Laws Question? Ask here!

sydthebeat

Have this game recorded and I just checked the incident, it was most certainly a maul.... The player was tackled, held up, two of his defending teammates joined in to hold him up so when the maul went to ground, the tackler doesn't have to release. The attacker was lying on the tackler facing upwards with no chance of the ball being played. ball dead, game over.

The maul wasn't being driven forward by the attacking team, so the defending team were well within their rights to get it to ground in order to gain possession.

For Paws

Yes, and that's the view that the Ref took of it. But it seemed to me that the tackler did not release, as the Law insists they must, and that this was the main reason that the ball was not available. A question of interpretation then.

sydthebeat

For Paws wrote: »

Yes, and that's the view that the Ref took of it. But it seemed to me that the tackler did not release, as the Law insists they must, and that this was the main reason that the ball was not available. A question of interpretation then.

The ball carrier never gets to ground, therefore ruck never forms, therefore tackler doesn't have to release.

For Paws

sydthebeat wrote: »

The ball carrier never gets to ground, therefore ruck never forms, therefore tackler doesn't have to release.

See Law 15.3 (b) If the ball carrier is sitting on the ground, or on top on another player on the ground, then the ball carrier has been 'brought to ground'.

sydthebeat

For Paws wrote: »

See Law 15.3 (b) If the ball carrier is sitting on the ground, or on top on another player on the ground, then the ball carrier has been 'brought to ground'.

see here

theres a few things amiss with the incident.

there is no ruck because there is not two players, one from each side, on their feet contesting the ball. there is a blue player off his feet.

the incident is at 9:58 here

As there is no ruck, there is no requirement for the tackler to roll away.
I think you can actually here the player ask "does the tackler have to let him go" and the ref says 'no'

whether the ball has been brought to ground is contentious in my opinion. there is 3 defenders around him holding him up until the maul collapses.

For Paws

sydthebeat wrote: »

see here

theres a few things amiss with the incident.

there is no ruck because there is not two players, one from each side, on their feet contesting the ball.

As there is no ruck, there is no requirement for the tackler to roll away.

whether the ball has been brought to ground is contentious in my opinion. there is 3 defenders around him holding him up until the maul collapses.

Do you mean maul ?

sydthebeat

For Paws wrote: »

Do you mean maul ?

NO

in order for the tackler to release and roll away.... a ruck has to form.

There most certainly is a maul, the ref deemed there to be no ruck, which i agree with.

For Paws

Law 15
15.4 (a) When a player tackles an opponent, and they both go to ground, the tackler must immediately release the tackled player.

It seems to me, and tbf not to yourself or indeed the referee, that the tackler goes to ground, and holds the ball carrier on top of him, which Law 15.3 (b) defines as the ball carrier also having being 'brought to ground, and therefore 15.4 (a) applies.

15.4 (b) The tackler must immediately get up or move away from the tackled player and from the ball at once.

Again, imo, the tackler does not do so.

The Laws do not differentiate between a ruck and a maul in respect of the duty of the tackler to obey 15.4 (a) & (b)

Now it is perfectly clear that not everyone sees the same set of actions and interprets them in the same way and the decision of the referee to adjudge the incident in the way he did is perfectly reasonable to me.
He clearly stands on 17.6 (b) in his decision.
My clear impression, on seeing the incident again (thanks for the link) is that the defending team prevent the ball being available mainly by not releasing the tackled player when he and the tackler go to ground.

kensutz

Like I said earlier without watching the clip until now. A maul was formed and the tackler is under no obligation to release. The ball carrier never hit the deck and was held up. Ball was immediately unavailable to play, scrum called, time's up, game over.

kensutz

For Paws wrote: »

Law 15

Law 15 is for tackles, Law 17 is for mauls.

17.6 Unsuccessful end to a maul
(b)A maul ends unsuccessfully if the ball becomes unplayable or collapses (not as a result of foul play) and a scrum is ordered.12
(c) Scrum following maul. The ball is thrown in by the team not in possession when the maul began. If the referee cannot decide which team had possession, the team moving forward before the maul stopped throws in the ball.

sydthebeat

For Paws wrote: »

Law 15
15.4 (a) When a player tackles an opponent, and they both go to ground, the tackler must immediately release the tackled player.

It seems to me, and tbf not to yourself or indeed the referee, that the tackler goes to ground, and holds the ball carrier on top of him, which Law 15.3 (b) defines as the ball carrier also having being 'brought to ground, and therefore 15.4 (a) applies.

15.4 (b) The tackler must immediately get up or move away from the tackled player and from the ball at once.

Again, imo, the tackler does not do so.

The Laws do not differentiate between a ruck and a maul in respect of the duty of the tackler to obey 15.4 (a) & (b)

Now it is perfectly clear that not everyone sees the same set of actions and interprets them in the same way and the decision of the referee to adjudge the incident in the way he did is perfectly reasonable to me.
He clearly stands on 17.6 (b) in his decision.
My clear impression, on seeing the incident again (thanks for the link) is that the defending team prevent the ball being available mainly by not releasing the tackled player when he and the tackler go to ground.

did you read my link above?

law 17.6 deals with this

check out the IRB actual video example of a legally collapsed maul here
see video 1 in (b)

the similarities are uncanny

sydthebeat

For Paws wrote: »

My clear impression, on seeing the incident again (thanks for the link) is that the defending team prevent the ball being available mainly by not releasing the tackled player when he and the tackler go to ground.

i understand the nub of your question, but the tackler does not have to release the ball carrier as no RUCK has formed.

For Paws

sydthebeat wrote: »

i understand the nub of your question, but the tackler does not have to release the ball carrier as no RUCK has formed.

This is exactly my point. Thank you.

What I fail to see is why in a maul 15.4 (a) & (b) don't apply.

You've stated this more than once.

The Laws do not differentiate between a maul & a ruck in regard to the duty of the tackler, when the tackler and the tackled are brought to / go to ground. Obviously these sections refer only to tackler & tackled going to ground, and not to those players who remain on their feet.

sydthebeat

For Paws wrote: »

This is exactly my point. Thank you.

What I fail to see is why in a maul 15.4 (a) & (b) don't apply.

You've stated this more than once.

The Laws do not differentiate between a maul & a ruck in regard to the duty of the tackler, when the tackler and the tackled are brought to / go to ground. Obviously these sections refer only to tackler & tackled going to ground, and not to those players who remain on their feet.

the action of "tackle" ends when a "maul" commences....

sydthebeat

For Paws wrote: »

The Laws do not differentiate between a maul & a ruck in regard to the duty of the tackler, when the tackler and the tackled are brought to / go to ground. Obviously these sections refer only to tackler & tackled going to ground, and not to those players who remain on their feet.

found your answer:

http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&ved=0CEsQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpnrrs.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F04%2F2011-IRB-Law-Rulings.docx&ei=J55DUd6mJeKR7Ab4r4C4Dw&usg=AFQjCNFptCHLFT9wn-wQUcHsPrPaGUs6IA

see about halfway down where its says:
·

This does not produce a tackle situation and Tackle Law should not be applied.

For Paws

sydthebeat wrote: »

found your answer:

http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&ved=0CEsQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpnrrs.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F04%2F2011-IRB-Law-Rulings.docx&ei=J55DUd6mJeKR7Ab4r4C4Dw&usg=AFQjCNFptCHLFT9wn-wQUcHsPrPaGUs6IA

see about halfway down where its says:
·

Yes. That covers the situation where the tackled player goes to ground, but not where the tackled player is brought to ground. And in the cited situation the ball carrier is brought to ground.

sydthebeat

For Paws wrote: »

Yes. That covers the situation where the tackled player goes to ground, but not where the tackled player is brought to ground. And in the cited situation the ball carrier is brought to ground.

Sorry but no it doesn't. The player is not a 'tackled' player because the tackle law is not applied once a maul starts.

That link answers all your questions. Especially the 'whether ball is to ground or not'.

I really can't do anymore. Its all spelled out before you.

1. Ball doesn't go to ground
2. Ruck doesn't form.
3. Ball is not immediately available.

For Paws

sydthebeat wrote: »

Sorry but no it doesn't.

That link answers all your questions. Especially the 'whether ball is to ground or not'.

I really can't do anymore. Its all spelled out before you.

1. Ball doesn't go to ground
2. Ruck doesn't form.
3. Ball is not immediately available.

1. See Law 15.3 (b)
2. Ruck or not Law 15.4 (a) applies
3. Ball never going to be seen again if tackler does not release tackled.

Forget your interpretation of the cited incident.

Imagine being in possession and being brought to ground by the tackler.
You, the ball carrier cannot ground the ball, and you yourself are not in contact with ground.
Law 15.3 (b) covers this. It says you have been brought to ground.
So, if the tackler has gone to ground, and you have been brought to ground by him, he must release you and the ball and move away.
It does not matter whether that 4 of his team mates are holding you, and that they are on their feet.
You, the tackled, and him, the tackler are on the ground, and Law 15.4 (a) & (b) apply.
Simples.

sydthebeat

For Paws wrote: »

1. See Law 15.3 (b)
2. Ruck or not Law 15.4 (a) applies
3. Ball never going to be seen again if tackler does release tackled.

Forget your interpretation of the cited incident.
Imagine being in possession and being brought to ground by the tackler.
You, the ball carrier cannot ground the ball, and you yourself are not in contact with ground. Law 15.3 (b) covers this. It says you have been brought to ground.
So, if the tackler has gone to ground, and you have been brought to ground by him, he must release you and the ball and move away.
It does not matter whether that 4 of his team mates are holding you, and that they are on their feet. You, the tackled, and him, the tackler are on the ground, and Law 15.4 (a) & (b) apply.
Simples.

Your understanding of the situation is contrary to the applied laws.

You are going over the same argument again, and while I can see where you are coming from you fail to grasp the simple idea that....

The tackle stops once a maul starts.

The tackle laws do not apply to a maul.

kensutz

For Paws wrote: »

1. See Law 15.3 (b)
2. Ruck or not Law 15.4 (a) applies
3. Ball never going to be seen again if tackler does not release tackled.

Forget your interpretation of the cited incident.

Imagine being in possession and being brought to ground by the tackler.
You, the ball carrier cannot ground the ball, and you yourself are not in contact with ground.
Law 15.3 (b) covers this. It says you have been brought to ground.
So, if the tackler has gone to ground, and you have been brought to ground by him, he must release you and the ball and move away.
It does not matter whether that 4 of his team mates are holding you, and that they are on their feet.
You, the tackled, and him, the tackler are on the ground, and Law 15.4 (a) & (b) apply.
Simples.

For the third time, Law 15 only applies when the ball carrier has been brought to ground. Have a look at this and what it is called http://www.irblaws.com/index.php?law=15

sydthebeat

kensutz wrote: »

For the third time, Law 15 only applies when the ball carrier has been brought to ground. Have a look at this and what it is called http://www.irblaws.com/index.php?law=15

15.2 clears it perfectly.

For Paws

sydthebeat wrote: »

15.2 clears it perfectly.

Yeah, I get that. I always did.

But in my view the ball carrier is tackled before any other players arrive to form a maul. If by that point the tackler has gone to ground and brought the ball carrier to ground, then a maul CANNOT form.

In my view this is what the Ref does not see, and given that he does not see this has acted correctly by 'calling' maul & ruling accordingly.

That's kinda the whole point.
If you don't see what I see, we're not going to agree.

kensutz

For Paws wrote: »

But in my view the ball carrier is tackled before any other players arrive to form a maul. If by that point the tackler has gone to ground and brought the ball carrier to ground, then a maul CANNOT form.

The ball carrier was always held up. No knee of his hit the ground to complete the tackle. Therefore players from each side came in to form a maul. The maul then collapsed legally and ball became unavailable. Game over.

For Paws

kensutz wrote: »

The ball carrier was always held up. No knee of his hit the ground to complete the tackle. Therefore players from each side came in to form a maul. The maul then collapsed legally and ball became unavailable. Game over.

The fact that the ball carrier was 'held up' by the tackler who has gone to ground is covered by Law 15.3 (b).
He has, according that Law been brought to ground by the tackler and must be released. Any subsequent action by any other player is irrelevant.

sydthebeat

For Paws wrote: »

Yeah, I get that. I always did.

But in my view the ball carrier is tackled before any other players arrive to form a maul. If by that point the tackler has gone to ground and brought the ball carrier to ground, then a maul CANNOT form.

In my view this is what the Ref does not see, and given that he does not see this has acted correctly by 'calling' maul & ruling accordingly.

That's kinda the whole point.
If you don't see what I see, we're not going to agree.

well firstly thats completely different than your original question.

Secondly, if the tackler had have brought the player to ground the ball carrier would have had to release the ball.

its hypothetical anyway, because the ball carrier never goes to ground so by definition isn't tackled.

kensutz

No he hasn't. 15.3 only applies when the tackled player (ball carrier) is brought to ground. The ball carrier has not hit the deck and as a result he is kept up and the maul formed. :rolleyes:

sydthebeat

For Paws wrote: »

The fact that the ball carrier was 'held up' by the tackler who has gone to ground is covered by Law 15.3 (b).
He has, according that Law been brought to ground by the tackler and must be released. Any subsequent action by any other player is irrelevant.

Youre all over the place here.....

The tackler doesn't determine when the tackle had taken place, the actions of the ball carrier does.

errlloyd

This might seem incredibly stupid, but what parts of the body are considered on a knock on if the ball hits off them and goes forward.

I was playing tag rugby the other day (which might be different?) and some ref properly called "Off his stomach play on" when the ball came off a players stomach.

I replicated this in another game and the ref called it as a knock on.

There also seems to be a decent chunk of ambiguity when it comes off the leg, is there a difference between below the knee and above the knee?

Dave_The_Sheep

A situation arose there in the Leinster game. A player was tackled near the touchline and was going into touch. He offloaded inside and was then tackled into touch. The tackler and the offloader landed on the line and tumbled over. The player who was offloaded to was also then tackled ... I'd normally say 'into touch' but both the 2nd tackler and the tackled player landed on top of the first two players. The player in possession of the ball was clearly over the line, as was the ball, but neither the ball nor the player in possession actually touched the ground outside the field of play.

Is the ball dead?

Similarly to if a player has their feet inside the pitch boundaries, but they catch a ball over the line, the ball isn't dead... is it that your feet have to be on the ground or how is it decided/is there a rule here?

Sundy

Dave_The_Sheep wrote: »

A situation arose there in the Leinster game. A player was tackled near the touchline and was going into touch. He offloaded inside and was then tackled into touch. The tackler and the offloader landed on the line and tumbled over. The player who was offloaded to was also then tackled ... I'd normally say 'into touch' but both the 2nd tackler and the tackled player landed on top of the first two players. The player in possession of the ball was clearly over the line, as was the ball, but neither the ball nor the player in possession actually touched the ground outside the field of play.

Is the ball dead?

Similarly to if a player has their feet inside the pitch boundaries, but they catch a ball over the line, the ball isn't dead... is it that your feet have to be on the ground or how is it decided/is there a rule here?

The only thing I can see that might be applicable would be if you consider a player off his feet is longer carrying the ball. So by definition..

The ball is in touch when it is not being carried by a player and it touches the touchline or anything or anyone on or beyond the touchline.

Not saying it is right but I dont see anything else that refers to the situation you describe.