Unconscious offending?

[Ciaran Trainor]

I don't Like this "The argument is that he needs to avoid getting into that position in the first place."
As far as I am aware there is no law that tells you where you should end up immediately after making a tackle.
We all know what you need to do afterwards but if attacking team deliberately pin the tackler in to try to win a penalty, I for one will tell them they are not going to get one.

 

[Ian_Cook]

I don't Like this "The argument is that he needs to avoid getting into that position in the first place."
As far as I am aware there is no law that tells you where you should end up immediately after making a tackle.

Well, actually there is...

[LAWS]15.7 FORBIDDEN PRACTICES
(c) No player may fall on or over the players lying on the ground after a tackle with the ball
between or near to them.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/LAWS]

It is a near certainly that any player who falls onto the opponent's side of a tackle is gong to end up with the ball between himself and the tackled player. Too often I am seeing players intentionally falling over onto the opponent's side of the tackle. Then they roll away in the only direction available to them, in the direction of the opposition. These players know exactly what they are doing when they do this; they are clearly intending to slow opposition ball down. "But sir, I was trapped by their arriving players" is not an acceptable excuse for failing to release and roll away.

 

[crossref]

leaving aside unconsious players for a moment (where of course you blow the whistle immediatey, get medical help, worry about the restart after)

of course tacklers will try an engineer it so that they disrupt the oppo as much as possible. I agree qith Ian - a very standard way is to
- if you can, make sure you fall on the oppo side of the ball
- then roll away as slowly as you possibly can, commensurate with avoiding a PK
- use theatrical 'I'm trapped' gestures to tempt the ref into giving you a bit of sympathy and a second or two more leeway.

while I do have empathy for the occasional hapless player who really did become so trapped he can't move - I don't think this is a good enough excuse to avoid a PK -- otherwise you'll soon find players 'trapped, Sir, sorry' at every tackle.

 

[RobLev]

Well, actually there is...

[LAWS]15.7 FORBIDDEN PRACTICES
(c) No player may fall on or over the players lying on the ground after a tackle with the ball
between or near to them.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/LAWS]

It is a near certainly that any player who falls onto the opponent's side of a tackle is gong to end up with the ball between himself and the tackled player. Too often I am seeing players intentionally falling over onto the opponent's side of the tackle. Then they roll away in the only direction available to them, in the direction of the opposition. These players know exactly what they are doing when they do this; they are clearly intending to slow opposition ball down. "But sir, I was trapped by their arriving players" is not an acceptable excuse for failing to release and roll away.

I think ctrainor was referring to the tackler himself, who isn't caught by the law you cite - he's one of "the players lying on the ground after a tackle with the ball between or near to them". However, arriving players (on the BC team) falling on and thereby trapping the tackler are caught by the Law...

So the solution is to ping those arriving players :biggrin:

 

[Browner]

Actually, I meant Ruck. That is what was called, and (from recollection) correctly so, as it was the tackler's team mates who drove it backwards. Browner's assumption was unwarranted

Apols Dixie,
i'd merely read this ....

White 6 is trying to hold up Blue 13 in a choke tackle, but other players arrive and the whole goes quickly to ground. Ref calls ruck,

To mean you were describing a maul that then collapsed to ground...didn't realise that the "other players" were all the tacklers teammates, so, notwithstanding that , 'gang tackle' now seems more appropriate than ruck ??? :shrug:

 

[Ian_Cook]

I think ctrainor was referring to the tackler himself, who isn't caught by the law you cite - he's one of "the players lying on the ground after a tackle with the ball between or near to them". However, arriving players (on the BC team) falling on and thereby trapping the tackler are caught by the Law...

So the solution is to ping those arriving players :biggrin:

I disagree with that statement.

Law 15.4 applies to the tackler
Law 15.5 applies to the tackled player
Law 15.6 applies to other players, i.e. arriving players and tackle assists

but Law 15.7 is "Forbidden Practices"; it applies to ALL players; tacklers, tackled players, arriving players and tackle assists. The words "No player..." in (a), (b) and (c) means everyone from both sides.

I could be sympathetic when an opponent of the ball carrier is chasing him and tackles him from behind, going to ground as he does so, because he is naturally on the wrong side, but when you have a head on tackle and the tackler brings the ball carrier to ground (the ball carrier is "tackled" when one or both knees touch the ground) and then manages to fall on the opponent's side, when he made the tackle from his own side, I would be far less sympathetic.. He gets trapped, his fault.

 

[ChrisR]

I agree with sanctioning tacklers & others for interfering with ball availability but why don't we ever sanction the BC who, post tackle, positions his body as a barrier and never rolls away?

 

[ChrisR]

Actually, I know that isn't entirely true. But we rarely see the BC PK'd for preventing the jackler getting the ball back as we expect the jackler to lift it over him.

 

[RobLev]

I disagree with that statement.

Law 15.4 applies to the tackler
Law 15.5 applies to the tackled player
Law 15.6 applies to other players, i.e. arriving players and tackle assists

but Law 15.7 is "Forbidden Practices"; it applies to ALL players; tacklers, tackled players, arriving players and tackle assists. The words "No player..." in (a), (b) and (c) means everyone from both sides.

I could be sympathetic when an opponent of the ball carrier is chasing him and tackles him from behind, going to ground as he does so, because he is naturally on the wrong side, but when you have a head on tackle and the tackler brings the ball carrier to ground (the ball carrier is "tackled" when one or both knees touch the ground) and then manages to fall on the opponent's side, when he made the tackle from his own side, I would be far less sympathetic.. He gets trapped, his fault.

Even that tackler has not fallen:

[LAWS]on or over the players lying on the ground after a tackle [/LAWS]

He is one of those players.

 

[chrismtl]

Actually, I know that isn't entirely true. But we rarely see the BC PK'd for preventing the jackler getting the ball back as we expect the jackler to lift it over him.

Actually, I'm not sure where you get that. Most of the time I see jacklers make no real attempt to lift the ball, but put 2 hands/forearms/head (cause apparently shoulders over hips doesn't matter) on the ball and pull it in to the body of the BC to make it appear as if he's not releasing. At the end of the day, they don't really want the ball. They'd much prefer the penalty and that's what they usually get. With the speed of the professional game, you rarely see a player have the time to lift a ball up and back.

 

[ChrisR]

I agree. But to get the ball he'd have to lift it over the body.

 

[CrouchTPEngage]

Speed, split-second timing is everything.
Just wanted to say, respect to the ref who is brave enough to change his mind upon reflection.
One of the best refs I saw got instant respect when he had made a mistake ( after a 10m law offence) and announced "Correction ! Scrum there OR penalty kick there".
So long as you don't leave yourself open to debate and backchat from teams upon every decision then, hats off to the ref for correcting his initial decision. !

 

[Ian_Cook]

Even that tackler has not fallen:

[LAWS]on or over the players lying on the ground after a tackle [/LAWS]

He is one of those players.

NO.

What do you understand is meant by "no player"?

Can you tell me which players on the park "no player" doesn't apply to?

IMO "tackle" in this law is a verb; it refers to the act of tackling a player. If referred to the "noun" (i.e. the Law 15 tackle), it would say....

on or over the players lying on the ground at a tackle

If you interpret the Law your way, then it would be fine to flop all over the ball until the tackle (noun) ends (e.g. once a ruck forms)

The tackle (verb) has taken place the instant either of the ball carrier's knees touches the ground. ANYTHING that happens after that moment (e.g. the tackler flopping onto the opponent's side of the ball) has happened after the tackle.

If the tackler was exempt from this, then this clause would be in Law 15.6 OTHER PLAYERS.

 

[RobLev]

NO.

What do you understand is meant by "no player"?

Can you tell me which players on the park "no player" doesn't apply to?

IMO "tackle" in this law is a verb; it refers to the act of tackling a player. If referred to the "noun" (i.e. the Law 15 tackle), it would say....

on or over the players lying on the ground at a tackle

If you interpret the Law your way, then it would be fine to flop all over the ball until the tackle (noun) ends (e.g. once a ruck forms)

The tackle (verb) has taken place the instant either of the ball carrier's knees touches the ground. ANYTHING that happens after that moment (e.g. the tackler flopping onto the opponent's side of the ball) has happened after the tackle.

If the tackler was exempt from this, then this clause would be in Law 15.6 OTHER PLAYERS.

What do you understand is meant by "players lying on the ground after a tackle" - bearing in mind that by definition a tackler has gone to ground when making the tackle; and that someone who makes a tackle but does not go to ground is not a tackler?

 

[Ian_Cook]

What do you understand is meant by "players lying on the ground after a tackle" - bearing in mind that by definition a tackler has gone to ground when making the tackle; and that someone who makes a tackle but does not go to ground is not a tackler?

You answer my questions first please

What do you understand is meant by "no player"?

Can you tell me which players on the park "no player" doesn't apply to?

 

[OB..]

When the law says "after a tackle", the use of the indefinite article means that "tackle" cannot be a verb.

It is perfectly possible to have "players" on the ground without including a tackle assist - you can have more then one tackler.

 

[Ian_Cook]

When the law says "after a tackle", the use of the indefinite article means that "tackle" cannot be a verb.

Really?

"kick" is a verb -- "after a kick" is perfectly valid

 

[RobLev]

Really?

"kick" is a verb -- "after a kick" is perfectly valid

It's a good job you're a better referee than you are a grammarian. In "after a kick", "kick" is a noun. Just as in "after a tackle", "tackle" is a noun - but I'll come back to the main point in a separate comment.

 

[RobLev]

You answer my questions first please

What do you understand is meant by "no player"?

Can you tell me which players on the park "no player" doesn't apply to?

Let's go back to the Law first:

[LAWS]15.7 FORBIDDEN PRACTICES
(c) No player may fall on or over the players lying on the ground after a tackle with the ball
between or near to them.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/LAWS]

The ball-carrier sets off on a run. I tackle him and go to ground in so doing. We therefore at this point have "two players lying on the ground after a tackle with the ball between or near to them"; me - and I'm now a/the tackler, by definition - and the (former) ball-carrier, who is now the tackled player.

The Law applies to all players on the park; but not all of them are capable of infringing against it by "fall[ing] on or over the players lying on the ground...". The tackler - I - cannot, since I cannot fall on or over myself, and unless the pitch is particularly steep it is physically impossible for me whilst remaining on the ground to fall on or over the tackled player.

It may be that when I went to ground in executing the tackle, I did so "on the wrong side"; but in so doing I could not have infringed against Law 15.7(d) because I haven't in so doing fallen "on or over the players lying on the ground after a tackle". Until I completed the tackle by taking the ball carrier to ground whilst in my grasp, and going to ground myself in so doing, there was no tackle for any such action to be "after".

On the other hand, any team-mates of the ball-carrier who do "fall on or over" me, thereby trapping me on the "wrong side" of the ruck, have infringed against that Law. I am one of "the players lying on the ground after a tackle with the ball between or near" to us.

 

[RobLev]

Sorry - my edit went past the time-out - ignore previous comment. I've marked the main edit.

You answer my questions first please

What do you understand is meant by "no player"?

Can you tell me which players on the park "no player" doesn't apply to?

Let's go back to the Law first:

[LAWS]15.7 FORBIDDEN PRACTICES
(c) No player may fall on or over the players lying on the ground after a tackle with the ball
between or near to them.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/LAWS]

The ball-carrier sets off on a run. I tackle him and go to ground in so doing. We therefore at this point have "two players lying on the ground after a tackle with the ball between or near to them"; me - and I'm now a/the tackler, by definition - and the (former) ball-carrier, who is now the tackled player.

The Law applies to all players on the park; but not all of them are capable of infringing against it by "fall[ing] on or over the players lying on the ground...". The tackler - I - cannot, since I cannot fall on or over myself, and unless the pitch is particularly steep it is physically impossible for me whilst remaining on the ground to fall on or over the tackled player.

It may be that when I went to ground in executing the tackle, I did so "on the wrong side"; but in so doing I could not have infringed against Law 15.7(d) because I haven't in so doing fallen "on or over the players lying on the ground after a tackle". Until I completed the tackle by taking the ball carrier to ground whilst in my grasp, and going to ground myself in so doing, there was no tackle for any such action to be "after".

I agree that the law refers to the act of making a tackle, not the phase of play. I understand you to be saying that if in making the tackle I land on the ball-carrier that is an infringement. But the problem you have is that I did not fall "after" the tackle"; I fell "during" the tackle - I am a tackler, not a tackle assist, and fell (went to ground) in making the tackle. I did not fall on the ball-carrier "after" the tackle. It would be different were I a tackle assist - but I'm not.

You also are arguing that virtually every tackle ever executed consitutes an infringement of the Law. If you were correct, I could only legally execute a tackle either by ensuring that I was underneath the tackled player as we fell, so he fell "on or over" me - and then of course he would be the one infringing the Law - or that we fall to the ground separately - and how often do you see that happen?

The more general problem is that we are talking about tacklers who claim to be trapped on the wrong side of the ruck. That player may incidentally have landed on the tackled player, but the meat of the problem is that he ends up beyond him (from the point of view of his own goal-line). That is not an infringement of this Law, even if any incidental contact with the tackled player were.

On the other hand, any team-mates of the ball-carrier who do "fall on or over" me, thereby trapping me on the "wrong side" of the ruck, have infringed against that Law. I am one of "the players lying on the ground after a tackle with the ball between or near" to us.