IRB Law Clarifications

Dangerous tackle

In a circular to members dated 1 November 2007, the IRB states:
"Council at its interim Meeting held on October 19, 2007 considered a recommendation from the Rugby Committee on dangerous tackling. Please find below the decision of the Council in relation to dangerous tackling.

The Council had before it a report from the IRB Judicial Chairman to the Rugby Committee with regard to a decision of a Judicial Appeal Committee based upon an interpretation of Law 10.4 (e) which relates to high tackles. That interpretation suggested that the tackle above the line of the shoulders would have to start at a level above the line of the shoulders for it to be dangerous and in contravention of Law 10.4 (e). Following discussion if was AGREED to accept the recommendation of the Rugby Committee that the following interpretation be applied:

A dangerous tackle is effected whenever there is contact above the line of the shoulders whether the contact is the first or a subsequent point of contact. To be clear, a tackle which involves arm contact below the line of the shoulders and thereafter contact is made with either the neck or the head of the tackled player is a dangerous tackle with in Law 10.4 (e).

Ruck ruling

RULING 3: 2007

The GRU has requested a ruling with regard to Law 16.6 Successful end to a ruck:
1. A ruck is formed and the ball is playable for Team A. All players in Team B now leave the ruck and step back. Is there still a ruck or has the ruck ended?

The Designated Members have ruled the following in answer to the question raised:
- A ruck ends successfully when the ball leaves the ruck or when the ball enters in goal i.e.. on or over the goal line.
- A ruck ends unsuccessfully when the ball becomes unplayable.
- As there has been a ruck formed initially, AND the criteria for a successful or unsuccessful ruck have not been exhibited, then the ruck has not ended.

Not that it has vast bearing on the game in itself except that it would imply that a ruck, once started, remains a ruck even when the elements of a ruck are no longer there. That seems to mean that, should a ruck end on the ground it is still a ruck. And should the ball in a ruck come up off the ground, it is still a ruck. Should the ball in a ruck come up off the ground and the players all fall down, it is still a ruck.

(But I can't help wondering whether the GRU is inquiring about the legality of a specific tactic..?)

Awwww Crap. Now they are trying to kill off the fine art of the swinging arm and the high shot :D

Seriously though, we may see more players falling into tackles to try and get a penalty for a Dangerous Tackle.

yeah that was my enterpretation of it as well, similar to the 'truck & trailer' rolling maul issue where the defending team steps away leaving the maul and effectively causing the players in the maul to become offsides/obstructing the ball carrier.

If the ball is lifted and carried over and there are no opposing players in the ruck then again its effectively a blocking tactic and should be illegal. the ball should only be allowed to be fed out the back or driven around the side in a 'pick & drive' movement.

The clarification seems to indicate that its 'anything goes' once a ruck has formed.
I dont see how that increases clarity other than getting rid of a couple of basic offside/obstruction rules.

i feel the likes of the oscar winning soccer players coming in to it, when those backs take a dive for a supposed high shot.

You may also see a "common sense" interpretation to the high tackle rule which will result in inconsistencies and further increase player frustrations. The previous rule was simple enough, if above shoulders, penalty. Anything below was pretty much fair play (even if the tackle arm ends up in the throat of the tackled player)..I don't recall any (serious) injuries resulting from these situations...certainly no grapple tackles to the extent as seen in League.

With the ruck rule, it pretty much simple. If defensive players decide to fan out rather than attack the ruck, that's their prerogative and the attacking team should not be punished for that. The point that states, "And should the ball in a ruck come up off the ground, it is still a ruck", merely clarifies that if the ball is lifted in the back of a ruck, such that it can be made easily available to the acting half back as we have seen happen, then it is still "in the ruck" and therefore defending teams still have to remain "onside", ie, cannot run around the ruck.