[2017 Super Rugby] Round 11: Hurricanes vs. Stormers (05/05/2017)

[TRF Mr Fish]

To have the intelligence to rip that ball... Im not one to hype the kid, but thats damn clever..

Wasn't a try for my mind. As far as I could see it was a tackle in goal, should have been a five metre scrum.

 

[Penne Rara]

Wasn't a try for my mind. As far as I could see it was a tackle in goal, should have been a five metre scrum.

I think it was definitely a try. Jordie didn't go for his opponent's body, he went for the ball. It was a clear contest, he won, ripped the ball and grounded it in the in-goal area. It did look like he was tackling the Stormers n°8, but that's because he was behind him at that moment. If he had really wanted to tackle him, he would have wrapped his arms around him and go lower

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

I'm with Fish.

Jordie didn't go for his opponent's body, he went for the ball. It was a clear contest, he won, ripped the ball and grounded it in the in-goal area. It did look like he was tackling the Stormers n°8, but that's because he was behind him at that moment.

How did he avoided to go for his opponent's body if the Stormer's #8 was between the ball and him?
The initial contact was with the Stormers player (wrapped or attempted to wrap at least one arm around him), they both fall to the ground. That's a tackle.

 

[mania]

Wasn't a try for my mind. As far as I could see it was a tackle in goal, should have been a five metre scrum.

Ball wasn't grounded and momentum never stopped. Made my ten year old watch it telling him this is why u never give up fighting for the ball.

 

[Penne Rara]

I'm with Fish.

How did he avoided to go for his opponent's body if the Stormer's #8 was between the ball and him?
The initial contact was with the Stormers player (wrapped or attempted to wrap at least one arm around him), they both fall to the ground. That's a tackle.

Carr didn't fall as a consequence of Jordie being behind him. He was trying to ground the ball before anyone could lay a hand on it. Jordie was attacking the ball, albeit in an unfavorable position and he fell too. For me, that's just another good contest, and Barrett got the better of Carr.

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

I think it was definitely a try. Jordie didn't go for his opponent's body, he went for the ball. It was a clear contest, he won, ripped the ball and grounded it in the in-goal area. It did look like he was tackling the Stormers n°8, but that's because he was behind him at that moment. If he had really wanted to tackle him, he would have wrapped his arms around him and go lower

Intent in a tackle matters little, if you've wrapped your arms around a player and he goes to ground then it's a tackle.

 

[Penne Rara]

You forgot a very essential element: Ball carrier needs to be held when going to ground, otherwise it's not considered a tackle. In any footage you'll ever find, Jordie doesn't hold Carr, but immediately goes for the ball, so it's not a tackle.

 

[mania]

Canes tight 5 were awesome and tireless
Of the backs laumape impressed. Either making breaks or at a minimum bending the d line. ABs call up?

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

You forgot a very essential element: Ball carrier needs to be held when going to ground, otherwise it's not considered a tackle. In any footage you'll ever find, Jordie doesn't hold Carr, but immediately goes for the ball, so it's not a tackle.

As long as Jordie doesn't 'release' the Stormers player before they first go to ground then it's still a tackle. It doesn't matter if he does it immediately afterwards, the tackle is completed as soon as the Stormers player goes to ground and Barrett is still touching him.

 

[bazwaz]

I get the impression Laumape and Aso are in their own private competition for SR top try scorer... Aso barely touched the ball in that game and one wonders whether Laumape had anything to do with that him being 12 and Aso 13...

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Carr didn't fall as a consequence of Jordie being behind him.

Quite the assumption there. He was standing before Barrett wrapped his arm(s), he was on the floor after that.

Definition of tackle as per the laws of the game:

A tackle occurs when the ball carrier is held by one or more opponents and is brought to ground.

 

[Penne Rara]

Let's be accurate shall we:

"A tackle occurs when the ball carrier is held by one or more opponents and is brought to ground.
...
A ball carrier who is not held is not a tackled player and a tackle has not taken place."

I also consider this to be an important aspect of the rule:

"A tackle can only take place in the field of play."

This is getting interesting. The field of play being defined by the zone surrounded by the touch lines and the in-goal lines, the zone between the in-goal lines and dead-ball lines is not part of the field of play. The contact between Barrett and Carr takes place in said zone, so the word tackle has no meaning in that situation. In fact, it could have been anything else under different circumstances. If the ref had ruled a high contact (i.e. foul play), Barrett could have been sent to the naughty chair for the rest of the match, but this is still no tackle. It is obvious under any angle that Barrett was only looking to connect with the ball, and because refereeing is a matter of interpretation (thankfully), the try was awarded.

 

[Ground We Won]

There's something not quite right about this Hurricanes team this year. They lack a bit of something. I think Dane Coles being out is definitely having its effect. In saying that, I still have them favourites to win the competition over the Crusaders, which would very well be the final. Either that or the Lions.

 

[Penne Rara]

As much as I love the Canes, I think they don't have what it takes to win the comp this year. This is no depressingly pessimistic rant about them, they do have the x-factor to spark brilliance any day of the week. But their forwards are not rock solid (to say the least) - especially the tight five - and I don't get the feeling they're as cohesive a team as the Crusaders. Basically, the Saders are made of a thick gooey glue, and even though their individuals are not the best in their respective position, they work so well together that imperfections tend to smooth out. That's what a winning team should be, and apparently Robertson knows pretty well how to build one.

I may be wrong, but I can't see the Crusaders lose any time soon. The Hurricanes can be awesome and lose composure all of a sudden, that's a real concern.

 

[Ground We Won]

Scott Robertson has emerged as one of the best upcoming coaches around. Did great solid work with the u21's NZ side and now he's doing an excellent job with a patchy Crusaders team. If he keeps it up, he might become part of the All Blacks staff eventually after a stint overseas.

 

[Caitlyn Jenner]

Of the backs laumape impressed. Either making breaks or at a minimum bending the d line. ABs call up?

Hope so!

All this talk about whether or not it's a tackle..... um it was in the in-goal area..... as far as I'm aware all rules relating to the breakdown cease to exist in the in-goal area, so whether or not he completed a tackle is irrelevant - it would just be play on.
It was a great piece of skill from Jordie.

 

[mania]

All this talk about whether or not it's a tackle..... um it was in the in-goal area.....

agree normal tackle rules don't apply. Jordie was the only one that grounded the ball
Either way it was scored and an awesome example of why u never give up trying to make a play

 

[Ground We Won]

Huh, is there really dispute over he Jordii Barrett try?

That was a try every day of the week and an awesome individual bit of skill. That kid is phenomenal and has the x-factor.

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

Let's be accurate shall we:

"A tackle occurs when the ball carrier is held by one or more opponents and is brought to ground.
...
A ball carrier who is not held is not a tackled player and a tackle has not taken place."

I also consider this to be an important aspect of the rule:

"A tackle can only take place in the field of play."

This is getting interesting. The field of play being defined by the zone surrounded by the touch lines and the in-goal lines, the zone between the in-goal lines and dead-ball lines is not part of the field of play. The contact between Barrett and Carr takes place in said zone, so the word tackle has no meaning in that situation. In fact, it could have been anything else under different circumstances. If the ref had ruled a high contact (i.e. foul play), Barrett could have been sent to the naughty chair for the rest of the match, but this is still no tackle. It is obvious under any angle that Barrett was only looking to connect with the ball, and because refereeing is a matter of interpretation (thankfully), the try was awarded.

After having a bit more of a dig into the laws I concede that I was probably. No mention of tackle in goal, only grounding (referees definitely refer to 'tackle in goal', however), so I've changed my stance. Great try, no questions asked (though I wasn't sure at the time if Barrett was onside from the kick).

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Let's be accurate shall we:

"A tackle occurs when the ball carrier is held by one or more opponents and is brought to ground.
...
A ball carrier who is not held is not a tackled player and a tackle has not taken place."

I also consider this to be an important aspect of the rule:

"A tackle can only take place in the field of play."

First, he was held. When you wrap an arm around someone, you are holding him, by definition.
Second, precisely because you can only tackle in the field of play is because it is a scrum, as Fish wrote.