Laws Question? Ask here!

MyKeyG · 03-07-2012 12:43am

CatFromHue wrote: »

MyKeyG wrote: »

Well said. It's one thing I've noticed about CFH. His opinion is fact in his own mind and the rest of us are wrong.

Lol why would I argue something that I think is wrong?

What's your opinion on what Tuilagi did to De Villiers in the clip above?

Another ref messing it up is it?

The conspiracy deepens :pac:

Tuilagi did not EXTEND his arm AT ALL!!! He crashed into the tackle. Gear saw his target extended his arm into Earls.

justsomebloke · 03-07-2012 11:22am

MyKeyG banned

blindsider · 03-07-2012 12:53pm

Did I miss sth here? Did he post sth which has been deleted, or was he banned for the comment re Tuilagi?

Thanks.

ScareGilly · 03-07-2012 2:19pm

CatFromHue wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CG8mJTzLcQ

What's everyones take on what Tuilagi does at 0.55 on the clip above?

Also JDV shoves his shoulder into Tuilagi's face at 0.22... Ref must've got that wrong too...

justsomebloke · 03-07-2012 3:08pm

blindsider wrote: »

Did I miss sth here? Did he post sth which has been deleted, or was he banned for the comment re Tuilagi?

Thanks.

his post has been edited by me to remove personal abuse

justsomebloke · 04-07-2012 11:22am

Blindsider is now also banned with his posts deleted.

Please attack the post and not the poster. EVERYONE is entitled to their own opinion, if you feel the information someone is providing is incorrect, provide evidence in a CIVIL manner to the contrary. If you can't do it in a civil manner please don't post as you yourself will most likely end up infracted or banned

castie · 08-07-2012 1:41am

At present in the game it is accepted.
This however doesnt make it right or within the laws of the game.

Similar to as I have already pointed out hitting a ruck with your shoulder and no arms.

It will take a directive to stamp it out but it will be very hard to interpret.
How far out does the hand have to be before its no longer protecting the ball carrier?

You would also need to take intent into it as a forearm to the chest may be okay but the head not.

Similar to a high tackle but in this case the tackler.
If the tackler drives his head towards an arm (similar to a ball carrier ducking a tackle) and gets hit then thats not a penalty.
If the ball carrier aims for the head directly then a penalty.

I think the above would be a nightmare for a ref to deal with.

The clips above de Villiers at 0:22 uses his forearm as a fend to keep the tackler away rather than a striking action. (Okay in my book)

The Tuilagi one is a hard one to call.
de Villiers and dropped down into a charge by Tuilagi who has led with the forearm. If someone ducks into a high tackle its not a penalty so can the same be applied here?? (I dont think its okay but present day game accepts it)

Prick! · 24-08-2012 9:36pm

Hi, I have a referees meeting tomorrow at 5.30 in the sportsground. Do I park in the actual ground or pay for parking just outside it?

kensutz · 24-08-2012 9:45pm

I'm sure if it's a ref meeting that you'll park in the ground.

.ak · 25-08-2012 1:13pm

Prick! wrote: »

Hi, I have a referees meeting tomorrow at 5.30 in the sportsground. Do I park in the actual ground or pay for parking just outside it?

Not exactly on topic - does not relate to laws of the game. In future don't be afraid of making a new thread on the forum if you have a question. If you have any questions you can PM the mods listed on the bottom of the forum.

daveharnett · 03-09-2012 1:03pm

So, one weekend into the pro12 and it looks like teams are already racing the ref to the "Set".

And refs are still berating scrumhalves for not getting the ball in, while both teams are blatantly driving through the engage.

Is this the IRB declaring the scrum a lost cause, or have I missed something?

CatFromHue · 03-09-2012 1:49pm

I don't see how bringing in the Set call will change much at all to be honest. There is still a big hit involved. Realistically until something is done with the hit we're going to have lots of problems i.e. take it out or defuse it big time!

Just on something else. In the Leinster game I saw Jennings a couple of times trying to get a maul going. He had the ball and was bound at the back of a couple players. Other players joining the maul though walked in front of him and he bound on them as opposed to binding on him and move the ball backwards. I presume this is illegal?

Prick! · 03-09-2012 2:54pm

I don't see why the 2 packs can't lean in and engage, then let the contest begin thus getting rid of the big hit. The hit is terrible imo, can only do damage.

Getting rid of the hit would mean less resets, and although there'd be less turnovers it would still work.

No turnovers isn't a bad thing as the scrum is only a way of restarting the game anyways and the team who knocks on etc shouldn't benefit unless they really earn it.

daveharnett · 04-09-2012 11:23am

CatFromHue wrote: »

Just on something else. In the Leinster game I saw Jennings a couple of times trying to get a maul going. He had the ball and was bound at the back of a couple players. Other players joining the maul though walked in front of him and he bound on them as opposed to binding on him and move the ball backwards. I presume this is illegal?

Players entering can join alongside the hindmost player (Jennings here). In practice, provided the player is just looking to find a good position to slot in and drive, refs will live with the new player ending up marginally ahead of the hindmost.

If on the other hand the hindmost is hanging out of the back, effectively forming a new row then joining players shouldn't be wandering past him into the row in front.

As to binding-on vs being bound-onto, either is fine.

17.4(c) Players joining the maul. Players joining a maul must do so from behind the foot of the hindmost team-mate in the maul. The player may join alongside this player. If the player joins the maul from the opponents’ side, or in front of the hindmost team-mate, the player is offside.
Sanction: Penalty kick on the offending team’s offside line

daveharnett · 04-09-2012 11:26am

Prick! wrote: »

I don't see why the 2 packs can't lean in and engage, then let the contest begin thus getting rid of the big hit. The hit is terrible imo, can only do damage.

I think the common defense is that the hit is exciting and pretty and marketable. On the other hand, 4+ minutes to resolve a knock-on isn't.

20.7(a) Play in the scrum begins when the ball leaves the hands of the scrum half.

I'd advocate an old-school approach. Rigidly forbid teams driving through the hit. After the engage, wait a second or three for the front row to stabilize. Once they're stationary and steady, then the ball can come in and the packs can drive.

As if by magic the engage becomes a non-issue, fewer things are happening at once, and it becomes much easier to spot players deliberately going up, down or in.

pickarooney · 04-09-2012 11:46am

In one of the Top 14 games at the weekend there was one single successful scrum out of 18. Pathetic, really.

TGoodall · 06-10-2012 10:12pm

Watching the Leinster v Munster game tonight I started wondering how players keep getting away with sliding in with the boot when guys are grounding the ball over the line. Simon Zebo did it twice tonight and it seems to be a fairly common tactic in trying to either get a foot under the ball or kick it loose.

Seems fairly dangerous and wouldn't be tolerated out the field.

.ak · 07-10-2012 11:01am

TGoodall wrote: »

Watching the Leinster v Munster game tonight I started wondering how players keep getting away with sliding in with the boot when guys are grounding the ball over the line. Simon Zebo did it twice tonight and it seems to be a fairly common tactic in trying to either get a foot under the ball or kick it loose.

Seems fairly dangerous and wouldn't be tolerated out the field.

AFAIK it is illegal. But it's up to the ref to act upon it if and when spotted.

daveharnett · 15-10-2012 4:23pm

TGoodall wrote: »

Watching the Leinster v Munster game tonight I started wondering how players keep getting away with sliding in with the boot when guys are grounding the ball over the line. Simon Zebo did it twice tonight and it seems to be a fairly common tactic in trying to either get a foot under the ball or kick it loose.

Seems fairly dangerous and wouldn't be tolerated out the field.

The laws specifically forbid attempting to kick the ball out of the carrier's hands as he grounds it, but it still goes unpunished all the time.

A similar "blind spot" that bothers me relates to shoulder charges where the would-be try scorer is near the touchline. It's vanishingly rare to see these penalized, even when they would rightly be straight reds if they were to occur anywhere else on the pitch.

sydthebeat · 15-10-2012 4:40pm

didnt zebo try it again on saturday last??
cant find a video of it but i remember remarking on it when it happened.

i can understand the attraction of "going in with the foot" to prevent a try as most of the time if you are in the act of tacking over the line to only way to stop the ground is to throw an extremity such as your leg under.
But this sliding in feet first is going to result in a serious injury soon if its not addressed.

castie · 16-10-2012 4:11am

Players have a right to try to get under the ball.

Note there is no rule preventing someone stopping the grounding by getting a foot under the ball.
So if the attacking player goes to ground it and hits defender foot with ball popping free. All legal.

The other thing to think of here is what happens if the player dives head first instead of sliding?
Isn't this equally if not more dangerous?

Steve Perchance · 16-10-2012 9:03am

castie wrote: »

Players have a right to try to get under the ball.

Note there is no rule preventing someone stopping the grounding by getting a foot under the ball.
So if the attacking player goes to ground it and hits defender foot with ball popping free. All legal.

The other thing to think of here is what happens if the player dives head first instead of sliding?
Isn't this equally if not more dangerous?

Theres not a rule against preventing the grounding by getting a foot under the ball, but as had been said, there is one against kicking the ball out of the players hands. To not get pinged for kicking the ball away, the defender's foot would need to be stationary - defeats the purpose of the lunge in that zebo does.

By sliding in headfirst, at least a player is looking to play the ball/player with their hands. But theres no excuse for reckless play that can cause serious injury, whether thats through a studs up sliding tackle that'd get you sent off in soccer, or a late flop on a player a la courtney lawes.

jacothelad · 16-10-2012 9:57am

Steve Perchance wrote: »

Theres not a rule against preventing the grounding by getting a foot under the ball, but as had been said, there is one against kicking the ball out of the players hands. To not get pinged for kicking the ball away, the defender's foot would need to be stationary - defeats the purpose of the lunge in that zebo does.

By sliding in headfirst, at least a player is looking to play the ball/player with their hands. But theres no excuse for reckless play that can cause serious injury, whether thats through a studs up sliding tackle that'd get you sent off in soccer, or a late flop on a player a la courtney lawes.

Nick De Luca has been doing it for years and his intent is clearly not about stopping a try being scored. His 'hits' are well after the touchdown. Mind you playing for Embra he gets lots of practice.

Gamayun · 17-10-2012 4:17pm

Quick Question.

Can a prop switch to hooker during a game? (and vice versa)

So, say a team has a ridiculously dominant scrum, however both the starting and replacement hooker get injured. They do not want to go to uncontested scrums as they have such an advantage, can they bring on a replacement prop to fill in at hooker and contest the scrum?

They should all be registered as front row players, does the actual position count?

jacothelad · 17-10-2012 4:38pm

Gamayun wrote: »

Quick Question.

Can a prop switch to hooker during a game? (and vice versa)

So, say a team has a ridiculously dominant scrum, however both the starting and replacement hooker get injured. They do not want to go to uncontested scrums as they have such an advantage, can they bring on a replacement prop to fill in at hooker and contest the scrum?

They should all be registered as front row players, does the actual position count?

Yes.

emmet02 · 17-10-2012 4:46pm

evidence: South Africa's Pocahantos hunter

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Smit

CIARAN_BOYLE · 17-10-2012 6:38pm

jacothelad wrote: »

Yes.

assuming that the referee is satisfied that the player has sufficiently high level experience in order to play at that position safely

LH/TH issue but same difference

Last year when Leinster played Ospreys and White and Hagan were both injured the referee asked if McGrath (the LH sub) has experience at TH before allowing him to come on and stop the game going to uncontested

Shelflife · 17-10-2012 9:29pm

Its not up to the ref to determine whether they are capable of performing safely in the front row.

The replacement props and hookers must be nominated on the team sheet, a player can be nominated as both a replacement prop and hooker if the coach deems him capable of providing cover.

If they are not listed as cover the ref should not allow contested scrums.

*only exception would be where the ref feels that a front row player is a danger to himself or others and can call for uncontested scrums on grounds of safety.

daveharnett · 18-10-2012 12:49am

Gamayun wrote: »

They should all be registered as front row players, does the actual position count?

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

LH/TH issue but same difference

Last year when Leinster played Ospreys and White and Hagan were both injured the referee asked if McGrath (the LH sub) has experience at TH before allowing him to come on and stop the game going to uncontested

Generally the specialists will be marked on the teamsheet as (P) or (H). It's very rare to see a prop specifically marked as (LH)/(TH). Because of this, if the first two options in a specialist position have been injured, it makes sense to confirm that the replacement is suitably trained and experienced in the vacant position.

As to allowing a prop to play hooker, the default answer would have to be no. Common sense should prevail in all things, but the worst case scenario doesn't bear thinking about.

locum-motion · 18-10-2012 9:09am

jacothelad wrote: »

Yes.

Is that a 'Yes' to "Can a player switch?" or to "Does the actual position count?"

Laws Question? Ask here!

Comments