Some more tackle talk
Recently Liam Byrne of Ireland wrote on the need for a fair contest at the tackle. Two readers sent their views. Andre Watson expressed his views on the fair contest on the South African Referees’ website. Now two more readers have their say.
Gavin Smith:
The simple way to make contesting at the ruck is simple: you have to ‘win the contact’ first. By which I mean something similar to rugby leagues ‘dominant’ tackle; but in this case it is a matter of which way the tackled ball-carrier moves during the tackle. If he makes contact and moves forward (pushing the defence back) and goes to ground, then the ruck is won by him (no contest), but if he is driven back in contact, and taken to ground, then yes, contest. Much like in a maul, ‘going forward’ is the clear sign of advantage; ‘possession’ is only half the game.
Secondly, albeit an optional suggestion, there should be a ‘one tackler’ rule in terms of first contact, and subsequent contesting for the ball (if any); not that a ‘gang tackle’ would result in a penalty, but if in a gang tackle a player is driven back and to ground, then it would result in a scrum (to the team with the ball). This would be one way of legally ‘killing the play’, where the defending team can then ‘contest’ for the ball at the scrum. Having said that, the ‘one tackler’ rule would only apply to ‘first contact’ in the tackle, once contact has been made, then its quite legitimate for other defending players to join in, possibly to drive the player back and take him to ground. Or, if the first tackler has taken the player to ground by himself, for other players to contest for the ball. If, in this case, the ball-carrier is taken to ground in a one-on-one tackle, he must immediately release the ball, or its a turn-over and scrum to the defending team. This puts the onus on the attacking team to make sure they have numbers, because if a one-on-one tackle is effected, the defending team can pile over the ruck, killing the play, and get rewarded with the head-and-feed at the scrum.
The shoulder-charge (or stiff-arm tackle) should be made legal for the one tackler rule (the first tackler only); it would make the game more exciting. That’s one thing that League has over Union, is that high-impact spectacle
Anonymous
Dear Planet Rugby,
I am writing in response to Liam Byrne of Leinster’s e-mail regarding a fair contest at the tackle. While most attacking teams have to commit murder to be penalised at the tackle, there is another point to make.
At a contest the referee wishes to manage that contest in order to avoid penalty to either team, in this way he has ensured the correct team wins the ball. After doing so he manages things (if required) to ensure the team who won the contest has the time and space to use that possession (example: offside).
At tackle the referee ensure the tackler, tacklee, and arriving players do the right thing, then decide who has won the contest and then ensure that players on the defending team are onside. It’s when and how the referee has decided the contest is over that appears to be the concern.
The speed at test level means the referee gets mere seconds to make several decisions before determining who has won the contest, not all of it related to law.
The tackle may be dominant
The ball-carrier driven back or on the wrong side
There may have been exceptional skill shown by a defender to get back on his feet
The attacking team may have a wave of numbers in support, or
The ball was presented cleanly by the tackled player
All of these and more contribute to how a referee will decide who has won the contest. It makes no sense to penalise, and hence rob the attacking team of possession they earned and are attempting to use unless it is clear and obvious you should In both examples given by Liam he only needs to look at what he has written to begin to understand what the referee was probably thinking.
In example one, a ruck formed and ball came out. Obviously without footage of the incident we can’t be sure, but sounds to me like the contest was over and New Zealand won the ball. If the ball was in fact out, and the South African player was on-side at the time, then if the South African player was taken out illegally the referee needs to consider if the infringement mattered. Is it worth forcing a turn-over with a penalty against the attacking team, for that? Did the defending team earn the right to have the ball, and thus deserve to be in possession but have been robbed? Seems the answer was no.
In example two, it is even clearer. Again the contest was obviously over because the New Zealand halfback was about to clear the ball. Does it matter he had to go digging for it? Or move to a position that seemed in front of the last man’s feet? He simply wanted to use the possession his team had rightly won at the contest, should he be penalised for that?
The day we start turning over possession of the ball to teams who had not earned it, is the day we remove the word “fair” from the principals of the game.
