Reds V Force Round 2 2012R02

[Tiger]

That's not what I am asking. Since Digby is allowed to hold his line and since Pocock can't obviously phase through Digby is Pocock allowed to bundle them both out of the field of play or tackle Digby into Taps to disrupt the try.

It is purely hypothetical.

That is an interesting question. Would it be tackling a man without the ball?

A separate issue is whether you can use another player to tackle the man. If not, does it make a difference if you don't tackle him but instead push him into touch?

 

[Scotty]

Of course it would be tackling a player without the ball.

 

[armatt]

Hypothesise that Taps were to offload to Digby just as Pocock went for the tackle and the answer, I content, becomes quite clear. As Scotty said, of course it is tackling a player without the ball.

 

[AngrySeahorse]

That's not what I am asking. Since Digby is allowed to hold his line and since Pocock can't obviously phase through Digby is Pocock allowed to bundle them both out of the field of play or tackle Digby into Taps to disrupt the try.

It is purely hypothetical.

From Law 10

f) Playing an opponent without the ball. Except in a scrum, ruck or maul, a player must not
hold, push or obstruct an opponent not carrying the ball.
Sanction: Penalty kick

From this law it would suggest Pocock is in the wrong (if it indeed had of prevented a try or at any time really), I cant seem to find anything in the laws that talks about what happens if you hit a player that was legally running their own line into a player carrying the ball who may or may not have been going for a try. I agree that its a good question though. We may have stumbled upon another one of Rugby's "grey areas" in concerns to the law.

 

[suckerforred]

From Law 10

f) Playing an opponent without the ball. Except in a scrum, ruck or maul, a player must not
hold, push or obstruct an opponent not carrying the ball.
Sanction: Penalty kick

From this law it would suggest Pocock is in the wrong (if it indeed had of prevented a try or at any time really), I cant seem to find anything in the laws that talks about what happens if you hit a player that was legally running their own line into a player carrying the ball who may or may not have been going for a try. I agree that its a good question though. We may have stumbled upon another one of Rugby's "grey areas" in concerns to the law.

If I was refing and Poey pushed Diggers into Taps, because of this law, I would have thought that it would be fairly black and white that it would be a penality. Digby did not have the ball and was running a legal line, therefore you can't touch him. And whats more I would even go as far as to say that if Digby were to then cannon into Taps and thus prevent a try being scored, then would it not be a penality try? So, push & try still being scored - advantage played and at least a warning to Poey. Would there be a yellow card? Push and no try - Penality try. Would there be a yellow card? In this hypothetical the only grey area I can see is if Poey would be sent off or not

 

[matty_k]

Ok then is Pocock allowed to get Digby out of the way so he can tackle Taps.
I know Digby is allowed to hold his line but i'm struggling with the idea that he isn't allowed to touch Digby to get to the ball carrier and so it is a legal form of shepherding.

 

[MrTimms]

Ok then is Pocock allowed to get Digby out of the way so he can tackle Taps.
I know Digby is allowed to hold his line but i'm struggling with the idea that he isn't allowed to touch Digby to get to the ball carrier and so it is a legal form of shepherding.

from my understanding, no. he needs to go around.

it isn't sheparding because he is behind the ball carrier, if he was in front of a running a block then it is sheparding.

 

[Linebacker_41]

Ok then is Pocock allowed to get Digby out of the way so he can tackle Taps.
I know Digby is allowed to hold his line but i'm struggling with the idea that he isn't allowed to touch Digby to get to the ball carrier and so it is a legal form of shepherding.

This is the same as running a line for a kick through you may run shoulder to shoulder and even lean on him a little to gain position but you cant push or use your hands. Nor can you shoulder charge.

The effect is that Poey could have held his line (which is different to that of digby's) to force the result he wanted by shepherding digby out of the way. The problem in this case is he didnt have enough field left to effect this.

Poey did everything he could without breaking the laws of the game. Digby did everything he could without breaking the laws of the game. And thank god the referee got it right on the night.

 

[Scotty]

Pocock was actually behind Digby slightly, so I don't think he could have done as you say unless he got up next to him.

He actually did break the laws when he had that last half dive and collided with Digby doing it. Didn't matter as the try was scored at the same time anyway.

 

[matty_k]

Fair enough.
One last hypothetical (I promise). If Pocock did manage to get in front of Digby (unlikely I know) is Digby now obliged to stop running his line to avoid taking out Pocock or is he alp allowed to run his line and the contact is incidental?

 

[Scotty]

If Pocock is the one in front, and Digby somehow interferes with him, then it would be a penalty against Digby.

 

[suckerforred]

Now that is a grey area. Would Digby be pinged for taking the player without the ball or obstruction, or just let go.......?

 

[suckerforred]

If Pocock is the one in front, and Digby somehow interferes with him, then it would be a penalty against Digby.

But is he allowed to continue to run his pre determined line for Poey actually overtook him?