When is a Tackle Voluntary?

[Dakink]

Watching the game on the weekend got me thinking;

there was one instance when Hodgson (I think it was) was near the sideline, he dived at the feet of the defenders, not one defender layed a hand on him. Instead they picked him up by the foot and dragged him all of about a meter or two over the sideline. The ref then penalised Newcastle for dragging him over the sideline!!

What a ridiculous call from the ref, and when is a tackle then voluntary? Surely if a player dives at the feet of the defence they have every right to drag him over the line, especially when they can reach out and touch it!! What about a penalty for voluntary tackle. The rules clearly state that the only time you CAN dive at the feet off an opponent is when trying to return to the field of play from the in goal.

 

[Inferno]

Agreed, although its been brought up a couple of times this year http://forums.leagueunlimited.com/showthread.php?t=138438

Patten is the king of it with Bowen not far behind.

 

[Dakink]

Agreed, although its been brought up a couple of times this year http://forums.leagueunlimited.com/showthread.php?t=138438

Patten is the king of it with Bowen not far behind.

thanks - I thought I had read something before...

 

[The Preacher]

It is a voluntary tackle when the bloke about to be tackled siht's himself and falls down. With the Hodgo incident, they penalised the defence because as soon as you touch a player in possession when he's on the ground he is effectivly held, therefore dragging him towards the sideline is classed as a second tackle. If they would've not touched him, Newcastle would've received a penalty for a voluntary tackle. I think.

 

[Crusher]

It is a voluntary tackle when the bloke about to be tackled siht's himself and falls down. With the Hodgo incident, they penalised the defence because as soon as you touch a player in possession when he's on the ground he is effectivly held, therefore dragging him towards the sideline is classed as a second tackle. If they would've not touched him, Newcastle would've received a penalty for a voluntary tackle. I think.

In every close contest I have seen this year, the last tackle of every game where the team leading has possession has been voluntary!!!

 

[>zuzu<]

To be honest i cant remember the last time a voluntary tackle was penalised this year, or even the lsat few years. I remember a single one i think in 2001, Northern Eagles V Warriors. Toopi i think it was, penalised for submitting into a tackle, which was the correct decision. This was in the 79th minute, in his own half, when they were winning by a margin big enough to surpass with a converted try. Lucky for him, Kimmorely kicked it out on the full. I honestly can remember any of recent date though. I think there as rare as a penalty try or a deilberate forward pass

 

[Innconu]

It is a voluntary tackle when the bloke about to be tackled siht's himself and falls down. With the Hodgo incident, they penalised the defence because as soon as you touch a player in possession when he's on the ground he is effectivly held, therefore dragging him towards the sideline is classed as a second tackle. If they would've not touched him, Newcastle would've received a penalty for a voluntary tackle. I think.

You hit it on the head, if the player puts any pressure on the player to hold them down then they are held. But where you question this is what happens when a player is tackled in normal play but as he hits the ground the defence lift them or drive them with the initial momentum ingoal or over the sideline.

So the Knights player while no one was touching him stepped into touch and then in one motion grabbed him by the ankle and pulled him over the line. This is why Johns question "HamBone" who basically put his hands in the air and said your right but tough luck. Maybe "HamBone" would have been happier if the Knights player took a 5 - 10 meter run up and put the swan dive in with the momentum taking the player over and probably breaking several bones. He was entitled to do either but took the responsible approach and tried not to injure a prone player and gets a penalty as his reward :roll:

 

[RABK]

It was a terrible decision and Tiger fans know it. Hampstead was basically running from Johns because he knew he was wrong.

Wouldn't be suprised to see Hampstead have a spell in PL now.

 

[hrundi99]

I think it's reasonable to dive low to the ground to avoid being forced ingoal, but I think you have an obligation to then start moving forward on your knees or whatever in an attempt to continue. If you drop and do nothing, you should be called for it.

 

[taxidriver]

tigers are the masters of the voluntary tackle.

 

[RABK]

Didn't Dragons fans blow up after last years Preliminary final because they thought the Tigers were doing voluntary tackle's every set?

 

[Dakink]

I think it's reasonable to dive low to the ground to avoid being forced ingoal, but I think you have an obligation to then start moving forward on your knees or whatever in an attempt to continue. If you drop and do nothing, you should be called for it.

Someone may know better - but you are allowed to dive at the feet trying to get back into the field of play from your own in goal. That is written into the rules.

 

[j_tig]

agree wholeheartedly that it shouldnt have been a penalty, if i remember correctly we lost the ball not long after which i called justice. however i have to draw comparison with the lolesi 'knockon' - if hodgson got the penalty for the second movement how the hell did lolesi not get a penalty when he had got to his feet, started playing the ball and then got retackled?

 

[bulldog]

Some here are confusing voluntary tackles with surrender tackles, surrender tackles are a pretty common thing, I haven't seen a "voluntary" tackle given for a while now.

 

[ibeme]

Voluntary tackle should never have even come into question in this case. The ball that Hodgson dived on was passed off the ground in the first place.

 

[Dakink]

Some here are confusing voluntary tackles with surrender tackles, surrender tackles are a pretty common thing, I haven't seen a "voluntary" tackle given for a while now.

Not really - A Voluntary tackle is when the player dives on the ground without being touched\held. A surrender is when the player submits in the tackle ie doesnt fight the tackle, in an attempt to achieve a quick play the ball.

 

[B-dos]

agree wholeheartedly that it shouldnt have been a penalty, if i remember correctly we lost the ball not long after which i called justice. however i have to draw comparison with the lolesi 'knockon' - if hodgson got the penalty for the second movement how the hell did lolesi not get a penalty when he had got to his feet, started playing the ball and then got retackled?

That was a surrender tackle as called by the ref. That means Lolesi is not allowed to jump up for a quick play the ball. Thats why he was penalised. It was a 100% correct ruling by the ref.

 

[Perth Red]

No such thing as a voluntary tackle anymore. Gone the same way as feeding at the scrum, offside at kickoffs, not binding in the scrum, playing the ball with your foot etc etc. All still in the rule book but no longer bothered with.

 

[Iafeta]

Voluntary tackle, along with using the foot to play the ball, along with 'sleeper in the defensive line', along with goal-kicking time off for time wasting and forward passes from dummy half as well as deliberate forward passes is obviously one of those short lived referee fads.

While equally important, referee's aren't consistent enough to get them all right all the time, so they compensate by dropping some rules for most of their existence in favour of flavour of the month rules.

 

[Crusher]

And decoy runners.

30 years ago they'd all be penalised for a shepard