KSA Shark ©

Do Gold and Waugh have a point?


Written by Andre Bosch (KSA Shark ©)

Posted in :Original Content, Super 14 on 21 Feb 2010 at 18:48
Tagged with : , , ,

Two rounds down, eleven to go and the comments about the tackle law seem to be on the increase rather than decrease.

Before the start of the season Rob showed me a video clip that appeared on the blog of Springbok forwards coach Gary Gold. In the clip Gold basically reviews some of Heinrich Brussouw’s tackles that won penalties for the Springboks. He then goes on to explain that he believes that what Brussouw has been doing will STILL be legal under the new stricter application of the tackle law with emphasis being on the tackler to release the tackled player.

Key moments during the clip are at 2:29 where Gold says “He wasn’t the tackler that was off his feet, the whole time he was on his feet.” And at 2:49 he says “again through the whole time Heinrich has remained on his feet.” In both those instances and 3 further tackles Brussouw wins penalties for the Springboks by staying on his feet and playing the ball without releasing the tackled player.

Phil Waugh was penalised on two occasions this weekend, and so were numerous other players, for doing exactly what Gold believes is legal. Waugh has been quoted in the press as saying “At the moment I think that passive ball carries are getting rewarded and dominant tackles aren’t getting rewarded. I think we’ve got to be very careful in the game itself that we reward dominant tackles and perhaps that’s not happening at the moment.”

Waugh goes on to say “As the laws are applied and as the competition goes on, I think that contest will become more equal.” I sincerely hope he isn’t hoping that the refs will calibrate their calls and become more lenient as the season progresses. The referee who penalized him last night has ALREADY calibrated and is already more lenient than he was last weekend. That is a whole different discussion though. All I will say here is that the refs should not be calibrating during the season. Make the calls at the start of the season and stay with the same way of making the calls as the season progresses.

I agree with Gold’s comments, because as the law stands at the moment he seems to be 100% correct IMO. As far as I am aware none of the laws have been altered to accommodate the new stricter application of the laws.

Here are the definitions as set out at the beginning of the tackle law in the Law book.
1) A tackle occurs when the ball carrier is held by one or more opponents and is brought to ground.
2) A ball carrier who is not held is not a tackled player and a tackle has not taken place.
3) Opposition players who hold the ball carrier and bring that player to ground, and who also go to ground, are known as tacklers.
4) Opposition players who hold the ball carrier and do not go to ground are not tacklers.

From the above (to me at least) it is clear that if a player is brought to ground but the player bringing him to ground does not also go to ground then a tackle has NOT occurred. It is there in black and white plain and simple. So why are the referees penalizing this? By all means be more strict on the tackle, but if the “tackler” doesn’t go to ground then it is not a tackle and the new stricter interpretation is not applicable.

What do you think?



23 Comments

  • Here is an old article from Superrugby.

    Kiwi Lyndon Bray, SANZAR’s new referee’s manager in fact admitted as much in an interview with Tony Robson of Wellington’s Dominion Post while giving a run-down on the latest episode if the laws being tweaked.

    “We’ve agreed philosophically to change what the tackler can and can’t do,” Bray said. “He is doing too much. We’ve allowed, in the evolution of the game, to let him remain in contact with the ball and ball carrier after he leaves his feet and he stays on the ball and jumps up and rips it away.

    “It looks great in the one-on-one scenario, but it’s actually against the law. It creates in the game a repetitive scenario where the ball carrier ends up with no rights because he can’t do anything with the ball.

    “The tackler inevitability gets the penalty which philosophically goes against what we are trying to achieve. We’ve agreed the tackler must release everything when he goes to ground and not hold on as he gets to his feet.”

    And

    The tackler, once hitting the ground in the tackle, must release the ball and the ball carrier. This gives the ball carrier a chance to ‘play the ball’, and will tidy up the tackle-ball area which has previously been weighted towards the tackler. As well, any player involved in helping make a tackle, who is in contact with the ball carrier when he is taken to ground, must then release the ball, before then attempting to contest possession, even if he is on his feet. This ensures that in Super 14, we are truly refereeing the Law at the tackle, and it provides the ball carrier with his rights, having been tackled. After this tackle, any player then on his feet, in a position of strength (his side of the tackle) may then contest possession.”

  • Comment 1, posted at 21.02.10 19:16:42 by KSA Shark © Reply
    KSA Shark ©Head Coach
     
  • @KSA Shark © (Comment 1) :

    What they are saying is exactly what I am saying so WHY are the refs blowing the guys up for not releasing when there is NOT a tackle?

  • Comment 2, posted at 21.02.10 19:17:48 by KSA Shark © Reply
    KSA Shark ©Head Coach
     
  • if i can get guess they don’t like a team and do the other team or just like blowing aaahhhh got no idee KSA SHARK maybe we must try and get refs comment to hear the outcome don’t you think :lol:

  • Comment 3, posted at 21.02.10 19:22:10 by Charmaine Reply
    ChazTeam captain
     
  • @Charmaine (Comment 3) : You have my comments already. :lol:

  • Comment 4, posted at 21.02.10 19:24:20 by KSA Shark © Reply
    KSA Shark ©Head Coach
     
  • Interesting.

    How do you tackle a player without going off your feet?

  • Comment 5, posted at 21.02.10 19:25:52 by McLovin Reply
    McLovinAssistant coach
     
  • yes was waiting all day to blog and now i’ve got my chance but what is the chance to get a ref point on this :lol:

  • Comment 6, posted at 21.02.10 19:26:07 by Charmaine Reply
    ChazTeam captain
     
  • @McLovin (Comment 5) :

    Have a look at the clip.

    it’s really easy you bring him to ground, could almost call it BUMP him to ground but you stay on your feet. Then he has been tackled but you are not called a tackler until you go to ground.

  • Comment 7, posted at 21.02.10 19:40:18 by KSA Shark © Reply
    KSA Shark ©Head Coach
     
  • @KSA Shark © (Comment 7) : All makes sense now. :cool:

  • Comment 8, posted at 21.02.10 19:42:21 by McLovin Reply
    McLovinAssistant coach
     
  • Don’t fall into the trap that I initially did.

    SANZAR have added a little extra piece into the way THEY are blowing the law this year.

    The tackler, once hitting the ground in the tackle, must release the ball and the ball carrier. This gives the ball carrier a chance to ‘play the ball’, and will tidy up the tackle-ball area which has previously been weighted towards the tackler. As well, any player involved in helping make a tackle, who is in contact with the ball carrier when he is taken to ground, must then release the ball, before then attempting to contest possession, even if he is on his feet.

    No problem with them making the call to change that law but some (most) of the refs are blowing the lone tackler for not realeasing even if he stays on his feet.

  • Comment 9, posted at 21.02.10 19:47:53 by KSA Shark © Reply
    KSA Shark ©Head Coach
     
  • @KSA Shark © (Comment 9) :

    The bold part that essentially modify the definition of a tackler was there from the start. The implication is clear.

    What is surprising is that Gary Gold missed it.
    RugbyIQ. Really?

  • Comment 10, posted at 21.02.10 20:45:10 by fyndraai Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
    fyndraaiTeam captain
     
  • It is a beautiful irony that Phil Waugh said just a few weeks ago that South African players will struggle to understand this.

  • Comment 11, posted at 21.02.10 20:47:46 by fyndraai Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
    fyndraaiTeam captain
     
  • @fyndraai (Comment 11) : hey man – I even said something nice about Bulls fans on the other thread :)

  • Comment 12, posted at 21.02.10 21:14:57 by robdylan Reply
    Competition Winner Administrator
    robdylanHead Coach
     
  • i am sorry to talk about this issue here but this is my first comment and probably my last. A bit long but please bear with me.

    What has gone wrong with the Sharks? Simply put, John Plumtree is the answer. Do we remember another kiwi called Kevin Putt. He talked a great game but the Sharks were rubbish on the pitch.From the time Plumtree came in, the style of rugby has changed from an attacking one to one concentrated on endless Gary Owen’s with the focus being on pressurizing the opposition into mistakes and capitalizing on them. This style of rugby is perfect for the NH and against weak opposition in the Currie Cup. Hence we have been found wanting against better opposition in the Currie Cup and utterly useless in the S14 (Last season was not much better).

    i was thrilled to hear that Reece Edwards was appointed as the back-line coach but very disappointed to see the Sharks attacking way behind the advantage line against the Cheetahs (remember the Springboks under Mallet. A lot off skipping and dummy running behind the advantage line makes the players look like ballerinas and nothing more).Reece Edwards being a protege of Old Mac certainly has nothing to do with this. i don’t know if this is another one of Plumtree’s brilliant ideas!!

    Attack by taking the ball flat, committing the opposition defenders, and with quick hands, send the ball out wide where there will be gaps for the wingers and the Fullback running into space. If the opposition’s defense holds well, we recycle, send it back across the park and by running flat onto the ball, we have the game breakers to make it count. At the moment, we are too stagnant and too predictable.

    i hope i have not ruffled any feathers but i had to speak my mind.

  • Comment 13, posted at 21.02.10 21:46:00 by dawj Reply

    Under 21 player
     
  • @robdylan (Comment 12)

    You are clearly not yourself today. :lol:

  • Comment 14, posted at 21.02.10 21:58:19 by fyndraai Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
    fyndraaiTeam captain
     
  • @dawj (Comment 13) : I really hope that isn’t your last comment here. I agree with you and got pretty annoyed the way we seemed to set up all the dummy runners to attack the advantage line, only to pass behind them to a man so deep he stood no chance of doing anything meaningful. It’s not direct rugby – it’s just stupid.

  • Comment 15, posted at 21.02.10 23:11:30 by robdylan Reply
    Competition Winner Administrator
    robdylanHead Coach
     
  • @fyndraai (Comment 14) : clearly :)

  • Comment 16, posted at 21.02.10 23:11:59 by robdylan Reply
    Competition Winner Administrator
    robdylanHead Coach
     
  • @fyndraai (Comment 10) :

    That portion is not in the IRB law it is only in the SANZAR law. I have no problem with that portion. I have a problem with lone “tacklers” being blown as if they are part of a combined tackle.
    The Law for being a lone tackler hasn’t changed in any way as I see it.

  • Comment 17, posted at 22.02.10 04:48:12 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©Head Coach
     
  • KSA,

    The law is quite clear:

    Law 15.6 (c) Players in opposition to the ball carrier who remain on their feet who bring the ball carrier to ground so that the player is tackled must release the ball and the ball carrier. Those players may then play the ball providing they are on their feet and do so from behind the ball and from directly behind the tackled player or a tackler closest to those players’ goal line.
    Sanction: Penalty kick

    Even if the tackler does not go to ground he must still first release the ball and/or ball carrier.

  • Comment 18, posted at 22.02.10 08:23:24 by Morné Reply
    Author
    MornéTeam captain
     
  • the new law interpretations have ruined rugby….the defensive team is neutered like a dog! It defies belief that this can continue….the NH must be appalled…i am.

    Not a fair contest….how boring this hybrid league game has become.

    No man….this is just not a decent spectacle anymore…look at the cricket scores…like basketball played by larger okes….

  • Comment 19, posted at 22.02.10 09:15:50 by grant10 Reply

    Super Rugby player
     
  • @grant10 (Comment 19) : actually with you on that… to my mind, the ridiculous spectacle of a game where each side scored 9 tries was a pretty dark portent of what the game is destined to become.

  • Comment 20, posted at 22.02.10 09:50:26 by robdylan Reply
    Competition Winner Administrator
    robdylanHead Coach
     
  • @grant10 (Comment 19) :
    Completely agree with you there…..

  • Comment 21, posted at 22.02.10 10:04:31 by Just a Fan Reply

    Just a FanCurrie Cup player
     
  • :razz: :| ;-)

  • Comment 22, posted at 22.02.10 10:06:30 by Charmaine Reply

    ChazTeam captain
     
  • @grant10 (Comment 19) :

    One must however make a clear distinction between defensive teams being neutered, and teams that do not defend at all…

    In a lot of ways, this very thing makes the Stormers perhaps better contenders from a South African point of view than the Bulls…

  • Comment 23, posted at 22.02.10 10:07:25 by Morné Reply
    Author
    MornéTeam captain
     

Add Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.