Rugby - not set pieces

[elementfreak]

The old age question: "How can he get out of there?"- is the wrong question now. The right one is: "Why did he do what he did so he couldn't get out of there?"

That is not a bad convention that referees have come up with. So long as they are consistent, it's one of the good ones.
.

My response to players who say "I couldn't get out sir, I was stuck" is generally "well don't fall there and we won't have a problem will we?"

A lot of the time in those sort of tackles you can see the tackler looking at where to fall and will consciously choose the wrong side.

 

[Bullrush]

My response to players who say "I couldn't get out sir, I was stuck" is generally "well don't fall there and we won't have a problem will we?"

A lot of the time in those sort of tackles you can see the tackler looking at where to fall and will consciously choose the wrong side.

I don't like it because I love watching dominant tackles. You're almost penalising a player for making too dominant a tackle.

 

[Braveheart81]

Why should the ball carrier have to release the ball to opposition if the tackler is able to end up in a position where he effectively stops the team in possession from getting to the ball without being penalised.

Everyone likes a dominant tackle, but if you try and roll the tackled player so he is pointing towards your forwards then you should also face the risk that you'll be penalised if you can't get your body out of there.

 

[Bullrush]

He should have to release the ball because he just got dominated. The game is, at it's basic core, all about physical dominance. If you just got physically bested then you should probably lose possession....

 

[Braveheart81]

The tackler rolling away is also part of the rules.

Hence why I see no reason to differentiate between a player that doesn't roll away and a player that can't roll away.

 

[Bullrush]

Again, if the rules start penalising players for being too dominant then I think that would be a shame.

 

[yourmatesam]

He should have to release the ball because he just got dominated. The game is, at it's basic core, all about physical dominance. If you just got physically bested then you should probably lose possession....

Advantage must be given to the team moving forward, if the ball carrier is under pressure, then let the tackler release and then go for the ball.

If the ball carrier dominates the contact, he should have every opportunity to play his options.

Just because the tackle is dominant doesn't give the tackler the right to fall all over the ball carrier or stop him from playing his options.

 

[Lee Grant]

Referees

• Crusaders v Reds – Rd.11. Early in the match Crusaders scrummie Andrew Ellis fumbles the ball. Referee Bryce Lawrence blows the whistle for a knock on.

Ellis: “I didn't knock it on.”
Lawrence: It wasn't me.”


• Bulls v Brumbies – Rd. 9. About a half hour into the game Brumbies' 10. Leali'ifano and 8. Auela bring Bull's 13. Englebrecht to ground. Lelifano reaches down sideways to fetch the ball and Marius Joubert pings him for “going in the side” of a tackle. But he is the tackler, right? Wrong. Auleau goes to ground and is therefore a “tackler” but Leali'ifano stays up and is not one.

You should have taken a knee when you scragged him Christian, like the NFL quarterbacks do to end a down. You would have been a 'tackler' then.

• Cheetahs v Chiefs – Rd.8. It was good to see Jonathon Kaplan penalising defenders for “going off their feet” oh so briefly, and giving the attacking team a heads up.

We've all seen it: defenders rushing up to a tackle with their hands up like Goodie Two Shoes, then putting their hands in. But sometimes they use their hands on the ground briefly to get their balance to stop themselves tipping over; then they rock back and rip out the ball. Or sometimes they can't get back up because of team mates behind them and they obstruct the attacking team by bridging across the ball.

As Kaplan said after one incident: ”Initially not supporting your body weight,” or Garrat Williamson in Sharks v Chiefs in Rd.9, when he pinged BdP, who had attacked the ball after Rettalick had been tackled:”Hands past the ball - hands on the ground.”
.

 

[Bullrush]

Advantage must be given to the team moving forward, if the ball carrier is under pressure, then let the tackler release and then go for the ball.

If the ball carrier dominates the contact, he should have every opportunity to play his options.

Just because the tackle is dominant doesn't give the tackler the right to fall all over the ball carrier or stop him from playing his options.

Falling on the wrong side isn't always a matter of choice - especially when you monster someone. It's then the defensive team who is actually going forward and should have the advantage. You sometimes see the ball-carrier get caught by 2 or 3 defenders who drive him backwards and then fall over the top of him with just the sheer weight and force of the drive in the tackle. Asking them to not fall on the wrong side is ridiculous. There are times when a tackler does purposely fall on the wrong side but that's not always the case.
I have even seen the tackler trying to get out of the way but being pushed back into the ruck by the numbers of the opposition.

IMO, great defensive plays should be rewarded or at the last not penalised for being too dominant.

 

[elementfreak]

If they get caught there in the process of moving, ie when 2 players bind onto them and not allow them to get out of the way, then an unplayable ruck is the best option IMO.

 

[Lee Grant]

It's a tough one that. In that tackle Newby definitely made a decision to pull Brits towards the runner's goal line after impact and before going to ground. Newby probably met him at an angle dominantly then continued a rotation and pulled him back in one movement - I have forgotten - but whatever; it was the decision to pull Brits back which got himself between Brits and the other attackers which led to the ball being killed once everything collapsed.


People were criticising McCaw for cheating with hands in the ruck for years but it was a nonsense: everybody did it and McCaw had moved on ahead of his imitators. He was one of the few doing the Snake - he slithered down the opponents side as he tackled somebody and took the grief on the floor. How could he be penalised for something he did before he hit the ground?

I was on my high horse about this, not the old hands in rubbish. Then came the law crackdown and the focus on tacklers killing the ball, then on where they were ending up, then on whatever they did to end up where they ended up - as is the current situation.

McCaw moved on after that crackdown to loiter after staggering through rucks and continue doing blocking runs as he had done for years (and as he did against Gill recently.) Maybe there will be a crackdown on these things before he retires but if not we can just wonder at the scope of his nefarious moves - quite apart from his brilliant general play. A genius in both aspects.


Where was I? We should not expect the referee to have to decide on whether an action by a tackler was deliberate or not if it led to an illegal situation. The ref has too much on his plate and if he allowed some ball killing tackles like Newby's you would get tacklers doing the Snake deliberately to see what they can get away with in front of a particular referee.

Better to ping it - right, wrong, or maybe.

Then folks will find out that the best players can make a dominant tackle and end up in the right place.
.

 

[rugbysmartarse]

This may be the spot for this question: a few times now I've heard the referee blow a scrum Penalty and state "head and shoulders". Last weeks tahs v bulls game the ref used this term as a replacement prop had started packing down. What does it actually mean? is he warning the prop to keep his head level to his shoulders (and I presume back) and drive straight?

 

[Dam0]

This may be the spot for this question: a few times now I've heard the referee blow a scrum Penalty and state "head and shoulders". Last weeks tahs v bulls game the ref used this term as a replacement prop had started packing down. What does it actually mean? is he warning the prop to keep his head level to his shoulders (and I presume back) and drive straight?

If a prop engages on a downward angle so that his head is below his hips, he will have a hard time keeping the scrum up unless the bind is perfect. If anything goes amiss on the hit, the scrum will go straight down.

It is particularly a problem for tall props, which is why Crockett is forever being done for it.

 

[Lee Grant]

My response to players who say "I couldn't get out sir, I was stuck" is generally "well don't fall there and we won't have a problem will we?".

I once heard George Ayoub, with a smile, say to a player who said he couldn't get out:

"If there was a snake there you would have got out."

 

[Blue]

Referees

• Crusaders v Reds – Rd.11. Early in the match Crusaders scrummie Andrew Ellis fumbles the ball. Referee Bryce Lawrence blows the whistle for a knock on.

Ellis: “I didn't knock it on.”
Lawrence: It wasn't me.”


• Bulls v Brumbies – Rd. 9. About a half hour into the game Brumbies' 10. Leali'ifano and 8. Auela bring Bull's 13. Englebrecht to ground. Lelifano reaches down sideways to fetch the ball and Marius Joubert pings him for “going in the side” of a tackle. But he is the tackler, right? Wrong. Auleau goes to ground and is therefore a “tackler” but Leali'ifano stays up and is not one.

You should have taken a knee when you scragged him Christian, like the NFL quarterbacks do to end a down. You would have been a 'tackler' then.

• Cheetahs v Chiefs – Rd.8. It was good to see Jonathon Kaplan penalising defenders for “going off their feet” oh so briefly, and giving the attacking team a heads up.

We've all seen it: defenders rushing up to a tackle with their hands up like Goodie Two Shoes, then putting their hands in. But sometimes they use their hands on the ground briefly to get their balance to stop themselves tipping over; then they rock back and rip out the ball. Or sometimes they can't get back up because of team mates behind them and they obstruct the attacking team by bridging across the ball.

As Kaplan said after one incident: ”Initially not supporting your body weight,” or Garrat Williamson in Sharks v Chiefs in Rd.9, when he pinged BdP, who had attacked the ball after Rettalick had been tackled:”Hands past the ball - hands on the ground.”
.

Jeez the problem is that all of that is soooooo open to interpretation. We're screwed really.

 

[Blue]

If a prop engages on a downward angle so that his head is below his hips, he will have a hard time keeping the scrum up unless the bind is perfect. If anything goes amiss on the hit, the scrum will go straight down.

It is particularly a problem for tall props, which is why Crockett is forever being done for it.

And why Woodcock scrums with three legs on the ground.

 

[rugbysmartarse]

If a prop engages on a downward angle so that his head is below his hips, he will have a hard time keeping the scrum up unless the bind is perfect. If anything goes amiss on the hit, the scrum will go straight down.

It is particularly a problem for tall props, which is why Crockett is forever being done for it.

But is that what the ref is referring to? Seems an odd choice of phrase

 

[yourmatesam]

But is that what the ref is referring to? Seems an odd choice of phrase

The other phrase they use is "hinging" but as hinging does not appear anywhere in the law book, it was decided to ask players to keep their heads above their hips.

 

[suckerforred]

If a prop engages on a downward angle so that his head is below his hips, he will have a hard time keeping the scrum up unless the bind is perfect. If anything goes amiss on the hit, the scrum will go straight down.

It is particularly a problem for tall props, which is why Crockett is forever being done for it.

And why Woodcock scrums with three legs on the ground.

Amd why Rodzilla has a hard time as well.

 

[antimony]

This may be the spot for this question: a few times now I've heard the referee blow a scrum Penalty and state "head and shoulders". Last weeks tahs v bulls game the ref used this term as a replacement prop had started packing down. What does it actually mean? is he warning the prop to keep his head level to his shoulders (and I presume back) and drive straight?

I've noticed the refs tellng the front rows to line up with the TH's head opposite the shoulders of the opposing LH and hooker's shoulders etc. Saying something like 'head to shoulders'. In 1 game and apologies for no reference it was even expalined 'your head must line up here and your head here'. The ref later blew a penalty (may have been the rebels) at the srum saying 'your lining up head to head'.