Dam0
Dave Cowper (27)
Mainly due to the fact that "a tackle can only take place in the field of play" - which does not include the in-goal (15.1)
Refereeing decisions
- Thread starter boyo
- Start date
Mainly due to the fact that "a tackle can only take place in the field of play" - which does not include the in-goal (15.1)
Bruwheresmycar
Nicholas Shehadie (39)
Edit, Damo beat me.
It should also be noted that law 22 states.
" A scrum, ruck or maul can take place only in the field of play. As soon as a scrum, ruck or maul is pushed across the goal line, a player may legally ground the ball.This results in a touch down or try."
I mention this because it gives 15.1 a bit more context.
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
My impression is that the tackler is called for not releasing. I can just hear the ref under the commentator saying "..never released"
BOD was still on his feet when he attacked the ball, IMO.
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
The problem is that the tackle in @Baldric's scenario is complete within the field of play - this is arguably the same penalty as Owens awarded above - and so the tackler should release him.
Dam0
Dave Cowper (27)
That is a plausible theory but actually the PK was for Ben Smith getting held back earlier on. (But that is beside the point)
I think in the BOD one, it is more the fact that a tackle was completed in the field of plae and he has come in the side. I would not like to see this sort of thing penalised but I think right now the laws indicate it should be.
Bruwheresmycar
Nicholas Shehadie (39)
IS, in Baldric's scenario, they slide into in goal. If the attacker is trying to score a momentum try, then he is just as much "not releasing" as the tackler. In this hypothetical scenario, a sensible ref would conclude they are both immaterial offences, play on, let them slide into in goal and rule on the grounding.
Ash
Michael Lynagh (62)
In the original video, I think that there was definitely no ruck formed, so it was a tackle situation. Therefore, the Province 12 did not have to come through the gate. In essence, he just joined the tackle.
The province 12, though, broke two laws (too lazy to look up the numbers):
1. Tackling a player on the ground
2. Preventing the tackled player playing the ball
The issue now gets clouded because the Lions player was in the act of scoring a try. The first rule he broke - tackling a player on the ground - is frequently overlooked when a player is scoring a try, generally as there's no other way to stop a sliding player. So let's let that one pass for now.
The second is a grey area. I am uncertain as to how they should handle it, as I think that players SHOULD have a right to get involved and prevent a try in certain situations, but under the laws, they do not. My own feeling is that it was not a penalty try.
In the O'Driscoll / Read case, O'Driscoll was on his feet as he played for the ball and Read then places the ball on the other tackler's chest. BOD then continues to play the ball off of his feet. This one is unclear to me.
I sorta agree with Dam0 that I wouldn't want too many of those ending up as a penalty try.
The province 12, though, broke two laws (too lazy to look up the numbers):
1. Tackling a player on the ground
2. Preventing the tackled player playing the ball
The issue now gets clouded because the Lions player was in the act of scoring a try. The first rule he broke - tackling a player on the ground - is frequently overlooked when a player is scoring a try, generally as there's no other way to stop a sliding player. So let's let that one pass for now.
The second is a grey area. I am uncertain as to how they should handle it, as I think that players SHOULD have a right to get involved and prevent a try in certain situations, but under the laws, they do not. My own feeling is that it was not a penalty try.
In the O'Driscoll / Read case, O'Driscoll was on his feet as he played for the ball and Read then places the ball on the other tackler's chest. BOD then continues to play the ball off of his feet. This one is unclear to me.
I sorta agree with Dam0 that I wouldn't want too many of those ending up as a penalty try.
It doesn't seem to be explicitly defined within the laws, but the question of momentum in a tackle seems to be slightly ambiguous.
A tackled player is allowed to use their momentum to carry them into the in goal to score a try.
The tackler is meant to release the tackled player once they go to ground.
It seems that a tackled player that is still sliding along the ground with momentum could conceivably get back up and keep playing if the tackler releases them because they weren't held. In this instance, it would seem that a tackler should hold onto the tackled player until they come to a stop and thus make sure the tackle is entirely complete.
This is really split second stuff though. It needs to be really wet for a tackled player to have enough momentum on the ground that a tackler would need to release whilst both players were still sliding so as not to infringe.
A tackled player is allowed to use their momentum to carry them into the in goal to score a try.
The tackler is meant to release the tackled player once they go to ground.
It seems that a tackled player that is still sliding along the ground with momentum could conceivably get back up and keep playing if the tackler releases them because they weren't held. In this instance, it would seem that a tackler should hold onto the tackled player until they come to a stop and thus make sure the tackle is entirely complete.
This is really split second stuff though. It needs to be really wet for a tackled player to have enough momentum on the ground that a tackler would need to release whilst both players were still sliding so as not to infringe.
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
I dont think that sliding must have stopped before the obligation to release arises.
So if he's sliding with one or both knees or any part of his body above the knee in contact with the ground then he is tackled and the tackled sequence begins.
I think @Braveheart81's point about split second stuff is why most of this is treated benignly most of the time.
So if he's sliding with one or both knees or any part of his body above the knee in contact with the ground then he is tackled and the tackled sequence begins.
I think @Braveheart81's point about split second stuff is why most of this is treated benignly most of the time.
Dam0
Dave Cowper (27)
I think that people commenting on refereeing decisions are often far too harsh when dealing with the requirement for the tackler to release immediately. For me, I think the requirement only kicks in once the ball carrier has been brought to a stop, otherwise the ball carrier will often just get up and keep running since it looks like no tackle was effected. Of far greater concern is when the tackler (or more commonly tackle assist) has their hands on the ball and then strips the ball without having released it first.
In the Lions v Blues match rnd 5 2014 a Lions player was about to score when a Blues player dislodged the ball in an attempted tackle. the ball spilled forward into the Blues in goal. another Lions player swooped on the ball and touched it down. The referee convinced the TMO that they should award a try because the Blues player ripped the ball out so therefore it wasn't a knock on by the Lions but a knock back by the Blues.
My belief has always been that I am responsibly for the ball if I'm carrying it. if I carry the ball up and an opposition player dislodged it that's my fault not theirs. Is this correct?
Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using Tapatalk
My belief has always been that I am responsibly for the ball if I'm carrying it. if I carry the ball up and an opposition player dislodged it that's my fault not theirs. Is this correct?
Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using Tapatalk
It is what it is
John Solomon (38)
Hope this helps from; http://www.rugby.com.au/Portals/18/Files/Refereeing/Laws/2013 Laws/2013 GMG 130208.pdf
Ripping the ball from a player’s possession
OTHER
•
In the case of the ball being ripped or stripped away from a ball carrier by an opponent, the ball carrier is not considered to be responsible. For example:
oIf an opponent has ripped the ball away from a ball carrier and the ball travels towards the opponent’s goal line, there is no infringement and play should continue.
oIf an opponent has ripped the ball away from a ball carrier and the ball travels towards the ball carrier’s goal line, the opponent is considered to have knocked on.
Well I got that wrong!
Did you see the try mate? Do you think it was ripped?
Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using Tapatalk
It is what it is
John Solomon (38)
No sorry I missed that match.
It happens at lot at all levels of rugby and few refs get it right unfortunately.
Maybe they're not fully aware of the law that changed a couple of years ago.
AngrySeahorse
Peter Sullivan (51)
Looks like I got this wrong too. In the Ponies/Tahs game Hooper picked up the ball from a scrum (late 2nd half I believe) then lost the ball in a tackle from White, ball went forward. The ruling was a knock on against Hooper. Replay clearly shows Whites arm knocking the ball out. To me, looking at this on 2nd viewing today this was not a rip so it was the correct ruling but if we used the definition of a rip as was used in the Lions/Blues game then it should have been play on. I didnt think the Blues ripped the ball in that TMO Lions try.
Seems to be a very fine line between the ball being ripped from a player (no knock on), and the player losing control of the ball through opposition action other than a rip.
Who can give an interpretation when the ball is propelled towards the defending teams try line after the ball is knocked out of the ball carriers possession by an action other than a ripping action.
Is there an action to remove the ball from a ball carriers possession that is not legally defined as a rip?
Who can give an interpretation when the ball is propelled towards the defending teams try line after the ball is knocked out of the ball carriers possession by an action other than a ripping action.
Is there an action to remove the ball from a ball carriers possession that is not legally defined as a rip?
Bruwheresmycar
Nicholas Shehadie (39)
Only saw the Lion's highlights. That definitely wasn't a knock on by Red, good decision to award the try.
Re Hooper; the ball came loose in the tackle due to reasons other than being stripped or knocked. A white hand may have touched the ball but I don't think it would get called a "knock" unless it was more obvious than that.
Benefit of the doubt = knock on.
Re Hooper; the ball came loose in the tackle due to reasons other than being stripped or knocked. A white hand may have touched the ball but I don't think it would get called a "knock" unless it was more obvious than that.
Benefit of the doubt = knock on.
Bruwheresmycar
Nicholas Shehadie (39)
suckerforred
Chilla Wilson (44)
Similar incident happened in the Sharks v Reds game and the try was disallowed.
Interesting that the distinction is made between the ball being 'ripped' and otherwise lost. Is difficult to tell even on TMO review so how do you define a rip?
Interesting that the distinction is made between the ball being 'ripped' and otherwise lost. Is difficult to tell even on TMO review so how do you define a rip?