Laws Question? Ask here!

castie · 06-06-2012 4:11am

Shelflife wrote: »

IMO yellow was a good call, he was never onside and the ball was on the try line.
If he wanted to play the ball he would have had to been behind the hind most foot.

This is an interesting one.

In my opinion the player has been held up in his attempt to ground the ball in goal. He then throws it back into play.

Id of called a 5m scrum attacking team.
Ignoring this he would of been blatantly offside and stopped an almost certain try so yellow worthy.

pickarooney · 06-06-2012 8:48am

If you stop it on 40 seconds, the ball is out of the ruck (if it's even a ruck beyond the try-line, I'm not sure about that?) The Castres full back has no control of the ball, which has slipped between his legs. The Toulouse defender tackles him and he attempts to play the ball on the ground. To me, it's either a loose ball, giving the Toulouse winger every right to play it or an infringement by the Castres 15 and ball to Toulouse.

Matanavou must feel like he can do nothing right in the in-goal after his disastrous clearance attempt a while back led to a try and now this.

daveharnett · 06-06-2012 11:16am

pickarooney wrote: »

Was Matanavou not hard done by here? He picks up a loose ball and gets carded for offside. Should he have run around the back of the tackled player and climbed back over to get the ball?

IMO White 15 and Black 12 formed a ruck in the field of play. At that instant, any Black player who is in front of the ruck (ie ahead of the goal line in this case) is offside. The ruck ends before Black 11 arrives but that doesn't matter; he can't take any part in the game until he gets himself behind the goal (offside) line.

I wouldn't criticize without seeing a wider angle of how the other players are arriving, but based on the circumstances I'd be looking to see if I could award a PT. Any lesser punishment here is a let-off and rewards the offense. Black 12's angle of entry (re the gate) is also very suspect, but probably not a problem since he's entering through his goal area?

daveharnett · 06-06-2012 11:36am

thomond2006 wrote: »

Is there a law preventing a drop goal being scored from a restart kick?

The definition of a dropped goal prevents it (emphasis mine):

Dropped Goal. A player scores a dropped goal by kicking a goal from a drop kick in general play. The team awarded a free kick cannot score a dropped goal until the ball next becomes dead, or until an opponent has played or touched it, or has tackled the ball carrier. This restriction applies also to a scrum taken instead of a free kick.

Since a restart is not a part of "general play", a dropped goal can't be scored.

pickarooney · 06-06-2012 12:30pm

15W and 12B aren't bound at any stage with the ball between them as far as I can see.

daveharnett · 06-06-2012 12:54pm

pickarooney wrote: »

15W and 12B aren't bound at any stage with the ball between them as far as I can see.

On the fourth or fifth replay, I've seen what you mean. The ball squirts loose between 15W's legs just before 12B makes contact with him.

It's an interesting example - given so much to process in such a short space of time, any number of things could be going through the ref's head. In the absence of a clear shout of "ruck, you're offside" or "no ruck, play on", it's hard to fault a player for grabbing the ball first and asking questions later.

Should the ref be stating his position here, or keeping quiet and letting the tmo sort it all out? (I know, in general the ref is correct by default, but this situation has tmo written all over it).

pickarooney · 06-06-2012 1:39pm

He went straight to the TMO, who advised him to give the penalty and yellow. It would be understandable if the ref made a split-second decision but the TMO should be making these calls correctly in high-profile matches.

Podge_irl · 06-06-2012 5:15pm

Unsure of the intricacies of the situation, but for my mind a ruck hasn't been formed there.

Absolutely cracking tackle from Clerc though.

Shelflife · 06-06-2012 9:02pm

But even if there is no ruck formed, the defending players would have to come through the gate or at least get behind the tackle line to put themselves onside??

Shelflife · 06-06-2012 9:03pm

But even if there is no ruck formed, the defending players would have to come through the gate or at least get behind the tackle line to put themselves onside??

castie · 07-06-2012 3:19am

Shelflife wrote: »

But even if there is no ruck formed, the defending players would have to come through the gate or at least get behind the tackle line to put themselves onside??

If theres no ruck formed then there is no offside line.

I still stand by my comments that you cant just cross the line go to deck and not get it down so toss it back into the field of play.

Dave your thoughts on that part?

Shelflife · 07-06-2012 10:00am

But if there is a tackle then that becomes the offside line and you must enter through the gate.

pickarooney · 07-06-2012 10:04am

Shelflife wrote: »

But if there is a tackle then that becomes the offside line and you must enter through the gate.

Enter what though, if there's no ruck or maul there?

There should have been no option for him to take that ball in any case as Evans was held up.

22.10 BALL HELD UP IN-GOAL
When a player carrying the ball is held up in the in-goal so that the player cannot ground the ball, the ball is dead. A 5-metre scrum is formed.

Shelflife · 07-06-2012 1:06pm

When a player is tackled the arriving players who will subsequently form a ruck (usually) must enter through the gate ie: the length of the player who was tackled.

Podge_irl · 07-06-2012 2:20pm

But if a player is tackled and offloads the ball into the hands of a retreating defensive player that is not given as offside.

I'd be inclined to go with the fact it should have been a 5m scrum though regardless.

rje66 · 07-06-2012 8:56pm

But if there is a tackle then that becomes the offside line and you must enter through the gate.

lets forget about the ball for the moment, so assuming that both players are on the ground and in in goal then there is no offside line as a tackle can only take place in the field of play,( ie between try lines.)so no gate no offside line.
agree with others a 5m scrum would be a fair call, but then again we have seen slomo replays etc to form an opinion, ref had split second.
And it looked so wrong when b15 took ball to round the ball, even though it was technically legal.

Podge_irl · 07-06-2012 9:05pm

rje66 wrote: »

agree with others a 5m scrum would be a fair call, but then again we have seen slomo replays etc to form an opinion, ref had split second.

Except it was a TMO call.

rje66 · 08-06-2012 12:07pm

agree, even though he hasnt the authority to make such a call. bad day at office for TMO.
think ref just got into a big fluster and then made worse by tmo.

But sometimes in communication to tmos it goes something like this, "try, yes or no?, if its not ill restart with a penalty", so poss ref assumed ruck had formed in field of play, and toul. 15 was offfside.

pickarooney · 08-06-2012 12:24pm

The TMO in the Top14 has the right to call on any aspect of the play around the try line.

daveharnett · 10-06-2012 6:02pm

Shelflife wrote: »

But if there is a tackle then that becomes the offside line and you must enter through the gate.

No offside line per se at a tackle, the gate only applies if you want to get involved at the tackle area. Since the ball has left the tackle area, there's no problem unless a ruck has taken place.

castie wrote: »

I still stand by my comments that you cant just cross the line go to deck and not get it down so toss it back into the field of play.

Dave your thoughts on that part?

pickarooney wrote: »

There should have been no option for him to take that ball in any case as Evans was held up.

22.10 BALL HELD UP IN-GOAL
When a player carrying the ball is held up in the in-goal so that the player cannot ground the ball, the ball is dead. A 5-metre scrum is formed.

IMO the purpose of the 'held up' law is to prevent a dangerous stalemate. Given that the ball becomes available promptly and fairly here, I wouldn't see any benefit in interrupting play.

Gelio · 16-06-2012 11:43am

In the Irish game early engage was being penalized with a penalty, in the Australia game it was being penalized with free kicks. Which is the right call?

kensutz · 16-06-2012 11:49am

Free kick unless repeated infringements after the ref gives a warning. Didn't see the game so don't know how many times they engaged early.

Downtime · 19-06-2012 7:35am

ajeffares wrote: »

In the Irish game early engage was being penalized with a penalty, in the Australia game it was being penalized with free kicks. Which is the right call?

When did this happen? Was watching the game and didn't notice it. We were definitely FK'd for two early engagements.

daveharnett · 19-06-2012 9:38am

Downtime wrote: »

When did this happen? Was watching the game and didn't notice it. We were definitely FK'd for two early engagements.

Same here. In fact I thought Owens gave up on policing it entirely after 60 minutes, to the point where they engaging on the 'e' of 'pause' at 75 minutes.

Snickers Man · 19-06-2012 4:18pm

This has come up in a thread concerning the second test between Ireland and New Zealand played last Saturday.

It concerns the scrum awarded to New Zealand in the last minute from which they scored their winning dropped goal. The scrum was awarded following a failed dropped goal attempt which was touched in flight and then played dead behind the Irish posts by an Irish defender. The referee gave a scrum 5 ruling that the ball had been played behind the goal line by an Irish player (the one who had touched it in flight)

But Neil Francis points out in the Indo that the defender (Reddan) was pressurised by two New Zealand players who had been in front of Carter when the ball was kicked. Under the 10m law, they were offside as they should have been retreating rather than following up as Reddan got the ball.

As I have a copy of both the 2009 version of the IRB Laws of the game, and the 2012 version I can verify that there were changes to Law 11.4 "Offside under the 10m law" made between 2009 and 2012.

Section f of the 2009 version states:

(f) The 10-Metre Law does not apply when a player kicks the ball, and an opponent charges down the kick, and a team-mate of the kicker who was in front of the imaginary 10-metre line across the field then plays the ball. The opponent was not ‘waiting to play the ball’ and the team-mate is onside.

But the 2012 version adds a crucial sentence, namely:
The 10-metre Law applies if the ball touches or is played by an opponent but is not charged down.

The emphasis is mine in each case.

So this new statement of the law introduces a distinction between "charge down" and "touches or is played by an opponent but not charged down".

I don't think there are any grounds for saying that Carter's first failed drop kick was charged down, although it was certainly touched. But if the two New Zealand players who forced Reddan into making the ball dead were indeed in front of the kicker then they were offside under the current statement of Law 11.4.

Are there any possible grounds for ambiguity under this?

locum-motion · 19-06-2012 6:03pm

Snickers Man wrote: »

...Are there any possible grounds for ambiguity under this?

Seems fairly unambiguous to me!

rje66 · 19-06-2012 9:21pm

havnt seen match so cant comment on the drop goal , but there is a difference between ball touching a player and attempted charged down in relation to players in front of team who kicked the ball.

in the classic charge down scenario the ball brushes the chargers arm but still continues up field where his team are , they have been put on side by the ball touching the classic charge down man:)

in a scenario where player with ball kicks through, but it touches an opposition player and continues up field where the kickers team mates are they are off side.
see link
http://www.irblaws.com/EN/clarificationdetail/year/2011/81

davesweets · 19-06-2012 9:38pm

Here is the link to highlights and also the full match. Hope this helps

Snickers Man · 20-06-2012 8:40am

rje66 wrote: »

havnt seen match so cant comment on the drop goal , but there is a difference between ball touching a player and attempted charged down in relation to players in front of team who kicked the ball.

in the classic charge down scenario the ball brushes the chargers arm but still continues up field where his team are , they have been put on side by the ball touching the classic charge down man:)

in a scenario where player with ball kicks through, but it touches an opposition player and continues up field where the kickers team mates are they are off side.
see link
http://www.irblaws.com/EN/clarificationdetail/year/2011/81

Thanks for clearing that up.

Seems like Owens was right, then. But my God what a palaver! I am racking my brains to think of a possible scenario that would justify the addition of that sentence to the most recent version of the law book if an attempted charge down, such as that effected by the Irish player on Saturday does not mean the same as "touched or played but not charged down"

My brain is too teeny for all this spurious detail.

daveharnett · 20-06-2012 8:55am

Snickers Man wrote: »

My brain is too teeny for all this spurious detail.

The law seems sensible to me, but the writing is clear as mud.

A: Defender deliberately (partially or fully) blocks the kick - "all on".
B: Kicker kicks into a passive defender (usually a grubber that hits a leg) - normal offside rules apply.

castie · 20-06-2012 9:43pm

daveharnett wrote: »

The law seems sensible to me, but the writing is clear as mud.

A: Defender deliberately (partially or fully) blocks the kick - "all on".
B: Kicker kicks into a passive defender (usually a grubber that hits a leg) - normal offside rules apply.

What about the scenario where someone goes to charge down but catches and maintains possession.

In my opinion the guys in front are still offside.

Thoughts?

rje66 · 21-06-2012 9:09am

In my opinion the guys in front are still offside.

as ball catcher is heading the opposite way, arent they now the guys behind

:)

castie · 21-06-2012 9:10am

rje66 wrote: »

as ball catcher is heading the opposite way, arent they now the guys behind:)

Theyre still in front of the kicker.

daveharnett · 21-06-2012 9:15am

castie wrote: »

What about the scenario where someone goes to charge down but catches and maintains possession.

In my opinion the guys in front are still offside.

Thoughts?

Agreed. The "is played by" part means that a block down has to be an attempt to block the kick, exclusivity.

If the 'blocking' player attempts to take possession (before the ball hits the ground or another player), then the action loses it's "block down" status, and normal rules (including knock-on and, offside) apply.

rje66 · 21-06-2012 6:27pm

castie wrote: »

Theyre still in front of the kicker.

dont think they are off side as the actions of the player catching the attempted kick has put them on side, but should a ruck form then they are.

Pighead · 21-06-2012 11:35pm

Scoreboard reads Team A 15 Team B 7. The time is up and Team B are attacking. They grab a try to make it 15 12.

Now my question is: Can Team B's kicker aim to kick the ball against the post so the ball rebounds back on to the field of play thus giving them a chance to score a try/pen to win/draw the match or is the match deemed over as soon as the conversion is kicked?

ormond lad · 21-06-2012 11:42pm

Pighead wrote: »

Scoreboard reads Team A 15 Team B 7. The time is up and Team B are attacking. They grab a try to make it 15 12.

Now my question is: Can Team B's kicker aim to kick the ball against the post so the ball rebounds back on to the field of play thus giving them a chance to score a try/pen to win/draw the match or is the match deemed over as soon as the conversion is kicked?

if team Bs kick at goal is missed or hits the post its the end of the match and team A wins.
if the ref deems team A may have committed an offence as/after team B scored the try. team B may be awarded a penalty on the halfway line and will have a chance to win the game

Pighead · 21-06-2012 11:49pm

ormond lad wrote: »

if team Bs kick at goal is missed or hits the post its the end of the match and team A wins.

Right. So even if a player from team B catches the rebounded ball (after it has hit the post) before it hits the ground the game is still deemed over.

locum-motion · 22-06-2012 12:16am

Pighead wrote: »

Right. So even if a player from team B catches the rebounded ball (after it has hit the post) before it hits the ground the game is still deemed over.

From a penalty attempt, the ball is still in play if/when it comes back of the post.
From a conversion attempt, it isn't.

castie · 22-06-2012 8:44am

rje66 wrote: »

dont think they are off side as the actions of the player catching the attempted kick has put them on side, but should a ruck form then they are.

Then how is anyone ever offside from a kick.
Person catches and plays the ball you are claiming this puts them onside.

Disagree completely

daveharnett · 22-06-2012 8:47am

rje66 wrote: »

dont think they are off side as the actions of the player catching the attempted kick has put them on side, but should a ruck form then they are.

11.3 BEING PUT ONSIDE BY OPPONENTS

In general play, there are three ways by which an offside player can be put onside by an action of the opposing team. These three ways do not apply to a player who is offside under the 10-Metre Law.
(a) Runs 5 metres with ball. When an opponent carrying the ball runs 5 metres, the offside player is put onside.

(b) Kicks or passes. When an opponent kicks or passes the ball, the offside player is put onside.

(c) Intentionally touches ball. When an opponent intentionally touches the ball but does not catch it, the offside player is put onside.

That being said, 10 meter law is pretty much certain to apply.

Shelflife · 23-06-2012 9:58am

Gears " hand off " on Earls.

For me it was a red card, extremely dangerous.

Am I over reacting?

rje66 · 23-06-2012 2:36pm

castie wrote: »

Then how is anyone ever offside from a kick.
Person catches and plays the ball you are claiming this puts them onside.

Disagree completely

im starting to see your logic here.:mad:

so in my mind they are technically offside, but as the catcher(he caught his own charge down) is heading in the opposite direction to the offside players , im not thinking they are going to have any effect on the match , play on i say:D:D

locum-motion · 23-06-2012 9:24pm

Shelflife wrote: »

Gears " hand off " on Earls.

For me it was a red card, extremely dangerous.

Am I over reacting?

It definitely warrants a citing.

I_smell_fear · 24-06-2012 11:08am

When a team is awarded a penalty but they still have the ball (advantage being played), what is the point in attempting a drop goal? You already have the penalty opportunity awaiting you, so why not try a box kick/any kick in behind the defence and go for a try. If the kick doesn't work out, you then come back for the penalty.

Or is there some rule outlawing this?

locum-motion · 24-06-2012 3:39pm

I_smell_fear wrote: »

When a team is awarded a penalty but they still have the ball (advantage being played), what is the point in attempting a drop goal? You already have the penalty opportunity awaiting you, so why not try a box kick/any kick in behind the defence and go for a try. If the kick doesn't work out, you then come back for the penalty.

Or is there some rule outlawing this?

No law forbidding it, but you might as well ask why go for a drop goal over a kick behind the defence, ever?

A player may attempt a drop goal at any time the ball is in play. At any point in time, the player may decide that the potential benefits of a drop goal (3points) times the likelihood of success outweighs the potential benefits of a try (5or 7 points) times the likelihood of success. Going for a try, the benefits are greater, but the likelihood of success is lower.

Having a penalty advantage in a kickable position does not substantially alter the equation, with the exception that it adds the following to both sides of that equation: if you fail, you'll get another chance.
The 'another chance' is not a certain 3 points either, coz you might miss. Also, when taking the 'another chance', you still have a choice to make; you might decide to go for the corner and go for a lineout drive for 5/7 points.

The 'equation' I mentioned above has two elements on each side; potential benefit and likelihood of success.
The potential benefit is always greater on the 'try' side of the equation, but there are times when other factors make a DG 'worth more'. Not in terms of absolute numbers of points, of course, but the DG assumes greater importance in the following situations;
Opening minutes of the match
Closing minutes of the match
The score is currently a draw
You are losing by 1,2 or 3 points
You are winning by 5,6 or 7 points
The likelihood of success is the part of the equation that fluctuates most throughout the match, and there are a million and one different factors that feed into that likelihood; weather, skill, opposition, field position etc. However, when all those factors are favourable (such as a scrum, ruck or maul 15m from the opposition's line + skilful kicker in position + following breeze etc) then the likelihood of success is going to be close to 1.0 (ie a virtual certainty). The likelihood of scoring a try, even in the same field position, is never going to be anywhere near that.

Most of what I've written above applies equally to situations where you do or do not have a penalty advantage. As I typed, I thought of a situation where a penalty advantage changes things (which, after all, was what you actually asked).
The advantage law allows for play to proceed to see if the team obtains a "territorial or tactical advantage". If O'Gara (for example) hits a little grubber through, and O'Driscoll runs on to it and catches it, two metres closer to the opposition's line than where the penalty would have been, then the ref might interpret that as being a "territorial advantage". He drops his hand, says "advantage over", and then some big flanker tackles BOD, who loses the ball forward in the tackle. In this situation, not only is the 'second chance' gone, but it's now scrum down, opposition put-in. One would look pretty silly for not having attempted the DG then!

That being said, many moons ago when I was toying with the idea of becoming a ref, I was present when André Watson (prob the world's greatest ref at the time) told a referees' seminar in Dublin that for him, a penalty advantage in a kickable position means "points on the board". ie in the situation I outlined above, Watson wouldn't have called "advantage over" and would have brought it back for the penalty.

daveharnett · 24-06-2012 4:39pm

Shelflife wrote: »

Gears " hand off " on Earls.

For me it was a red card, extremely dangerous.

Am I over reacting?

I can't get past the fact that Earls' [absence of] technique contributes massively to this incident. Given how rarely dangerous handoffs are penalized, I'd have been surprised to see anything come of it.

Not saying that's right, but I don't think we can expect anything to change here without some kind of guidance in law on what is and isn't allowed in the handoff. Making it clear that a 'handoff' involves the hand rather than the elbow or forearm would be a good start.

pickarooney · 25-06-2012 8:45am

Club game at the weekend: Blue fly-half hoofs a long kick out of defence, close to the opposition 22. Blue winger and lock chase after it. Yellow full-back, all on his own, misses the catch and gathers at the second attempt. Blue winger snaffles him up, puts him down while staying on his feet and goes to claim the ball. Yellow 15 is still on his own and doesn't release and when the blue lock and winger try to rip it from him he lies on it.

Grounds for a penalty try and/or yellow card?

To put it into perspective, it was +30 degrees, blue 4 and 14 were fresh subs and nobody was able/bothered to leg it after them in time to assist the yellow full back.

daveharnett · 25-06-2012 9:04am

pickarooney wrote: »

Club game at the weekend: Blue fly-half hoofs a long kick out of defence, close to the opposition 22. Blue winger and lock chase after it. Yellow full-back, all on his own, misses the catch and gathers at the second attempt. Blue winger snaffles him up, puts him down while staying on his feet and goes to claim the ball. Yellow 15 is still on his own and doesn't release and when the blue lock and winger try to rip it from him he lies on it.

Grounds for a penalty try and/or yellow card?

To put it into perspective, it was +30 degrees, blue 4 and 14 were fresh subs and nobody was able/bothered to leg it after them in time to assist the yellow full back.

From your description, it sounds like it would have been a nailed on certain try if blue winger releases immediately. Sounds like a penalty try to me.
If the outcome was more doubtful I'd look at a yellow card instead, but I wouldn't do both unless the winger had already received a personal warning (or team warning for not releasing). I'd generally reserve PT+YC for dangerous play preventing a try.

castie · 25-06-2012 9:44am

pickarooney wrote: »

Club game at the weekend: Blue fly-half hoofs a long kick out of defence, close to the opposition 22. Blue winger and lock chase after it. Yellow full-back, all on his own, misses the catch and gathers at the second attempt. Blue winger snaffles him up, puts him down while staying on his feet and goes to claim the ball. Yellow 15 is still on his own and doesn't release and when the blue lock and winger try to rip it from him he lies on it.

Grounds for a penalty try and/or yellow card?

To put it into perspective, it was +30 degrees, blue 4 and 14 were fresh subs and nobody was able/bothered to leg it after them in time to assist the yellow full back.

Bolded above makes me belive he didnt actually release the man?

Assuming he did release the man. Penalty try can only be awarded when it is likely a try would of been scored. So no I wouldnt think you can give that otherwise a high tackle on a breakaway can be a penalty try.

As for the yellow it would be very harsh as a ref needs to be consistent and theres no difference between what youve described and someone not releasing in any other scenario.

Laws Question? Ask here!

Comments