Mitre 10 tackle without the ball after a kick

Camquin

Rugby Club Member
#1
Saw a bit of today's match on TV.

Black kick and a Red player takes out the lead chaser - referee gives the penalty where the kick lands as in 10.4(o).
It was clearly a tackle off the ball and after the kick, but not on the kicker. it also looked dangerous.

I tend to think that it was the equitable decision - as the tackled player was onside having run past the kicker and was closest to the ball.

But in law I think the penalty has to be at the place of infringement, unless it is actually the kicker.
But I might have gone with a card.

Thoughts
 

ChrisR

Player or Coach
#2
Equitable but not correct and a card would be appropriate. There are several penalties that would better fit the crime.

It does raise another question. Consider the word in red:

10.4 (o) Late-charging the kicker. A player must not intentionally charge or obstruct an opponent who has just kicked the ball. Does just really need to be there and when does just end?
 

Pegleg

Rugby Club Member
#3
Thinking out loud about the intention of the word "just".

If a kicker is taken out late there is a problem with his side being put offside. So there's a sort of double whammy. If the kicker has run, let's say 20 yards, that is less likely.

Possibly the law makers feel that if the players has been "obstructed as a runner" as opposed to "tackled late" the "extra" punishment is no longer "valid".

Not convinsed the argument is valid. I'm just trying to put myself in to their thinking mode.
 

ChuckieB

Rugby Club Member
#4
Saw a bit of today's match on TV.

Black kick and a Red player takes out the lead chaser - referee gives the penalty where the kick lands as in 10.4(o).
It was clearly a tackle off the ball and after the kick, but not on the kicker. it also looked dangerous.

I tend to think that it was the equitable decision - as the tackled player was onside having run past the kicker and was closest to the ball.

But in law I think the penalty has to be at the place of infringement, unless it is actually the kicker.
But I might have gone with a card.

Thoughts
It was an incorrect decision and probably as a result of some miscommunication between the AR and Mike Fraser. The attacking player dropped his shoulder in as the chaser passed.

Elsewhere in the game they where almost swayed by the partisan home crowd that cried out for a kicked into touch after a scrum as having been taken back in. I think it took a word in the ear by the TMO to out them both right. Their initial call was the correct one.

Elsewhere Mike Fraser rebuked a call from James Lowe. Saw him as milking it on an obstruction when he clearly had a very good case.

From time to time a team of officials are not going to have one of their better days, but when it does happen you just hope it don't have a huge impact on the outcome of the game! Unfortunate, but not hugely material in this case, or so I think.
 

ChuckieB

Rugby Club Member
#5
A kicker has a specific vulnerability that other players don't have under the circumstances.

He cannot be Kicking and bracing for a tackle at the same time and is protected accordingly.

Once the ball is cleared and he is on his way he is back on a level playing and is covered by other laws.