Laws Question? Ask here!

locum-motion · 27-09-2015 5:37pm

wp_rathead wrote: »

Rather silly question but just to satisfy my own curiosity, is there anything to stop a player from opposing team going over and easedropping on forwards huddle when they deciding what to do at a lineout
...

Absolutely nothing to stop you eavesdropping, but:
A: there's no need. The line out calls are usually made loud enough that you'd be able to hear them perfectly without having to approach the huddle. However:
B: it's unlikely to do you much good - the calls are encoded, so unless you're good at cryptography, they'll mean nothing to you.

stadedublinois · 27-09-2015 5:38pm

That's more or less what happens now though. The officials are in constant contact.

Not sure the comparison with American football works that well. From my limited knowledge, are most decisions not decided after the end of the play? How do you apply it to continous play?

Are there two referees on the pitch in the NRL? If so, anybody know how it works?

AbusesToilets · 27-09-2015 5:40pm

Question in relation to rucks. At what point does a clear out become sealing off? Many times you see an attacking drive through with a good clear out and end up with players on the deck, essentially sealing, which isn't called. Yet at other rucks you'll see a player clear out past the ball and fall on the deck to be called up for sealing. Is there any law that states the difference or is it simply ref discretion?

awec · 27-09-2015 5:42pm

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Question in relation to rucks. At what point does a clear out become sealing off? Many times you see an attacking drive through with a good clear out and end up with players on the deck, essentially sealing, which isn't called. Yet at other rucks you'll see a player clear out past the ball and fall on the deck to be called up for sealing. Is there any law that states the difference or is it simply ref discretion?

If a player goes off his feet deliberately (i.e. flops on top of the breakdown) to prevent the opposition getting near the ball it'll be called sealing off.

AbusesToilets · 27-09-2015 5:42pm

stadedublinois wrote: »

That's more or less what happens now though. The officials are in constant contact.

Not sure the comparison with American football works that well. From my limited knowledge, are most decisions not decided after the end of the play? How do you apply it to continous play?

Are there two referees on the pitch in the NRL? If so, anybody know how it works?

I would think that it would work similarly to how it is now with the Assistant refs on the sideline, just with refs closer to the action who can watch for specific things like offsides, while the Head ref focuses on the main action. Assistants can signal transgressions to the head ref, for him to decide on.

AbusesToilets · 27-09-2015 5:43pm

awec wrote: »

If a player goes off his feet (i.e. flops on top of the breakdown) to prevent the opposition getting near the ball it'll be called sealing off.

That was my understanding of it, seems inconsistent at times (isn't everything).

The Lost Sheep · 27-09-2015 5:51pm

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Question in relation to rucks. At what point does a clear out become sealing off? Many times you see an attacking drive through with a good clear out and end up with players on the deck, essentially sealing, which isn't called. Yet at other rucks you'll see a player clear out past the ball and fall on the deck to be called up for sealing. Is there any law that states the difference or is it simply ref discretion?

It will vary on the situation and its hard to define exactly when it is sealing off

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I would think that it would work similarly to how it is now with the Assistant refs on the sideline, just with refs closer to the action who can watch for specific things like offsides, while the Head ref focuses on the main action. Assistants can signal transgressions to the head ref, for him to decide on.

That occurs already

AbusesToilets · 27-09-2015 5:54pm

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

It will vary on the situation and its hard to define exactly when it is sealing off

It does seem very open to the refs interpretation alright.

wp_rathead · 01-10-2015 10:28pm

wp_rathead wrote: »

Rather silly question but just to satisfy my own curiosity, is there anything to stop a player from opposing team going over and easedropping on forwards huddle when they deciding what to do at a lineout

Guessing it comes under:
Law 10.4
(m) Acts contrary to good sportsmanship.
A player must not do anything that is against the spirit of good sportsmanship in the playing enclosure.
Sanction: Penalty kick
Or
(n) Misconduct while the ball is out of play.
A player, must not, while the ball is out of play, commit any misconduct, or obstruct or in any way interfere with an opponent.
Sanction: Penalty kick

Cudmore tried this today vs France

sydthebeat · 03-10-2015 5:27pm

I think its been mentioned a few places already, but has the law against "jumping the tackle" gone or become too lax.
i knows theres no specific mention of it in the laws, but it was always considered an act of dangerous or unfair play when i grew up.

is it against law 10.2 (a) ??

a japanese player today was knocked out by a samoan who jumped into his attempted tackle.
Now the japanese player had his head on the wrong side, and that to blame for the outcome, but i was surprised the ref didnt at least warn the samoan. We've all seen jonny mays hurdling attempts recently, and i remember shane williams was prone to the odd ballet act too.... so im wondering

has the act become an allowable act?

The Lost Sheep · 03-10-2015 5:56pm

sydthebeat wrote: »

I think its been mentioned a few places already, but has the law against "jumping the tackle" gone or become too lax.
i knows theres no specific mention of it in the laws, but it was always considered an act of dangerous or unfair play when i grew up.

is it against law 10.2 (a) ??

a japanese player today was knocked out by a samoan who jumped into his attempted tackle.
Now the japanese player had his head on the wrong side, and that to blame for the outcome, but i was surprised the ref didnt at least warn the samoan. We've all seen jonny mays hurdling attempts recently, and i remember shane williams was prone to the odd ballet act too.... so im wondering

has the act become an allowable act?

Perhaps its gone a bit lax but at same time I penalised 2 players for doing it in my game this morning.... Dangerous play/intentional offending

daveharnett · 05-10-2015 11:11am

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Question in relation to rucks. At what point does a clear out become sealing off? Many times you see an attacking drive through with a good clear out and end up with players on the deck, essentially sealing, which isn't called. Yet at other rucks you'll see a player clear out past the ball and fall on the deck to be called up for sealing. Is there any law that states the difference or is it simply ref discretion?

Off-feet (usually) only gets penalised when it prevents a fair contest for the ball.

If the "clearing out" player drives his opponents so far back that he decisively "wins" the contest of the ruck, then he'll be forgiven for losing his feet as his opponents fall away.

All that being said, standards have clearly slipped (or consciously been lowered) over the last week.

Losty Dublin · 20-10-2015 10:10pm

An interesting take on the controversial penalty last Sunday.

http://www.sareferees.com/News/law-discussion-the-final-scottish-nail/2830520/

pickarooney · 23-10-2015 10:16pm

The clock runs out just before a restart is taken and the kicker boots it straight into touch. Game over or scrum to the opposition?

At a match tonight and the kicker sent it down field for the opposition to run back between the posts. Fourteen points conceded from 79.40 on the clock.

sydthebeat · 23-10-2015 10:20pm

13.8 Ball goes directly into touch

The ball must land in the field of play. If it is kicked directly into touch the opposing team has three choices:

To have the ball kicked off again, or
To have a scrum at the centre and they have the throw-in, or
To accept the kick.

If they accept the kick, the lineout is on the half way line. If the ball is blown behind the half way line and goes directly into touch, the lineout is at the place where it went into touch.

irishbucsfan · 23-10-2015 10:25pm

It depends on whether or not the ref thinks it was intentional I would imagine, a bit like a kick at goal landing in play.

Tim Robbins · 24-10-2015 10:03pm

pickarooney wrote: »

The clock runs out just before a restart is taken and the kicker boots it straight into touch. Game over or scrum to the opposition?

At a match tonight and the kicker sent it down field for the opposition to run back between the posts. Fourteen points conceded from 79.40 on the clock.

I presume you mean a kick off after a score? You can't kick it out on the full.

http://laws.worldrugby.org/?domain=10&clarlaw=5&clarification=2

Losty Dublin · 24-10-2015 11:36pm

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I presume you mean a kick off after a score? You can't kick it out on the full.

http://laws.worldrugby.org/?domain=10&clarlaw=5&clarification=2

If time is up before the conversion is taken then the half is over and the kick should not have been taken in the first place

pickarooney · 25-10-2015 7:49am

Losty Dublin wrote: »

If time is up before the conversion is taken then the half is over and the kick should not have been taken in the first place

They drop kicked the conversion instantly after the score. They didn't wait for the defense to get behind the line. Not sure if that's allowed or not.

Losty Dublin · 25-10-2015 12:26pm

pickarooney wrote: »

They drop kicked the conversion instantly after the score. They didn't wait for the defense to get behind the line. Not sure if that's allowed or not.

As I said, if playing time expires before the kick is taken then that's that. You can take the conversion as speedily as you like. To be fair it's something that rarely ever crops up as an issue.

Mantis Toboggan · 25-10-2015 12:34pm

Lads, any rule against wearing gloves? I would have thought they are beneficial in the wet but don't think I've seen anyone wearing them!

Yeah_Right · 25-10-2015 12:38pm

Dennis Reynolds wrote: »

Lads, any rule against wearing gloves? I would have thought they are beneficial in the wet but don't think I've seen anyone wearing them!

Full gloves aren't allowed. Fingerless ones are though. There was a bit of fad in the late 90s early 2000s where a lot of players wore them. Seem to have gone out of fashion now though.

duckysauce · 26-10-2015 4:07am

Yeah_Right wrote: »

Full gloves aren't allowed. Fingerless ones are though. There was a bit of fad in the late 90s early 2000s where a lot of players wore them. Seem to have gone out of fashion now though.

duckysauce · 26-10-2015 4:11am

Fatty Goode was a glove freak too

pickarooney · 26-10-2015 7:06am

Goromaru wears some weird gloves.

MRTULES · 26-10-2015 9:50am

I can't remember the exact minute or player but in last nights match there was a Argentina penalty that they kick to touch. Oz winger (maybe Adam Ashley) jumped to catch and throw the ball back into play all be it across the line. What is the rule in relation to this?

Losty Dublin · 26-10-2015 11:18am

MRTULES wrote: »

I can't remember the exact minute or player but in last nights match there was a Argentina penalty that they kick to touch. Oz winger (maybe Adam Ashley) jumped to catch and throw the ball back into play all be it across the line. What is the rule law in relation to this?

Four different scenarios come into play here. The ball is out of play once it's touched something or somebody that's out of play.

If a player is outside of the playing area, he may knock or kick the ball back into the playing area provided that the ball hasn't crossed the plain of touch when he does so (That means a vertical line above the touch line).
If a player is inside the field of play and catches the ball cleanly before it goes into touch then it's play on.
If a player is inside the field of play, catches and then steps onto the touchline or outside then it's a line out, he having taken it into touch.
If a player is in touch and catches the ball then it is out of play, the player himself making the ball dead.

Tim Robbins · 26-10-2015 11:40am

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Four different scenarios come into play here. The ball is out of play once it's touched something or somebody that's out of play.
If a player is outside of the playing area, he may knock or kick the ball back into the playing area provided that the ball hasn't crossed the plain of touch when he does so (That means a vertical line above the touch line).

If a player is inside the field of play and catches the ball cleanly before it goes into touch then it's play on.

If a player is inside the field of play, catches and then steps onto the touchline or outside then it's a line out, he having taken it into touch.

If a player is in touch and catches the ball then it is out of play, the player himself making the ball dead.

Tricky part of the law there. But his body and the ball were both above the plane of touch therefore it was in touch. Irrespective of where the ball ends up and where he lands.

Decent enough video here of various scenarios.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZSZd6uXDwI

See scenario 14 after 16 mins.

Losty Dublin · 26-10-2015 1:26pm

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Tricky part of the law there. But his body and the ball were both above the plane of touch therefore it was in touch. Irrespective of where the ball ends up and where he lands.

Decent enough video here of various scenarios.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZSZd6uXDwI

See scenario 14 after 16 mins.

I didn't see the game yet so I can't comment on the specific incident. With that in mind it should fall under the four scenarios that I listed above. You have only gone and given us a fifth.

You bastard

Tim Robbins · 26-10-2015 6:43pm

Losty Dublin wrote: »

You bastard

This is Rugby not Soccer

Laws Question? Ask here!

Comments