Unconscious offending?

[Dixie]

Crikey RobLev - you're going the long way around winning this (slightly tedious) discussion!

Ian, RobLev is correct in challenging your assertion that 15.7 makes it illegal for a tackler to fall so that the ball is between him and the tackled player. The reason has to do with timing.

15.7c limits its scope to what happens after a tackle has taken place:

[LAWS](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 tackler hits the deck during the tackle, not after it - and so this law is not brought into play, despite its reference to "No player" seemingly encompassing all players. It actually means All Players Who Did Not Hit The Deck During The Tackle, and so does not cover the (possibly multiple) tacklers and the tackled player(s). Tackle Assist most definitely IS covered, however.

 

[RobLev]

Crikey RobLev - you're going the long way around winning this (slightly tedious) discussion!...

To be fair to myself, I did try the short way first...

 

[didds]

I think that's fairly C&O that the law doesn't include the tackler. Otherwise a vast majority of tacklers would be liable to penalty by dint of simply executing the tackle. And that would be ludicrous.

didds

 

[SimonSmith]

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.

There's only one person for the job:

 

[crossref]

understanding all that can be a big ask.

 

[andyscott]

Unconcious or not, PK.

 

[didds]

Even if he was made unconscious by an opponent?

eg catches a knee/clash of heads, falls over the ball. oppo definitely prevented from getting ball - but hardly lacking complicity in the reasons why the ball is now immediately playable?

didds

 

[RobLev]

Unconcious or not, PK.

Since it's not illegal to land where he did, presumably you're penalising under 15.4(c):

[LAWS]The tackler must immediately get up or move away from the tackled player and from the ball at once.[/LAWS]

Would you similarly penalise if White #6 had had his neck broken on landing and paralysed? Or, to reduce to absurdity, killed? If not, why not?

Taking a different Law, but illustrating the same point; if the ball had come free and play continued, and White had then got the ball back and kicked, with the landing point within 10m of him - would you penalise him under the 10m Law for not moving back?

 

[SimonSmith]

Probably not, because I wouldn't consider that material.

I yellow carded someone once as he was stretchered off.

Tackle/ruck formed. He went fishing for the ball with his arm, and then pulled his arm back. I called advantage; he went back a second time, this time trapping the ball. As I start to whistle, opposition hooker stamps on his arm bad enough to open it up and need over 20 stitches.

Hooker red carded. But matey got a YC for his actions as well, and his captain agreed with it.

 

[RobLev]

Probably not, because I wouldn't consider that material.

What if the receiver tripped over him as he backed up to take the catch? That is - what if his (unconscious) presence was material; would you penalise him?

I yellow carded someone once as he was stretchered off.

Tackle/ruck formed. He went fishing for the ball with his arm, and then pulled his arm back. I called advantage; he went back a second time, this time trapping the ball. As I start to whistle, opposition hooker stamps on his arm bad enough to open it up and need over 20 stitches.

Hooker red carded. But matey got a YC for his actions as well, and his captain agreed with it.

That makes perfect sense, but isn't comparable. The injury in that case didn't prevent him from complying with Law; he sustained it whilst infringing.

In the case under discussion White 6 was doing nothing wrong before he was rendered unconscious; andyscott would apparently be prepared to penalise him for his failure to roll away when prevented from doing so by that unconsciousness.

 

[crossref]

In the case under discussion White 6 was doing nothing wrong before he was rendered unconscious; .

very likely - but you don't know that, he may haave received a bang to head, deliberately tried to block the ball, and then lost consciousness when on the ground.

 

[RobLev]

very likely - but you don't know that, he may haave received a bang to head, deliberately tried to block the ball, and then lost consciousness when on the ground.

True enough - in which case I agree tnat he should be penalised for his failure to roll away before unconsciousness supervened. The discussion is though proceeding on the basis that that wasn't the order of events.

 

[OB..]

Really?

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

Are you seriously arguing that a word can only be one part of speech? 'Kick' can be a verb or a noun depending on the context.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Are you seriously arguing that a word can only be one part of speech? 'Kick' can be a verb or a noun depending on the context.

No, I don't particularity care whether it is a verb or noun or whatever you say it is. I defer to your superior knowledge of grammar

[BACK ON TOPIC]

The word "tackle" is used a number of ways in the Law....

1. "Tackle"': the act of grasping a player who can be, but is not necessarily, the ball carrier, without necessarily bringing him to ground - late tackle, early tackle, dangerous tackle, high tackle etc.

2. "Tackle" the act of bringing the ball carrier to ground.

3. "Tackle" the tackle zone; a game situation where the ball carrier has been brought to ground and where a defined zone exists as outlined in Law 15.6 (c) and (d), as being the width of the tackler and tackled player, in which certain players have obligations they must fulfil, and which also restricts the rights of players to approach and play the ball.

I'm arguing that when Law 15.7 (c) says that "No player may fall on or over the players lying on the ground after a tackle with the ball between or near to them.", the tackle being referred to in that statement is No. 2 above; the act of bringing of the ball carrier to ground, and not No. 3 the tackle zone.

When a player brings an opponent to ground and then falls on the opponents side of his body, he has breached 15.7 (c). If this is not the case, then what the hell is 15.7 (c) for, and who would it apply to?

As I said earlier, when an opponent of the ball carrier is chasing him toward the opponent's goal-line and makes a tackle, then that tackler starts from the opponent's side and its always likely to end up on the opponents side of the tackled player, particularly if he grasps the ball carrier below the waist. Therefore, I have some sympathy for him. However, I have no sympathy for the player who tackles the ball carrier head on, from his own side, brings him to ground and then gets himself on the opponents side. My default position as regards this player is that he is doing this intentionally for the purpose of momentarily getting himself in the way of the opposition for the purpose of slowing down the ball.

 

[RobLev]

No, I don't particularity care whether it is a verb or noun or whatever you say it is. I defer to your superior knowledge of grammar

[BACK ON TOPIC]

The word "tackle" is used a number of ways in the Law....

1. "Tackle"': the act of grasping a player who can be, but is not necessarily, the ball carrier, without necessarily bringing him to ground - late tackle, early tackle, dangerous tackle, high tackle etc.

2. "Tackle" the act of bringing the ball carrier to ground.

3. "Tackle" the tackle zone; a game situation where the ball carrier has been brought to ground and where a defined zone exists as outlined in Law 15.6 (c) and (d), as being the width of the tackler and tackled player, in which certain players have obligations they must fulfil, and which also restricts the rights of players to approach and play the ball.

I'm arguing that when Law 15.7 (c) says that "No player may fall on or over the players lying on the ground after a tackle with the ball between or near to them.", the tackle being referred to in that statement is No. 2 above; the act of bringing of the ball carrier to ground, and not No. 3 the tackle zone.

When a player brings an opponent to ground and then falls on the opponents side of his body, he has breached 15.7 (c). If this is not the case, then what the hell is 15.7 (c) for, and who would it apply to?

It applies to someone who, after a tackle, falls on or over the players on the ground after a tackle. That's what the words say, at least.

It certainly does not apply to someone who falls onto a vacant patch of ground wherever that patch of ground is on the pitch. The illustration to the Law shows someone landing on the ball-carrier; and the illustrative video shows someone landing on the ball-carrier after he and the tackler have hit the ground.

And if you're going to argue that the tackler's being in contact with the ball-carrier as they hit ground is an infringement, then you're arguing that the majority of completed tackles - all those where there is a tackler - are completed in breach of this Law. Which is absurd.

As I said earlier, when an opponent of the ball carrier is chasing him toward the opponent's goal-line and makes a tackle, then that tackler starts from the opponent's side and its always likely to end up on the opponents side of the tackled player, particularly if he grasps the ball carrier below the waist. Therefore, I have some sympathy for him. However, I have no sympathy for the player who tackles the ball carrier head on, from his own side, brings him to ground and then gets himself on the opponents side. My default position as regards this player is that he is doing this intentionally for the purpose of momentarily getting himself in the way of the opposition for the purpose of slowing down the ball.

Then ping him for not rolling away; but he's not infringed Law 15.7(c).

 

[Ian_Cook]

15.7 (c) limits its scope to what happens after a tackle has taken place:

And the tackle has taken place the moment either of the ball carrier's knees touch the ground. Its is not necessary for the player who brought the ball carrier to ground to also go to ground for a tackle to have taken place. All this means is that we now have a tackle with no tacklers!

The tackler hits the deck during the tackle, not after it - and so this law is not brought into play,

Not always. There a numerous occasions when a player takes the ball carrier to ground and momentarily remains on his feet AND THEN goes to ground a few moments later. I maintain that when a player does that, AND INTENTIONALLY POSITIONS HIMSELF to go to ground on top of the tackled player or on the opponent's side of the tackled player, that he breaches 15.7 (c) just as surely as an arriving player would.

despite its reference to "No player" seemingly encompassing all players. It actually means All Players Who Did Not Hit The Deck During The Tackle

Exacty!! The player who brought the ball carrier to ground is a player "Who Did Not Hit The Deck During The Tackle", therefore the "no player" condition does apply to him.

It certainly does not apply to someone who falls onto a vacant patch of ground wherever that patch of ground is on the pitch.

It does if that "vacant patch of ground" happens to be a part that has "the ball between or near to" he and the tackled player".

The illustration to the Law shows someone landing on the ball-carrier; and the illustrative video shows someone landing on the ball-carrier after he and the tackler have hit the ground.

So? The offending player is in yellow. do you think that the illustration in 15.7 (c) only applies to team-mates of the ball carrier (also in yellow)?
HINT: Don't take the illustrations too seriously. They are only supposed to help you with the Law, but they are NOT the Law and they cannot show every permutation.

And if you're going to argue that the tackler's being in contact with the ball-carrier as they hit ground is an infringement, then you're arguing that the majority of completed tackles - all those where there is a tackler - are completed in breach of this Law. Which is absurd.

I agree, it would be absurd if that is what I am arguing, but I'm NOT, and I never have. Go back and read the last paragraph of my posts #26 and #54.


To reiterate for the THIRD time

1. A player tackles a ball carrier and brings him to ground as he himself goes to ground, getting on the wrong side as he does so and then gets trapped before he can roll away - no breach of 15.7 (c)

2. A player tackles a ball carrier and takes him to ground, but before going to ground himself, INTENTIONALLY positions himself and then falls on the opponents side of the tackle and gets trapped before he can roll away - a clear, stone-cold breach of 15.7 (c)

If it makes you happier you can think of him as a Tackle Assist who has gone to ground too late to be a "Tackler". If he does so on his side of the tackle, no problem, but if he does so on the opponents side of the tackle, PING!

 

[RobLev]

It does if that "vacant patch of ground" happens to be a part that has "the ball between or near to" he and the tackled player".

Not quite - it is the "players on the ground" upon or over whom the offender must fall.

I agree, it would be absurd if that is what I am arguing, but I'm NOT, and I never have. Go back and read the last paragraph of my posts #26 and #54.


To reiterate for the THIRD time

1. A player tackles a ball carrier and brings him to ground as he himself goes to ground, getting on the wrong side as he does so and then gets trapped before he can roll away - no breach of 15.7 (c)

2. A player tackles a ball carrier and takes him to ground, but before going to ground himself, INTENTIONALLY positions himself and then falls on the opponents side of the tackle and gets trapped before he can roll away - a clear, stone-cold breach of 15.7 (c)

If it makes you happier you can think of him as a Tackle Assist who has gone to ground too late to be a "Tackler". If he does so on his side of the tackle, no problem, but if he does so on the opponents side of the tackle, PING!

I agree with both, provided the player in 2 falls on or over the players on the ground; but let me then reiterate (which means, by the way, say something again) my first comment on this thread:

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

(emphasis added)

At that stage of the thread, you did not agree (your #26 explicitly said so):

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.

Even when I made the distinction between tackler and tackle assist, and made very clear that I was only referring to a tackler (my #35), you did not agree.

I am pleased that you do - now - agree.

 

[OB..]

The word "tackle" is used a number of ways in the Law....

1. "Tackle"': the act of grasping a player who can be, but is not necessarily, the ball carrier, without necessarily bringing him to ground - late tackle, early tackle, dangerous tackle, high tackle etc.

2. "Tackle" the act of bringing the ball carrier to ground.

3. "Tackle" the tackle zone; a game situation where the ball carrier has been brought to ground and where a defined zone exists as outlined in Law 15.6 (c) and (d), as being the width of the tackler and tackled player, in which certain players have obligations they must fulfil, and which also restricts the rights of players to approach and play the ball.

I'm arguing that when Law 15.7 (c) says that "No player may fall on or over the players lying on the ground after a tackle with the ball between or near to them.", the tackle being referred to in that statement is No. 2 above; the act of bringing of the ball carrier to ground, and not No. 3 the tackle zone.

I agree.

 

[didds]

2. A player tackles a ball carrier and takes him to ground, but before going to ground himself, INTENTIONALLY positions himself and then falls on the opponents side of the tackle and gets trapped before he can roll away - a clear, stone-cold breach of 15.7 (c)

How does the referee decide that the tackler has " INTENTIONALLY positioned [sic] himself" to then fall on the opponents side of the tackle" ? As opposed to just landing that way through the dynamically changed situations throughout a tackle?


what is it that referees look for to determine intention versus normality?
didds

 

[crossref]

How does the referee decide that the tackler has " INTENTIONALLY positioned [sic] himself" to then fall on the opponents side of the tackle" ? As opposed to just landing that way through the dynamically changed situations throughout a tackle?


what is it that referees look for to determine intention versus normality?
didds

which takes us back to the Andyscott (and my) position : if he's lying on the wrong side of the ball and blocking the ball from coming out - then it's a PK whether he meant to or not.

I've never yet PK an unconsious player [which let's face it is an edge case which I think you could sell either way to be honest] but certainly I have PK players whom I believe did genuinely find themselves trapped against their will. In that case I may well acknowledge it with a quick word. It's unlicky but it's still a PK