Better Rugby Coaching / Better Rugby Coaching / The Huddle / Immediate Jackal / Latest Posts

RE: Immediate Jackal

Ruggaz769 — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 03:13:43 GMT

Thats what i gathered as well. This is because if the tackler goes to ground he has full rights to the ball and is able to contest the ball from any angle (doesnt have to go through the gate). However if the tackler does not go to the ground then he is seen as an arriving player (i.e. player B) therefore can only contest the ball coming through the gate.

RE: Immediate Jackal

vanillagorilla — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 07:35:29 GMT

Angus, the ref's talk about a ruck having formed from a tackle is rubbish. Clearly wrong.

The ref also spoke about a tackled player being allowed to play the ball. Also rubbish, so long as your tackler B releases the tackler and ball for a mere fraction of a second. tackler A should release as well. If things go as you describe though, with tackler B helping tackler A put the ball carrier, he rightly should draw a penalty if he comes straight up with the ball.

The ball carrier has the right to place to ball, true enough, unless there is an opponent on his feet over the ball. If so, all his rights to play the ball are off, "relinquished" to the man on his feet. Problem with tackler B as you describe, no separation as he brings the ball carrier to deck, and so therefore he is off his feet by definition.

Teach your players to put the ball carrier to deck and separate.... and then even refs who don't know what they are talking about will have a hard time creating reasons to blow their whistle.

'nilla

RE: Immediate Jackal

Angus — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 00:38:17 GMT

OOPS can't edit my last post :)

It is the final line that is slightly ambiguous

[quote]Also the tackler should not prevent the tackled player
from releasing the ball.[/quote]

The referee in question was maintaining that the tackled player had the right to place the ball back and that by trying to jackal the ball my players were preventing him from doing so in line with the above

To me that line is in no way related to an attempted jackal but instead refers to any attempt by a defender to maybe wrap the arms of the ball carrier or other action which is not an attempt to jackal the ball but to slow down play or draw a penalty for not releasing

RE: Immediate Jackal

Angus — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 00:33:09 GMT

I am posting here the ruling I got from the QLD Referees Association which bears out my original contention and that of the posters here

[quote]Law 15 Tackle definition.
* The ball carrier is held by one or more opponents and bought to ground.
TACKLED PLAYER
* Opposition players who hold the ball carrier, who bring the player to
ground, and go to ground are known as tacklers.
* Opposition players who hold the ball carrier and do not go to ground are
NOT TACKLERS

Law 15.5(e)Opposition players who are on their feet attempt to play the
ball, the tackled player must release the ball.

Law 15.6(a) After a tackle, all other players must be on their feet with no
part of their body supported by the ground or players on the ground

Remembering that all of this happens with speed the most likely outcome from
a tackle where there is no opposition from the the team in possession is for
the opposition to be able to take the ball and then have the player who
gains possession pass it or run with it.

Should the player gaining possession at the tackle pick up the ball but with
players coming in he is joined by one opposition player we then have 2
players wrestling for the ball.

If that opposition player who gained possession of the ball is joined by one
or more opposition players and a player from his own team then we have a
maul. (See Law 17 definition).

If the player who did not go to ground places his hands on the ball however
before he can take posssession is joined by a player of the other team then
w have a ruck. (See Law 16 definition). In this case the referee should call
"hands off ruck" or "ruck" as indicator to the player who has hands on the
ball to leave the ball alone.

I have kept this explanation to law references and one thing that needs also
to be accounted for is that when a tackle occurs the tackled player must
place the ball immediately in any direction and not necessarily behind him.
If in placing the ball behind him he has to promote his position on the
ground then he is liable to penalty (this would negate any good work done by
the team tackling to place the tackled player in a favourable position for
them to contest). Also the tackler should not prevent the tackled player
from releasing the ball.[/quote]

RE: Immediate Jackal

Angus — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 00:30:53 GMT

[quote][b]RugbyBuddha (22/06/2009)[/b][hr]

Does this mean that if the ball carrier makes it to the ground without being stripped, the defending player remaining on his feet must then release him and the ball before then again attempting to poach the ball?[/quote]

Yes it does, technically, but that is not in itself a real issue as in the majority of situations he would have had his hands on the player and not the ball so as soon as the tackled player hits the ground he needs to release them and and reach past the ball to scoop back on it so as to collect the ball if the tackled player is trying to place it

It is also more than likely that even if the player has his hands in contact with the ball they are not in the best position to successfully rip it anyway so they have to adjust which involves releasing it even for a split second

Even if they are it all happens so fast it is unlikely a ref is going to be able to distinguish if they did release then re attack the ball anyway and should be more likely to give the benefit of the doubt to the tackler by considering tackled player is not releasing the ball

Red & Black - yes unfortunately I do believe this ref was a significant contributing factor in the loss of both games he controlled as a result of his misunderstanding of this law. :angry:

RE: Immediate Jackal

RugbyBuddha — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 14:55:42 GMT

[quote][b]Bunniksider (02/06/2009)[/b][hr]Just found the relevant law that coversreleasing the player before playing the ball:

15.6 (c) Players in opposition to the ball carrier who remain on their feet who bring the ball carrier to ground so that the player is tackled must release the ball and the ball carrier. Those players may then play the ball providing they are on their feet and do so from behind the ball and from directly behind the tackled player or a tackler closest to those players' goal line.

Penalty: Penalty Kick [/quote]

Does this mean that if the ball carrier makes it to the ground without being stripped, the defending player remaining on his feet must then release him and the ball before then again attempting to poach the ball?

RE: Immediate Jackal

Red & Black fan — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 12:59:22 GMT

Angus... your ref is an IDIOT!:crazy: You fellas got nobbed! I just hope it doesnt cost you league points/ places.

For a ruck to form you need two opposing players on their feet over a tackle- while he is right about the law re: the tackled player being allowed to release the ball, this applies to the tackler, not a player arriving on his/ her feet... & if the ball carrier is not yet on the ground when the 2nd hitter/ ball fetcher (guy on his feet/ attacking the ball) begins attacking the ball, he/ she is allowed to continue to try and play the ball as long as he/ she stay on their feet.

RE: Immediate Jackal

Angus — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 06:57:27 GMT

I have now spoken with the Referees' society and they have confirmed the ref is in the wrong so hopefully they will have a word with him

They offered not to allocate him to any more of our games this season but I said that's ok better the devil you know ;)

RE: Immediate Jackal

Angus — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 03:19:45 GMT

Well our reserve grade had the same referee on Friday night and he pinged us continuously for hands in the ruck and at half time maintained he had spoken to "those in the know" at the QLD Refs Society and that 3 people constituted a ruck even if 2 of them are on the ground and one is on their feet so I tried to explain again but it is proving a harder process than I thought so I think I am going to ask for a ruling from the society

RE: Immediate Jackal

didds — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 21:15:26 GMT

[quote][b]spainandy (03/06/2009)[/b][hr]we are encouraging double tackles...two tacklers on one man...one high, one low...

a] If all parties hit deck...would this mean both defenders are classified as tacklers..therefore able to get to feet and play ball from any side as long as no other man in from oppo in addition to tackled player....

b] if second tackler stays on feet, it seems he has tocompete for ball from behind ball, entering from gate?

is it an objective for the second higher tackler, not to go to ground?

thx[/quote]

a) not sure.

b) yes.

can be objective indeed for 2nd tackler not to go to ground... but (s)he needs to come through the gate so needs to be able to get there quickly. On the other hand "to go to ghround" just means a knee on the deck... could that knee be deliberate - a quick dip down and up as the tackle is effected 9depends on answer to a) of course!)

didds

RE: Immediate Jackal

spainandy — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 14:38:09 GMT

we are encouraging double tackles...two tacklers on one man...one high, one low...

a] If all parties hit deck...would this mean both defenders are classified as tacklers..therefore able to get to feet and play ball from any side as long as no other man in from oppo in addition to tackled player....

b] if second tackler stays on feet, it seems he has to compete for ball from behind ball, entering from gate?

is it an objective for the second higher tackler, not to go to ground?

thx

RE: Immediate Jackal

Angus — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 02:30:18 GMT

Thanks for that Bunniksider much appreciated

RE: Immediate Jackal

Nipper — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 17:59:08 GMT

So, it sounds like the 3rd man in (jackal) has full rights to the ball if he's on his feet, and the tackler has released.

RE: Immediate Jackal

Bunniksider — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 14:18:03 GMT

Just found the relevant law that covers releasing the player before playing the ball:

15.6 (c) Players in opposition to the ball carrier who remain on their feet who bring the ball carrier to ground so that the player is tackled must release the ball and the ball carrier. Those players may then play the ball providing they are on their feet and do so from behind the ball and from directly behind the tackled player or a tackler closest to those players' goal line.

Penalty: Penalty Kick

RE: Immediate Jackal

Angus — Fri, 29 May 2009 22:15:08 GMT

Thanks for the feedback and I will query both refs at our games today and see what their take is on this to establish if it was one ref with this interpretation or an across the board conception

Cheers
Angus

RE: Immediate Jackal

referee — Thu, 28 May 2009 13:10:44 GMT

Strange one this.

So long as the tackler, on the floor, isn't preventing the tackled player playing theball i can't see a problem. Release and move away is what we want the tackler to do, as a referee.

However, the second player (B) isn't classed as a tackler and therefore would need to enter the tackle through the ''gate'', still if he does this i don't see a problem, as a ruck can't be formed unless you have a player from each side in contact over the ball on the ground.

The player on his feet, as long as he is deemed on-side etc, no ruck, has all the rights over the player on the floor.

RE: Immediate Jackal

Angus — Tue, 26 May 2009 01:36:29 GMT

Good point didds and one I will be sure to bring up

Thanks
Angus

RE: Immediate Jackal

didds — Mon, 25 May 2009 18:50:55 GMT

[quote][b]Angus (24/05/2009)[/b][hr]The ref's theory is that 2 of our players and one of theirs constituted a ruck as both are in contact with the ball carrier - unless the first tackler has released the ball carrier after making the tackle and before player B attempts the jackal

[/quote]

interesting... given the definition of a ruck is one player from each side in contact over the ball on the floor... nothing about a ball carrier there at all.

didds

RE: Immediate Jackal

Angus — Sun, 24 May 2009 03:22:38 GMT

The ref's theory is that 2 of our players and one of theirs constituted a ruck as both are in contact with the ball carrier - unless the first tackler has released the ball carrier after making the tackle and before player B attempts the jackal

Interesting point about player B having to release the ball carrier before attempting the jackal though

I think my main argument is all these things happen so quickly how can a ref expect or be expected to observe and work out what order they happen in

RE: Immediate Jackal

Bunniksider — Fri, 22 May 2009 13:04:06 GMT

Assuming that the second tackler has released the tackled player and is on his feet then I see no problems with this.

I guess, however, that the second tackle and rip of the ball are happening in one action and the ref is seeing no attempt to release the tackled player. Hence the FK and just in my opinion.

For what it is worth I believe that the hands in the ruck arguament is rubbish as with the tackled player still on the floor no ruck can form until another player from his team joins in.

Immediate Jackal

Angus — Thu, 21 May 2009 22:51:29 GMT

In a recent game my players in defence were getting penalised for handling the ball on the ground at the tackle

Scenario is

player A tackles low
player B arrives while the tackle is in progress and the opposition player is on his way to the ground
He helps to put him on the ground by grabbing around the shoulder area so that as soon as the opposition player hits the ground player B is on his feet and squatted over him with hands on the ball to jackal it

To me I see nothing wrong with this as the opposition player is required to release the ball as soon as he makes contact with teh ground and if he doesn't it should be a free kick (in Oz) to my side

I had a long chat with the ref the other night and he explained he had been told the tackled player should be allowed the opportunity to place the ball back to assist his side in continuing play and my player B was stopping him from doing this (by trying to pick up the ball)

He also said that assuming player A still has a hold of the opponent when player B is trying to steal the ball (normally the case as it is instantaneous) then player B's presence has made the tackle into a ruck and therefore cannot handle the ball on the ground

My only arguments to that were that he should check out the tackle situation in Super Rugby in particular players like McCaw because if these interpretations were applied he would be out of a job and secondly that he shouldn't let the technicalities of the law get in the way of a good game

He took what I said on Board and also agreed to bring this point up at the next QLD Referees meeting so I am interested to see what the response is as I have been coaching this technique to the second man into the tackle

Thoughts please

Angus