" is a bit of a red herring. We have to start with an assumption that anyone entering the tackle zone, does so with the intent of playing the ball. Otherwise you are saying that players can enter from any side to form a ruck - they are not intending to play the ball, although they intend to help win the ball.....

 

[Dave Sherwin]

Dixie, all I can really do is refer to my original response. Whilst I agree that in simply running back through the tackle gate there is no offence, the blue player would then commit an offence if (a) they tried to play the ball or (b) they obstructed the red player playing the ball. If, on the other hand, we determine that the blue player is not obstructing, but positioning himself to form a ruck, then clearly red would be entitled to shove him out of the way. As mentioned above, I would still mention to the blue player that he might like to run around and enter through the gate next time - "just make it clear and obvious to me that you're doing everything right, buddy."

 

[RobLev]

Dixie, all I can really do is refer to my original response. Whilst I agree that in simply running back through the tackle gate there is no offence, the blue player would then commit an offence if (a) they tried to play the ball or (b) they obstructed the red player playing the ball. If, on the other hand, we determine that the blue player is not obstructing, but positioning himself to form a ruck, then clearly red would be entitled to shove him out of the way. As mentioned above, I would still mention to the blue player that he might like to run around and enter through the gate next time - "just make it clear and obvious to me that you're doing everything right, buddy."

But isn't the blue player in principle perfectly entitled to stand where he likes on the field - including for example between scrum-half and first receiver - at a tackle? He doesn't need to be standing there to form a ruck - indeed his team might not want to form a ruck, because as soon as a ruck is formed offside lines apply and they can't get in amongst the attacking passing lines. If he gets there first and stands there combing his hair, it's for the red support to go around him, surely?

FlipFlop:

It isn't yet a ruck, and unless blue is actually over the ball red can't form one by binding onto him.

 

[Browner]

Law please?

I agree Law isn't explicit, but I believe the intention of 15.6(d) is to organise the ARRIVAL AT THE TACKLE aspect of the game. This of course is different to normal support where a tackle hasn't been made to ground.

Perhaps law should be amended as this ....


[LAWS][FONT=fs_blakeregular]At a tackle or near to a tackle, other players who play the ball OR ARRIVE must do so from behind the ball and from directly behind the tackled player or the tackler closest to those players’ goal line.[/FONT][/LAWS]

Or this.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vpSfYKInqH4


PS...as an aside, In this clip watch the red prop block off black 4 a bit further on in the clip, , .... everyones at it!! , which makes it so difficult to spot.

Pps, as a 2nd aside, was the BLACK4 offence that 'material'?? possession looked pretty quick to continue, not sure reds were overly impinged by it( so, I'm assuming it was on the refs warning radar following previous incidents in this match ).

 

[FlipFlop]

FlipFlop:

It isn't yet a ruck, and unless blue is actually over the ball red can't form one by binding onto him.

Blue is in the Tackle Zone - so that is near the ball (law requires "close around the ball") - near enough for red to clear out the tackle zone (i.e. push Blue) or form a ruck.

You may say the law says this or that, but anyone entering the tackle zone (and we are only talking about the tackle zone here - not the 9-10 channel etc) - is in my book entering to either play the ball, or impact the playing of the ball. So they are liable to be pinged.

How about another scenario:
Blue get tackled, Red comes in to Jackle. The blue player who is running back now clears out the red jackler from the "wrong" side. He hasn't entered the tackle area through the gate, but he isn't playing the ball either, so according to the law it is play on? And until he binds on to the red player it isn't a ruck, so he hasn't entered the ruck from the wrong side either.

I'm PK'ing Blue for incorrect entry here. And that is entirely consistent with the potential PK in the original scenario - entering tackle zone from the wrong side (not through gate).

 

[Dave Sherwin]

For me, the key point is that the a player stood in the 9/10 channel at a tackle is not infringing 10.1(d). As I mentioned, I think this is one where the whole picture is key and a detailed analysis of the law in isolation is unlikely to produce a definitive result. Principles of equity and materiality are almost certainly going to override any particular analysis of the law.