Laws Question? Ask here!

Oregano_State · 09-03-2014 7:01pm

locum-motion wrote: »

No. Not me anyway.

Are you trying to turn it into American Football?

locum-motion wrote: »

It was not in the slightest bit "smart arse".

It reflects my opinion of what your idea would lead to.

If you ask for opinions, you have to be prepared for the fact that some people will have different opinions than yours. Sometimes radically different. That does not mean that all those who differ are smartarses.

Now, grow up.

Somebody's a bit touchy this afternoon.

I welcome opposing opinions; that's the reason I posted the question in the first place. Some posters have given thoughtful responses and I can see where they're coming from. That's the whole point of debate.

Your initial response stank of sarcasm and didn't offer anything to the thread. If that is the best you can come up with in reply to a genuine question then it doesn't say much about your ability to hold a reasoned discussion.

This is the last I'll say about this as it's derailing the thread.

phog · 09-03-2014 7:56pm

sydthebeat wrote: »

It's 90 seconds iirc

From here

21.4

No delay. If a kicker indicates to the referee the intention to kick a penalty kick at goal, the kick must be taken within one minute from the time the player indicates the intention to kick at goal. The intention to kick is signalled by the arrival of the kicking tee or sand, or when the player makes a mark on the ground. The player must complete the kick within one minute even if the ball rolls over and has to be placed again. If the one minute is exceeded, the kick is disallowed, a scrum is ordered at the place of the mark and the opponents throw in the ball. For any other type of kick, the kick must be taken without undue delay.

sydthebeat · 09-03-2014 8:00pm

thanks for that:

i had been going by this

edit:

actually im correct, sort of... theres a difference between times allowed for conversion and penalty ?!?!?

http://www.irblaws.com/index.php?domain=11&amendment=18

AMENDED LAW
9.B.1 Taking a conversion kick

(e)

The kicker must take the kick within one minute and thirty seconds (ninety seconds) from the time a try has been scored. The player must complete the kick within one minute and thirty seconds even if the ball rolls over and has to be placed again.

Shelflife · 09-03-2014 8:43pm

sydthebeat wrote: »

thanks for that:

i had been going by this

edit:

actually im correct, sort of... theres a difference between times allowed for conversion and penalty ?!?!?

http://www.irblaws.com/index.php?domain=11&amendment=18

AMENDED LAW
9.B.1 Taking a conversion kick

(e)

The kicker must take the kick within one minute and thirty seconds (ninety seconds) from the time a try has been scored. The player must complete the kick within one minute and thirty seconds even if the ball rolls over and has to be placed again.

90 secs from when the try was scored for a conversion.

60 secs from the arrival of the tee for a pen.

Losty Dublin · 09-03-2014 8:54pm

Shelflife wrote: »

90 secs from when the try was scored for a conversion.

60 secs from the arrival of the tee for a pen.

To add; sometimes these times appear longer because the clock is often stopped pre kick for injuries or for a referee to talk to players.

irishbucsfan · 10-03-2014 9:12am

I was discussing this with friends yesterday, what existing rule would you like to see enforced better or interpreted differently? A lot of people would say straight feed to scrums for example.

Personally, I think there's a major trend of obstruction at the breakdown from defensive teams emerging. For example two defensive players arrive at a breakdown. The first contests the ball, the second moves past the first and collapses around him to seal him off from the opposition (Ken Owens won a penalty like this yesterday for example). I know teams coach it. It's not particularly frustrating, but I see it in games quite a lot these days and I wonder if it can be stamped out or if it should just be accepted.

pickarooney · 10-03-2014 12:29pm

What happened to the directive on stamping out crooked feeds in the scrum? At the begining of the year they were whistling for it quite a bit but either the refs have been told to relax it or a lot of them are deciding to ignore the directive. And as for the Welsh boys standing to one side at the lineout - I can't understand why they're let away with that. It's not even subtle or last minute, it's three blatant crab steps over.

who_me · 10-03-2014 4:05pm

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I was discussing this with friends yesterday, what existing rule would you like to see enforced better or interpreted differently? A lot of people would say straight feed to scrums for example.

Personally, I think there's a major trend of obstruction at the breakdown from defensive teams emerging. For example two defensive players arrive at a breakdown. The first contests the ball, the second moves past the first and collapses around him to seal him off from the opposition (Ken Owens won a penalty like this yesterday for example). I know teams coach it. It's not particularly frustrating, but I see it in games quite a lot these days and I wonder if it can be stamped out or if it should just be accepted.

For me, I'd like to see the laws (or the implementation thereof) regarding the choke tackle being tweaked. It's punishing teams who want to play positive rugby, ball in hand. It might not have to be a draconian change, simply enforce the existing maul laws regarding defenders being on the wrong side & collapsing, and give the ball-carrier a reasonable opportunity to get it back once collapsed (some refs blow immediately). Perhaps one change - if the choke-tackle maul collapses, players must roll away if in a position to do so.

Something else I'd like to see eliminated is teams running down the clock with lots of 1-out carries on the fringe which are almost impossible to turn-over. They did make an effort to counter these in '09 by enforcing the 'off your feet' / bridging law incredibly strictly; but that to me was counter-productive. I'd love to see them penalise players for pre-binding onto the ball carrier before he goes into contact.

Or another approach: perhaps - if it's not impossibly complex to enforce - "If a ruck forms within 5m of the previous ruck, it is deemed to be a tackle rather than a ruck and 'tackle rules' apply". So unless the ball-carriers are aggressively getting across the gainline, they're in danger of the ball being turned over as defenders can come in from "the side". This would stop teams holding onto the ball by crabbing across the pitch with no chance of scoring nor opportunity for the defence to contest.

The Lost Sheep · 10-03-2014 4:51pm

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I was discussing this with friends yesterday, what existing rule would you like to see enforced better or interpreted differently? A lot of people would say straight feed to scrums for example.

Personally, I think there's a major trend of obstruction at the breakdown from defensive teams emerging. For example two defensive players arrive at a breakdown. The first contests the ball, the second moves past the first and collapses around him to seal him off from the opposition (Ken Owens won a penalty like this yesterday for example). I know teams coach it. It's not particularly frustrating, but I see it in games quite a lot these days and I wonder if it can be stamped out or if it should just be accepted.

Depends on what level you're talking about..
At pro level Crooked feeds are an annoyance but sometimes I just want a ref to allow slightly crooked feeds if it means the scrum doesn't overly dominate a game and constant penalties/free kicks are occurring each scrum.

who_me wrote: »

For me, I'd like to see the laws (or the implementation thereof) regarding the choke tackle being tweaked. It's punishing teams who want to play positive rugby, ball in hand. It might not have to be a draconian change, simply enforce the existing maul laws regarding defenders being on the wrong side & collapsing, and give the ball-carrier a reasonable opportunity to get it back once collapsed (some refs blow immediately). Perhaps one change - if the choke-tackle maul collapses, players must roll away if in a position to do so.

Something else I'd like to see eliminated is teams running down the clock with lots of 1-out carries on the fringe which are almost impossible to turn-over. They did make an effort to counter these in '09 by enforcing the 'off your feet' / bridging law incredibly strictly; but that to me was counter-productive. I'd love to see them penalise players for pre-binding onto the ball carrier before he goes into contact.

Or another approach: perhaps - if it's not impossibly complex to enforce - "If a ruck forms within 5m of the previous ruck, it is deemed to be a tackle rather than a ruck and 'tackle rules' apply". So unless the ball-carriers are aggressively getting across the gainline, they're in danger of the ball being turned over as defenders can come in from "the side". This would stop teams holding onto the ball by crabbing across the pitch with no chance of scoring nor opportunity for the defence to contest.

I disagree I don't think choke tackle punishes teams that want play positive open rugby.
Trevor Hogan always talking about choke tackle on radio, in his articles yet has his Nenagh team in AIL playing a very good open positive style of rugby.

I would like the use it call after 5 seconds for ball at back of ruck called more. Even if it led to more rucks close by. If the slower rucks were called up by referees there would be more balls played out more and more open play

Grimebox · 14-03-2014 8:04pm

Didn't realise this was against the rules

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

The Lost Sheep · 14-03-2014 8:11pm

Grimebox wrote: »

Didn't realise this was against the rules

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

LAW 10.4(m)
(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

He didn't make a genuine attempt at a shot at goal. Fair play to referee for penalising it

You must make a proper attempt to kick towards the posts

phog · 14-03-2014 8:11pm

Grimebox wrote: »

Didn't realise this was against the rules

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

Years ago in Thomond Park (I think)

ROG after opting for a kick at goal noticed an opportunity to kick to the wing, he jokingly asked the ref could he have a poor kick at goal.

Taco Corp · 14-03-2014 8:14pm

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

LAW 10.4(m)
(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

He didn't make a genuine attempt at a shot at goal. Fair play to referee for penalising it

You must make a

I was just looking this up and think it falls under 21.5 (b)

If the kicker indicates to the referee the intention to kick at goal, the kicker must kick at goal. Once the kicker has made the intention clear, there can be no change of the intention. The referee may enquire of the kicker as to the intention.
Sanction: Unless otherwise stated in Law any infringement by the kicker’s team results in a scrum at the mark. The opposing team throws in the ball.

The Lost Sheep · 14-03-2014 8:16pm

Captain_Hindsight wrote: »

I was just looking this up and think it falls under 21.5 (b)

If the kicker indicates to the referee the intention to kick at goal, the kicker must kick at goal. Once the kicker has made the intention clear, there can be no change of the intention. The referee may enquire of the kicker as to the intention.
Sanction: Unless otherwise stated in Law any infringement by the kicker’s team results in a scrum at the mark. The opposing team throws in the ball.

You could use either. I Ref and it would depend on the exact incident as to which law you would use.

Taco Corp · 14-03-2014 8:20pm

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

You could use either. I Ref and it would depend on the exact incident as to which law you would use.

so you might reverse the penalty for this and not give a scrum?

locum-motion · 15-03-2014 12:06am

Given that the ref gave a scrum, I think it's fair to assume he was using this law:

Captain_Hindsight wrote: »

...21.5 (b)

If the kicker indicates to the referee the intention to kick at goal, the kicker must kick at goal. Once the kicker has made the intention clear, there can be no change of the intention. The referee may enquire of the kicker as to the intention.
Sanction: Unless otherwise stated in Law any infringement by the kicker’s team results in a scrum at the mark. The opposing team throws in the ball.

and not this law:

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

LAW 10.4(m)
(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...

Scartbeg · 15-03-2014 8:18pm

rje66 wrote: »

sometimes forward is not forward!!!, see clip below
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=box08lq9ylg

also a discussion for you to digest:D:D:D

http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?17266-forward-passes

enjoy

Well whadda ya know, didn't this figure highly today. Ref asked the right question, but the TMO would likely have been crucified by thd Irish fans if he'd said the ball left the passers hands backwards hence no forward pass!

Scartbeg · 15-03-2014 8:18pm

rje66 wrote: »

sometimes forward is not forward!!!, see clip below
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=box08lq9ylg

also a discussion for you to digest:D:D:D

http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?17266-forward-passes

enjoy

Well whadda ya know, didn't this figure highly today. Ref asked the right question, but the TMO would likely have been crucified by thd Irish fans if he'd said the ball left the passers hands backwards hence no forward pass!

CatFromHue · 15-03-2014 8:24pm

If it was Medard or Trimble running flat out and threw a pass like that then there might be a case but the guy who threw it was only walking, a fast jog at the most.

fryup · 16-03-2014 11:37am

what about Szarzewski try

did he not drop the ball short of the base of the post before he touched it??

knock on or even double movement??

Losty Dublin · 16-03-2014 12:22pm

fryup wrote: »

what about Szarzewski try

did he not drop the ball short of the base of the post before he touched it??

knock on or even double movement??

If it was then it has to be seen by the referee or assistant ref at the time. Given the piles of bodies and the goal posts that were in the way spotting it was a tall order.

Personally it appeared about level to be but yeah, if spotted then it was worth taking upstairs.

Nermal · 16-03-2014 12:43pm

Scartbeg wrote: »

Well whadda ya know, didn't this figure highly today. Ref asked the right question, but the TMO would likely have been crucified by thd Irish fans if he'd said the ball left the passers hands backwards hence no forward pass!

But it didn't leave the passer's hand backwards?

Alan Shore · 16-03-2014 12:45pm

I thought that it was a knock on at the base of the post too.

What are the rules in relation to use of the forearm when running with the ball. I though the incident with Sexton at least merited a "word" with the French captain and player to be "careful" at a minimum. I thought it should have been a penalty to for dangerous play.

kksaints · 16-03-2014 3:32pm

What's the actually ruling on high tackles? The choke tackles Ireland are very sucessful at look high but they don't seem to be counted as high tackles. Apologies if this has been asked before.

connemara man · 17-03-2014 8:59pm

Szarzewski on Saturday was bleeding quite a bit and wasn't blood subbed off is it upto the ref to call it? And why wasn't it called as he got treatment on pitch for the cut.

phog · 17-03-2014 9:19pm

connemara man wrote: »

Szarzewski on Saturday was bleeding quite a bit and wasn't blood subbed off is it upto the ref to call it? And why wasn't it called as he got treatment on pitch for the cut.

Can't recall this incident but lots of players are given the opportunity to have blood treated on the field.

connemara man · 17-03-2014 9:41pm

phog wrote: »

Can't recall this incident but lots of players are given the opportunity to have blood treated on the field.

It was the line out before the first French try. Camera finds him and blood is rolling down his cheek. He gets attention after the try is scored.

matthew8 · 19-03-2014 7:30pm

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I was discussing this with friends yesterday, what existing rule would you like to see enforced better or interpreted differently? A lot of people would say straight feed to scrums for example.

Personally, I think there's a major trend of obstruction at the breakdown from defensive teams emerging. For example two defensive players arrive at a breakdown. The first contests the ball, the second moves past the first and collapses around him to seal him off from the opposition (Ken Owens won a penalty like this yesterday for example). I know teams coach it. It's not particularly frustrating, but I see it in games quite a lot these days and I wonder if it can be stamped out or if it should just be accepted.

A few things annoy me at the break down. The idea that supposedly a player can be pulling at the ball but because he didn't throw his arms in the air he "hasn't released" is stupid to me. Also the amount of players who blatantly aren't supporting their own bodyweight but earn penalties for holding on at the ruck. It's also very annoying how referees basically give the attacking team a free for all at the break down on the opposition line.

The current forward pass interpretation annoys me. It seems you need a physics degree to know whether a pass is forward. I'd much rather it was simply ball goes forward, it's a forward pass.

At maul time I'm not a fan of the "once scrum half" call from the referee. It makes it too easy to maul if you get 10 seconds before you actually have to move forward. When it's a choke tackle the defense is often let away with too much. Players coming in from the side, collapsing etc. And referees often blow for the scrum straight away, I'd rather the attacking team got some time to try and use the ball.

Losty Dublin · 20-03-2014 12:31am

kksaints wrote: »

What's the actually ruling on high tackles? The choke tackles Ireland are very sucessful at look high but they don't seem to be counted as high tackles. Apologies if this has been asked before.

In general you are talking below shoulder height as fair game. Anywhere above the shoulders is considered to be high. The so called choke tackle is nowhere near high; indeed there are those who wouldn't even consider it to be a tackle as no attempt to bring a player to ground is made.

awec · 20-03-2014 12:58am

matthew8 wrote: »

And referees often blow for the scrum straight away, I'd rather the attacking team got some time to try and use the ball.

I think the laws say the ball has to be available immediately when the maul collapses i.e. no time to burrow it out of a pile of bodies.

Laws Question? Ask here!

Comments