The "new" tackle interpretation

theKramer

Hi guys,
Im struggling to understand what the big hullabaloo is about the "new" interpretation of the tackle law.

Up to start of 2009 season: As far as I remember, the tackler had to release the player when the tackled player went to ground and then had to re-engage, or else a penalty was given

2009/2010 season: The tackling player is allowed to keep their hands on the tackled player as the tackled player goes to ground. Makes it even easier for defending team, while harder for attacking team. Hence reluctance to take ball into contact and aerial ping-pong

2010 Super 14/ 6 Nations: The player is now once more required to release the tackled player as they go to ground and need to re-engage.

My question is, why are people getting so bent out of shape that this is a SH conspiracy, since it was the norm as far as I can remember before the 2009/2010 season. I also understand that they are policing the offside line a lot more strictly, among other things. Also, it was really strange that they brought it in mid 6-Nations.

But can anyone tell me, is there any actual change to the tackle law, that wasnt there before the start of the 2009/2010 NH season?

f1dan

theKramer wrote: »

Hi guys,
Im struggling to understand what the big hullabaloo is about the "new" interpretation of the tackle law.

Up to start of 2009 season: As far as I remember, the tackler had to release the player when the tackled player went to ground and then had to re-engage, or else a penalty was given

2009/2010 season: The tackling player is allowed to keep their hands on the tackled player as the tackled player goes to ground. Makes it even easier for defending team, while harder for attacking team. Hence reluctance to take ball into contact and aerial ping-pong

2010 Super 14/ 6 Nations: The player is now once more required to release the tackled player as they go to ground and need to re-engage.

My question is, why are people getting so bent out of shape that this is a SH conspiracy, since it was the norm as far as I can remember before the 2009/2010 season. I also understand that they are policing the offside line a lot more strictly, among other things. Also, it was really strange that they brought it in mid 6-Nations.

But can anyone tell me, is there any actual change to the tackle law, that wasnt there before the start of the 2009/2010 NH season?

There'e been no change to the law, just stricter enforcement from the SH refs. They were given the brief at the start of the super 14 to try and keep the games flowing. They then brought that enforcement with them to the 6N.

The idea that it a new law came in mid - tournament stems from the fact that SH referees weren't involved until the second or third round of matches.

Risteard

Because now players that are involved in bringing players to ground without going to ground themselves are regarded as tacklers. That wasn't the case before and if you stayed on your feet while bringing a player to ground you could go straight for the ball without releasing the player as you weren't counted as a tackler.

Tbh, if they want to bring in the interpretation then fair enough the problem was shifting the goalposts halfway through a competition.

Sandwlch

Going back a few years - but not that far.
Remember Darcy preventing an English try in the corner when he tackled the attacker and held onto his boot as he went for the line? No try after TMO review, since Englishman played rather than releasd the ball while on the ground and being held. Under current rules, would that have been given as a try since Darcy, in not releasing him would have been giving away a penalty?

Tim Robbins

Risteard wrote: »

Because now players that are involved in bringing players to ground without going to ground themselves are regarded as tacklers. That wasn't the case before and if you stayed on your feet while bringing a player to ground you could go straight for the ball without releasing the player as you weren't counted as a tackler.

Tbh, if they want to bring in the interpretation then fair enough the problem was shifting the goalposts halfway through a competition.

Are you sure about that?Do you have a reference?

What happens every few years in rugby is coaches /players etc come up with a way of bending rules e.g. sealing off. Then the IRB tell the refs do really focus on certain parts of the law.

What has happened is that because some players are now so good at tackling at jackling that they weren't fully releasing the player before they started jackling.

This made teams paranoid to carry the ball into contact and set up a ruck because they'd be done for not releasing. This lead to a lot of ping pong.

That's the thinking behind it. I can't see this making much difference at the lower levels because the skills of tackling and jackling in the one movement is only something the top players have.

Risteard

Link

A tackle occurs when the ball carrier is held by one or more opponents and is
brought to ground.
A ball carrier who is not held is not a tackled player and a tackle has not taken
place.
Opposition players who hold the ball carrier and bring that player to ground, and
who also go to ground, are known as tacklers.
Opposition players who hold the ball carrier and do not go to ground are not
tacklers.

It's actually still the law. I don't know how that can be interpreted differently.

irishbucsfan

Risteard wrote: »

Link



It's actually still the law. I don't know how that can be interpreted differently.

Interesting. I thought it was as you described before, but clearly according to this it isn't...

Risteard

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Interesting. I thought it was as you described before, but clearly according to this it isn't...

I think there's a habit of just saying 'It's a different interpretation,' as an excuse because laws can't be changed two years before a world cup. I actually don't mind the new 'interpretation' all that much but bringing it in halfway during a season is ridiculous.

twinytwo

Risteard wrote: »

Link



It's actually still the law. I don't know how that can be interpreted differently.

but then the players would not actually be breaking any of the games rules so can the ref actually give a peno for if as above the player is not a tackler

Risteard

twinytwo wrote: »

but then the players would not actually be breaking any of the games rules so can the ref actually give a peno for if as above the player is not a tackler

That's the whole point. 'Interpretation' just seems to be a buzz word for laws to be effectively changed but not officially.

Of course it's quite possible that there's another law that I haven't seen that would allow for the new interpretation.

pickarooney

This kind of thing melts my head. What's jackling?

Tim Robbins

pickarooney wrote: »

This kind of thing melts my head. What's jackling?

I made a new [URL="[url]http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=65138876#post65138876[/url]"]thread[/URL] for that and other rugby jargon...

Tim Robbins

Risteard wrote: »

It's actually still the law. I don't know how that can be interpreted differently.

Yeah no law change. The difference is that want the tackler rolled away quicker and completely disengaged before they jackle.

If the tackler does not go to ground, he is not a tackler and can jackle straight away.

theKramer

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Yeah no law change. The difference is that want the tackler rolled away quicker and completely disengaged before they jackle.

If the tackler does not go to ground, he is not a tackler and can jackle straight away.

So does that mean if you tackle a player, and the tackled player goes to ground but the tackler does not, that the tackler does not have to release his hold on the ball???

Very confused now

JustinDee

Law 14 is next up.

Tim Robbins

theKramer wrote: »

So does that mean if you tackle a player, and the tackled player goes to ground but the tackler does not, that the tackler does not have to release his hold on the ball???

Very confused now

Exactly. The tackled player has to let that ball go.

twinytwo

will it have much affect on dricos game though, i mean he turns over some amount of ball. but the extra half second it takes to release the player and go back in could mean the difference between gettiing the ball and getting minced.

Do people think the game played as it is now is better than what it was before the elv's were even introduced?

Tim Robbins

twinytwo wrote: »

will it have much affect on dricos game though, i mean he turns over some amount of ball. but the extra half second it takes to release the player and go back in could mean the difference between gettiing the ball and getting minced.

I think he will adjust and still have an impact. When these new interpretations come out they start off strict and then get a little bit lax. A good example is "sealing off" and another is hand rucking by attacking teams. When those dictats came out all refs were very strict on them then they went back to judging materiality etc.

Do people think the game played as it is now is better than what it was before the elv's were even introduced?

The game is always changing. Because teams and coaches find out ways to win playing negative rugby which is not good for game.

theKramer

I think the games have definitely improved as a spectacle in the last couple of weeks. In the Leinster - Connaught game, Kearney counter-attacked almost every time.

I cant remember seeing any ping-pong in this weekends games

Tim Robbins

theKramer wrote: »

I think the games have definitely improved as a spectacle in the last couple of weeks. In the Leinster - Connaught game, Kearney counter-attacked almost every time.

I cant remember seeing any ping-pong in this weekends games

Yeah, the hole point of ping pong was that teams were kicking into positions where an opposition player was miles away from any support which meant he could get isolated quickly.

Refs were giving penalaties to defending teams at a tackle when they saw a player getting isolated.

Now by being stricker on the defending team it gives that attacker that bit more leeway.