[Tackle] Dragging away a player trying to tackle

cccref

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/italy.png
#42
There was not time to form a maul, action was very rapid.
Red #2 did not bind to blue player, nor to his tem-mate, he just pushed blue away.
I think that doing this, bounded or not to blue player, is not legal.
In my opinion:
1) If you can, you should bind to your team-mate
2) If you can't bind to your team-mate but you have to bind to an opponent, that means the opponent is on your side of the field
3) Therefore, you can't go look for bindinding to an opponent who is on his side of the field
4) Assuming all the points before, you can't absoloutely try to remove an apponent that is trying to tackle a team-mate of yours
 

didds

, Resident Club Coach
#43
3) and 4) though are in fact redundant.

As DocY points out he is in fact offside, so just ping him for that.

didds
 

cccref

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/italy.png
#44
3) and 4) though are in fact redundant.

As DocY points out he is in fact offside, so just ping him for that.

didds
Ok for that.
Since we're on, what if he wasn't offside?:tongue:

Let's assume Red#1 and Blue are parallel to the try line.
Can Red#2 push blue away?
 

Attachments

didds

, Resident Club Coach
#45
DocY presviously said

"IMO, in any situation where he can bind onto blue from an on-side position."

He can do so here of course


didds
 

cccref

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/italy.png
#46
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 if I am correct, if red player joins from an on-side position and pushes/pulls/drags directly his opponent, it's all good.
Once again: there is no Maul formed and there is no intention to form one.
 

DocY

Rugby Club Member
#47
To clarify my thoughts on this:


Did he make contact from an on-side position?
/ \
No - PK Yes
\
Did he bind and form a maul?
/ \
No - PK Yes
\
Did he commit a maul offence?
/ \
Yes - PK No - Play on

(I tried very hard to get this displaying as a nice flow chart, but it isn't working.)
 
Last edited:

cccref

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/italy.png
#48
To clarify my thoughts on this:

Did he make contact from an on-side position?
/ \
No - PK Yes
\
Did he bind and form a maul?
/ \
No
- PK Yes
\
Did he commit a maul offence?
/ \
Yes - PK No - Play on
He did not bind and did not form a maul, just went straight to his opponent to set his team-mate free, everything lasted 1 second.
 

OB..

, Advises in England
#49
I notice that if the third man in to a choke tackle causes the other two to fall over, panel referees shout "Tackle only". This implies that a maul is not formed instantaneously, but has to have some sort of indepedent existence first before it can be (illegally) collapsed.

Makes sense to me.
 

Pinky

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/scotland.
#50
I notice that if the third man in to a choke tackle causes the other two to fall over, panel referees shout "Tackle only". This implies that a maul is not formed instantaneously, but has to have some sort of indepedent existence first before it can be (illegally) collapsed.

Makes sense to me.
For me the third man in cannot try and form a maul, but needs to try and tackle by grasping below the waist to be a tackle. If he goes in a chest height, I would consider that forming a maul, and be looking for who collapsed it. But I am not National Panel. There may be something about calling tackle only to encourage players to recycle the ball rather than holding on for a turnover scrum.
 

cccref

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/italy.png
#51
I notice that if the third man in to a choke tackle causes the other two to fall over, panel referees shout "Tackle only". This implies that a maul is not formed instantaneously, but has to have some sort of indepedent existence first before it can be (illegally) collapsed.

Makes sense to me.
I agree with you, i always wait to see if 3 players can stay on their feet or they fall immediately. If after 2 seconds (circa) they are still on their feet i can say a Maul is formed, if they fall immediately i consider it just a tackle.
In this situation nobody fell...so no tackle, no maul...what i saw was a player playing another player withouth the ball.

What's the difference between playing a player(alone) without the ball and playing a player (binded to opponent) withouth the ball?
It's still a player withouth the ball, there is no scrum, ruck or maul.
IMO you can't just touch him.
I am perfectly aware that you could bind to him, because it happens all the time, but that's something that as I said, it happens, it's not wanted.

I don't know if you can get what I mean: it's all about voluntariness.
If I bind to an oppnent it should because that happened not because i wanted to....
Sorry again for my english.
 

DocY

Rugby Club Member
#52
You say in the original post that a lot of people disagree and think your situation was legal.

Who were they? Fellow referees, or spectators whose team you had just penalised? And did they offer their opinions as to why you were wrong?
 

cccref

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/italy.png
#53
You say in the original post that a lot of people disagree and think your situation was legal.

Who were they? Fellow referees, or spectators whose team you had just penalised? And did they offer their opinions as to why you were wrong?
Player who did it (of course), then later spectators.
After that i wrote to referees describing the situation and they said it was fine. So i decided to write it here.
I am still not 100% sure about how to manage this kind of behaviour....I just see not legal at all.

- - - Updated - - -

You say in the original post that a lot of people disagree and think your situation was legal.

Who were they? Fellow referees, or spectators whose team you had just penalised? And did they offer their opinions as to why you were wrong?
Player who did it (of course), then later spectators.
After that i wrote to referees describing the situation and they said it was fine. So i decided to write it here.
I am still not 100% sure about how to manage this kind of behaviour....I just see it not legal at all.
 

The Fat

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/australia
#54
Interesting to read everyone's thoughts so far but a little surprised that so many people believe that a maul is formed by the a team mate of the ball carrier grabbing/pushing/pulling a defender.

Let's be technical;
A maul is formed when the ball carrier is HELD by an opponent and a team mate of the ball carrier BINDS to the ball carrier.

Let's be practical;
If we have a Red ball carrier and a Blue defender grabs him and then a Red team mate moves in and grabs both/either/or (without specifically running around the ball carrier to concentrate solely on the defender), we let it breathe for a second or two to see if the whole thing falls over, for a tackle situation, or if it stays up (usually the 2nd red player will be driving the red ball carrier and blue defender towards the blue DBL), in which case the ref will likely call maul. It is a dynamic situation and whilst technically it may not actually be a maul (red team mate bound to ball carrier), as long as the 2nd red player looks like he's attempting to bind/wrap his arms around the original 2 players, most referees will call "maul".
You see "non-mauls" form in juniors where a red ball carrier is surrounded by 3, 4 or 5 etc blue defenders and more red team mates attempt to get to the ball carrier but can only make contact with the blue defenders (i.e. they can't physically get to their mate with the ball). 99% of the time, the ref will call maul.

Back to the original post;
In the OP, no maul has been formed by the action of the 2nd red player. He makes NO attempt to bind to his team mate, AKA the ball carrier, and instead makes a B-line for the blue defender and pushes him away from the ball carrier.
Seen this tactic before? Yes, in American Football.
Would we allow a couple of team mates of a player with the ball to shadow his run and drag would-be tacklers off of him as he makes his merry way up field? I think not.

The OP situation is not that uncommon at the elite level and it is frustrating to see a defender, who is legally attempting to tackle or hold a ball call carrier, being grabbed and illegally pulled away by a team mate of the ball carrier.
It is playing an opponent without the ball.

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.
Sanction: Penalty kick
 

The Fat

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/australia
#55
Player who did it (of course), then later spectators.
After that i wrote to referees describing the situation and they said it was fine. So i decided to write it here.
I am still not 100% sure about how to manage this kind of behaviour....I just see not legal at all.
I wonder if you asked those same referees, "Would we allow a couple of team mates of a player with the ball to shadow his run and drag would-be tacklers off of him as he makes his merry way up field?", would they also say that is fine? It is basically the same action.
 

cccref

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/italy.png
#56
I wonder if you asked those same referees, "Would we allow a couple of team mates of a player with the ball to shadow his run and drag would-be tacklers off of him as he makes his merry way up field?", would they also say that is fine? It is basically the same action.
That's exactly what I've been thinking so far, but i really liked this conversation!

- - - Updated - - -

That's exactly what I've been thinking so far, and i really liked this conversation!
 

The Fat

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/australia
#58
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.
law reference please?
 

DocY

Rugby Club Member
#59
... red 2 has to bind on the ball carrier, not the blue defender?
Strictly, yes, but in some situations I think it helps to relax that definition a bit.

Didds put a couple of diagrams up a couple of pages ago showing his take on the situation and it had the BC blocked by the would-be tackler. In such cases, I think it's reasonable to allow a second red player to bind onto blue and help drive his team mate forward.
 

OB..

, Advises in England
#60
... red 2 has to bind on the ball carrier, not the blue defender?
I was ducking that point. Law 18 is nice and neat, but in the real world we can get maul-like situations that don't technically fit eg the ball carrier is surrounded by too many opponents so a team mate cannot bind on to him (or at least not without going offside). If we don't treat that as a maul, what is it?