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
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Laws Question? Ask here!

Options
1…8283858788…115

Comments

  • Options
    #2522
    The Lost Sheep
    Registered Users Posts: 14,967 ✭✭✭✭The Lost Sheep


    b.gud wrote: »
    Not technically a law question but I reckon this is the best place to ask.

    If a player qualifies to play for Ireland through the 3 year residency rule, then gets capped for Ireland. The player then leaves Ireland for, say, an English club after 4 years in Ireland, i.e. before he qualifies as a citizen. Is he still eligible to play for Ireland?
    Yes they would be eligible to play for Ireland. They have been capped and would be ineligible to play for another country. Whether they would be picked if they left is another issue... Once they spend the 3 years here and qualify for Ireland and then get capped they are always and would always be eligible to play for Ireland
    pickarooney wrote: »
    Is there not a taking the piss rule the IRFU would impose in such a situation?
    Like what?


  • Options
    #2523
    b.gud
    Registered Users Posts: 4,786 ✭✭✭b.gud


    So if a kid was moved around by his family after exactly 3 years in a country by the time he was 18 he would be eligible for 6 different countries?

    Or does he have to actually be playing rugby there? And if so at what level?


  • Options
    #2524
    Quin_Dub
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 14,983 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    awec wrote: »
    Yes.

    Rugby eligibility is nothing to do with citizenship. Even if they stayed for 3 years, weren't capped and then left in the 4th year they'd still be eligible to be selected (though unlikely).

    Are you sure?

    Thought they had to be currently resident at the time of selection?


  • Options
    #2525
    Quin_Dub
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 14,983 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    b.gud wrote: »
    So if a kid was moved around by his family after exactly 3 years in a country by the time he was 18 he would be eligible for 6 different countries?

    Or does he have to actually be playing rugby there? And if so at what level?

    Doesn't have to be playing Rugby..

    But I think if you are in a country before 18 yrs old the duration is shorter....


  • Options
    #2526
    The Lost Sheep
    Registered Users Posts: 14,967 ✭✭✭✭The Lost Sheep


    b.gud wrote: »
    So if a kid was moved around by his family after exactly 3 years in a country by the time he was 18 he would be eligible for 6 different countries?

    Or does he have to actually be playing rugby there? And if so at what level?
    No they wouldn't from my reading of the regs. They are below if you want to read reg 8 which governs eligibility for international rugby
    http://www.rugbyeurope.eu/upload/file/1287399004_gfirbregulation8_883.PDF


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2527
    awec
    Administrators Posts: 53,356 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    Yea it looks like I was wrong.


  • Options
    #2528
    phog
    Registered Users Posts: 23,713 ✭✭✭✭phog


    The Henshaw knock on that some say wasn't a knock on.

    Is there not a technicality of where a receiver knocks the ball on without it touching his hands is still deemed a knock on as he never had full control of the ball?

    Similarly a player losing control of the ball and they kick it before it touches the ground it's deemed a knock on.

    Perhaps the refs here might enlighten us but I'm pretty sure I've seen refs blow these type of incidents as knock ons.


  • Options
    #2529
    Losty Dublin
    Registered Users Posts: 12,962 ✭✭✭✭Losty Dublin


    phog wrote: »
    The Henshaw knock on that some say wasn't a knock on.

    Is there not a technicality of where a receiver knocks the ball on without it touching his hands is still deemed a knock on as he never had full control of the ball?

    Similarly a player losing control of the ball and they kick it before it touches the ground it's deemed a knock on.

    Perhaps the refs here might enlighten us but I'm pretty sure I've seen refs blow these type of incidents as knock ons.

    The determining factor is if the referee considers a player to have been in control of the ball by way of carrying it or by playing it or attempting to play it. If any one of these happens then it's a knock on against.


  • Options
    #2530
    phog
    Registered Users Posts: 23,713 ✭✭✭✭phog


    Losty Dublin wrote: »
    The determining factor is if the referee considers a player to have been in control of the ball by way of carrying it or by playing it or attempting to play it. If any one of these happens then it's a knock on against.

    So, back to Henshaw, he attempted to catch the ball but it went forward from his body. Was it a knock on? I think it was.


  • Options
    #2531
    Yeah_Right
    Registered Users Posts: 5,960 ✭✭✭Yeah_Right


    In real time, every ref would call that a knock on. Same with the one that came off Trimble's head. They tried to catch the ball and there was no way the ref could see that they didn't get a hand to it. It would have been great if the TMO could have ruled on it but no ref was going to say play on.

    It's a different situation to when a player drops it and throws a foot at the ball to kick. They've lost control, it's come off their hands so it's a knock on.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2532
    Dave_The_Sheep
    Registered Users Posts: 7,329 ✭✭✭Dave_The_Sheep


    The question is if he has "lost control" of the ball forward. If it comes off his chest, I think he has.

    That's the rule that ref's are ruling by, I suspect.


  • Options
    #2533
    Dave_The_Sheep
    Registered Users Posts: 7,329 ✭✭✭Dave_The_Sheep


    Yeah_Right wrote: »
    It's a different situation to when a player drops it and throws a foot at the ball to kick. They've lost control, it's come off their hands so it's a knock on.

    In deference to my previous post I don't like this rule. If a player knocks on off the hand but manages to kick it before it a) hits the ground or b) hits another player I think they should be given the benefit of the doubt and that's a "kick" not a knock on. That's the damn rule after all.


  • Options
    #2534
    Yeah_Right
    Registered Users Posts: 5,960 ✭✭✭Yeah_Right


    Dave_The_Sheep wrote: »
    In deference to my previous post I don't like this rule. If a player knocks on off the hand but manages to kick it before it a) hits the ground or b) hits another player I think they should be given the benefit of the doubt and that's a "kick" not a knock on. That's the damn rule after all.

    I agree. If a player is quick enough to get their foot to it then it should be play on.


  • Options
    #2535
    phog
    Registered Users Posts: 23,713 ✭✭✭✭phog


    Yeah_Right wrote: »
    In real time, every ref would call that a knock on. Same with the one that came off Trimble's head. They tried to catch the ball and there was no way the ref could see that they didn't get a hand to it. It would have been great if the TMO could have ruled on it but no ref was going to say play on.

    It's a different situation to when a player drops it and throws a foot at the ball to kick. They've lost control, it's come off their hands so it's a knock on.

    I'm not asking about in real time, knowing what know now about how the ball went forward from Henshaw, under the current laws & interpretations was it the correct call to say it was a knock on?

    I'm of the view it was a knock on. The player who was to receive the ball never controlled it.
    Dave_The_Sheep wrote: »
    In deference to my previous post I don't like this rule. If a player knocks on off the hand but manages to kick it before it a) hits the ground or b) hits another player I think they should be given the benefit of the doubt and that's a "kick" not a knock on. That's the damn rule after all.

    Saili on sunday evening dropped the ball out of his hands but kicked it away before it touched the ground, ref blew for a knock on. Again, I think it was the correct call.


  • Options
    #2536
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 40,981 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    The question in this is whether the player had possession or not. In both henshaw and trimbles case they hasn't possession but were trying to gain possession. So technically they are not knock ons, but a lot of refs would see henshaws as a knock on as in real time it's very difficult to say whether the ball actually touched his arm or not. Trimbles is easier to call as it obviously came off his head, which he clearly indicated to peyper after.


  • Options
    #2537
    randomname2005
    Registered Users Posts: 1,931 ✭✭✭randomname2005


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    The question in this is whether the player had possession or not. In both henshaw and trimbles case they hasn't possession but were trying to gain possession. So technically they are not knock ons, but a lot of refs would see henshaws as a knock on as in real time it's very difficult to say whether the ball actually touched his arm or not. Trimbles is easier to call as it obviously came off his head, which he clearly indicated to peyper after.

    It is lucky then that we have a TMO who can check events up to two phases before a try. Any kind of doubt and he should have let it go.


  • Options
    #2538
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 40,981 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    Who is 'he' and what is 'it'?


  • Options
    #2539
    phog
    Registered Users Posts: 23,713 ✭✭✭✭phog


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    The question in this is whether the player had possession or not. In both henshaw and trimbles case they hasn't possession but were trying to gain possession. So technically they are not knock ons, but a lot of refs would see henshaws as a knock on as in real time it's very difficult to say whether the ball actually touched his arm or not. Trimbles is easier to call as it obviously came off his head, which he clearly indicated to peyper after.

    But if you knock it on with your body as you attempt to get possession then in my view it's a knock on.


  • Options
    #2540
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 40,981 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    phog wrote: »
    But if you knock it on with your body as you attempt to get possession then in my view it's a knock on.

    in a lot of refs views it also is... however technically the law says you have to be in possession for a knock on to be called off your body.
    A knock-on occurs when a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward, or when a player hits the ball forward with the hand or arm, or when the ball hits the hand or arm and goes forward, and the ball touches the ground or another player before the original player can catch it.

    i have been told by many refs, rightly or wrongly, that by 'attempting to gain possession' you can knock on the ball off your body.


  • Options
    #2541
    blackwhite
    Registered Users Posts: 8,470 ✭✭✭blackwhite


    phog wrote: »
    But if you knock it on with your body as you attempt to get possession then in my view it's a knock on.

    The law states:
    A knock-on occurs when a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward, or when a player hits the ball forward with the hand or arm, or when the ball hits the hand or arm and goes forward, and the ball touches the ground or another player before the original player can catch it.

    ‘Forward’ means towards the opposing team’s dead ball line.

    If a player in tackling an opponent makes contact with the ball and the ball goes forward from the ball carrier’s hands, that is a knock-on.

    If a player rips the ball or deliberately knocks the ball from an opponent's hands and the ball goes forward from the ball carrier's hands, that is not a knock-on.
    http://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=12

    You can't lose possession if you didn't have it in the first place.

    I've played plenty of games where similar to Henshaw's "knock-on" occurred, but the ball came off the thighs/knees and the ref called "no hands, play on" (or similar).

    To be fair to Peyper, it's very unusual for the ball to manage to bounce off the chest of a receiving player without them managing to get some part of their arm/hand to the ball. 99% of refs would likely have made the same call.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2542
    Podge_irl
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 25,263 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    I recall being at a game years ago in the Lansdowne were the crowd were rather annoyed a knock-on wasn't called. Ref told the players (who were also complaining) it was off his face and they could see it later on the video. Fair play to him, he was right too!


  • Options
    #2543
    Quin_Dub
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 14,983 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    To be fair , of all the things I could challenge Peyper on from Saturday , those 2 "knock-ons" are the least of it... In real time he made the right call to be fair to him...

    I'd be more concerned for example with him completely ignoring the way Ben-Arous scrummaged when he came on..

    The Aerial cam clearly showed that he was driving in and across in those repeated scrums under the posts but Peyper (and/or he assistants) did nothing about it..

    Equally, the Welsh loose-head was doing the same thing the previous week in the scrums that led to Faletau's try.

    All it would have taken was for the TMO/Touch judge after the 1st or 2nd Scrum to say "Hey Jaco , come around to the other side and watch the French L/H" , that would have force Ben-Arous to stay straight and the French would most likely have moved the ball away from the scrum...


  • Options
    #2544
    Losty Dublin
    Registered Users Posts: 12,962 ✭✭✭✭Losty Dublin


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    The question in this is whether the player had possession or not..

    Possession isn't merely defined as a player having ball in hand, though. A player or team is also in possession if they are in control of the ball. If the ball is obviously close enough to a player that nobody else can possibly be nearer to it or if they a chance to play the ball then you can reasonably assume that they are in control of the ball. In short, Henshaw had control so yeah it's a knock forward. Technical yeah but in all fairness but he should have got ball to hand so it's his fault :)


  • Options
    #2545
    rsh118
    Registered Users Posts: 697 ✭✭✭rsh118


    Arguing to the letter of the law, you could be right, but I think the spirit of it, and how I've always seen it officiated is between knee and neck it's forward.

    Unless the player makes blantantly obvious a show of getting his arms away and making no attempt to catch.


  • Options
    #2546
    phog
    Registered Users Posts: 23,713 ✭✭✭✭phog


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    in a lot of refs views it also is... however technically the law says you have to be in possession for a knock on to be called off your body.


    i have been told by many refs, rightly or wrongly, that by 'attempting to gain possession' you can knock on the ball off your body.
    blackwhite wrote: »
    The law states:


    http://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=12

    You can't lose possession if you didn't have it in the first place.

    I've played plenty of games where similar to Henshaw's "knock-on" occurred, but the ball came off the thighs/knees and the ref called "no hands, play on" (or similar).

    To be fair to Peyper, it's very unusual for the ball to manage to bounce off the chest of a receiving player without them managing to get some part of their arm/hand to the ball. 99% of refs would likely have made the same call.

    I'm well aware of what the law states but laws often have interpretations issued to refs too to give additional guidance and this is probably what I'm trying to find out.

    Simply put - under the laws/interpretations of laws was the ball bouncing of Henshaw's chest a knock on?


    Edit to add - don't know how I didn't see it before posting :(

    Losty's post is probably close to what I had in mind
    Possession isn't merely defined as a player having ball in hand, though. A player or team is also in possession if they are in control of the ball. If the ball is obviously close enough to a player that nobody else can possibly be nearer to it or if they a chance to play the ball then you can reasonably assume that they are in control of the ball. In short, Henshaw had control so yeah it's a knock forward. Technical yeah but in all fairness but he should have got ball to hand so it's his fault


  • Options
    #2547
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 40,981 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    Losty Dublin wrote: »
    Possession isn't merely defined as a player having ball in hand, though. A player or team is also in possession if they are in control of the ball. If the ball is obviously close enough to a player that nobody else can possibly be nearer to it or if they a chance to play the ball then you can reasonably assume that they are in control of the ball. In short, Henshaw had control so yeah it's a knock forward. Technical yeah but in all fairness but he should have got ball to hand so it's his fault :)

    but in the knock on laws it clearly refers to a player having possession,. not 'team'. So in order for a player to have possession they must have control of the ball. Did henshaw or trimble in those examples have "control" of the ball?
    They did not.

    The definition of 'possession' in regards to player is actually stated as "when a player is carrying the ball"... so again neither henshaw or trimble wee carrying the ball. i dont agree that the ball being close to a player constitutes control.

    Im not vehementally arguing this, ive already said that the henshaw incident would probably always be peeped as in real time its practically impossible to say whether there was a hand or arm involved. However the trimble incident was obvious. I actually remember SOB being peep for a similar incident a few years back too.. the ball was flung at his head and the ref deemed it a knock on.


  • Options
    #2548
    Losty Dublin
    Registered Users Posts: 12,962 ✭✭✭✭Losty Dublin


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    but in the knock on laws it clearly refers to a player having possession,. not 'team'. So in order for a player to have possession they must have control of the ball. Did henshaw or trimble in those examples have "control" of the ball?
    They did not.

    From the World Rugby site....

    Possession. This happens when a player is carrying the ball or a team has the ball in its control...

    Once you are close enough to play the ball then yep, that's possession. If the ball happens to hit you by way of a pass which you failed to gather then sorry but you knocked it on.


  • Options
    #2549
    Yeah_Right
    Registered Users Posts: 5,960 ✭✭✭Yeah_Right


    Losty Dublin wrote: »
    Possession isn't merely defined as a player having ball in hand, though. A player or team is also in possession if they are in control of the ball. If the ball is obviously close enough to a player that nobody else can possibly be nearer to it or if they a chance to play the ball then you can reasonably assume that they are in control of the ball. In short, Henshaw had control so yeah it's a knock forward. Technical yeah but in all fairness but he should have got ball to hand so it's his fault :)

    There was a game at the weekend, can't remember which one, where a player fielded a kick that was bouncing by throwing his hands wide and stopping the ball with his torso and then picked it up. He controlled it by knocking it forward with his body but the ref (correctly) didn't call a knock on.


  • Options
    #2550
    Clearlier
    Registered Users Posts: 4,454 ✭✭✭Clearlier


    b.gud wrote: »
    So if a kid was moved around by his family after exactly 3 years in a country by the time he was 18 he would be eligible for 6 different countries?

    Or does he have to actually be playing rugby there? And if so at what level?
    Quin_Dub wrote: »
    Doesn't have to be playing Rugby..

    But I think if you are in a country before 18 yrs old the duration is shorter....
    The Lost Sheep wrote: »
    No they wouldn't from my reading of the regs. They are below if you want to read reg 8 which governs eligibility for international rugby
    http://www.rugbyeurope.eu/upload/file/1287399004_gfirbregulation8_883.PDF

    A few years ago there was a Russian winger called Vasily Artemyev who tore up trees playing for Blackrock in the schools cup and looked like he could be a future Irish international. IIRC he got into the Leinster academy but it didn't work out for him and he ended up (via Russia) at Northampton for a couple of years after the 2011 world cup (he actually scored a try against us).

    Anyway, before he turned out not to make the grade there was much discussion about capping him and I remember it being said that he couldn't serve residency until he was 18 years old, i.e. even though he had spent several years in Blackrock college for his education these didn't count towards international eligibility.

    As an aside it was interesting to note when reading regulation 8 that there is a small loophole with the restrictions on international eligibility where it seems that if someone plays for a country before they have reached the age of majority (usually 18) they could play for another country after they have reached the age of majority.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2551
    Yeah_Right
    Registered Users Posts: 5,960 ✭✭✭Yeah_Right


    ^^^
    It was the same with Sivivatu and NZ. He did his last 3 or 4 years of high school in NZ but didn't become eligible for the ABs till 3 years after he left school.


Advertisement