|
|
|
Forum Newbie
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 13/01/2010 16:58:10
Posts: 7,
Visits: 44
|
|
| 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
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Being
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 11/03/2010 16:56:51
Posts: 270,
Visits: 309
|
|
spainandy (03/06/2009)
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
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
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Guru
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 04/10/2009 21:27:35
Posts: 60,
Visits: 331
|
|
| 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
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Guru
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 04/10/2009 21:27:35
Posts: 60,
Visits: 331
|
|
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 
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Guru
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 23/02/2010 12:53:57
Posts: 72,
Visits: 244
|
|
Angus... your ref is an IDIOT! 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.
Rugbia floreat ubique
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Newbie
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 18/01/2010 16:22:43
Posts: 3,
Visits: 14
|
|
Bunniksider (02/06/2009)
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
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?
Arkansas Youth Rugby Association
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Guru
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 04/10/2009 21:27:35
Posts: 60,
Visits: 331
|
|
RugbyBuddha (22/06/2009)
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?
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. 
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Guru
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 04/10/2009 21:27:35
Posts: 60,
Visits: 331
|
|
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
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Guru
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 04/10/2009 21:27:35
Posts: 60,
Visits: 331
|
|
OOPS can't edit my last post 
It is the final line that is slightly ambiguous
Also the tackler should not prevent the tackled player
from releasing the ball.
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
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Newbie
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 23/06/2009 07:45:49
Posts: 1,
Visits: 3
|
|
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
|
|