"Tackle Only"

AlanT

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/england.p
#1
This phrase was called out by WB in the SF more than once.

What is the point?
 

Dickie E

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/australia
#3
This phrase was called out by WB in the SF more than once.

What is the point?
A tackle occurs when the ball carrier is brought to ground and held. At that stage there are no offside lines. Once other players join the tackle zone it turns into a ruck and offside lines are created.

Barnes was likely letting players know that the tackle hadn't turned into a ruck so players in front of the tackle were not offside.
 

The Fat

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/australia
#5
Or that a.maul had not formed and that tackler(s) and b/c have to release/roll.
^^^^This.
A few of the elite guys use the term to clarify they consider the action a tackle only even though technically, the requirements for a maul have been met. Used when the players are going to ground to make the next part clear for the players as explained by Pinky
 

menace

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/australia
#6
Perhaps it was a reminder to himself (and maybe his ARs) not to ping anyone for offside etc??

Pity he didn't say "roll blue tackler" more often, to remind himself that they have to get the f@ck out of there and lying at the back of the ruck just slows up the 9 getting the ball away quicker!!
 

crossref

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/england.p
#7
IMO the top refs are over-using this 'tackle-only' call, I am hearing it when it's quite obvious a maul formed, and all players are back behind their offside lines. Offside lines that the referee has just announced don't exist ?? Defenders need to test this - as soon as you hear 'tackle only' rush forward and swarm, pillars go harry the 9 -- referee can hardly call you for offside...
 

Dickie E

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/australia
#8
ironic because there was one incident that looked like a clear and legal sack by Oz and WB penalised them for collapsing the maul
 

liversedge

Rugby Club Member
#9
IMO the top refs are over-using this 'tackle-only' call
I agree. When the ball-carrier is being helped to take the ball to ground by a supporting player I think that is fair, but when there are more than 1 players from his side joining it then as much as I dislike the choke tackle you have to call it a maul according to the laws, surely ?

OTOH, I like that the choke-tackle is almost eliminated because of this, and it keeps the game flowing.
 
Last edited:

Taff

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/wales.png
#10
This phrase was called out by WB in the SF more than once. What is the point?
Easy; it's to remind players that just because the BC is on the ground it's still a tackle and hasn't changed into a ruck - because the requirements for a ruck haven't been met. Sadly, too many people assume that as soon as the BC is on the ground, we now have a Ruck.

Why is this important? At a tackle there are obligations (tackler must release, BC must release etc) but there are also rights which don't exist at a ruck - eg as long as they come in through the gate and stay on their feet, players can play the ball - which they can't do if the tackle has changed into a ruck.

In fairness to Barnes, he explains this a lot and I think it helps.
 

crossref

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/england.p
#11
Easy; it's to remind players that just because the BC is on the ground it's still a tackle and hasn't changed into a ruck - because the requirements for a ruck haven't been met. Sadly, too many people assume that as soon as the BC is on the ground, we now have a Ruck.

Why is this important? At a tackle there are obligations (tackler must release, BC must release etc) but there are also rights which don't exist at a ruck - eg as long as they come in through the gate and stay on their feet, players can play the ball - which they can't do if the tackle has changed into a ruck.

In fairness to Barnes, he explains this a lot and I think it helps.
No, I don't think it means it wasn't a ruck
It means there wasn't a *maul*, so no turnover, and everyone has to release as per a tackle.
it is intended to keep the game going
 

Ian_Cook

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/newzealan
#12
This phrase was called out by WB in the SF more than once.

What is the point?
To let everyone know there is no offside line.
I've also heard it used to tell players that a tackle which might have taken longer than usual to get to ground, is not a maul, and they have to release/roll away.

No, I don't think it means it wasn't a ruck
It means there wasn't a *maul*, so no turnover, and everyone has to release as per a tackle.
it is intended to keep the game going

Its both/either

In WB's case, I think he just yells "tackle" when it goes to ground and is not a collapsed maul
 
Last edited:

Ian_Cook

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/newzealan
#13
I agree. When the ball-carrier is being helped to take the ball to ground by a supporting player I think that is fair, but when there are more than 1 players from his side joining it then as much as I dislike the choke tackle you have to call it a maul according to the laws, surely ?

OTOH, I like that the choke-tackle is almost eliminated because of this, and it keeps the game flowing.
Yep. I would not like to see "insta-maul" otherwise we wouild turn the game into a game of scrag!