Breaking down the breakdown

[Jethro Tah]

From the GGR Smith & Pocock highlights reel, how would the steals be ruled under the new interpretation. If not for all our benefit, then could I get some help on clarifying the new breakdown rule?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXLYBa5YIqw

0.18 – Pocock tackles, stays on feet and immediately attacks the ball. Would he now get penalised on this because he didn’t give the tackled player a chance to play the ball backwards?

0.25 – Diggers tackles, regains feet and immediately attacks the ball then Pocock engages and makes the steal. Pocock appears in the clear because he was the second player in but does Diggers get penalised because he didn’t give the tackled player a chance to play the ball backwards?

0.44 – Hynes makes the bootlace tackle, Quade appears to attempt the steal then Pocock joins in. Ball not released and Hynes stays clear. Ball carrier penalised because Pocock stays on his feet. Seems ok?

1.10 – Genia tackles then rolls away for George to come in for the steal while still on his feet. Seems ok but then shouldn’t George be pinged for not releasing the ball?

1.26 – Quade makes the tackle (go you good thing!) then George is second man in for the steal while still on his feet. Seems ok but worth watching again just to see a Quade tackle.

1.41 – George makes the tackle, stays on his feet then immediately attacks and steals the ball. Does he get penalised on this because he didn’t give the tackled player a chance to play the ball backwards?

1.54 – George and Gits make the tackle then ball carrier passes ball backwards into the waiting hands of George as he regathers his feet. Seems ok as it is just an intercept.

From the above, it initially seemed to me that the defender going for the steal in a one on one tackle would get pinged more often (on a digression - don’t the mungos have a rule that says you can steal in a one on one tackle). However, does the rule apply when the defender is only trying to grab the ball and not actually holding onto the attacking player? Or is it more that the defender cannot prevent the ball carrier from playing the ball backwards?

I sympathise (a bit) with the refs who will have to answer such questions at game speed and without the benefit of hindsight or instant replay.

Thought folks?

Cheers,

 

[Jethro Tah]

Some questions answered on one of Juan Cotes earlier entries on the blog:

http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/sanzar’s-guide-to-sexy-rugby/

SANZAR referees manager Lyndon Bray said:

“The tackler, once hitting the ground in the tackle, must release the ball and the ball carrier. This gives the ball carrier a chance to ‘play the ball’, and will tidy up the tackle-ball area which has previously been weighted towards the tackler.

“As well, any player involved in helping make a tackle, who is in contact with the ball carrier when he is taken to ground, must then release the ball, before then attempting to contest possession, even if he is on his feet.

“This ensures that in Super 14, we are truly refereeing the Law at the tackle, and it provides the ball carrier with his rights, having been tackled. After this tackle, any player then on his feet, in a position of strength (his side of the tackle) may then contest possession.”

 

[Newb]

ever since this announcement was made i've felt it could be a dubious one. what defines "giving the runner a chance to play the ball"? split second release? 1 second? and how do you judge this accurately at game speed?

players like brussow and pocock (and george) were doing this maneuver so athletically and fluidly under the old interpretation that several motions (tackling, perhaps releasing, pilfering) were blended into one act. now they are asked to do each separately in what is really a restriction of their athletic ability.

i'm concerned that if there is no visible movement of the ball backwards by the runner, even if given the opportunity in a true release, that the tackler will be penalised because it appears as though the intent of the interpretation has not been followed. that isn't to say that the runner should be penalised for holding on either. i'm talking about an in-between situation.

i don't want to be too pessimistic, but i think this could be as bad as regulating scrums.

 

[Cutter]

Isnt this just a bit more like the way it used be interpreted? In the late nineties/early noughties, if you took the ball into contact and got into trouble you could always go to ground because you would then have time to release it. It will bring back ruck ball which should enhance fast ball.

 

[Jets]

Was at a meeting were Scott Young, former Int Ref, explained the new law interpretations. I came away of the belief that things are just reverting back to the way they used to be. The refs will be looking for the tackler to show that they are giving the tackled player a chance to play the ball. Nothing will stop the third player to the breakdown stealing the ball, something Smith has always been very good at. The big change is that this player now has to release the ball once the ref calls ruck, a change from last year. I think this will have a major impact on Brussow and his life as a Springbok will be over.

 

[Scarfman]

I think this will have a major impact on Brussow and his life as a Springbok will be over.

This would be iin the "Big Calls 2010" thread except that it's too big. Brussow is here to stay.

 

[Scotty]

Agree with Scarfy there Jett. That must be fishing, otherwise it is utter rubbish!

 

[Joey Johns]

Well, if I have understood correctly, the Tackler no longer gets to have a crack at the ball for the duration of the ruck?

If this is the case, I think Jets call is fair, as in the past year, small nuggetty loose forwards have been the reason the games slowed down so much. The reason is, the tackler could get to his feet, and keep his hands on the ball till the sun came up and it was completely legal. I never quite understood why we went in this direction, as it goes against one of the most basic rules in the game of "no hands in the ruck". I didn't understand how they could change it to, "no hands in the ruck unless you're the tackler and on your feet, then you can do as you please"
If Brussow, Pockock or McCaw were down pilfering, you haven't got a chance in hell at getting them off the ball. Their wide base stance and low centre of gravity made it almost impossible to clean out without going off your feet in the process, and getting penalized.

This law has always been enforced in Juniors rugby from Under 9's - Under 12's. This is how I grew up playing the game. It works.

 

[Lindommer]

You played rugby as a little tacker, JJ? :nta: :nta: :nta: Shame you didn't stay.

Welcome by the way. Off the Colombian marching powder? : : :

 

[Joey Johns]

I still do play! And it's a classic case of First Time poster long time reader. I normally frequent GTT

 

[Jets]

I think this will have a major impact on Brussow and his life as a Springbok will be over.

This would be iin the "Big Calls 2010" thread except that it's too big. Brussow is here to stay.

I just think that SA love to have huge backrows and the only reason Brussow was picked is because he was low to the ground and didn't have to release the ball in the rucks. As a result he won a lot of ball. With the reinterpretation of the law his point of difference from the other players has gone and they will want another ball runner which he is not.

 

[PaarlBok]

I think this will have a major impact on Brussow and his life as a Springbok will be over.

This would be iin the "Big Calls 2010" thread except that it's too big. Brussow is here to stay.

I just think that SA love to have huge backrows and the only reason Brussow was picked is because he was low to the ground and didn't have to release the ball in the rucks. As a result he won a lot of ball. With the reinterpretation of the law his point of difference from the other players has gone and they will want another ball runner which he is not.

We'll see about this. We have a fair bit of rugby on TV already with the new rules. Some refs allow the tackler to play when he is still on his feet others dont. Like Brussouw qouted himself, play to the ref and myself is sure thats the way he was doing his business last year.

If you look at SA S14 teams (sure you only look at Jake Whites Bokke team by the way) we pick them as combos. Nr 7 is our big ball carrier (Flo Stormers, Juan/Viljoen Cheetahs, Minnie/Clever Lions, Potgieter Brutes, Deysel Sharks) and tend to pick the small one in 6 (Baywatch Lions, Brussouw Lions, Botes/Daniels Sharks, Stegman Brutes) and big athletes in 8 (Spies Brutes, Ashley Tin Ears, Kankowski/Alberts Sharks, Vermeulen Stormers). Schalk Burger for the Stormers is a bit of freakish one, can play each role and the Stormers switchs them with Luke Watson and have Flo & Schalk who can do the fetcher bits with Vermeulen easily slotting in 7 & 8.

So all in summary SA have a wealth in 6,7 or 8 in all shapes and sizes. Bad news there are a lot of younsters to follow, so no matter the rule change we'll adobt pretty easily.

 

[PaarlBok]

I think this will have a major impact on Brussow and his life as a Springbok will be over.

This would be iin the "Big Calls 2010" thread except that it's too big. Brussow is here to stay.

Brussouw's reply aka Keo

‘I have to admit, I have been annoyed by people asking me if I thought the law interpretations were made to stop my contesting style or if I have to change my technique now,’ Brüssow said. ‘The idea behind the law interpretations is to improve the flow of the game and not to target me.

:lmao:

 

[Blue]

they will want another ball runner which he is not.

Two things:

1. Suddenly now all Brussow can do is steal ball. Rubbish. His tackle count borders on the insane and he runs superbly well with the ball. He is ball carrier in most mauls and hit low centre of gravity and powerful legs make him hard to stop. He carries ball very, very well.
2. The openside's role will be redefined. I would not be surprised to seeing ball being pinched by players arriving and driving over the ball. Pace is going to be even more crucial for an openside. Get there first, stop the opp from easily getting over the ball. Make tackles.

If Brussow is history then so is McCaw, Smith, Pocock et al. Nonsense. These guys are first and foremost great footballers and they will adapt and keep doing crazy things.

I seriously think we are all pissing into the wind until we have seen a few rounds at least. As I suggested elsewhere, expect a penalty fest until the refs and players have figured out just what the hell is going on.

 

[Jets]

I may have jumped the gun a bit when I said his life as a Springbok will be over. I do actually think he is a very good player and as much as he may say that they didn't change the laws because of him, he was the best exponent of stealing the ball in the ruck. I don't think they (IRB) expected the law to have such an impact on the game.
I do think that his role will change and I think that he will be able to modify his game to take advantage of the new law interpretations.
The other thing is that the third man to the tackle can still steal the ball before the ruck is formed so the chance for a turnover is still there.

 

[Scott Allen]

The big change is that this player now has to release the ball once the ref calls ruck, a change from last year.

My understanding of the rule is that releasing the ball has nothing to do with when, or whether, the ref calls a ruck, or indeed whether there is a ruck.

If you are involved in making the tackle, you must release the player and the ball before attempting to win possession. The notes being distributed by the ARU accompanying the current presentations they are making on how the laws will be implemented say:
• Tackler:
• MUST release the ball & ball carrier, when he gets to his feet
• NOT hold on as he gets to his feet.
• Also, players who make a tackle and remain on their feet MUST release the ball and ball carrier before they attempt to win possession
• WHAT THIS MEANS – is that any player involved in making the tackle, and bringing the ball carrier to ground, must release the ball and the ball carrier, EVEN IF THE TACKLER IS ON HIS FEET & ON THE RIGHT SIDE!

The law is all about what a tackler must do, not what happens if there is a ruck.

Once a ruck is formed if you are on your feet you can attempt to disposess a player who is holding onto the ball, whether you were the tackler or not.

If you were the tackler you just have to release first before going after the ball (hence the tactic of clapping to show the ref you released before attacking). If you weren't the tackler but join the ruck and attack the ball being held onto by a player, there is no change to how the rule has been applied.

 

[en_force_er]

A point of interest, apparently the sharks are telling the tackler to release and clap to prove he has released before going for the ball.

 

[Blue]

A point of interest, apparently the sharks are telling the tackler to release and clap to prove he has released before going for the ball.

Was it the Stormers or Sharks?

I seem to recall reading that the were getting blown off the park in one of the trials and came up with the idea at half time and apparently the pnalty count dropped.

I am just worried that there are so many fine lines and well know what that means. Different interpretations.

 

[Scott Allen]

Back to the original clip in this topic:

0.18 - No release by Pocock as tackler before he attacks the ball so he would be penalised
0.25 - No release by Digby as tackler so he would be penalised - nothing wrong with what Pocock did under the new interpretation
0.44 - A tackle occurs when a player is brought to ground - at that time Hynes, Cooper and Pocock are all involved in the tackle and none of them releases the player so they would be penalised
1.10 - Smith was involved in the tackle (as he was in contact when the player went to ground) and doesn't make a clear release so he'd be penalised - the refs are telling us that they want a clear release, not an argument of whether there was minor seperation (hence the clap tactic being used)
1.26 - Smith is not the tackler so doesn't have to release and is perfectly entitled to do what he did - Cooper is the tackler (Wow!) and he releases so there should be no problem with this under the new interpretation
1.41 - Smith as the tackler doesn't release so is penalised
1.54 - Smith and Giteau both release and then the ball is passed to Smith - no ruck formed so he's not offside - no problem

 

[en_force_er]

Was it the Stormers or Sharks?

Not sure. I was told by one of my coaches it was the sharks. I believed it because it seemed logical enough.

Could well be stormers.