[Tackle] Dragging away a player trying to tackle

cccref

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/italy.png
#1
Hi everybody, this is my first message and I'd like to ask you all a simple question:

Red 7 is carrying the ball.
Blue 5 tries to tackle him but they both remain on their feet.
Red 10 runs directly against Blue 5 and drags him away, setting Red 7 free.

According to laws:
10.4 (f): Playing an opponent without the ball. Except in a scrum, ruck or maul, a player who is not in possession of the ball must not hold, push or obstruct an opponent not carrying the ball.
10.4 (e):Playing a player without the ball is dangerous play.
and 10.1 (c):
Blocking the tackler. A player must not intentionally move or stand in a position that prevents an opponent from tackling a ball carrier.

I would say no...but I heard this is ok by a lot of people....Your opinion?

Thank you all
 

menace

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/australia
#3
Depending on how that dynamically occurs you could well have a maul....and IF it is called as such then
"17.3 Other maul offences
(a)
A player must not try to drag an opponent out of a maul."

Im not suggesting what you describe is in fact a maul as binding is an important feature that must occur. Equally as referees we don't instantaneously call a maul the fraction it occurs by definition (well I dont) as sometimes for the sake of letting rugby break out you let it be fluid for a moment or 2.

So what you describe and how quickly it occurs I might indeed play on.
 

cccref

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/italy.png
#4
Depending on how that dynamically occurs you could well have a maul....and IF it is called as such then
"17.3 Other maul offences
(a)
A player must not try to drag an opponent out of a maul."

Im not suggesting what you describe is in fact a maul as binding is an important feature that must occur. Equally as referees we don't instantaneously call a maul the fraction it occurs by definition (well I dont) as sometimes for the sake of letting rugby break out you let it be fluid for a moment or 2.

So what you describe and how quickly it occurs I might indeed play on.
Thank you for your answer. That was not a Maul, you are right.
I am really doubtful about allowing this kind of action:chin: Red 10 does not bind to his team-mate, he goes straight against his opponent, isn't that obstruction?
 

menace

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/australia
#6
Im not sure i have the right image of what you're describing but from what Im thinking you're saying Id be more inclined to say playing the man without the ball?
 

Balones

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/england.p
#7
Interesting question. We don't allow a player to be dragged from a ruck? We don't allow dragging from maul. This is not a tackle by definition and I can see how it can not be a maul if the arriving player does not bind. Fundamentally I don't think we allow dragging at any stage so I would say that we should not allow the scenario as described.
 

didds

, Resident Club Coach
#8
Red 10 does not bind to his team-mate, he goes straight against his opponent, isn't that obstruction?
I think that very much depends where the opponent is to start with. And whatever in the general description provided the opponent is already in contact with the teammate, so its hard to see how the 2nd player in is causing an obstruction to that team mate.

Could be under playing a player without the ball, but as menace says above, its very much on a case by case situation and dependent on factors such as where the tackler is grasping the teammate for starters.

I'd also ask the question generally, what else shoudl the teammate do anyway? Take the offload yes... but if the BC is a fast winger abnd the supporter a prop, it would be in the interests of their team maybe for the prop to remove the clinging opponenet for the winger to sprint away than the prop to lumber on and get tackled afterwards. etc.

didds
 

cccref

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/italy.png
#9
merely trying to be clear - why wasn't it a maul?

didds
This is a 1v1 situation, red (ball carrier) vs blue.
Another red comes but he does not bind to his team-mate, he doesn't evend bind to his opponent, so no Maul, he just pushes his opponent away.

What I am asking is: why is it an obstruction if a team-mate is in front of the ball carrier when the opponent tries to tackle him, when it looks completely fine to wait for the opponent to try to tackle and then dragging him away? (sorry for my english, but is not my language)

Im not sure i have the right image of what you're describing but from what Im thinking you're saying Id be more inclined to say playing the man without the ball?
Exactly, red 10 plays the man(blue 5) withouth the ball...blue 5 is binded to an opponent (no maul). As i see it, this is an obstruction, even in blue 5 is binded to the ball carrier
 

cccref

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/italy.png
#12
Oh -= and welcome to the forums ccref :)

didds
Thanks!

Blue player was in front of his opponent (ball carrier). Blue player arms were around ball carrier's back.
10 red arrives and pushes away blue palyer (he doesn't bind, he pushes him with his own hands).
Ball carrier is completely free to go.
What's the difference between this situation and an obstruction?
 

DocY

Rugby Club Member
#13
It may be the way you've worded the question, but the feeling I get from what you're describing is that's it's playing a man without the ball.

There may be arguments about whether it's a maul or not, but for me, it doesn't sound in the spirit of the law.

Perhaps if the second red player bound in, they all drove forward and somehow the BC re-emerged on the other side I'd say 'play on', but if I thought the second red's only intention was to pull the would-be tackler off the BC, I'm penalising him.
 
Last edited:

didds

, Resident Club Coach
#14
for me (IANAR)... none .

it looks odd, but I think we are getting into splitting hairs here. (ie becoming bogged down by tinyspecifics).

blue is bound to red#1, there is no tackle. there are no offside lines, there is no gate.
red#2 could in effect join from anywhere. He could smash into blue and totally cream him and maybe hurt him. As it is he just pushes him away. He doesn't create a maul (and crashing into blue wouldn't create one either so no danger of collapsing a maul).

IF we regard the act of red#2 binging onto blue as penalisable (and I can go with that!) then we have to address what we expect red#2 to do if blue is between red #1 and red's DBL... run around and bind onto red#1 on the other side and end up driving towaerds hos own DBL?

I suggest that this is a scenario that is not envisaged by the law makers so just "manage it"... and for me at the moment its play on. red#2 could have been far nastier it seems to me.

didds
 

didds

, Resident Club Coach
#15
if we want to be uber pedantic, the law says you cannot drag a player etc (not that this was a maul etc of course) . The player wasn't dragged... he was pushed.

but that's somewhat pedantic :)

didds
 

cccref

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/italy.png
#16
The only purpose of red#2 was to drag away blue player, he did not mean to start a Maul.
Maul was not formed.
didds is right, red player can join from anywhere, but I think he could not drag (or smash or hurt) player blue that is withouth ball (first foul) and that is trying to tackle a player(second foul - obstruction).
red#2 could have been far nastier
I don't see it as an excuse to let go, in my opinion.
 

didds

, Resident Club Coach
#18
The only purpose of red#2 was to drag away blue player, he did not mean to start a Maul.
Maul was not formed.
didds is right, red player can join from anywhere, but I think he could not drag (or smash or hurt) player blue that is withouth ball (first foul) and that is trying to tackle a player(second foul - obstruction).
I don't see it as an excuse to let go, in my opinion.
so what would you expect red#2 to do HAD blue been between red#1 and red's dead ball line? I know this isn't what happened here, but the purpose is overall I believe to simplify matters rather than have a list of caveats and what-ifs :)

didds

didds
 

DocY

Rugby Club Member
#20
so what would you expect red#2 to do HAD blue been between red#1 and red's dead ball line? I know this isn't what happened here, but the purpose is overall I believe to simplify matters rather than have a list of caveats and what-ifs :)

didds

didds
For me, he should either be securing the ball, or helping drive forwards, but that list is not exhaustive.