Managing the tackle features in USARFU's latest Game Management Guidelines, an illustrated supplement to the lawbook now circulating among the country's referees.
Though few in number compared with football or baseball, applying rugby's rules can be bafflingly complex. The more so because elite players, coaches, and referees around the world are perpetually shaping and reshaping conceptual views.
Few topics are more contentious than the contest for possession of the ball and the offensive team's ability to move it quickly away from the tackle area. Thus the guidelines effectively function to focus of contemporary expectations.
In addition to clarifying the latest thinking, the GMG continue in American officialdom's tradition of innovation. In one notable example, US refs were among the first to collect the laws into a small, annotated handbook with helpful accessories. Subsequently, the IRB superseded the effort (with the unfortunate side effect of preempting a meaningful referee society revenue stream).
The guidelines debuted prior to the 2008 season, the product of referees working with Super League coaches. Favorably received, they were updated prior to 2009 so as be applicable to all levels of US rugby.
Last year, the IRB issued several directives that were sometimes called 'new laws'. 'They were not new laws, just re-emphasizes, which were already addressed in our GMGs. For example, the requirement of a distinct, four-count engagement sequence,' USARFU referee development director Ed Todd said in an email.
Discussion of the tackle has indeed been au courant among referee fora. Many are already looking for one of three indications that the player isn't holding on and doesn't have any weight on his arms: spreading the arms apart, showing both palms face up, or clapping one's hands together. Provided the player has gotten both feet on 'his' side of the tackled player before touching the ball again, any of these can be deemed evidence that the player may afterward legally go for the ball.
Also in 2011, the GMG section on assistant referees (i.e., touch judges) has been removed and will be reissued as a separate document.
Related stories:
In praise of American referees
Tackling in the spotlight for 2006
"Any of these can be deemed evidence that the player many afterward legally go for the ball." - with the proviso that the player have/get both feet on 'his' side of the tackled player before touching the ball again.
- Bruce Carter
Posted by: Bruce Carter | 18 February 2011 at 16:13
So revised. Thx Bruce
Posted by: Kurt Oeler | 18 February 2011 at 16:51
"that the player may afterward..."
Posted by: college | 18 February 2011 at 17:33
what in the ruck is now a ruck?
Posted by: ruckless | 21 February 2011 at 10:13
I cannot believe that Alex Goff is crediting USA Sevens for the new leagues and conferences!
http://www.rugbymag.com/features/goffonrugby/goffonrugby-you-still-have-the-power-to-surprise-me.aspx
Posted by: Drek rugby | 21 February 2011 at 16:21
He's crediting USA 7s with the creation of the 7s tournaments in those conferences, not the actual formation of the conferences. I have a lot of problems with that article, but that isn't one of them.
Posted by: Chip Auscavitch | 21 February 2011 at 16:59
maybe i didnt read it as thoroughly. I believe he was crediting the new conference 7s TOURNAMENTS and not the conferences themselves. (caps standing in for italics).
What I do find ridiculous is his belief that the 300K+ votes represents anything near a significant number of voters. Unless I am seriously underestimating the power of facebook/twitter (they did just topple a couple of governments), the vast vast majority of those votes are multiple votes of individuals.
If it does then that's awesome.
Posted by: college | 21 February 2011 at 17:00
I think the IOC probably has more to do with it than anything else. Rugby 7s gets into the Olympics, suddenly NBC gets interested. USA 7s is on the all and with NBC's help, creates the CCI. That, in turn, leads to the ACI 7s, SEC 7s, NCRC 7s, the LVI CRC 7s, etc. Let's not take anything away from USA 7s, but lets also not give them all the credit (most of the credit would probably be appropriate, though).
The big question will be when will 7s finally become so powerful that the college 15s season moves to the fall and the spring becomes 7s? I bet 3 years.
Posted by: 7s | 21 February 2011 at 17:25
There are probably at least 30 Sevens tournaments in the country ranging from 16 to over 100 teams. Traditionally these are held in the Summer. The quality of the fields and administration of these tournaments varies greatly and the poor quality tourneys are hurting the game of rugby. Sevens tourneys should strive to look more like fields 1-6 at LVI and less like the brown fields 7+. Tourneys need to run on time which LVI failed to do. Ideally every tourney should have regulation fields with proper posts and markings and been run on time. Good food, water, and medical coverage is needed. Focus on Player Welfare and Spectator Experience. We could say USA Rugby should to improve the quality of Sevens tournaments but nothing is keeping the Tournament Committees and local clubs/unions/conferences from making their own tournaments better and adding HS, U-19, and College Divisions. Sadly, many tournament committees are greedy and sacrifice quality to jam more teams in to make more money. Tournaments can also look to work together to form regional and local series based on IRB points systems as was done in Met-NY last year. For the most part, Sevens is completely unorganized nationally. This is an easy fix but it must be done locally for the good of the game nationally.
Posted by: Sevens | 21 February 2011 at 18:41
Great ideas on what should be done as far as quality of tournaments...now who is going to bankroll the expenses? Sevens tournaments (the majority of them) are unorganized nationally because most players view sevens as a social vehicle to keep them in shape in-between 15s seasons. Yes this may (is) change(ing) on the upper level but probably won't for most clubs.
Posted by: PeteM | 22 February 2011 at 06:16
Tournaments need to be efficient but in the end, players/clubs need to bankroll the expenses. There is nobody else to foot the bill. USARugby does not have the money. Territorial and Local don't have the money. Sponsors may come down the road. Lacrosse tournaments charge over $400 per day per team - why not Rugby?. Rugby is more expensive than many people realize. Lowballing rugby tournament entry fees will only restrain growth and quality.
The US already has more Rugby tournaments than any country in the world and we can do more. The value of any money Players/Clubs put into tourney fees is immediately realized in the games played on the day. A much better use of funds than CIPP. Sevens is the Olympic sport and will lead the way for Rugby. Sevens requires tournaments and local/regional solutions must be developed by host Clubs, not under-funded regional or local unions or USARugby.
It would be great to see each of the new college conferences run at least one conference wide Sevens Tournament pre-15s season or perhaps mid- 15s season. 8 or 12 teams can play on a single field in a single day. No need for Mega tourneys. Perhaps winners qualify for USA Seven's Collegiate Championship. High School Conferences can also do the same and I would expect the people at USA Seven will have a HS/U-19 Championship soon. Many college and high schools already have the needed facilities and insurance to host single field Seven tournaments without much additional cost. That said, Players/Clubs will still need to come up with the money to cover most of the expenses for Refs and any amenities.
Posted by: Sevens | 22 February 2011 at 06:55