Laws Question? Ask here!

pickarooney · 25-06-2012 10:47am

Blue winger did the old 'Mexican Wave' release before going for the ball. Ref acknowledged it when the yellow 15 protested.

Shelflife · 25-06-2012 10:50am

I'd give a PT given what we've been told. Good logic behind the YC and PT only for dangerous play.

Castie id have no problem giving a PT for a breakaway being nailed with a high tackle even on the half way line.

castie · 25-06-2012 12:05pm

Shelflife wrote: »

I'd give a PT given what we've been told. Good logic behind the YC and PT only for dangerous play.

Castie id have no problem giving a PT for a breakaway being nailed with a high tackle even on the half way line.

Cant give a PT when they were never in possession of the ball really.
Player on the deck could get up and tackle the player thats just ripped it or he could of knocked it on and so on...

daveharnett · 25-06-2012 1:55pm

castie wrote: »

Cant give a PT when they were never in possession of the ball really.
Player on the deck could get up and tackle the player thats just ripped it or he could of knocked it on and so on...

Sure, but a meteor could strike the attacker as he crossed the line too. You can never be certain of a "what if" scenario. The standard in law is "probable" which means a probability of greater than 50% that the try would have been scored.

To look at it from another perspective: the offending player seemed to think that the chances of preventing the try legally were less than the chances of the ref awarding the PT (any lesser sanction is a net win for his team). In that situation, I think the onus is on the ref to prove him wrong, and (implicitly) encourage him to take his chances playing within the law next time.

locum-motion · 25-06-2012 6:58pm

pickarooney wrote: »

Blue winger did the old 'Mexican Wave' release before going for the ball. Ref acknowledged it when the yellow 15 protested.

Given that addendum to the original query, it becomes a 2 on 1, where the 1 is on the ground and out of the game.
As long as no other yellows were in a position to prevent a try (and from what you said, they weren't), then the probablility that a try would have been scored is very high, and so, yes, IMO, a PT would have been warranted.

Swiwi · 25-06-2012 11:49pm

Shelflife wrote: »

Gears " hand off " on Earls.

For me it was a red card, extremely dangerous.

Am I over reacting?

Yes you are. There was no malice in it. I doubt Earls will try and tackle like that again.

Podge_irl · 26-06-2012 4:35am

Lads, I've been meaning to ask Justin but haven't seen him over the last week or so. I'm interested in taking up reffing but have absolutely no idea how to go about it. I know Justin has mentioned a course that the LB do but do any of you know the best way to get involved? I'm not a member of any club or anything at the moment, is that an issue?

Shelflife · 26-06-2012 9:22am

Swiwi wrote: »

Shelflife wrote: »

Gears " hand off " on Earls.

For me it was a red card, extremely dangerous.

Am I over reacting?

Yes you are. There was no malice in it. I doubt Earls will try and tackle like that again.

How can you say there was no malice in it when he intentionally threw a forearm/ elbow into his face?

Just because it's a poor tackling technique doesn't give you the right to smash his face in.

locum-motion · 26-06-2012 11:35am

Podge_irl wrote: »

Lads, I've been meaning to ask Justin but haven't seen him over the last week or so. I'm interested in taking up reffing but have absolutely no idea how to go about it. I know Justin has mentioned a course that the LB do but do any of you know the best way to get involved? I'm not a member of any club or anything at the moment, is that an issue?

Have a look at this page.

castie · 26-06-2012 11:47am

Podge_irl wrote: »

Lads, I've been meaning to ask Justin but haven't seen him over the last week or so. I'm interested in taking up reffing but have absolutely no idea how to go about it. I know Justin has mentioned a course that the LB do but do any of you know the best way to get involved? I'm not a member of any club or anything at the moment, is that an issue?

Do the foundation course and you can get setup to get started from that meeting if I remember correctly.

Downtime · 26-06-2012 12:01pm

Podge_irl wrote: »

Lads, I've been meaning to ask Justin but haven't seen him over the last week or so. I'm interested in taking up reffing but have absolutely no idea how to go about it. I know Justin has mentioned a course that the LB do but do any of you know the best way to get involved? I'm not a member of any club or anything at the moment, is that an issue?

Everything you need to know is here - http://www.arlb.ie/?page_id=32 The foundation course is on August 19th in St Mary's College RFC. On the page above find your local rep and he can put you in contact with the relevant person to get you on the list for the course.

daveharnett · 26-06-2012 3:47pm

Did I miss a discussion on these?
http://www.irblaws.com/2012/

The headline is that the 'pause' is gone. The sequence will now be "Touch, Pause, Set" where "Set" will immediately become a one-syllable replacement for "Engage". "Ready, Steady, Go" would probably be more honest.

The other significant change has been aired here already: 5 second use-it-or-lose-it when the ball becomes available at the back of a ruck.

Most of the rest are pretty minor: the quick throw in can be taken in front of where the ball entered touch, no timewasting during conversions (by delaying the arrival of the tee), GPS trackers are allowed, tights are allowed for ladies, an illegal addidas boot is now legal (:rolleyes:).

ScareGilly · 26-06-2012 4:55pm

Shelflife wrote: »

How can you say there was no malice in it when he intentionally threw a forearm/ elbow into his face?

Just because it's a poor tackling technique doesn't give you the right to smash his face in.

Just wondering how long into the match does this happen?

Shelflife · 26-06-2012 6:44pm

ScareGilly wrote: »

Shelflife wrote: »

How can you say there was no malice in it when he intentionally threw a forearm/ elbow into his face?

Just because it's a poor tackling technique doesn't give you the right to smash his face in.

Just wondering how long into the match does this happen?

Round about the 60min mark I think . In real time it looks as if earls made a balls of the tackle , but but another angle you can see gear nail him with a firearm/ elbow. Earls had to leave the field to get patched up.

rje66 · 26-06-2012 10:20pm

Podge_irl wrote: »

Lads, I've been meaning to ask Justin but haven't seen him over the last week or so. I'm interested in taking up reffing but have absolutely no idea how to go about it. I know Justin has mentioned a course that the LB do but do any of you know the best way to get involved? I'm not a member of any club or anything at the moment, is that an issue?

where in ireland are you based? just asking, as if outside leinster the ARLB info is leinster specific. if in leinster what area you in? may b able to point you in right direction.

Trippie · 26-06-2012 10:25pm

QQ, playing a tournament here in Colombia over the weekend, we had a monster clearance kick, myself and another guy chased it up, bounced awkwardly for the full back and by the time he secured the ball close to the touch line we were bearing down on him, he went to kick the ball clear as my mate tackled him, the ball spilled forward in the air over the touchline without touching the ground. I picked it up in touch right away and took a quick lineout to the 3rd guy who was chasing with us, he ran it in under the posts but was called back, the touch judge said it was knocked forward and ref awarded a scrum? correct decision or not?

rje66 · 27-06-2012 8:49am

correct decision
,knock on(first offense) then ball went dead. no advantage once ball s dead.
back to first offense.

think this is changing next season though

daveharnett · 27-06-2012 10:30am

rje66 wrote: »

correct decision
,knock on(first offense) then ball went dead. no advantage once ball s dead.
back to first offense.

think this is changing next season though

Yep. From September (northern hemisphere) or January (southern hemisphere), you will be able to elect to take the lineout (quick or conventional) rather than the scrum in this situation. Until then, the decision you received remains the correct one.

29-06-2012 9:04am

ScareGilly wrote: »

Just wondering how long into the match does this happen?

Shelflife wrote: »

Round about the 60min mark I think . In real time it looks as if earls made a balls of the tackle , but but another angle you can see gear nail him with a firearm/ elbow. Earls had to leave the field to get patched up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBk6PjwsILA

Still unsure what the problem is with this. Thought it was just physicality, Earls put himself in a terrible position coming in to tackle, trying to cover the ball too, and as a result, he was really high.

ScareGilly · 29-06-2012 11:45am

I don't see the problem with it... Gear just 'bounced' him..

Shelflife · 29-06-2012 1:48pm

ScareGilly wrote: »

I don't see the problem with it... Gear just 'bounced' him..

Whats a "bounce" ?

I see a forearm to the head, if thats now legal we are in for a lot of broken noses next season, you cant attack a persons head in that manner its not a hand off.

ScareGilly · 29-06-2012 2:37pm

Boshed him?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=be2fMySrKb8

Exact same as that in my book, just Earl's poor attempt of a tackle...

29-06-2012 3:27pm

yup, he just got done. Tackle lower in future.

daveharnett · 29-06-2012 4:09pm

ScareGilly wrote: »

Boshed him?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=be2fMySrKb8

Exact same as that in my book, just Earl's poor attempt of a tackle...

You could argue that the actions (and even intent) of both ball carriers are similar, but the fact is that one incident was dangerous and one was not. That being the case, it warrants a look from a citing officer, who is better placed than us to decide on whether there might be a case to answer.

daveharnett · 29-06-2012 4:12pm

Deleted User wrote: »

yup, he just got done. Tackle lower in future.

I'm assuming that his intent in going in upright was to wrap and prevent the offload? While he's not the most technical by any means, I'd have said that Earls is perfectly capable of making a proper tackle.

ScareGilly · 29-06-2012 6:16pm

daveharnett wrote: »

You could argue that the actions (and even intent) of both ball carriers are similar, but the fact is that one incident was dangerous and one was not. That being the case, it warrants a look from a citing officer, who is better placed than us to decide on whether there might be a case to answer.

I'd be the complete opposite and say to me, it's not dangerous at all, it's completely Earls' fault, had his head in the wrong place...

Shelflife · 29-06-2012 6:21pm

ScareGilly wrote: »

I'd be the complete opposite and say to me, it's not dangerous at all, it's completely Earls' fault, had his head in the wrong place...

Aaah will you stop scaregilly, If a player wants to wrap you to prevent an off load, even if its not a technically good tackle, you cant just smash your forearm into a players face, its extremely dangerous.

Red card for me all day long!

29-06-2012 6:29pm

Shelflife wrote: »

Aaah will you stop scaregilly, If a player wants to wrap you to prevent an off load, even if its not a technically good tackle, you cant just smash your forearm into a players face, its extremely dangerous.

Red card for me all day long!

Does North go for the exact same thing in the above video?

Shelflife · 29-06-2012 6:36pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Does North go for the exact same thing in the above video?

For me, no he doesnt, as Dave said its a similar technique and when is across the chest or shoulders its fine, when you thrust your forearm/elbow into a players face at speed its simply dangerous and warrants a red.

castie · 29-06-2012 7:40pm

Its an area of the game thats completely overlooked.

Someone runs fingers across someones face when in a pile on the ground and they get cited and likely banned for contact with the face area.

Someone running around sticks out an elbow and nails someone in the face and thats not considered contact with the face area.....boggles the mind.

Similar to an issue I raised before.

In open play throw your body at a guy without arms and its a penalty for not wrapping. Do the same but hit a ruck and its all good???

29-06-2012 7:42pm

Shelflife wrote: »

For me, no he doesnt, as Dave said its a similar technique and when is across the chest or shoulders its fine, when you thrust your forearm/elbow into a players face at speed its simply dangerous and warrants a red.

So if I go to make a tackle at chest height, perfectly legally, and the player ducks into the tackle and I end up crunching his head, I should be sent off?

It's just the reverse of that situation.

castie · 29-06-2012 8:07pm

Deleted User wrote: »

So if I go to make a tackle at chest height, perfectly legally, and the player ducks into the tackle and I end up crunching his head, I should be sent off?

It's just the reverse of that situation.

I disagree on that.

If you aim to go head to head then yes its dangerous play.
If however your protecting yourself and theres an accidental clash then no.

Sticking your elbow towards someone cannot be deemed a reasonable attempt to protect yourself.

MyKeyG · 30-06-2012 2:00am

Here's another perspective. What if Earls had decided the best way to tackle him would have been to push him in the face out over the line? Instant penalty right? An illegal strike, high tackle, possible contact with the eye area take your pick.

I don't think a ball carrier should be permitted any action that is illegal to the tackler. And I certainly think hand offs to the face should be illegal for the reason that it may result in a gouge.

Incidentally that Earls head was low is immaterial. We see high tackles given all the time even though the head was low.

blindsider · 01-07-2012 1:54pm

I'm surprised that people are comparing North's legal hand-off with Gear's elbow/fore-arm.

As the Laws stand, North was legal, Gear wasn't.

It DOES NOT MATTER if Earls' tackling technique wasn't 'textbook' - he (Earls) didn't do anything illegal - Gear did. You can't argue that Earls was wrong - he wasn't - if Sean O'Brien or Stepehn Ferris (I know he didn't play, that doesn't matter) effected that tackle would you say it was wrong?

It wasn't picked up etc by the Citing Commisioner (should have been), but that doesn't mean it was legal - it wasn't!

10.4 DANGEROUS PLAY AND MISCONDUCT
(a) Punching or striking. A player must not strike an opponent with the fist or arm, including
the elbow, shoulder, head or knee(s).
Sanction: Penalty kick

CatFromHue · 01-07-2012 2:09pm

Nothing wrong in what Gear did to me. Gears never uses his elbow and all the contact is through his hands/lower arm against Earls's chest. It's not Gear's fault that Earls has run face first into him!

Awful tackle attempt from Earls. It's not the first time he's led with the head, he did a similar thing to Roberts in the RWC QF against Wales.

blindsider · 01-07-2012 2:41pm

CatFromHue wrote: »

Nothing wrong in what Gear did to me. Gears never uses his elbow and all the contact is through his hands/lower arm against Earls's chest. It's not Gear's fault that Earls has run face first into him!

Awful tackle attempt from Earls. It's not the first time he's led with the head, he did a similar thing to Roberts in the RWC QF against Wales.

Pause this clip at 1:35:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBk6PjwsILA

Which part of the hand/lower arm can you see making contact? His upper arm/shoulder is deliberately used to fend Earls off - that is in contravention of Law 10.4 as I have quoted it above.

This is not about opinions, it's about the Laws of the game.

I'll say it again - Earls technique may have been awful, but it was LEGAL!

pickarooney · 01-07-2012 2:58pm

Looks like Earls struck Gear with his shoulder which is apparently against rule 10.4

CatFromHue · 01-07-2012 3:00pm

blindsider wrote: »

Pause this clip at 1:35:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBk6PjwsILA

Which part of the hand/lower arm can you see making contact? His upper arm/shoulder is deliberately used to fend Earls off - that is in contravention of Law 10.4 as I have quoted it above.

This is not about opinions, it's about the Laws of the game.

I'll say it again - Earls technique may have been awful, but it was LEGAL!

When you see the fend off from the other side, around 1min 30 on the clip, Gears hand/lower arm is always in contact with Earls. Even at the section of teh clip around 1min 35 it's Gears lower arm that makes contact with Earls first.

Earls technique was legal but when you put your head in the wrong position when making a tackle it's your own fault.

blindsider · 01-07-2012 3:31pm

CatFromHue wrote: »

When you see the fend off from the other side, around 1min 30 on the clip, Gears hand/lower arm is always in contact with Earls. Even at the section of teh clip around 1min 35 it's Gears lower arm that makes contact with Earls first.

Earls technique was legal but when you put your head in the wrong position when making a tackle it's your own fault.

Tell you what..go ask a referee you know - or even your coach when you start back to pre-season.

01-07-2012 3:35pm

blindsider wrote: »

Tell you what..go ask a referee you know - or even your coach when you start back to pre-season.

there's plenty of referees that post in this forum/thread.

blindsider · 01-07-2012 3:44pm

I know - I'm hoping that someone he(?) knows might take the time to explain the realities of the situation - what Gear did was illegal, what Earls did was silly/poor technique.

Gear should have been penalised, Earls needs a tackling session or two

Bless45 · 01-07-2012 4:05pm

randomer wrote: »

Is it possible to score an Own Drop Goal?

A drop goal cannot be scored in open play by punting the ball, and instead must be scored by drop kicking the ball over the crossbar and between the uprights.

CatFromHue · 01-07-2012 6:06pm

blindsider wrote: »

I know - I'm hoping that someone he(?) knows might take the time to explain the realities of the situation - what Gear did was illegal, what Earls did was silly/poor technique.

Gear should have been penalised, Earls needs a tackling session or two

How far do you want get into the "realities of the situation"?

According to rule 10.4 Earls should have been penalised!

10.4 DANGEROUS PLAY AND MISCONDUCT
(a) Punching or striking. A player must not strike an opponent with the fist or arm, including
the elbow, shoulder, head or knee(s).
Sanction: Penalty kick

Earls was steaming across the pitch at full tilt and leads with the head.

You can analyse the situation over and over if you like but there's nothing in it. Even Quinlan, who'd be carrying on the whole series as if Ireland were whooping the All Blacks, didn't see anything in it.

Shelflife · 02-07-2012 12:06am

CatFromHue wrote: »

blindsider wrote: »

I know - I'm hoping that someone he(?) knows might take the time to explain the realities of the situation - what Gear did was illegal, what Earls did was silly/poor technique.

Gear should have been penalised, Earls needs a tackling session or two

How far do you want get into the "realities of the situation"?

According to rule 10.4 Earls should have been penalised!

10.4 DANGEROUS PLAY AND MISCONDUCT
(a) Punching or striking. A player must not strike an opponent with the fist or arm, including
the elbow, shoulder, head or knee(s).
Sanction: Penalty kick

Earls was steaming across the pitch at full tilt and leads with the head.

You can analyse the situation over and over if you like but there's nothing in it. Even Quinlan, who'd be carrying on the whole series as if Ireland were whooping the All Blacks, didn't see anything in it.

If you want to be pedantic about it , nearly every text book tackle leads with the head, but the head isnt used to make the tackle, the arms or shoulder make contact with the body.

As a ref what I look for us that players tackle in a manner that is not dangerous to his opponent.
And that the opponent doesn't defend the tackle in a dangerous manner either, the safety of the players is foremost in my mind.
Earls did not endanger gear, but gear IMO did endanger and injure earls with a deliberate forearm/elbow/shoulder directly into his face .

Had that happened in a game I was reffing I'd be looking at a min yellow and seriously considering a red .

CatFromHue · 02-07-2012 12:36am

Shelflife wrote: »

If you want to be pedantic about it , nearly every text book tackle leads with the head, but the head isnt used to make the tackle, the arms or shoulder make contact with the body.

As a ref what I look for us that players tackle in a manner that is not dangerous to his opponent.
And that the opponent doesn't defend the tackle in a dangerous manner either, the safety of the players is foremost in my mind.
Earls did not endanger gear, but gear IMO did endanger and injure earls with a deliberate forearm/elbow/shoulder directly into his face .

Had that happened in a game I was reffing I'd be looking at a min yellow and seriously considering a red .

I was being pedantic on purpose as I don't see anything in what Gear did.

What do you do when guys take a crash ball into a crowded midfield? A lot of the time their actions are the same as what Gear did (no straight arm hand offs but hand offs starting with hands in close and pushing out)

Text book tackles don't have you making contact with your head to the guy you're meant to be tackling, look at how McFadden tackled Gear.

Earls didn't endanger Gear but he did endanger himself.

blindsider · 02-07-2012 6:45pm

CFH - I'm going to be direct now.

You are determined to see Earls as being wrong here. If A Rolland came on here and told you otherwise you still wouldn't believe him - that's your choice -you're entiteld to your opinions.

What I have a problem with, is you trying to convert your opinion into fact - you're not entitled to do that.

The Laws of rugby are clear - posters like Shelflife have already taken the time to explain this, as I have - on Rugby referee fora there is no debate about this - it's taken as read that M Poite missed this incident.

So continue to argue if you like, but you won't change the Laws of Rugby to make your self right.

I doubt I'll bother to contribute to this again.

PS - I haven't seen anyone comment on Earls blinding pace to get back to be in a great position to make an awful tackle - he covered a huge amount of ground and had no right to be there...but he was..and he messed it up!:o

CatFromHue · 02-07-2012 7:43pm

blindsider wrote: »

I doubt I'll bother to contribute to this again.

You're entitled to that :pac:

CatFromHue · 02-07-2012 10:36pm

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

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

MyKeyG · 02-07-2012 10:37pm

blindsider wrote: »

CFH - I'm going to be direct now.

You are determined to see Earls as being wrong here. If A Rolland came on here and told you otherwise you still wouldn't believe him - that's your choice -you're entiteld to your opinions.

What I have a problem with, is you trying to convert your opinion into fact - you're not entitled to do that.

The Laws of rugby are clear - posters like Shelflife have already taken the time to explain this, as I have - on Rugby referee fora there is no debate about this - it's taken as read that M Poite missed this incident.

So continue to argue if you like, but you won't change the Laws of Rugby to make your self right.

I doubt I'll bother to contribute to this again.

PS - I haven't seen anyone comment on Earls blinding pace to get back to be in a great position to make an awful tackle - he covered a huge amount of ground and had no right to be there...but he was..and he messed it up!:o

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.

CatFromHue · 02-07-2012 11:41pm

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:

Laws Question? Ask here!

Comments