Jaco Peyper, just appointed to two more matches in Australia, is again answering readers' questions.

1. Gareth La Grange

Question: Good Evening.

Please can you clarify the following with regard to the tackle area. I have researched the rules on www.irblaws.com but in some cases they are not clear.

Scenario: Player A (Ball-Carrier) is brought to ground by Player B who does not go to ground in the process but stays on his feet.

Question A: Is Player B a tacker - taking into account he doesn't go to ground. The laws  do not indicate that he is a tackler.

Law 15: Opposition players who hold the ball-carrier and do not go to ground are not tacklers.

Question B: Is Player B subject to Law 15.4 (b) if he does not go to ground and is not a tackler? (if Question A indicates he is not) During a discussion with a Golden Lions Rugby Union referee, he said yes he is a tackler. During the IRB Level 1 course held this this month it was said that it is a tackler and must follow Law 15.4 (b) BUT in a discussion with Mark Lawrence he indicated that if Player B brings Player A down without going to ground he is not a tackler as it is still open play.

Law 15.4 (b) The tackler must immediately get up or move away from the tackled player and from the ball at once.
Sanction: Penalty kick

So what is correct?

Jaco Peyper: Hi Gareth.

I will try and answer your question as logically and systematicly as possible:

Question A:

Law 15.6 (b) refers to any players on their feet, who were not part of the original tackle (They “may attempt to gain possession by taking the ball from the ball carrier's possession”).

Law 15.6 (c) refers to 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…”.

This means that any player involved in making the tackle, whether he end up going to ground, or remain on his feet, MUST release the ball and the ball carrier, before then going back onto the ball.

In essence: we are instructed by SANZAR and SA Rugby Referees' Association, that the expectation is, that a player who remains on his feet, but is part of the tackle, must get off the ball, and if he is very low to the ground, demonstrably move his shoulders up off the player, in order to be “legal”, when he goes back on the ball.

All of this is of course trying to balance the options of the ball carrier and the attacking team.

Question B

Answer in Question A deals with this. too.
 
Question C

In layman’s terms ‘bridging’ is when a player leans on his arms or elbows over the tackled player  to form a bridge over the ball to make it difficult for opposition to contest .

The player bridging will be judged whether he is on his feet as required by law, i.e. supporting his own weight on his feet and not depending on his arms/elbows to keep him of the deck. If the referee judges him not to be supporting his weight on his feet, he is deemed to be off his feet [out of the game]  “sealing off” the ball for opposition players trying to contest fairly, and should be penalized for negating the fair contest.

Question D

A ruck can be formed only between 1/more opponents who are on their feet, in physical contact over the ball. So therefore no - a ruck cannot be formed between players who are not on their feet.

If the bridging on player B negates the fair contest for the ball by ‘legal, arriving players’ on their feet, he should be penalised yes, but referee should be 100% sure that the player rolling away didn’t infringe in first instance. 

Question E

Player D is not allowed to pull another player off his feet [All players must endeavour to stay on their feet at a ruck], and is penalisable. However if the player “bridging” /competing for the ball was illegally doing so first, he must be penalised instead.

If anything is still unclear on your questions let us know!

Cheers, Jaco

2.  Name: Drew Richardson 

Question: Refereeing last weekend I found that some tacklers, having adjusted to the new law interpretations, were releasing the tackled player almost in the action of going to ground so that they could clear the tackle zone, particularly if they were falling on the attacking side of the tackle.  However this led to a number of tackled players jumping to their feet and playing on, claiming that they weren't held (and didn't I hear about it when I disallowed a try and penalised the attacking player!). 

With the new law interpretation becoming stricter on tacklers' releasing and rolling away, are you having to adjust your definition of "held/not held" in the tackle situation?

Regards, Drew

Jaco Peyper:  Hi Drew.

This is also very real in terms of last couple of weeks in Super 14 –  see the Alby Mathewson try Blues no 9 vs Crusaders  for an example. There is a cl;ip of it on our site.]

The law is quite clear on the tackle:

When a ball carrier is held by one or more opponents and simultaneously brought to ground [one knee touching the ground = brought to ground] a tackle is completed and he has to exercise his options available immediately and getting up with the ball is not one of them. He has to pass, place or release the ball immediately and/or get back to his feet before he may regain possession. In the example above of Mathewson he should have been penalised for not releasing and it sounds if you had your interpretation spot on!

Cheers, Jaco

3. Name: John  Davies

Question: Re the Kurtley Beal sin-binning for deliberate knock on and the subsequent pleas for a penalty try in the Tahs vs Sharks game.

Would  the expansion of the TMO to cover such events be helpful to the game or opening Pandora's box? It would have been very difficult to have been able to judge whether the cover would have been able to effect a try-saving tackle!    

Jaco Peyper: Hi John

There has been a whole lot of discussion over the last couple of years on this topic and we even trialed the expanded TMO protocol in Currie Cup in 2008 with mixed success. Up to now however there has not been agreement by all stakeholders on how far you can stretch the TMO’s authority and where the line should be drawn and it is a very complicated issue as it usually has to do with a change in the score/or not and it could even be an incident 70m out? So the balance isn’t quite right on the proposals to expand the protocol yet.

South African Rugby Referees' Association is again at the moment taking the lead on experimenting with the TMO in Varsity Cup in the quest to get the best system for all stakeholders and I am sure our pioneers Andre Watson and Co will be looking to find a way to use technology for the better of the game, but before we have a buy in from all parties {international Unions, referees, Coaches, players etc} we are opening a can of worms /Pandora's box as you called it….

Cheers, Jaco