Laws Question? Ask here!

lawrencesummers

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120484551#Comment_120484551

I dont see that he did, he went after the ball, but i can see how the rule can be applied in this instance by an over zealous ref.

That rule is in place for blatant late hits after the ball has been touched down.

While the interpretation of the ‘tackle’ is iffy at best the awarding of a penalty try is hardly warranted as there is no way of knowing the first defender wasnt going to get him into touch anyway

prawnsambo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120484565#Comment_120484565

The law in question is not reserved for players touching down. It applies everywhere on the pitch and the player just has to be near the ball.

13.4 Players on their feet and without the ball must not fall on or over players on the ground who have the ball or who are near it. Sanction: Penalty.

Murray Kinsella picked out an incident in an Ulster v Glasgow match where the same law was applied.

https://twitter.com/Murray_Kinsella/status/1647695886699446272?s=20

lawrencesummers

Big difference in the contact in both incidents.

There may need to be clarification from the rule makers as to what IS allowed here because a new focus on something like this so late in the season when it hasnt been a problem all year could cause a lot of hassle.

Take the stormers / munster game. https://youtu.be/6rXi0Kpglk0

In the first maul try the stormers 5 flops onto grounded players, in the stormers maul try in the second half ben healy does the same, and over the leg of a downed stormers player.

How are they different? And was the enforcement in the exeter game due to an officall and pre flagged emphasis on the rule or did dickinson just decide the time is right to enforce the rule?

Interested Observer

I will never, ever be convinced the decision against Woodburn was correct to the spirit of the law. If it is then you can just slide around the pitch and you're untouchable. Want to score? Just dive from 5m or 10m out, nobody can touch you. Are tap-tackles illegal now, as you are pretty much by definition off your feet making one?

irelandrover

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120470370#Comment_120470370

Doesn't that give it even more credit. It is no benefit for him and his team, is actually a bad thing as it gives his opponents more scoring chance and yet he is still suggesting it.

sydthebeat

Just watched the Woodbury incident there. Utterly ridiculous. In the very first instance he didn't drive onto or over the player, he dived beside him to get an arm under and drive him to the sideline. No foul play at all in my opinion

lawrencesummers

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120486460#Comment_120486460

The call for diving on him is marginal at best, but to me the decision to award a penalty try is worse, there is no change in the players trajectory once woodburn comes in so he cant say that a try would have been scored were it not for woodburn.

prawnsambo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120486357#Comment_120486357

I'm reading that law and your post and for the life of me can't see how a tap tackle comes under it. To make a tap tackle and fall on or over the player you're tackling would seem an impossibility.

Interested Observer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120486626#Comment_120486626

When you make the tap you're going to be off your feet, and when you're off your feet you're out of the game apparently.

sydthebeat

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120486638#Comment_120486638

thats not the law in question though.

Water John

Off your feet in the air is a different concept. Player jumps up and slaps a ball back in, that's already over the sideline in the air. Off your feet on the ground totally different, a la James Hume.

realhorrorshow

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120486460#Comment_120486460

Once on the ground he is offside and therefore out of the game though.

sydthebeat

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120486711#Comment_120486711

no that doesnt existing anymore.

the law is now that there must be one person on their feet over the ball in order for it to be a ruck and therefore an offside line formed.

realhorrorshow

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120486738#Comment_120486738

Yes, it does. In fact, there's an entire section of the laws dedicated to this: https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/law/13

See no. 3.

Edit: disregard that, I see where you're coming from. Reading law 14, I think that Woodburn would have been an "other" player in the tackle (4. c (iii)). Thus, he would have broken 8. d, with the relevant sanction being a penalty.

sydthebeat

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120487010#Comment_120487010

just to clarify, law 13 makes no reference whatsoever as to "offside"

offside only occurs at a tackle or ruck when there is at least one player on their feet over the ball. In the woodburn situation, there was never a player on their feet at any stage, therefore there was never a question of anyone being offside.

in your post above, 8 (d) isnt what Dickson penalised Woodburn on, it was 13 (4) which is quoted above. My viewing of it is woodburn isnt guilty of 13 (4) as he did not 'fall on or over a player on the ground', as different to the Hume incident from last year where Hume clearly falls onto the player.

if you bring law 13 (4) to its nth degree in teh way Dickson reffed it, than any player diving for the line 5 meters out simply cannot be touched.

its interesting to note that Dickson had been pulled up himself by world rugby on a similar incident

https://twitter.com/btsportrugby/status/1607802419961896962?s=20

in the above clip esterhuizen gets tap tackled by AJ McGinty, and the sub scrum half (whitely) slides in to dislodge the ball.

anyone think theres a problem here??

well world rugby seemingly read Dickson the riot act for not penalising whitley for "tackling" the player on the ground. Therefore this incident is very fresh in Dicksons mind when he sees Woodburn slide in.

Yeah_Right

As the tackle had been made and the players were on the ground, Woodburn would have had to enter the tackle area through the gate. Right?

I'm glad it was penalised. I've long thought it should be. Hopefully it will discourage players diving in on try scorers.

blackwhite

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120487482#Comment_120487482

For me that seems to be more the pertinent piece, and makes it different to trying to stop someone who has simply dived for the line.

Tackle has already been made and player brought to ground. Therefore you can go after the ball but have to stay on your feet whilst doing so

sydthebeat

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120487482#Comment_120487482

No.

There's no offside line formed until there's one player on their feet over the ball.

Some people seem to think that tackles alone now create an off-side line, it doesn't.

prawnsambo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120487181#Comment_120487181

He is literally on top of the tackled player. And he pretty much got there in the same way as Hume did. Ground first, then player.

sydthebeat

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120488018#Comment_120488018

Yes he may have ended up on the player, but thats not illegal, if it was ever tackle would be a penalty.

its illegal to "dive on or over" a player on the ground. He didnt dive onto the player.

In the screenshot below, woodburn is already on the ground before he makes contact with Ashton. in my opinion that physically makes it impossible for him to dive "on or over" a player because to dive assumes you start from an upright position.

prawnsambo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120488085#Comment_120488085

Well firstly the wording in the law is "fall", not "dive". Secondly, it is illegal to fall on a player on the ground and you don't have to be on your feet to fall. It's not a tackle because Ashton has already been tackled by Hogg and is on the ground and held. So what's left? Maybe we can come up with some other word for how he got on top of Ashton without falling on him that will somehow make it legal, but I can't see it.

sydthebeat

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120488135#Comment_120488135

how do you fall on someone when your already on the ground?

as an aside, had the try been given, would we even be giving this a second thought?

prawnsambo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120488173#Comment_120488173

Ok, this is getting silly. Being on the ground doesn't preclude falling from whatever position you're in. But let's start using our words to come up with methods by which he ended up on top of Ashton without saying he fell. Rolled? Maybe slid? Flopped? I dunno. It's a mystery to me.

To your aside, no, we wouldn't. But it's an oft-lamented situation that foul play in the lead up to or in the course of a try being scored is pretty much never punished.

blackwhite

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120488085#Comment_120488085

The player has already been tackled and brought to ground. Woodburn is entitled to go after the ball, but he has to stay on his feet when doing so.

He is not entitled to try and "tackle" a player who has already been tackled and brought to the ground.

Water John

Woodburn is on the ground before contact, so that puts him out of play, same as Hume. Player sliding in with the ball to score a try has been around a long time and no you cannot go to ground yourself and stop him scoring. Your only chance is to slide in under the ball without hitting the attacking player.

Yeah_Right

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120487716#Comment_120487716

I get that. If the ball was loose there would be no offside. But if Woodburn wants to play the ball to prevent the try he has to be on his feet and come in through the gate, right? Woodburn was off his feet while trying to prevent a try.

blackwhite

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120488323#Comment_120488323

The "gate" doesn't exist until a ruck is formed.

However - he is required to approach the tackle area from the direction of his own goal line, which he clearly didn't do.

Law 14.8 is the key one

Other players must:

Remain on their feet and release the ball and the ball-carrier immediately.

Remain on their feet when they play the ball.

Arrive at the tackle from the direction of their own goal line before playing the ball.

Not play the ball or attempt to tackle an opponent while on the ground near the tackle.

Sanction: Penalty.

IMO Dickinson was wrong if he relied law 13 on this incident, as it was a tackle situation and not one of a player on the ground in open play - but the end result of a penalty leading to penalty try was correct.

prawnsambo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120488345#Comment_120488345

To be fair, Dickson didn't quote the law he was using, that was Murray Kinsella's take. What Dickson said was "Eleven can't dive in on a man on the floor who's already been tackled". So it could be as much under 14.8.

Interested Observer

I guess because it's been such a talking point, WR have released a statement saying Dickson applied the laws correctly and made a correct decision in giving a yellow card.

So... I already acknowledged that he got it right by the letter of the law, but imo this is an instance where the law is an ass.

sydthebeat

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120498568#Comment_120498568

one of many.

it will be very interesting to see how many incidents of this go unpunished this weekend.

laws should be applicable in all instances and not just in rare high profile incidents.