[Tackle] Dragging away a player trying to tackle
- Thread starter cccref
- Start date
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 - - -
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.
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 - - -
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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?