[Tackle] Dragging away a player trying to tackle

OB..

, Advises in England
#21
Welcome cccref - with an unusual question as well.

My version of the scenario (for clarity):-
Red 7 is running with the ball and runs into Blue, who wraps his arms, remaining in front of him, but does not tackle him. Red 10 runs over and pushes Blue away.

I don't see it as obstruction - that would be stretching the concept too far.. If Blue was holding on firmly enough, the push by red 10 could send both players to the ground, thus completing a tackle.

However Blue clearly does not have the ball, so 10.4 (f) applies. (Red 10 is also offside and interfering with play, since to get at Blue 10 he has to be in front of Red 7.)
 

crossref

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/england.p
#22
hmm, so it would be OK for the arriving red player to push them both over, creating a tackle? but not to push blue over on his own?
 

didds

, Resident Club Coach
#23
For me, he should either be securing the ball, or helping drive forwards, but that list is not exhaustive.
but blue is between red#1 and red DBL and hugging (in effect) red#1. Its unlikely the ball is available ie stuck between blue and red (that's my reading of the situation, nothing else to go on). As for driving forwards, where does red#2 bind to effect this given the only body he can bind to to drive "forwards" wrt red's direction is on blue?

View attachment 3493

didds
 

cccref

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/italy.png
#25

That's the situation happend to me, no DBL involved.
Red #2 goes directly to blue player and pushes him away.
Blue player is trying to tackle Red#1,

I can understand binding to your team-mate and even to an opponent, what's bothering is going intentionally against a player that is trying to tackle (playing a man withouth ball and, i repeat, obstruction to me)
 

Attachments

didds

, Resident Club Coach
#26
Thanks OB.

So does that mean only in this specific case? Or in fact in any position of blue?
And in the case of doing so if blue immediately fell away from the attempt to bind - is that now playing the man without the ball, collapsing a maul, or just tough doo-dah on blue?

These are the crux to ccref's excellent question I feel.

didds
 

DocY

Rugby Club Member
#27
didds - in your scenario, red #2 can bind on to Blue and create a maul.
Or, as a maul hasn't yet formed, he could enter from the side going for the ball, being mindful of his offside line.

In ccref's diagram, it looks a bit more damning - if he plays blue first he'll be offside.
 

cccref

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/italy.png
#28
Thanks OB.

So does that mean only in this specific case? Or in fact in any position of blue?
And in the case of doing so if blue immediately fell away from the attempt to bind - is that now playing the man without the ball, collapsing a maul, or just tough doo-dah on blue?

These are the crux to ccref's excellent question I feel.

didds
or just tough doo-dah on blue meaning?
 

cccref

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/italy.png
#29
Or, as a maul hasn't yet formed, he could enter from the side going for the ball, being mindful of his offside line.

In ccref's diagram, it looks a bit more damning - if he plays blue first he'll be offside.
He only plays blue, maul is not formed: just 1v1.
 

DocY

Rugby Club Member
#30
Thanks OB.

So does that mean only in this specific case? Or in fact in any position of blue?
And in the case of doing so if blue immediately fell away from the attempt to bind - is that now playing the man without the ball, collapsing a maul, or just tough doo-dah on blue?

These are the crux to ccref's excellent question I feel.

didds
IMO, in any situation where he can bind onto blue from an on-side position. If blue then falls off (assuming red 2 wasn't attempting to collapse the maul, or drag a player out) then he should have held on tighter!
 

cccref

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/italy.png
#31
IMO, in any situation where he can bind onto blue from an on-side position. If blue then falls off (assuming red 2 wasn't attempting to collapse the maul, or drag a player out) then he should have held on tighter!
I see what you are saying, but blue player is trying to tackle red#1 (he could have done it better, but still trying...).
Red#2 aims for blue player and pushes him away (he doesn't even touch his team-mate)
 

crossref

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/england.p
#32
we can tie ourselves in knots on the niceties of the Law, but being practical I wonder if the best way to referee this is to say:

what I saw was :
- red arriving player attempts to bind onto blue which would create a maul (legal - he doesn't have to bind onto his team mate)
- the proto-maul falls apart (which happens)
- play on

after all, in a maul it's perfectly legal to try and prise your opponents' arms away, freeing the ball and ball carrier.
 

Rich_NL

Rugby Club Member
#33
we can tie ourselves in knots on the niceties of the Law, but being practical I wonder if the best way to referee this is to say:

what I saw was :
- red arriving player attempts to bind onto blue which would create a maul (legal - he doesn't have to bind onto his team mate)
- the proto-maul falls apart (which happens)
- play on

after all, in a maul it's perfectly legal to try and prise your opponents' arms away, freeing the ball and ball carrier.
If it's a clear push, I'd think there's only credibility to be lost by claiming you saw him trying to bind.

[FONT=fs_blakeregular]10.4(f) - 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.

[/FONT]
If there's no maul and no attempt to create one by binding, it's explicitly stated in the laws that it's foul play, PK.

I'd not noticed before that the maul definition required the joining attacker to bind on to the ball carrier, though!
 

DocY

Rugby Club Member
#34
I see what you are saying, but blue player is trying to tackle red#1 (he could have done it better, but still trying...).
Red#2 aims for blue player and pushes him away (he doesn't even touch his team-mate)
I was referring to didds' question about the more general situation. From my understanding of your situation he didn't bind and entered from an offside position anyway, so PK for playing the man without the ball..
 

didds

, Resident Club Coach
#38
IMO, in any situation where he can bind onto blue from an on-side position. If blue then falls off (assuming red 2 wasn't attempting to collapse the maul, or drag a player out) then he should have held on tighter!
so red#2 would be fine binding onto blue and potentially driving hiom out/away you mean?

If so, what would the real difference be between binding and just pushing - the net result is the same - and its safe?

(for the avoidance of doubt I agree with DocY).



didds
 

crossref

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/england.p
#39
If it's a clear push, I'd think there's only credibility to be lost by claiming you saw him trying to bind.
well, cccref describes it variously as a drag, and as a push, perhaps it wasn't so clear what it was exactly... it was probably a bit of both, and I could easily judge that to be a forming maul, that falls apart as it forms.
 

DocY

Rugby Club Member
#40
so red#2 would be fine binding onto blue and potentially driving hiom out/away you mean?

If so, what would the real difference be between binding and just pushing - the net result is the same - and its safe?

(for the avoidance of doubt I agree with DocY).



didds
Depends how he did it. If whatever he did couldn't be considered pulling a player out of a maul, then fine.

Not a lot of difference between the push and a bind, really - if he wasn't bound, but was pushing blue forward I'd try to manage it and remind him to bind properly. Pushing blue from the side, though? I'm thinking probably penalty - the same as if he bound on then tried to roll blue out of the maul.

But I'd say that if it looks wrong, you can easily penalise for not binding if he's pushing without being bound.