Laws Question? Ask here!

Iompair

What are the rules regarding quick line outs? During the England France game a French player toe poked the ball out after a break and then kicked it again after it had crossed the line. England took a quick line out and scored.

I understood (probably mistakenly) that if somebody other then the player who takes the throw in touches the ball after it crosses the line the quick throw in can no longer be taken.

wp_rathead

Iompair wrote: »

What are the rules regarding quick line outs? During the England France game a French player toe poked the ball out after a break and then kicked it again after it had crossed the line. England took a quick line out and scored.

I understood (probably mistakenly) that if somebody other then the player who takes the throw in touches the ball after it crosses the line the quick throw in can no longer be taken.

afaik as long as it is the same ball, and doesn't touch an obstacle (eg. advertising board, crowd, ball boy, coaches etc) it can be used, even if passed from one player to another
open to correction though

Quin_Dub

wprathead wrote: »

afaik as long as it is the same ball, and doesn't touch an obstacle (eg. advertising board, crowd, ball boy, coaches etc) it can be used, even if passed from one player to another
open to correction though

Think you are correct..

It can be touched by players on the field (from either team) and still be viable for a quick throw. Anyone or anything not on the field of play cancels it out though...

Shelflife

For a quick throw-in, the player must use the ball that went into touch. A quick throw-in is not permitted if another person has touched the ball apart from the player throwing it in and an opponent who carried it into touch.

Common misconception is that the ball can't touch advertising hoardings or fences etc. it can.

total former

shuffol wrote: »

It seems like the issue isn't with the action of the tackle which was 100% legal but more so because it was Lawes and the intensity with which he tackles, I'm not sure how you could legislate against that type of thing without it being a case of one rule for Courtney Lawes and another for everyone else. Perhaps if he ends up seriously injuring somebody it will be looked at but I think right now the onus needs to be on players when they're playing against him to be conscious of putting themselves into a position where they will be clobbered.

I don't agree it was 100% legal but it's already been discussed.

The second part is my major objection, the onus is on the tackled player not to get hit? That's the complete opposite of the interpretation of every other rule. Why?

fitz

I think there's enough in the laws to cater for it already...it's a dangerous tackle. While he did wrap, he also lead with his left shoulder. He knew what he was doing.

He's going to end someone's career with one of these late-but-not-late tackles...probably a serious knee injury when he hits a kicker just after the kick with their standing leg firmly planted, as he's done numerous times before.

If he started getting penalised for it as dangerous, he'd be less likely to try it.

desertcircus

Landing a player on his head from a high ball is a card regardless of intent. Landing a player on his head from a tackle is a card regardless of intent. Landing a player on his head from a late tackle is...apparently completely okay. The onus is on the tackler to make sure the opponent doesn't go beyond the horizontal, and I don't see what's different about Lawes' case.

Quin_Dub

desertcircus wrote: »

Landing a player on his head from a high ball is a card regardless of intent. Landing a player on his head from a tackle is a card regardless of intent. Landing a player on his head from a late tackle is...apparently completely okay. The onus is on the tackler to make sure the opponent doesn't go beyond the horizontal, and I don't see what's different about Lawes' case.

My issue with Lawes is that his reputation as a "big hitter" is entirely based on these marginal late hits , Samu Manoa, another Northampton player is the same.

They both seem to target players just the the ball leaves them either kicked or passed.

I don't think I've ever seen Lawes make a big hit on someone fully in posession running at him.

He always catches them with these "almost" late hits , which are frankly cheap-shots in my view.

Where are the video clips of Lawes smashing a back-row forward on the charge or of a massive clear-out at a breakdown???

sydthebeat

Deleted User wrote: »

Always? It's why you're not allowed tackle players without the ball for instance. You tackle a player in possession of the ball with a view to turning over possession.

The player does not have possession of the ball when Lawes 'hits' him. He's got no intention of competing for a ball. A cynic might easily argue that given the previous instances of this 'hit', Lawes is actively looking to time his connection to occur after the ball has been released.

Agreed about the legality issues, that's what I'd said a few times already. It's not illegal, but it's not on imo.

The goal of the tackle is to bring the ball carrier to ground.
The ensuing ruck is the competition for the ball.

I would disagree that there is an element of 'competition' around the tackle... the ball is not available for opposing players to compete.
A ruck is a competition, a line out, a scrum, a maul, a kick, a jackle... but a tackle isnt.

sydthebeat

sydthebeat wrote: »

The goal of the tackle is to bring the ball carrier to ground.
The ensuing ruck is the competition for the ball.

I would disagree that there is an element of 'competition' around the tackle... the ball is not available for opposing players to compete.
A ruck is a competition, a line out, a scrum, a maul, a kick, a jackle... but a tackle isnt.

There's a very important and common element to all of the above though! And that is the presence of the ball.

Once the ball isn't involved, all of the above become illegal.

sydthebeat

Deleted User wrote: »

There's a very important and common element to all of the above though! And that is the presence of the ball.

Once the ball isn't involved, all of the above become illegal.

so your basically arguing the interpretation of a late tackle.

sydthebeat

sydthebeat wrote: »

so your basically arguing the interpretation of a late tackle.

Yes. I said that a cynic might note that this particular 'challenge' has featured several times in Lawes' highlight reel, and that one might consider that he has 'perfected' it to be late (in terms of the ball no longer being in the possession of the carrier) but not late by the rule book by committing himself during possession.

It's not a late tackle by virtue of the 'committing himself', but a cynic might suggest that Lawes is committing himself to a challenge early in order to stay within the rules of the game, with the goal of 'hitting' a player who's just released the ball.

I don't believe that Lawes has any intention of trying to bring the ball carrier to ground in this scenario.

How to legislate for it though? I don't really know tbh

edit to add the clip

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3QDOWk1qIo

shuffol

total former wrote: »

I don't agree it was 100% legal but it's already been discussed.

The second part is my major objection, the onus is on the tackled player not to get hit? That's the complete opposite of the interpretation of every other rule. Why?

Because Lawes isn't doing anything outside of the law as far as I can see, he's a hugely destructive tackler and that's why this is an issue. If your playing against a guy who's lightning fast you have to be aware of it and not give him space, likewise don't run off with no support if you see a player who specialises at poaching in front of you, if your facing a team with a destructive tackler like Lawes you have to watch out for him.

Yeah_Right

I think its a great tackle. As another poster said, what if Plisson threw a dummy and Lawes pulled out of the tackle? Then Lawes misses the tackle and France makes a break. He was well within his rights to complete the tackle.

Quin_Dub

shuffol wrote: »

Because Lawes isn't doing anything outside of the law as far as I can see, he's a hugely destructive tackler and that's why this is an issue. If your playing against a guy who's lightning fast you have to be aware of it and not give him space, likewise don't run off with no support if you see a player who specialises at poaching in front of you, if your facing a team with a destructive tackler like Lawes you have to watch out for him.

Only when he's blind-siding inside backs that are 3 or 4 stone lighter than him...

He specifically targets these opportunities.

As I said - Where are the video clips of him trying that flying torpedo tackle on someone like SOB or Vunipola or the like at Club level...?

They may not be exactly illegal , but they are definitely cheap shots..

Podge_irl

You could make a pretty easy argument that Plisson leaves the ground and then is forced to land on his head so its a dangerous tackle.

total former

The more I look at that, the more convinced I am the ref got it wrong. Penalty and card IMO.

fitz

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes. I said that a cynic might note that this particular 'challenge' has featured several times in Lawes' highlight reel, and that one might consider that he has 'perfected' it to be late (in terms of the ball no longer being in the possession of the carrier) but not late by the rule book by committing himself during possession.

It's not a late tackle by virtue of the 'committing himself', but a cynic might suggest that Lawes is committing himself to a challenge early in order to stay within the rules of the game, with the goal of 'hitting' a player who's just released the ball.

I don't believe that Lawes has any intention of trying to bring the ball carrier to ground in this scenario.

How to legislate for it though? I don't really know tbh

edit to add the clip

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3QDOWk1qIo

You call it what it is, a dangerous tackle.
If Nigel had penalised that as a dangerous tackle, would anyone have complained?

molloyjh

Having looked at it again it's actually a tip tackle. Legs go above the hips and the player is driven head first into the ground. At the time I thought it was a good, strong hit. But it actually isn't. Look at the screen grab below and you can see Plisson hits the ground head first with his legs in the air. 100% a dangerous tip tackle.

BoardsMember

molloyjh wrote: »

Having looked at it again it's actually a tip tackle. Legs go above the hips and the player is driven head first into the ground. At the time I thought it was a good, strong hit. But it actually isn't. Look at the screen grab below and you can see Plisson hits the ground head first with his legs in the air. 100% a dangerous tip tackle.

Finally!!

sydthebeat

well just to play devils advocate here... but surely for it to be a tip tackle, there has to be a 'tipping' by the tackler... which there wasnt in this case? in my view there has to be a lifting by the tackler to be a tip tackle.

ok, the tackled player ended up in a position similar to that which is caused by a tip tackle, but thats cause by the force of the hit, not by a lifting

fitz

May not be a tip tackle by that definition syd, but it's still dangerous.

sydthebeat

fitz wrote: »

May not be a tip tackle by that definition syd, but it's still dangerous.

yes completely agreed.

I totally agree its a 'dangerous' tackle, but its not a 'tip tackle' as we commonly perceive it.

rrpc

sydthebeat wrote: »

well just to play devils advocate here... but surely for it to be a tip tackle, there has to be a 'tipping' by the tackler... which there wasnt in this case? in my view there has to be a lifting by the tackler to be a tip tackle.

ok, the tackled player ended up in a position similar to that which is caused by a tip tackle, but thats cause by the force of the hit, not by a lifting

For me it's exactly the tackle you get when you don't tip tackle. A lot of tip tackles occur when the tackler basically stops driving into the player and allows the momentum shift to tip the tackled player before [dropping/driving/releasing/placing] them on the ground.

Driving through the player like Lawes does, can often take the player's feet off the ground, but the momentum carries through and they generally come down more safely than a tip tackle.

It wasn't late though; too little time between the pass and the tackle. As ibf said, it could well have been a dummy and trying to stop the tackle could do as much harm.

Pudsy33

I've changed my mind on it too. Plisson gets flipped and lands on his head. Dangerous and warranted a penalty imo.

padser

Pudsy33 wrote: »

I've changed my mind on it too. Plisson gets flipped and lands on his head. Dangerous and warranted a penalty imo.

I think it's open and shut really.

Plisson is taken past the horizontal and lands with the upper part of his body hitting the ground first. Lawes has a responsibility as he takes Plisson off his feet (albeit by force of tackle but nonetheless) to ensure he gets back to ground safely. He doesn't do that. (He can't do so because he launched himself, but that's no defence)

It's dangerous play and it's a yellow card.

Had Plisson not landed on his head then I think Owens is technically correct, but we should find a way to prevent this type of tackle constantly reoccurring

molloyjh

sydthebeat wrote: »

well just to play devils advocate here... but surely for it to be a tip tackle, there has to be a 'tipping' by the tackler... which there wasnt in this case? in my view there has to be a lifting by the tackler to be a tip tackle.

ok, the tackled player ended up in a position similar to that which is caused by a tip tackle, but thats cause by the force of the hit, not by a lifting

We're in danger of getting lost in semantics here so I'll just state this:

The whole point of the laws regarding tip/spear tackles is to prevent situations where players land or are driven head first into the ground due to the severe consequences such an impact could have. In this example Plisson was driven head first into the ground and so IMO it was this kind of result that the laws were looking to prevent. Whether it was because Plisson was actively picked up or because the force of the tackle was such that it led to this is fairly irrelevant. Either the point was to protect players welfare or it wasn't. We could get into a debate over what qualifies as a lift and what doesn't, but I don't think that changes anything. We're agreed it was a dangerous tackle. What we call it beyond that doesn't really matter.

cython

Quin_Dub wrote: »

My issue with Lawes is that his reputation as a "big hitter" is entirely based on these marginal late hits , Samu Manoa, another Northampton player is the same.

They both seem to target players just the the ball leaves them either kicked or passed.

I don't think I've ever seen Lawes make a big hit on someone fully in posession running at him.

He always catches them with these "almost" late hits , which are frankly cheap-shots in my view.

Where are the video clips of Lawes smashing a back-row forward on the charge or of a massive clear-out at a breakdown???

Cos this is what happens when he tries

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqvOBZgBw_c

.ak

molloyjh wrote: »

Having looked at it again it's actually a tip tackle. Legs go above the hips and the player is driven head first into the ground. At the time I thought it was a good, strong hit. But it actually isn't. Look at the screen grab below and you can see Plisson hits the ground head first with his legs in the air. 100% a dangerous tip tackle.

No, for me that's a level of pedant-ism I don't want seen in the game. Most tackles end up like that. What we want to be looking out for is TIP tackles where players are being lifted past the horizontal and driven or dropped into the ground.

Zzippy

I don't think it should be treated like a tip tackle, but IMO it is a late cheap shot and should have been a penalty