What does everybody think about the law crackdown?

[Ash]

Re: Waratahs 2010

Thanks Gagger - for the merging and rule.

Touching and holding are not the same.

Yes they are. See what Gagger posted above. They MUST release the carrier and allow him to place the ball. I learnt this rule back in 02/03 when I got a penalty when I got tackled in a subbies game by two players, one went to ground but the other stayed on his feet. The ref gave me the penalty, and I thought he was wrong - until a ref from our club explained to me after the game when I brought it up. It's just that the refs are often slack on actually playing to that law. I tend to agree with it - the tackled player HAS to be given a chance to release - all he needs is half a second.

I will say it again as everyone ignores this point - the ball carrier has a right to play the ball. It's just that the refs have been ignoring that right, and it turned out to be to the detriment of the game (all the kicking). I like the changes, and the fetchers will react - it won't be so easy for them to dominate anymore, and the timing will be harder.

If the defending player is on his feet and holding the tackled player and then releases him, how long is it until he can contest the ball?
If he is touching but not holding, how long until he can contest the ball?

It's common sense - a split second or half a second. How long does it take to place a ball, if you are going to? Not bloody long.

In my opinion, if the defender has to try to strip the ball from the attacker on the ground, then the attacker has taken too long to release the ball. It should be a penalty to the defending team.

Pretty soon someone will suggest that we allow the attacker to get back to his feet to play the ball by rolling it back through his legs.

No, you are missing the point. You have to allow the ball carrier a chance to play the ball. Then the defender can strip the ball. Anyone touching the ball carrier as he is brought to ground is involved in the tackle, and thus must release to give him a chance to play the ball. Once he's had a chance, then he can come in. As I mentioned, some refs blew incorrectly on defending teams rightfully playing it, but I think it will settle down in a few weeks. The call on Waugh was correct.

 

[Langthorne]

Re: Waratahs 2010

Yes there is, you need to keep reading Law 15.6, Other Players;

c. Players in opposition to the ball carrier who remain on their feet who bring the ball carrier to
ground so that the player is tackled must release the ball and the ball carrier. Those players
may then play the ball providing they are on their feet and do so from behind the ball and
from directly behind the tackled player or a tackler closest to those players’ goal line.

In short, all defenders at the tackle need to let go and let the ball carrier play the ball

I attach the law book

There is no mention of the ball carrier playing the ball in that quote. I will of course check the attached Laws for that bit.

So assuming the defender who is on his feet is not touching the ball when the ball carrier is tackled: if he were holding the carrier, but not the ball, he would have to release him in order to contest the ball (unless he has more than two arms). If he were touching the carrier (but not the ball) but not holding him - they are not the same thing (yes, holding is a subset of touching, but not vise versa) - he would not be able to release someone he did not have hold of, so would be free to contest the ball. In both of these cases he would have to be 'in the gate' if I understand the laws as quoted.

The interesting thing is that if the defender satisfies all of those criteria but is not 'in the gate' all should not be lost - the only problem is that it will come down to how long the carrier takes to release the ball, and how long it takes the referee to penalise. The carrier, if uninhibited, should release the ball immediately - so the standing defender should get first crack at it if no ruck has formed (ie no more attackers are present), no matter where he is standing. This should be true even if he arrives first after the tackle is effected.


Edit: read the laws - see 15.5 e - defender may contest the ball

one interesting point is that defenders contesting the ball are only dealt with as coming through the gate, under all circumstances, even when no ruck is formed...maybe dealt with in section 16, or 14, some other, or not at all...

 

[CanadianRugby]

Yikes, this is beginning to sound like a court-room, not a rugby pitch. Without the aid of stats, it looks to be me like the successful teams are the ones willing to run (I actually haven't seen either Bulls game, but I will. From what I read they seem to be attacking, not kicking). This can only be good. As other teams figure that out, it will be good rugby to watch. I think the point about killing the contest for the ball is a valid one. It seems that the method of having a fetcher who goes a rips the ball away is one that will get you penalized. Watching the 'Tahs game, the Stormers turned over most of the ball by puting more forwards into a ruck and shoving the 'Tahs back, not sending one fetcher in. Regardless of whether Waugh was correctly penalized or not, it seems unlikely that he would have been penalized under the old roles. Personally, I like the ability of players like McCaw, Pocock, Waugh, Smith Broussow, Burger etc...to make the tackle, bounce to their feet and steal the ball. Its an atheletic move that no other sport really captures.
So now the power that be need to find a way to allow a good contest at the breakdown but also award running rugby. I think its leaning a little too far toward the running rugby side of things (As much fun as the Chiefs/Lions game was, it was just ridiculous for a while and hardly represented good physical rugby). However, I'm in favor of letting the players and Refs work it out for another few weeks, then seeing where it is.

 

[Ash]

Re: Waratahs 2010

There is no mention of the ball carrier playing the ball in that quote. I will of course check the attached Laws for that bit.

So assuming the defender who is on his feet is not touching the ball when the ball carrier is tackled: if he were holding the carrier, but not the ball, he would have to release him in order to contest the ball (unless he has more than two arms). If he were touching the carrier (but not the ball) but not holding him - they are not the same thing (yes, holding is a subset of touching, but not vise versa) - he would not be able to release someone he did not have hold of, so would be free to contest the ball. In both of these cases he would have to be 'in the gate' if I understand the laws as quoted.

The interesting thing is that if the defender satisfies all of those criteria but is not 'in the gate' all should not be lost - the only problem is that it will come down to how long the carrier takes to release the ball, and how long it takes the referee to penalise. The carrier, if uninhibited, should release the ball immediately - so the standing defender should get first crack at it if no ruck has formed (ie no more attackers are present), no matter where he is standing. This should be true even if he arrives first after the tackle is effected.

That's what I agree with - defender on his feet not involved in the tackle has rights to the ball once the player is brought to the ground, IF:
- he was not involved in the tackle,
- comes through the gate, AND
- the tackler releases and rolls away.
If the defender on his feet was inolved in the tackle as the ball carrier is brought to the ground then he must release and give the ball carrier a chance to play the ball.

Interpretations change all the time, but I wouldn't be surprised if, at one ref school that the ref who told me about it ages ago went to, they used an interpretation about the ball carrier having a right to play the ball.

Would be curious to hear from people on this board like Lindommer who've done ref courses at various stages.

 

[Biffo]

I won't comment on the outcomes of the new refereeing emphasis (NRE) until Mr McCaw returns and the "system" gets a thorough test.

I expect that Mr McCaw will (1) effect the same number of turnovers per game as in previous years (2) find ways within the NREs to slow down opposition ball as much as ever and (3) be penalized no more than in previous years.

 

[Gagger]

Why do you think he's taken a "sabbatical"?

 

[Biffo]

Why do you think he's taken a "sabbatical"?

To plot his response to the NRE

 

[PaarlBok]

Biff no need to wait for McAwe it cut down the power of Brussouw or any fetcher flanker. Ask your Orc flanker. Its a case of playing the ref. Adobt or die and its a really shame, but I'll wait for your findings.

 

[liquor box]

Re: Waratahs 2010

In my opinion, if the defender has to try to strip the ball from the attacker on the ground, then the attacker has taken too long to release the ball. It should be a penalty to the defending team.

That is a very good point, maybe the defending teams should argue this on the field

Is it classed as releasing the ball if you push it to the back of the ruck but keep your hand on it to stop it rolling away?

 

[MajorlyRagerly]

Why do you think he's taken a "sabbatical"?

Why do you really think George Smith is quitting SH rugby...

Ok seriously now, it will be interesting to see how he reacts. I haven't had the opportunity to see any of the other big name fetchers in the S14 play as yet (Smith, Brussow, Pocock et al) so not too much thought.

As i've always said, and what I think Biffo was getting at, a brilliant player is a brilliant player, regardless of the way the referee's handling it. Hence, expect no real change. Hope I'm right!

 

[Langthorne]

Re: Waratahs 2010

If the defender on his feet was inolved in the tackle as the ball carrier is brought to the ground then he must release and give the ball carrier a chance to play the ball.

If the defender is not holding the carrier, he cannot release him. If he is holding the carrier but not the ball he cannot contest the ball without first releasing the initial hold. In both scenarios contesting the ball as soon as the tackle is effected is perfectly legal.
The carrier still has the advantage as he is allowed to place, pass or roll the ball from the ground (but he must do it immediately). If the tackler does not release (should he actually be holding the carrier) the carrier can be awarded a penalty.

 

[Scotty]

I have a feeling this new law directive/interpretation is going to suit the Wallabies better than our 3N counterparts. There now seems to be less reliance on accurate clearing out at the breakdown, which is an area that, while slowly getting better at, the Wallabies have been very inconsistent in the last few years. Attacking teams can probably commit less to the ruck to secure possession.

Will be interesting to see how it pans out at international level.

 

[the gambler]

I'm going to be lazy and post here without reading all the posts above but did read Ash's and generally agree with what he had to say.

Just wanted to comment that from what I saw in the two games last night Refs are going to have to clamp down on attacking players going off their feet.

When the directions were made a lot of comments suggested that the new interpretations would readdress the balance between attack and defence with the attacking side being given the advantage. But why does either side need to have an advantage??? Rugby is a simple game and should be refereed accordingly.

The tackled player MUST be given the opportunity to release/play the ball. However this must be done IMMEDIATELY. If the defenders dont allow him to play it then penalise them. If the tackled player doesnt present the ball then penalise him. If the players joining the ruck dont stay on their feet penalise them. Simple stuff.

The only problem with all that is how many penalties will be awarded as a result? Especially given that many players may infringe without any great intention or consequence to play, e.g. a defender in trying to roll away accidentally interferes with the ball/halfback, a player entering a ruck is knocked over by a teammate when there is no competition for the ball etc etc.

These infringements might not warrant a full arm penalty which is where the ELV santions law had such merit. If a mistake was made the ref and the option of giving a free kick while still being allowed to give a full arm if he thought it was a deliberate infringement (cynical).

There is so much unnecessary debate about crackdowns, interpretations, directions etc. We wouldn't need it if we had decent Refs that had the confidence to ref according to the laws while being able to use discretion and common sense to allow continuity and "entertainment".

 

[Pfitzy]

OK, I think I must say something about scrums - the refs are starting to shit me with their need to have the "touch" done on their call and on the shoulder. Its a safety measure, not a rule. If someone doesn't pause i.e. engages too early (anticipates the call) throw the book at them but not the fucking touch.

On another topic: I think where the Aussie teams are slightly behind at the moment is driving over the ruck. The first man there is trying to secure the ball with his hands as per traditional methods, but getting pinged once the ruck forms. What they should be doing is waiting for someone else to form the ruck then work on the drive once a team-mate arrives.

 

[chief]

What's annoying me is last week Mark Lawrence was having a big pause between his words, while other referees are doing it faster. Frustrating for the players surely.

 

[the gambler]

The Tahs just showed how to compete at the breakdown without worrying about releasing the tackled player. Counter ruck. If you are in a position to have your hands on the ball you should be in a position to step over the ball and secure possession by counter rucking. Wasnt it good to see!

 

[naza]

The Tahs just showed how to compete at the breakdown without worrying about releasing the tackled player. Counter ruck. If you are in a position to have your hands on the ball you should be in a position to step over the ball and secure possession by counter rucking. Wasnt it good to see!

It was awesome to see. Unfortunately in the 2nd half, the Bulls denied us our right to contest by diving off their feet and sealing off at the breakdown.

 

[Blue]

What's annoying me is last week Mark Lawrence was having a big pause between his words, while other referees are doing it faster. Frustrating for the players surely.

Was it jsut me or most refs seems to increase the time between "touch" and "pause". It's not working.

 

[Pfitzy]

That's why I liked it when it was "touch-and-pause" - no point pausing before a pause. That pause is then pointless because you're already pausing pre-pause and then pausing again after.

 

[Refabit]

I think generally the game is a lot more attractive this year and the refs have to be given some credit for that. The 2 biggest blights on the game, messy slow breakdowns and scrum re-sets, have been cleaned up significantly. OK Phil Waugh hasn't worked it out yet but most teams have. Golly the Bulls have even changed their style of play to a crowd-pleasing ball in hand brand.
At the breakdown there will always be infringements but the better referees can discern those having a material effect on play.