Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
You're right IMO. Nothing in the laws about having a second go - you can place it in any direction, but then the ball is to be released.
http://laws.worldrugby.org/index.php?law=15.5
Refereeing decisions
- Thread starter boyo
- Start date
You're right IMO. Nothing in the laws about having a second go - you can place it in any direction, but then the ball is to be released.
http://laws.worldrugby.org/index.php?law=15.5
First it was teams not contesting lineout "mauls", now it is teams not rucking.
Read this thought provoking article on the subject of the Chiefs tactic of not rucking, and referee responses.
http://www.the42.ie/analysis-chiefs-super-rugby-tactics-2013507-Mar2015/
Getting too clever for the referees (and lawmakers) sometimes has unintended consequences.
Read this thought provoking article on the subject of the Chiefs tactic of not rucking, and referee responses.
http://www.the42.ie/analysis-chiefs-super-rugby-tactics-2013507-Mar2015/
Getting too clever for the referees (and lawmakers) sometimes has unintended consequences.
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
Great article
JJJ
Vay Wilson (31)
Interesting that this has emerged so near to the wc. Would've been more interesting if it were even closer. Not much time for coaches, refs and law-makers to decide how to handle it.
Shame we couldn't have used it ourselves, given how poor the wallabies have been at restarts lately.
Shame we couldn't have used it ourselves, given how poor the wallabies have been at restarts lately.
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
Interestingly Peyper is the only referee who is close to being right. Even in the instance where an opponent reached out and grabbed a Chiefs player by the jersey, this is still not a ruck - you need to be bound by the full arm to be part of a ruck not just grab with the hand.
I remember all those years ago when I first became a referee, we use to have to learn our definitions word for word and had to recite them word perfect at the exam. I remember being told that a lot of things happen on the field which "look wrong" but aren't against the laws and play should be allowed to continue.
Teams aren't obligated to join rucks or mauls, and so if the definition of a ruck or maul has not been satisfied it is general play and thus no off-side lines. Peyper is correct in what he says about the gate though, players can't enter the tackle area and play the ball.
Brumby Runner
David Wilson (68)
So, Eliott got it wrong when he entered the tackle area from the opposition "gate"? That would satisfy me but I must say that I think there is something wrong if defending players are allowed to stand in front of the No 10 in order to disrupt the ball moving to the backline.
There seems to be some need to define offside in terms of the line of the tackle, but I can see difficulties there when a player being tackled after a break passes inadvertently to an oppositon player behind him, which we see quite often. Or even defending players running obstruction between two attacking players to stop the ball being passed on.
Can of worms.
yourmatesam
Desmond Connor (43)
I reckon it's possible to argue that there is an offside line at the tackle (even though the lawbook states otherwise), regardless of whether there is a ruck/maul formed.
If there is a gate, there are entry points and therefore there are offside lines. We don't allow players (other than the tackler) to come through from the opposition side of the tackle, the lawbook calls it "incorrect entry" but it's just another form of offside - specific to the tackle situation.
There are a number of penalties that could be brought about at the tackle- legal tackle, release tackled player, assist tackle, separation, rolling away, entry, loitering, playing a player without the ball. The referee just needs to go back through their checklists.
I recall a practical example of the definition of a ruck from my days as a Development Officer and the example was two people (one from either team) standing/crouching over the ball on the ground shaking hands - it fits all the definitions for a ruck. Maybe we need to interpret the lawbook like this?
I think these types of tactics/interpretations are a blight on the game, Rugby has enough issues as it is without muddying the waters any more!!
If there is a gate, there are entry points and therefore there are offside lines. We don't allow players (other than the tackler) to come through from the opposition side of the tackle, the lawbook calls it "incorrect entry" but it's just another form of offside - specific to the tackle situation.
There are a number of penalties that could be brought about at the tackle- legal tackle, release tackled player, assist tackle, separation, rolling away, entry, loitering, playing a player without the ball. The referee just needs to go back through their checklists.
I recall a practical example of the definition of a ruck from my days as a Development Officer and the example was two people (one from either team) standing/crouching over the ball on the ground shaking hands - it fits all the definitions for a ruck. Maybe we need to interpret the lawbook like this?
I think these types of tactics/interpretations are a blight on the game, Rugby has enough issues as it is without muddying the waters any more!!
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
^^^There is no offside line at the tackle, it's general play anyone can stand wherever they like. The only thing they can't do is enter the tackle area (1m diameter).
No need to interpret the law, it's black and white:
No ruck unless a player from each side in closed contact over the ball
Players must be bound with a full arm to be part of a ruck
The waters aren't muddy, they are chrystal clear; there is no offside line in general play and until a ruck or maul forms after a tackle, so we have general play.
Trying to implement an offisde line at the tackle would change the nature of the game and the law of unintended consequences would come into action.
No need to interpret the law, it's black and white:
No ruck unless a player from each side in closed contact over the ball
Players must be bound with a full arm to be part of a ruck
The waters aren't muddy, they are chrystal clear; there is no offside line in general play and until a ruck or maul forms after a tackle, so we have general play.
Trying to implement an offisde line at the tackle would change the nature of the game and the law of unintended consequences would come into action.
Strewthcobber
Mark Ella (57)
Off side line at the tackle was trialled as an experimental law variation a couple of years ago want it?
From memory, I think it made line breaks almost undefendable once the ball career was behind the defensive line.
From memory, I think it made line breaks almost undefendable once the ball career was behind the defensive line.
MonkeyBoy
Bill Watson (15)
yourmatesam
Desmond Connor (43)
I know there is no offside line at the tackle, but ultimately the gate is all about offside, it's purpose is to define entry and incorrect entry is essentially offside.
I agree that the tackle is general play, however the whole premise of the player standing at the halfback goes against every tenant of the spirit of rugby and rewarding positive play. This is a negative tactic and should be penalised as such.
I look forward to the IRB or whatever they're called now issuing some clarification on this ASAP. This needs to be sorted before the World Cup so we can showcase the good points of rugby, not the ridiculous ambiguities.
Brendan Hume
Charlie Fox (21)
I think it's a great initiative. Referees, just like players, get suckered in to patterns of play that create expectations. So often in rugby you see a tackle made, an attacking clear out where one or two players go straight off their feet onto the tackler on the ground and nobody from the opposition challenge this. For the sake of the flow of the game, I don't have a problem if that's how defending teams want it to be, but if a player runs around the back of that tackle when the ball is presented to the half back, to me the ball is clear of the tackle, the gate no longer applies and any player has rights to the ball from any direction.
Bullrush
John Hipwell (52)
Alternatively, opposition team can find ways to counter it.
This tactic provides a lot of room and space for players outside the first receiver from the kick - if they are sharp enough to recognise what is happening and give at least one pass out. Or imagine having someone like Ita Vaea or Jerome Kaino rumbling up for a big hit-up a la league styles off the kick-off. There is also some considerable space for a pick-and-go off that original tackle.
Good on the Chiefs - now it's up to someone else to keep innovating and find ways to counter this. But what they are doing is making rugby less predictable, less like league and possibly opening up greater opportunities for 'positive play' as you call it.
but what does play the ball mean in rule 15.6d
I liked the innovation from the chiefs.
If you are standing in the passing lane making no attempt to pick up or go at the ball at the bottom of the tackle, I think it is fine. To be honest the referee even admits as much himself when he says you can go stand near the 10. But really that's what they are doing blocking the passing lane just doing it a bit more up close and personal.
I also don't think its negative. If the guy is tackled and no one is contesting the ball the attacking team should be taking advantage by playing fast, giving the defensive team less time to communicate. But if they are sitting around buttmunching then good on the chiefs for making it difficult for the side to buttmunch.
I liked the innovation from the chiefs.
If you are standing in the passing lane making no attempt to pick up or go at the ball at the bottom of the tackle, I think it is fine. To be honest the referee even admits as much himself when he says you can go stand near the 10. But really that's what they are doing blocking the passing lane just doing it a bit more up close and personal.
I also don't think its negative. If the guy is tackled and no one is contesting the ball the attacking team should be taking advantage by playing fast, giving the defensive team less time to communicate. But if they are sitting around buttmunching then good on the chiefs for making it difficult for the side to buttmunch.
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
Let's agree to disagree.
The gate is not about offside, it was brought in some years ago to give the team in possession an advantage at the tackle. It came in in the early 2000s or thereabouts. It was never about changing the nature of general play.
What I think is against the spirit of the game is teams contriving to construct a ruck or a maul for the purpose of creating an offside line where none exists.
EDIT: If we're about penalising "negative tactics", I barely know where to start. One man's "negative tactics" is another man's innovation.
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
In one of the cases in the original clip, the defending team chose not to form a ruck and one of the attacking team reached out and grabbed the jersey of an opponent, presumably to form a ruck. The referee (Steve Walsh I think) ruled that this constituted a ruck - even though to be part of a ruck a player must be bound with the full arm, grabbing a jersey by the hand doesn't constitute a bind in scrums, rucks or mauls.