Would you ping him for not releasing the ball?

[Ian_Cook]

OB

I don't think there is any essential difference between my original diagrams and your modified versions, and they certainly do not "flatly contradict" each other.

My original intention of extending the "H" shape in the diagrams as long as I did was to clearly indicate that the left and right limits of the gate were set by the leftmost and rightmost extent of the tackler's and tackled player's bodies and limbs. I might have been better using dotted lines.

However, where we differ is in a small matter of interpretation of the wording of the Law.

I have used the actual wording, unaltered, without adding any grammar.

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.
Penalty: Penalty Kick

It says OR not AND, so it means OR not AND

I read this as follows

15.6 (d) At a tackle or near to a tackle, other players who play the ball must do so from

a. behind the ball and from directly behind the tackled player, OR
b. behind the ball and from directly behind the tackler closest to those players’ goal line.

In this case, IMO the Blue player only has to approach from directly behind the tacked player (a. above)

In this case, the tackled player's body is almost entirely on the red side of the gate, but the blue player can approach from directly behind the tackler (b. above)

Also, I do not believe that there can be two tacklers in the gate. The Law says;

tackler closest to those players’ goal line.

Tackler is singular not plural, so its only one tackler, and it the one closest to Blue's goal line for the blue "other players" and the tackler closest to the Red's goal-line for the red "other players"

 

[OB..]

I don't think there is any essential difference between my original diagrams and your modified versions, and they certainly do not "flatly contradict" each other.

My rectangle encompasses ALL the players involved. Your version does not.
You allow a player to bypass the hindmost player if he is an opponent (I think). My rectangle does not.

My original intention of extending the "H" shape in the diagrams as long as I did was to clearly indicate that the left and right limits of the gate were set by the leftmost and rightmost extent of the tackler's and tackled player's bodies and limbs. I might have been better using dotted lines.

My rectangle has solid lines because players are not allowed to enter across the side lines, whose length is determined by the cross lines. (I could have used dotted line for the actual gates, but presentations I have seen do not, so I follow the convention).

However, where we differ is in a small matter of interpretation of the wording of the Law.

I have used the actual wording, unaltered, without adding any grammar.

You use the word "interpretation", but in fact you are claiming that your interpretation is the only possible one. I disagree.

It says OR not AND, so it means OR not AND

The word "or" indicates a choice, but does not in itself determine the entities involved. That is why I spelled out the equivalent paraphrases of our different interpretations. Your version gives two options for defining the back limit of the tackle zone. Mine simply says that the hindmost either of two types of player defines the back limit of the tackle zone.

Also, I do not believe that there can be two tacklers in the gate.
Tackler is singular not plural, so its only one tackler, and it the one closest to Blue's goal line for the blue "other players" and the tackler closest to the Red's goal-line for the red "other players"

Only one tackler defines the hindmost limit (the one from behind which the next player must come). Singular does fine for that.

I note that 15.6 (c) says "a tackler" rather than "the tackler". Do you really want those two paragraphs interpreted differently?

The problem, of course, is that the IRB has defined the tackle zone indirectly. We therefore have to infer its limits, just like we have to infer when a tackle has ended. A proper definition is needed.

 

[Dickie E]

Ian,

can you do this for me on the RH diagram.

1. erase current blue arrow
2. start a new blue straight arrow on the letters GL
3. end this arrow on the ball.

Is this a legal entry (of course, assuming no boots on bodies)?

 

[Davet]

Ah, I see where you differ.

The phrase about tackler ot tackled player nearest the incoming player's goal line seems to be the issue.

I would suggest that it refres to whichever of these two is the nearest to the incoming player's goal line. Which in respect of the right hand diagram in DickieE's post #43 above, as far as Blue is concerned, would be the Red player marked T, and the line showing entry should NOT cross that ppayer but come from behind him.

 

[OB..]

Ah, I see where you differ.

The phrase about tackler ot tackled player nearest the incoming player's goal line seems to be the issue.

I would suggest that it refres to whichever of these two is the nearest to the incoming player's goal line. Which in respect of the right hand diagram in DickieE's post #43 above, as far as Blue is concerned, would be the Red player marked T, and the line showing entry should NOT cross that ppayer but come from behind him.

That is what I was taught, with the black rectangle showing the tackle zone. The red approach for a Red player is legal. The blue approach shown is illegal, being side entry. The yellow line is legal for a Blue player.

 

[Agustin]

That is what I was taught, with the black rectangle showing the tackle zone. The red approach for a Red player is legal. The blue approach shown is illegal, being side entry. The yellow line is legal for a Blue player.

That's what I've been taught too.

.... and now that I'm looking at the video for the 100th time I am seeing that Blue #2 was standing at what would become the gate, as the tackle was taking place. Once the tackle became a tackle (i.e., White #7 was on the ground), Blue #2 did not retreat and come back in through the gate.

So what I would initially have pinged against White (not releasing the ball) was in fact an immaterial infringement by Blue #2 for coming in from the side... Damn! I guess that's why they pay those professional refs so much

 

[OB..]

I see white 7 going past Blue 2 before the tackle is completed. Blue 2 is therefore inside the tackle zone, but not a tackler.
I see Blue 2 never releasing the tackled player before going for the ball.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Ah, I see where you differ.

The phrase about tackler ot tackled player nearest the incoming player's goal line seems to be the issue.

I would suggest that it refres to whichever of these two is the nearest to the incoming player's goal line. Which in respect of the right hand diagram in DickieE's post #43 above, as far as Blue is concerned, would be the Red player marked T, and the line showing entry should NOT cross that ppayer but come from behind him.

That is not what the Law says!

(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.

My reading of the wording essentially eliminates any extra tacklers and leaves only TWO players in the tackle zone

1. The tackled player
2. The tackler, and if there is more than one tackler, whiocheve one is nearest the approaching players own goal-line.

No matter how many times I read this, I cannot make it mean anything other than a choice for the approaching player to approach from behind EITHER the tackled player OR the tackler closest to that players goal line

To make it read what you want to say the wording would need to be something like;

(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 both the tackled player and the tackler closest to those players’ goal line.

But that isn't what is says.

It may well take a different meaning, but I cannot see it.

 

[Dickie E]

Ian, I see your point.

If I say "I will take my holiday in Fiji or Tahiti" then it suggests a choice & (I think) that is where you are coming from.

But if I say "If you drink & drive or if you speed you will be prosecuted", you don't have a choice. You can't say to the beak "yes I was speeding, but I choose drink & drive and, since I wasn't drinking, I can walk away scott free".

Does this make sense?

 

[Ian_Cook]

Ian, I see your point.

If I say "I will take my holiday in Fiji or Tahiti" then it suggests a choice & (I think) that is where you are coming from.

But if I say "If you drink & drive or if you speed you will be prosecuted", you don't have a choice. You can't say to the beak "yes I was speeding, but I choose drink & drive and, since I wasn't drinking, I can walk away scott free".

Does this make sense?

That is an odd example you have chosen because "drink & drive" is an idiomatic expression that infers the consumption of alcohol without actually stating it. Taken literally, there is nothing illegal about drinking and driving (drink water, drive car, perfectly OK)

And the way have written you sentence infers exactly the result you have written. To make it read correctly, the way you intend it do be....

"If you drink & drive, or if you speed, you will be prosecuted"

The addition of two commas makes an enormous difference to the meaning and very much limits the number of possible interpretations.

The way the Law is written, the phrase "closest to those players’ goal line" can only refer to the tackler. Sure, the addition of various words, and/or qualifiers and/or grammar can make it read the way you suggest, e.g.

(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, whichever is closest to those players’ goal line.

...but that is not how the Law is writ.

 

[Dickie E]

I think red may be playing rugby for "other" reasons...

To each their own (Phil, don't watch this or you'll turn into a pillar of salt)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWChoN_DyTk

 

[Davet]

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.

Ian the phrase: the tackled player or the tackler appears to be the one at issue. You are saying that it should be read:
...behind the tackled player, or behind the tackler closest to...

But the way it is written strongly suggests that this is not the intended meaning. There is no comma, nor any separation of tackled player and tackler. The phrase refres to the combination of tackled player / tackler, and demands that an incoming player who plays the ball must come in from behind that combination - ie behind the tackled player or tackler nearest to the incoming players goal-line.

 

[OB..]

Well said, Davet.

The way the Law is written, the phrase "closest to those players’ goal line" can only refer to the tackler.

Linguistically that is definitely a false statement. There is nothing impossible or even unusual about having a complex antecedent.

"You can take the train or the bus to get to London."
It makes no sense to say "to get to London" can refer only to the bus. I put brackets in the law earlier to demonstrate this multiple antecedent. "The tackled player or the tackler" is a noun phrase which can as a whole be modified by what follows. That is a perfectly valid way of parsing the sentence.

It may well take a different meaning, but I cannot see it.

Apparently not. However you have no choice but to accept that
(a) we do; and
(b) it is the way we apply the law.

 

[Ian_Cook]

I watched this weekend's matches with considerably more attention to the tacklers and tackled players relative positions. Interestingly, I saw several occasions the tackler was almost a full body-length behind the tackled player, and on many of those occasions, players clearly did not go all the way back behind that tackler, and none of the referees appeared to react to that action. This was not only in Air New Zealand Cup matches, but in the Leinster v Munster match and the Harlequins v Bath match (and the latter was a bloody good match too!)

That got me thinking... Maybe I'm right, but not for the reason I have been claiming here.

In most cases with this type of tackle, the blue players would be arriving from behind the tackler anyway since they would be coming from that part of the field. On those occasions I saw (mentioned above), players were arriving from across the field and definitely did not go around behind the tackler lying on the ground behind the tackled player. Also, those tacklers tended to get to their feet fairly quickly, often before other players arrived.

Lets have another look at that Law...

Law 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.

I wonder if the referees are considering that a tackler who is that far back from the tackled player is not "near to the tackle"?

And that makes me wonder if the other part of the Law wording I am having trouble with (tackled player or the tackler closest to those players’ goal line) is to allow for both of the situations in Diagrams 2 & 3 above, to ensure that players approach the tackle arrive from behind either a tackler or a tackled player, whichever is closest to his own goal-line.

If so, then these two things make sense of what you have been saying, and fit in with what I have been observing.

 

[Adam]

Maybe the 'gate' only applies within close proximity of the ball, ie. if you come from your side 'in the gate' as long as you are behind the ball, with your bum towards your goal line, then that is alright?

Maybe the reasoning behind it is so that we don't get the situation where people come in from the side and disrupt people with forward momentum and hence unbalance them. That's the philosophy I use at a ruck, maybe that should be extended to the tackle?

 

[OB..]

Maybe the 'gate' only applies within close proximity of the ball, ie. if you come from your side 'in the gate' as long as you are behind the ball, with your bum towards your goal line, then that is alright?

That is certainly not the way it was demonstrated to us, as I have explained above..