Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Laws Question? Ask here!

18990929495115

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 7,018 ✭✭✭Bridge93


    Just a thought that occurred to me watching the women play into a gale.

    Say you are outside your 22 and kick it out on the full but the wind carries in behind you or you slice it or something. Is the line out still from where you kicked it or is it where the ball went out?
    I would assume the former but was curious if anyone knew for certain


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,967 ✭✭✭✭The Lost Sheep


    Bridge93 wrote: »
    Just a thought that occurred to me watching the women play into a gale.

    Say you are outside your 22 and kick it out on the full but the wind carries in behind you or you slice it or something. Is the line out still from where you kicked it or is it where the ball went out?
    I would assume the former but was curious if anyone knew for certain
    lineout is where ball crossed the line of touch so if you kick it and it goes beyond where you kicked it from then its from there


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,776 ✭✭✭b.gud


    Are there any laws that specify what happens if a players is yellow card time extends into time after the 40 or 80 minutes is up?

    I'm thinking about the Wales France game at the weekend. Samson Lee got yellow carded just after 80 minutes. Because it was after the clock had gone dead Barnes didn't bother stopping the clock while they went trying to get a replacement tighthead for him or while they looked at other incidents. Had these taking place during the normal 80 minutes of the game the clock would certainly have been stopped. As it worked out there was only about 5 minutes of the actual sin bin period where rugby was played


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,532 ✭✭✭✭phog


    b.gud wrote: »
    Are there any laws that specify what happens if a players is yellow card time extends into time after the 40 or 80 minutes is up?

    I'm thinking about the Wales France game at the weekend. Samson Lee got yellow carded just after 80 minutes. Because it was after the clock had gone dead Barnes didn't bother stopping the clock while they went trying to get a replacement tighthead for him or while they looked at other incidents. Had these taking place during the normal 80 minutes of the game the clock would certainly have been stopped. As it worked out there was only about 5 minutes of the actual sin bin period where rugby was played

    It's 10 mins playing time. The clock should still stop after the 40th or 80th minutes for the same reasons as it stops during "normal" time.

    The sin binned player can return to the field of play at a break in play after his 10mins are up


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,158 ✭✭✭crisco10


    phog wrote: »
    It's 10 mins playing time. The clock should still stop after the 40th or 80th minutes for the same reasons as it stops during "normal" time.

    The sin binned player can return to the field of play at a break in play after his 10mins are up

    To me that was the most glaring f* up of Barnes on Saturday. There were multiple stoppages in play and no one thought to remind him that the clock should be stopping. And it's absolutely black and white.

    The yellow card clock was on 6 mins before ANY rugby was played, as it took 4 minutes to sort out the sub situation (Halfpenny going off, starting prop coming back on etc).


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 8,371 ✭✭✭blackwhite


    Concerning the outrage from Wales over the French substitutions - and being careful not to make any unproven allegations either :pac:


    Law 3.15 allows for a previously substituted player to return to replace an injured front row player.

    Why would a team choose to claim the need for a HIA instead of just making the call to replace an injured player? Antonio was struggling with his back - surely if a team was trying to "engineer" a substitution, then that would have been the obvious route instead of claiming the need for a HIA?


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,072 ✭✭✭Shelflife


    Because the player himself was happy to continue and wasnt complaining about being injured.

    The prop they wanted to bring on was a better scrummager so they had to engineer a reason to get him on.


  • Registered Users Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    blackwhite wrote: »
    Concerning the outrage from Wales over the French substitutions - and being careful not to make any unproven allegations either :pac:


    Law 3.15 allows for a previously substituted player to return to replace an injured front row player.

    Why would a team choose to claim the need for a HIA instead of just making the call to replace an injured player? Antonio was struggling with his back - surely if a team was trying to "engineer" a substitution, then that would have been the obvious route instead of claiming the need for a HIA?

    Because Wayne Barnes asked him if he was injured and he told Barnes that he wasn't.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,894 ✭✭✭✭Losty Dublin


    crisco10 wrote: »
    To me that was the most glaring f* up of Barnes on Saturday. There were multiple stoppages in play and no one thought to remind him that the clock should be stopping. And it's absolutely black and white.

    The yellow card clock was on 6 mins before ANY rugby was played, as it took 4 minutes to sort out the sub situation (Halfpenny going off, starting prop coming back on etc).

    The television clock isn't always synched up to the time of either the referee or the match timekeeper so we can't really pay too much heed to what it says.


  • Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 14,776 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    blackwhite wrote: »
    Concerning the outrage from Wales over the French substitutions - and being careful not to make any unproven allegations either :pac:


    Law 3.15 allows for a previously substituted player to return to replace an injured front row player.

    Why would a team choose to claim the need for a HIA instead of just making the call to replace an injured player? Antonio was struggling with his back - surely if a team was trying to "engineer" a substitution, then that would have been the obvious route instead of claiming the need for a HIA?
    Shelflife wrote: »
    Because the player himself was happy to continue and wasnt complaining about being injured.

    The prop they wanted to bring on was a better scrummager so they had to engineer a reason to get him on.
    Because Wayne Barnes asked him if he was injured and he told Barnes that he wasn't.

    Whilst I think Barnes got a few things wrong during the overtime period , in this instance he had no option available to him. He is not the final arbiter of a player being "fit to continue", the doctor is. He asked the only questions that he could and he had to take the doctor at face value , the players response doesn't come in to it.

    Having said that , there were certainly some "fishy" aspects to it not least Slimani warming up prior to the injury and the coach leaving the technical zone to speak to the doctor.

    However , even if Barnes had seen all that and felt that he was being conned , he really had no option there and then but to accept the Doctor at his word - The potential risks of doing otherwise are absolutely massive.

    After the fact , investigations can take place , but it will be next to impossible to definitely prove that a HIA was not required so hard to see how they can find against the French here.

    It could lead to a change in the process though , perhaps with independent Medics for HIA or something.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 6,158 ✭✭✭crisco10


    The television clock isn't always synched up to the time of either the referee or the match timekeeper so we can't really pay too much heed to what it says.

    Sometimes true.

    In this case it was clear that he came on when the yellow card clock did hit zero (in fact it was at 0.15 when they ran back on). so that was synced. and a clear 4 minutes of the yellow card clock was occupied with admin at the start.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,894 ✭✭✭✭Losty Dublin


    Because Wayne Barnes asked him if he was injured and he told Barnes that he wasn't.

    Just to clarify your point; a player cannot return to the field of play if they left the game due to an injury. Obviously the laws allow for temporary replacements for HIA or bloods but for those who are hurt and medically unable to play, then they can't come back on.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,371 ✭✭✭blackwhite


    The television clock isn't always synched up to the time of either the referee or the match timekeeper so we can't really pay too much heed to what it says.

    Except in this case, the player was allowed back onto the field after 10 minutes on the TV clock - meaning that it was accurately reflecting what Barnes and the timekeeper had also.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,645 ✭✭✭Webbs


    According to HIA/Concussion guidelines, upon injury a Player is assessed on pitch (visible clues and signs/symptoms).

    At no stage did the French Doctor make an onfield assessment, this may not be a rule break as am sure they will argue its only advisory, but it just smells so wrong


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,371 ✭✭✭blackwhite


    Because Wayne Barnes asked him if he was injured and he told Barnes that he wasn't.

    Had missed that bit - clearly claiming he was injured wasn't going to wash after that!


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,403 ✭✭✭BoardsMember


    You're making the assumption that a team infringes in the red zone as a tactic. The vast majority of times, infringements are as a result of a scramble defence and mistakes being made.

    I dont agree with that at all. Look at NZ for example. When they are defending their line they do everything they can to stop the attacking team going over. so do Wales. Pretty much all the time.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,967 ✭✭✭✭The Lost Sheep


    Always interesting when you have ball in the in goal and players dont know that offside law is slightly different there to the field of play...


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,830 ✭✭✭tabby aspreme


    Anyone know if there is a defined length of time between matches for a youth's player. Thanks


  • Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 14,776 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    Anyone know if there is a defined length of time between matches for a youth's player. Thanks

    As I understand it it's a maximum of 100 minutes of play in a 48hr period.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,967 ✭✭✭✭The Lost Sheep


    Anyone know if there is a defined length of time between matches for a youth's player. Thanks
    i think quin dub is correct in that it's 100 minutes in a 48 hour period so essentially a game and a half a weekend. Why? Have you a lot of games coming up or is it a competition you are running


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,830 ✭✭✭tabby aspreme


    i think quin dub is correct in that it's 100 minutes in a 48 hour period so essentially a game and a half a weekend. Why? Have you a lot of games coming up or is it a competition you are running

    One of my lads has been asked to play a second match this weekend, 24 hours between matches , so I was wondering what the rules specify


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,967 ✭✭✭✭The Lost Sheep


    One of my lads has been asked to play a second match this weekend, 24 hours between matches , so I was wondering what the rules specify
    What age group do they usually play and whats the grade of the other game?


  • Subscribers Posts: 40,726 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    One of my lads has been asked to play a second match this weekend, 24 hours between matches , so I was wondering what the rules specify
    Time gap between Matches
    In the interest of player welfare as well as participation, Age Grade players may play no more than a
    game and half (length of half being relative to the players age) within a 48 hour period.
    (The 48 hour period begins once a player participates in a match whether as replacement or selected
    to start a match

    from the regulations


  • Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 14,776 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    sydthebeat wrote: »

    Time gap between Matches
    In the interest of player welfare as well as participation, Age Grade players may play no more than a
    game and half (length of half being relative to the players age) within a 48 hour period.
    (The 48 hour period begins once a player participates in a match whether as replacement or selected
    to start a match



    from the regulations

    Thanks for that..

    So that would mean a max of 75 minutes for U13 & U14 , 90 Minutes for U15/U16 and 105 Minutes for U17 to U19 , based on the duration of the game at the various age levels (from here)


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,830 ✭✭✭tabby aspreme


    What age group do they usually play and whats the grade of the other game?

    U 15 and u16, so 90 minutes max , coach's were not sure about length of playing time allowed , when they come back to me I now know what's involved, not keen on him playing the second match as he has enough with his own team over the next few weeks. Thanks for the replies lads


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,294 ✭✭✭MaybeMaybe


    Most players do it, but is rolling over on the ground after being tackled actually legal?


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,920 ✭✭✭✭Interested Observer


    MaybeMaybe wrote: »
    Most players do it, but is rolling over on the ground after being tackled actually legal?
    14.1 PLAYERS ON THE GROUND
    (a) A player with the ball must immediately do one of three things:
    • Get up with the ball
    • Pass the ball
    • Release the ball.
    Sanction: Penalty kick

    Rolling over on the ground is not any of those things so no it's not legal. The rest of 14.1 gives other reasons as to why it might further be illegal.


  • Registered Users Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    You're allowed to adjust your body before releasing the ball, including turning around. That's been the interpretation for a very long time.

    You can't just roll over and get up, or roll over and keep going (as in continuing to roll over) though.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,294 ✭✭✭MaybeMaybe


    You're allowed to adjust your body before releasing the ball, including turning around. That's been the interpretation for a very long time.

    You can't just roll over and get up, or roll over and keep going (as in continuing to roll over) though.

    I think adjusting your body to present the ball and rolling over the ball and then presenting the ball are a bit different. The second can prevent a contest for the ball and allow your own players more time to get to the breakdown. but it seems one roll over is generally permitted.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 10,460 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    You're allowed to adjust your body before releasing the ball, including turning around. That's been the interpretation for a very long time.

    You can't just roll over and get up, or roll over and keep going (as in continuing to roll over) though.

    You see plenty of the latter though?


Advertisement