I don’t mean for this to sound facetious but what about a tap tackle? If a player is tapped around their ankles and falls to the floor, does that mean they need to release the ball as that’s never been the case in any rugby game I’ve ever watched or played in. With a tap tackle, the player has always been able to stand back up and carry on even though they have been taken off both feet.
I know the tackle on White wasn’t a tap tackle but I’m just throwing another option out there on part of the law that you’ve suggested means a tackle is completed when a player is taken off their feet.
You support my view with a great point.
A tap tackle isn't the tackler holding the player on the ground and it's still a tackle.
If the ball carrier wants to pick and go in any situation then he must release the ball plain and simple.
Refs always used to say if both knees hit the floor front back or sides then you are tackled and must release the ball.
It's mixed up now with silly made up side interpretations.
When you say refs used to, you must mean about 25+ years ago as for all the time I’ve been involved with rugby, a player that has been tap tackled has always been able to get straight back up and carry on. Are we saying every ref in every game I’ve played in or watched in this time frame has been wrong?
To be fair, when looking at the laws, it kind of does suggest this but I’ve never seen any tap tackle where the player gets back up and continues running in the last 25 years has been pulled back and a penalty given.
Now you are being facetious!
The ball must be released!
You support my view with a great point.
A tap tackle isn't the tackler holding the player on the ground and it's still a tackle.
If the ball carrier wants to pick and go in any situation then he must release the ball plain and simple.
Refs always used to say if both knees hit the floor front back or sides then you are tackled and must release the ball.
It's mixed up now with silly made up side interpretations.
When you say refs used to, you must mean about 25+ years ago as for all the time I’ve been involved with rugby, a player that has been tap tackled has always been able to get straight back up and carry on. Are we saying every ref in every game I’ve played in or watched in this time frame has been wrong?
To be fair, when looking at the laws, it kind of does suggest this but I’ve never seen any tap tackle where the player gets back up and continues running in the last 25 years has been pulled back and a penalty given.
Now you are being facetious!
The ball must be released!
Here’s another example. Tackle completed or not completed? Watch from 58 seconds.
FYI the tackle needs to be complete with the tackler holding on to the tackled player not slipping off. Then and only then does the player have to release the ball. This didn’t happen the 2nd tackler slipped off just before the tackle was complete.
Don’t expect you to agree but that’s the law and that’s what happened
The ball carrier is grounded when taken off both feet and White was taken off both feet.
He's laid out on the floor for goodness sake with both knees stretched out.
Individual interpretations like yours just cause inconsistency.
If that were to be given against Tigers at Welford Road then I'd be wondering why I even bothered to turn up.
I don’t mean for this to sound facetious but what about a tap tackle? If a player is tapped around their ankles and falls to the floor, does that mean they need to release the ball as that’s never been the case in any rugby game I’ve ever watched or played in. With a tap tackle, the player has always been able to stand back up and carry on even though they have been taken off both feet.
I know the tackle on White wasn’t a tap tackle but I’m just throwing another option out there on part of the law that you’ve suggested means a tackle is completed when a player is taken off their feet.
I learnt a while ago that there is no,point in trying to discuss things with a couple of users on this forum as they will argue the sea is pink if they feel like it, particularly when a certain poster insists laws state both hookers must strike for the ball, they don’t, and that numbers 6,7 and 8 are called the back line of the scrum not the back row.
Dealing with purely facts, White was tackled but wasn’t held, therefore he was perfectly entitled to get back to his feet and score, as if he had been tap tackled. The referee obviously agrees with this as he awarded the try
Again does it really matter whether it was a try or not, considering the result was not affected, the Donald Trump of rugby has not taken to Twitter or the press to say he thought it was not a try.
Formerly of Burbaaage (not Inkleh), now up north at uni
While it might be deemed unsporting to ruin a good argument with facts, the laws do state clearly that a player must be brought to ground AND held in order for a tackle to have taken place.
Thus, a player 'ankle tapped' or in any way otherwise brought to ground who is not ALSO being held, is not tackled and laws relating to the tackle do not apply.
Equally, a player who is held but NOT also grounded is not tackled.
Thus we might refer to a tap 'tackle' or choke 'tackle' but these are colloquialisms rather than tackles in a (rugby) legal sense.
ATigerinAfrica wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2019 11:29 pm
While it might be deemed unsporting to ruin a good argument with facts, the laws do state clearly that a player must be brought to ground AND held in order for a tackle to have taken place.
Thus, a player 'ankle tapped' or in any way otherwise brought to ground who is not ALSO being held, is not tackled and laws relating to the tackle do not apply.
Equally, a player who is held but NOT also grounded is not tackled.
Thus we might refer to a tap 'tackle' or choke 'tackle' but these are colloquialisms rather than tackles in a (rugby) legal sense.
Now, sir, hand me my coat....
This. Law 14. Pretty straightforward, even for me. Are you sure some of you guys have played, or even seen, a game of rugby?
I am neither clever enough to understand nor stupid enough to play this game
ATigerinAfrica wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2019 11:29 pm
While it might be deemed unsporting to ruin a good argument with facts, the laws do state clearly that a player must be brought to ground AND held in order for a tackle to have taken place.
Thus, a player 'ankle tapped' or in any way otherwise brought to ground who is not ALSO being held, is not tackled and laws relating to the tackle do not apply.
Equally, a player who is held but NOT also grounded is not tackled.
Thus we might refer to a tap 'tackle' or choke 'tackle' but these are colloquialisms rather than tackles in a (rugby) legal sense.
Now, sir, hand me my coat....
This. Law 14. Pretty straightforward, even for me. Are you sure some of you guys have played, or even seen, a game of rugby?
The law is straightforward.
Interpretations and applications and twisted arguments are not.
A tackler needs to have a hold of the tackled player until brought to ground, at which point the tackler must let go.
Bath 13 brings White to ground, White doesn't release the ball to get up and go again, so it's not a try.
It is very straightforward.
Who gives a monkeys - either it was the correct call and we won or it wasn't and we benefitted from an incorrect call (which doesn't happen to us all that often these days!!)
Not sure why, as Tigers supporters why we're bickering over if it should or shouldn't have been allowed to stand. Or maybe, not everyone is a Tigers fan and is just here to cause arguments and be a general pain for the sake of their own amusement.
Try stood, end of, and based on the rest of the game we'd have won even without that try as Tigers were the better side.
