Releasing the ball when tackled

sslazio11

Does anyone else find the refereeing of this facet of the game infuriating?

At one stage in the first half an Irish player was tackled (i think it was Tomas O'Leary), and a split second later was penalised by Kaplan for holding on. I don't think it could have been more than a second or two from the time of the tackle to the whistle. It happened a few other times during the game to both teams.

I know the argument goes "well, if the ref is consistent for both teams, then it's fair", but in my opinion it's destroying attacking play. It's no wonder teams end up bombing the ball skywards, when taking the ball into contact is a liability.

Is there a better way for the referee to handle this area? Or do people think things are fine as is?

techdiver

I agree. It's clear that referees have been given a new directive this year that the tackled player must release immediately, but as you said it is ruining the game from an attacking play point of view. It is turning the game negative and gives the defencive team the upper hand at the breakdown the whole time.

I think the powers that be need to look at this and do something about it, because some people will become less enthusiastic in paying €70+ to attend a game that contains limited attacking play and is over reliant on structure and defence.

gosplan

sslazio11 wrote: »

Does anyone else find the refereeing of this facet of the game infuriating?

At one stage in the first half an Irish player was tackled (i think it was Tomas O'Leary), and a split second later was penalised by Kaplan for holding on. I don't think it could have been more than a second or two from the time of the tackle to the whistle. It happened a few other times during the game to both teams.

I know the argument goes "well, if the ref is consistent for both teams, then it's fair", but in my opinion it's destroying attacking play. It's no wonder teams end up bombing the ball skywards, when taking the ball into contact is a liability.

Is there a better way for the referee to handle this area? Or do people think things are fine as is?

I think that was a tackle by Pocock.

IIRC it was a brilliant tackle, Pocock stayed on his feet and clearly would have taken the ball if O'Leary didn't hold on.

It's a really grey area as regards exactly how long 'holding on' actually is, but I think it's up to the tacklers or the support players coming in to make a case for or against a penalty.

In this case, Pocock showed from his play that O'Leary denied Australlia the ball by holding on. If the Irish support was there quicker then it's not so clear and maybe the penalty isn't given.

It makes you wonder about scrum halves making off the cuff sniping runs though. They're nearly always going to get isolated and tackled by someone much bigger.

It's a really difficult area to referee though and TBH, I don't think there's many people in the world that would know where to start (including myself).

anonymous_joe

sslazio11 wrote: »

Does anyone else find the refereeing of this facet of the game infuriating?

At one stage in the first half an Irish player was tackled (i think it was Tomas O'Leary), and a split second later was penalised by Kaplan for holding on. I don't think it could have been more than a second or two from the time of the tackle to the whistle. It happened a few other times during the game to both teams.

I know the argument goes "well, if the ref is consistent for both teams, then it's fair", but in my opinion it's destroying attacking play. It's no wonder teams end up bombing the ball skywards, when taking the ball into contact is a liability.

Is there a better way for the referee to handle this area? Or do people think things are fine as is?

If it's when I think it was, he was clearly holding on to the ball with a couple of Aussies and no Irish around. Had he not cheated, there'd have been a rake of Aussies in a load of space capable of bombing up the pitch.

It's true that the breakdown has now spelled the end of running rugby though.

OldJay

techdiver wrote: »

It is turning the game negative and gives the defensive team the upper hand at the breakdown the whole time

The current ruck laws are in place to remove this guaranteed possession when the player goes down in tackle with the ball
. . . thus the ruck is contestable.
. . . thus turnovers are more possible.
. . . thus forwards will commit to ruck to contest the ball in the hope of a turnover made more possible.
. . . thus more space and less crowded defensive line.
. . . thus more options in attack.

The defensive team does not have the "upper hand". The playing field has been deemed more level as the team in possession has the greater risk of actually losing the ball in a ruck.
So I will disagree. It does not create a more negative game. It will have quite the opposite effect in fact.

techdiver

Justind wrote: »

So I will disagree. It does not create a more negative game. It will have quite the opposite effect in fact.

Unfortunately I don't see the effect you see. I have no problem with rucks being contested, my problem is that the rules are being more tightly enforced of late which is causing the game to slow down at ruck time and is reducing the amount of open field running as the attacking players are now well aware of the potential for conceding possession to the opposition.

As entertainment levels goes, if it continues this way people will loose interest in attending games. I know the teams main aim is to win and do so in any way possible, but the game needs large attendances and the revenue and interest it generates.

Over the past number of years the powers that be have tinkered with the rules and passed new directives to referees and from what I've seen it has had the opposite effect of what was intended.

anonymous_joe

Justind wrote: »

The current ruck laws are in place to remove this guaranteed possession when the player goes down in tackle with the ball
. . . thus the ruck is contestable.
. . . thus turnovers are more possible.
. . . thus forwards will commit to ruck to contest the ball in the hope of a turnover made more possible.
. . . thus more space and less crowded defensive line.
. . . thus more options in attack.

The defensive team does not have the "upper hand". The playing field has been deemed more level as the team in possession has the greater risk of actually losing the ball in a ruck.
So I will disagree. It does not create a more negative game. It will have quite the opposite effect in fact.

W/o guarenteed ball, there is no contestable ruck because there is no ruck though...

OldJay

techdiver wrote: »

Unfortunately I don't see the effect you see. I have no problem with rucks being contested, my problem is that the rules are being more tightly enforced of late which is causing the game to slow down at ruck time and is reducing the amount of open field running as the attacking players are now well aware of the potential for conceding possession to the opposition

A law change or directive doesn't take immediate effect on the sport's protagonists. Give it time and you'll see. Teams will stop effing around at the rucks in accordance with these officiating guidelines. Wales have already started committing more players at the breakdown. They rarely did this before. Ditto with France.

What has "reduced the amount of open field running" is quite simply the amount of space out there ie. there is very little of it.
Why was this? Because defensive lines are packed extra with forwards who otherwise would be in the ruck contesting opposition ball.

The laws are there. Its up to the players to take advantage of them.

techdiver

Justind wrote: »

A law change or directive doesn't take immediate effect on the sport's protagonists. Give it time and you'll see. Teams will stop effing around at the rucks in accordance with these officiating guidelines. Wales have already started committing more players at the breakdown. They rarely did this before. Ditto with France.

What has "reduced the amount of open field running" is quite simply the amount of space out there ie. there is very little of it.
Why was this? Because defensive lines are packed extra with forwards who otherwise would be in the ruck contesting opposition ball.

The laws are there. Its up to the players to take advantage of them.

I hope you are right, I really do. Hopefully teams will adjust and we will have open rugby.

The issue I see is that the attacking team are the ones who will need to commit more men to the ruck than the defensive team and as such will find it hard to work ball into a decent attacking position. The defensive team for the most part will have more in the line than the attacking team.

I suppose time will tell whether it improves or not.

Amabokke

This is very frustrating, I've seen it even in the J4 levels but I prefer a consistent ref than inconsistent any day. Inconsistent can allow a team to quickly get the ball and gain the advantage.

The solution is simple, when you fall to the ground (tackle or else) you should be allowed to place the ball and put your hand on it. If the opposition arrive and try to get their hands on it then release it because it's your team mates responsibility to get their for the support.

If you can hold onto the ball for 1-2 seconds later to allow your mates to arrive then they might as well introduce "play the ball when on your knees" and free for all.