Quick question
- Thread starter JJJ
- Start date
- Status
First part - referees allowed players to keep hands on the ball during the tackle way before the ELVs were thought of.
Interpretation is the wrong word but is shorter than saying. "A convention used by referees especially during the professional era wherein referees ignored the law as it was written because they thought the game would be better for it - or because they copied the big name referees on TV and if the ref stars did it, by golly they would too."
By allowing players to tackle opponents and close a blind eye to them not releasing and allowing them to swing themselves up still holding on, referees stuffed up the game. It is why we are having a hoo-haa this year trying to reverse the bad habits of old referees who thought they were doing wonderful things.
The change is not an "interpretation" öf the law it is observance of it.
Second part - "even after the maul had formed." I assume you meant to type "ruck" instead of "maul."
In May 2009 there was a ruling subsequent to a request to the IRB because the handling in the ruck law was unclear. It had nothing to do with the ELVs either.
The ruling, in effect, said that players who got their hands on the pill at the tackle by legal means could keep them on after the ruck had formed. In other words they could keep trying to tug the ball out so long as they were still legal - not going to ground or resting body weight on other players, which is the same thing. There could be one player, or one from each team, or theoretically more. No player who arrived after the ruck formed was allowed to do this even if a team mate was.
This ruling is still in effect but note that this has nothing to do with the first part. They are two separate things.
If the person with his his hands in the tackle was the tackler, and not just somebody arriving, he must still release the tackled player as the first item in the tackle transaction. Then he should get to his feet without using the tackled player to get himself up. Then he can fetch the ball provided a ruck hasn't formed yet. Then he can keep going after it has.
By then he should have been taken out.
Thus - neither had anything to do with the ELVs.
Interpretation is the wrong word but is shorter than saying. "A convention used by referees especially during the professional era wherein referees ignored the law as it was written because they thought the game would be better for it - or because they copied the big name referees on TV and if the ref stars did it, by golly they would too."
By allowing players to tackle opponents and close a blind eye to them not releasing and allowing them to swing themselves up still holding on, referees stuffed up the game. It is why we are having a hoo-haa this year trying to reverse the bad habits of old referees who thought they were doing wonderful things.
The change is not an "interpretation" öf the law it is observance of it.
Second part - "even after the maul had formed." I assume you meant to type "ruck" instead of "maul."
In May 2009 there was a ruling subsequent to a request to the IRB because the handling in the ruck law was unclear. It had nothing to do with the ELVs either.
The ruling, in effect, said that players who got their hands on the pill at the tackle by legal means could keep them on after the ruck had formed. In other words they could keep trying to tug the ball out so long as they were still legal - not going to ground or resting body weight on other players, which is the same thing. There could be one player, or one from each team, or theoretically more. No player who arrived after the ruck formed was allowed to do this even if a team mate was.
This ruling is still in effect but note that this has nothing to do with the first part. They are two separate things.
If the person with his his hands in the tackle was the tackler, and not just somebody arriving, he must still release the tackled player as the first item in the tackle transaction. Then he should get to his feet without using the tackled player to get himself up. Then he can fetch the ball provided a ruck hasn't formed yet. Then he can keep going after it has.
By then he should have been taken out.
Thus - neither had anything to do with the ELVs.
Ash
Michael Lynagh (62)
Lee Grant said:
Yes - and I can confirm that even Subbies refs are informing players of this before games, along with anyone involved in the tackle (even those on their feet) must first release the tackled player before playing the ball. Although, don't ever expect consistency from lower grade Subbies refs (part of the fun!).
Anyway, it was along the lines of...
"...if I call 'Hands of the ball!', then I am not refering to you if you had your hands on the ball before the ruck formed and you may continue playing the ball if you are on your feet."
Of course, if the ref thinks the ruck formed first then it's bloody hard to know, as always!
C
chief
Guest
Moses, the Mid year tests played over here in Aus, and NZ, Arg and SA will all be played under these interpretations. It is expected by RWC 2011 that all games of rugby world wide will be played under these. Even in the 6 nations, O'Brien and Joubert have copped a lot of flak from teams for applying the crack down when they hadn't done so earlier in the tournament. Makes you wonder if the NH stakeholders have finally had enough of Paddy and will get the IRB to get rid of him. I'm hoping for that at least.Moses said:
JJJ
Vay Wilson (31)
Thanks fellas (LG especially). I'm currently engaged in the futile and joyless task of trying to convince some UKers that the mess of slow ball and aerial ping-pong they've been suffering under up there has absobloodylutely nothing to do with the ELVs. After that I'll attempt to convince them that the global recession has nothing to do with the ELVs as well.
They're all screaming for rucking to be brought back, but haven't seemed to realize that observing the existing laws correctly will have the same effect. As far as they're concerned it's just another SH attempt to subvert the game to Rugby League. There's been little comment on it by their media, but what there has been has only reinforced that delusion.
Exhibit A: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/rugby_union/article7061280.ece
They're all screaming for rucking to be brought back, but haven't seemed to realize that observing the existing laws correctly will have the same effect. As far as they're concerned it's just another SH attempt to subvert the game to Rugby League. There's been little comment on it by their media, but what there has been has only reinforced that delusion.
Exhibit A: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/rugby_union/article7061280.ece
- Status