What is a Third Man Tackle

[saffron sam2]

Basically watch any Armagh game in 2002

******opens can of worms and runs away*********

Armagh & Crossmaglen under Joe Kernan did employ the third man tackle extensively but it was not considered a foul back then.  Referees are more aware of it now.

EH?

[screenexile]

Yeah it's always been a foul but our standard of refereeing means that this law was not always enforced as it should have been.

[brokencrossbar1]

I can't speak for every incident, but my reading of the rule put up by Hardy is that much of what is considered as a third man tackle is not in fact a foul. 

Are "third m an Tackle" and "off the ball tackle" actually named in the rule book? And if so what, what are their definitions?

The phrases "third man tackle" and "off the ball tackle" don't appear in the rule book, but I'd say this is the rule that covers it (under Rule 5 - Aggressive Fouls):

5.25
(a) To charge an opponent in the back or to the front.
(b) To charge an opponent unless:-
    (i) he is in possession of the ball, or
    (ii) he is playing the ball, or
    (iii) both players are moving in the direction of the ball to play it.
(c) To charge an opponent for the purpose of giving an advantage to a team-mate.

I think myself that, like many rules in the guide, the phrase "moving in the direction of the ball to play it" is too open to interpretation. If a player is running towards a team-mate who is in possession of the ball, to receive a handpass, is he "moving in the direction of the ball to play it" and can you charge him? I'd say nobody knows.

And what does "to charge an opponent for the purpose of giving an advantage to a team-mate" mean? Surely every time you shoulder charge an opponent legitimately you're doing it to give an advantage to all your team mates. A bit like Bill Shankly's "if one of my players is not interfering with play, I want to know why".

I have highlighted the word "charged" as it is clearly the active part of the foul.  Very often a third man tackle is given when a player blocks someone after they have passed the ball.  Unless the "offending" player actually moves to "charge" his opponent then there is no foul.  If you stand your ground and an opposing player runs into you after the ball has gone that is clearly not a foul.  This is the supposed "tactic" that people are suggesting Joe brought into our game and Armagh's.  It is no different in my view from a screen in basketball, or a soccer player sheparding a ball over the sideline by blocking his opponent.

[Spirit of 94]

Yeah it's always been a foul but our standard of refereeing means that this law was not always enforced as it should have been.

I wouldn't exactly blame it on the standard of refereeing. It was just one of those things that was "tolerated" at the time, like stealing ground at a free kick.  Cynical managers and coaches will always pick up on these type of things and use them to their teams best advantage.  It is really only when we see teams using these methods to gain an unfair advantage AND being successful, that the powers that be step in and order a clampdown.  This years target will hopefully be the diver (ala O'Mahony or Conway).

[Hardy]

Well, as Brokencrossbar says, (and I hadn't thought of it that way) it doesn't seem to be an unfair advantage at all and would seem to be quite within the rules, as long as it's a "screen" or block and not a charge. I had a quick search, just to be sure and there's no rule against what's known (and penalised) in soccer as "obstruction". The word appears only once in the Official Guide - apparently it's an offence in hurling to "use the hurley to obstruct an opponent". I've also checked "block" (appears only in reference to blocking the ball) and "check" - no mention.

That would indicate to me that the concept of obstruction is deliberately omitted from the rules, since the rule-makers have certainly considered it and decided it's unfair to use a hurley to do it. That seems to imply it's OK to use your body to do it. Certainly, armed with this knowledge, I'd be asking a ref what rule he was penalising me under if he did me for a "third man tackle" when all I did was stood in the way of a man making a run. Of course I know the reasoned logical reply I'd get too!

[heganboy]

Yeah it's always been a foul but our standard of refereeing means that this law was not always enforced as it should have been.

I wouldn't exactly blame it on the standard of refereeing. It was just one of those things that was "tolerated" at the time, like stealing ground at a free kick.  Cynical managers and coaches will always pick up on these type of things and use them to their teams best advantage.  It is really only when we see teams using these methods to gain an unfair advantage AND being successful, that the powers that be step in and order a clampdown.  This years target will hopefully be the diver (ala O'Mahony or Conway).

I'll agree on the diver thing but the rest quite frankly is bollocks.

There is no such thing as a third man tackle and there never has been. Enforcing the law is what to do if there is a law, but there isn't so there is no "tolerating". So I'm not really sure how there can be a clampdown on a "rule" that doesn't exist.
Our standard of refereeing isn't really the main issue (though it exacerbates the problem)- its how we treat the referees. I've had to pull players on my own team away from ref's shouting every sort of abuse at them for not blowing for a "third man tackle". In the GAA we have never put the same emphasis on teaching young players the rules of the game and respect for the referees that are inherent in rugby. That is one of the biggest gaps in our games today.
Cynical managers and coaches using things to their best advantage? Whatever next? telling their team to outscore the opposition. Teaching the players the rules of the game isn't cynical its smart. And playing within the letter of the law isn't unfair its competitive.

[Hardy]

Amen heganboy.

[Spirit of 94]

Yeah it's always been a foul but our standard of refereeing means that this law was not always enforced as it should have been.

I wouldn't exactly blame it on the standard of refereeing. It was just one of those things that was "tolerated" at the time, like stealing ground at a free kick.  Cynical managers and coaches will always pick up on these type of things and use them to their teams best advantage.  It is really only when we see teams using these methods to gain an unfair advantage AND being successful, that the powers that be step in and order a clampdown.  This years target will hopefully be the diver (ala O'Mahony or Conway).

I'll agree on the diver thing but the rest quite frankly is bollocks.

There is no such thing as a third man tackle and there never has been. Enforcing the law is what to do if there is a law, but there isn't so there is no "tolerating". So I'm not really sure how there can be a clampdown on a "rule" that doesn't exist.Our standard of refereeing isn't really the main issue (though it exacerbates the problem)- its how we treat the referees. I've had to pull players on my own team away from ref's shouting every sort of abuse at them for not blowing for a "third man tackle". In the GAA we have never put the same emphasis on teaching young players the rules of the game and respect for the referees that are inherent in rugby. That is one of the biggest gaps in our games today.
Cynical managers and coaches using things to their best advantage? Whatever next? telling their team to outscore the opposition. Teaching the players the rules of the game isn't cynical its smart. And playing within the letter of the law isn't unfair its competitive.

1. Offical Rule Guide.

5.16 To push an opponent or hold an opponent with
the hand(s).

Of course there can't be a rule to exactly cover each and every misdemeanour.  It's all about interpretation. 

2. Formalise the interpretation of the rule or CHANGE the rule. 

3. Maybe in your club (or mine) but there are certainly clubs who do place huge emphasis on teaching young players to respect referees.

4. There's nothing wrong with managers seeking an advantage as long as it's within the rules. The hint for you is the word "cynical". I've used this to emphasise that these men are exploiting the rules. 

5. If your're so fond of rugby maybe you should stick to it. 

[heganboy]

I really hate getting into these things back and forth, but seriously...

1. Offical Rule Guide.

5.16 To push an opponent or hold an opponent with
the hand(s).

Of course there can't be a rule to exactly cover each and every misdemeanour.  It's all about interpretation. 

2. Formalise the interpretation of the rule or CHANGE the rule. 

3. Maybe in your club (or mine) but there are certainly clubs who do place huge emphasis on teaching young players to respect referees.

4. There's nothing wrong with managers seeking an advantage as long as it's within the rules. The hint for you is the word "cynical". I've used this to emphasise that these men are exploiting the rules. 

5. If your're so fond of rugby maybe you should stick to it. 

oh boy where to start?

first question: what has rule 5.16 i.e. the foul for pushing or pulling an opponent got to do with this thread? As far as I can see the title of the thread is "what is a third man tackle" the answer is that there is no such thing. If you are replying to a thread about "what is pushing or pulling an opponent" your response may be in the wrong thread.

To your second "point" there is no need to

"Formalise the interpretation of the rule or CHANGE the rule.  "

if there is no rule. Unless of course you are back to discussing the push and pull rule which seems to me to be in pretty good shape as is.

I am delighted to hear about clubs teaching players to respect referees, its a start.

I'm sorry I missed the subtlety of the hint, cynical interpretation of the rules eh? that counts as exploitation? The rules are the rules- the only one with the power to interpret them as they see fit is the referee, that's his/her job. If there is no rule in the book then it can't be interpreted. Though maybe they should have a closer look at your push pull thing- that could give great insight.  I can't help but wonder though, did Tyrone cyncaly exploit rule 3.1 in this years All Ireland Football final? "The team with the greater points total is the winner"?

If your're so fond of rugby

If my what are so fond of rugby?

[brokencrossbar1]

Heganboy, you've just gone all grumpy on us since the change

There is no third man tackle, simple as that, move it on now!!!

[Spirit of 94]

I really hate getting into these things back and forth, but seriously...

1. Offical Rule Guide.

5.16 To push an opponent or hold an opponent with
the hand(s).

Of course there can't be a rule to exactly cover each and every misdemeanour.  It's all about interpretation. 

2. Formalise the interpretation of the rule or CHANGE the rule. 

3. Maybe in your club (or mine) but there are certainly clubs who do place huge emphasis on teaching young players to respect referees.

4. There's nothing wrong with managers seeking an advantage as long as it's within the rules. The hint for you is the word "cynical". I've used this to emphasise that these men are exploiting the rules. 

5. If your're so fond of rugby maybe you should stick to it. 

oh boy where to start?

first question: what has rule 5.16 i.e. the foul for pushing or pulling an opponent got to do with this thread? As far as I can see the title of the thread is "what is a third man tackle" the answer is that there is no such thing. If you are replying to a thread about "what is pushing or pulling an opponent" your response may be in the wrong thread.

To your second "point" there is no need to

"Formalise the interpretation of the rule or CHANGE the rule.  "

if there is no rule. Unless of course you are back to discussing the push and pull rule which seems to me to be in pretty good shape as is.

I am delighted to hear about clubs teaching players to respect referees, its a start.

I'm sorry I missed the subtlety of the hint, cynical interpretation of the rules eh? that counts as exploitation? The rules are the rules- the only one with the power to interpret them as they see fit is the referee, that's his/her job. If there is no rule in the book then it can't be interpreted. Though maybe they should have a closer look at your push pull thing- that could give great insight.  I can't help but wonder though, did Tyrone cyncaly exploit rule 3.1 in this years All Ireland Football final? "The team with the greater points total is the winner"?

If your're so fond of rugby

If my what are so fond of rugby?

Jaysus you're hard work.

Of course it doesnt' say "third man tackle" anywhere in the rules. Did you miss the word INTERPRETATION.

If the rule doesn't cover the misdemeanour adequately (i.e. there is a grey area) then IMO there is a need to formalise or change the rule.

So the refs are the only ones with the power to interpret the rules eh? You for real??  Who instructs the referees??

If YOU'RE going to criticise grammar/ spelling make sure YOU'VE done YOU'RE homework.......or else YOU'RE just going to look silly.

[heganboy]

oh Feck it- what BC1 said...
I give up

[SidelineKick]

I really hate getting into these things back and forth, but seriously...

1. Offical Rule Guide.

5.16 To push an opponent or hold an opponent with
the hand(s).

Of course there can't be a rule to exactly cover each and every misdemeanour.  It's all about interpretation. 

2. Formalise the interpretation of the rule or CHANGE the rule. 

3. Maybe in your club (or mine) but there are certainly clubs who do place huge emphasis on teaching young players to respect referees.

4. There's nothing wrong with managers seeking an advantage as long as it's within the rules. The hint for you is the word "cynical". I've used this to emphasise that these men are exploiting the rules. 

5. If your're so fond of rugby maybe you should stick to it. 

oh boy where to start?

first question: what has rule 5.16 i.e. the foul for pushing or pulling an opponent got to do with this thread? As far as I can see the title of the thread is "what is a third man tackle" the answer is that there is no such thing. If you are replying to a thread about "what is pushing or pulling an opponent" your response may be in the wrong thread.

To your second "point" there is no need to

"Formalise the interpretation of the rule or CHANGE the rule.  "

if there is no rule. Unless of course you are back to discussing the push and pull rule which seems to me to be in pretty good shape as is.

I am delighted to hear about clubs teaching players to respect referees, its a start.

I'm sorry I missed the subtlety of the hint, cynical interpretation of the rules eh? that counts as exploitation? The rules are the rules- the only one with the power to interpret them as they see fit is the referee, that's his/her job. If there is no rule in the book then it can't be interpreted. Though maybe they should have a closer look at your push pull thing- that could give great insight.  I can't help but wonder though, did Tyrone cyncaly exploit rule 3.1 in this years All Ireland Football final? "The team with the greater points total is the winner"?

If your're so fond of rugby

If my what are so fond of rugby?

Jaysus you're hard work.

Of course it doesnt' say "third man tackle" anywhere in the rules. Did you miss the word INTERPRETATION.

If the rule doesn't cover the misdemeanour adequately (i.e. there is a grey area) then IMO there is a need to formalise or change the rule.

So the refs are the only ones with the power to interpret the rules eh? You for real??  Who instructs the referees??

If YOU'RE going to criticise grammar/ spelling make sure YOU'VE done YOU'RE homework.......or else YOU'RE just going to look silly.

Indeed!

[kevmy]

Heganboy, you've just gone all grumpy on us since the change

There is no third man tackle, simple as that, move it on now!!!

Fair enough there is no rule which is titled 3rd man tackle but I think what most people people would refer to as a 3rd man tackle would fall under the rule 5.25 stated above. Essentially charging however it would be a certain type, for example charging a lad in the back way of the ball would not be referred to as a 3rd man tackle where running into a man to stop him from making a run to collect possession would. And that is against the rules and should be penalised.

[Spirit of 94]

Sorry Sideline I got sidetracked and forgot to add:

Draw a circle around whichever of these do you think is correct? 


I thought it might help HB with his 11 plus/ Key Stage exam.