Laws Question? Ask here!

25-06-2014 8:52pm

Steve Perchance wrote: »

The Green player does not have to let the white player get up. He can contest for the ball immediately as long as he stays on his feet. Law 14.2 says:

14.2 Players on their feet
(a) Falling over the player on the ground with the ball. A player must not intentionally fall on or over a player with the ball who is lying on the ground.
Sanction: Penalty kick

(b) Falling over players lying on the ground near the ball. A player must not intentionally fall on or over players lying on the ground with the ball between them or near them.
Sanction: Penalty kick

These are the only offences he can commit here. White must either stand up with the ball, release the ball or pass the ball immediately. If he can't stand up because the opponent is contesting for the ball, then he must exercise one of the other options or concede a penalty. Again, there isn't a law to say that he has to be allowed stand up any more than there is one to say he can't be prevented from passing by standing between him and a teammate.

A player on his feet trying to play the ball in this situation is not committing an offence.

So I guess my question is "Is he allowed to be tackled while trying to play the ball?".

If Yes - Does the "Tackle" constitute forming a ruck and if so should initial White player be pinged for holding on.

If No - Penalty Green?

Still can't quite figure out how the passage of play 'should' be handled.

Steve Perchance · 26-06-2014 10:40am

Deleted User wrote: »

So I guess my question is "Is he allowed to be tackled while trying to play the ball?".

If Yes - Does the "Tackle" constitute forming a ruck and if so should initial White player be pinged for holding on.

If No - Penalty Green?

Still can't quite figure out how the passage of play 'should' be handled.

The other defending player, the one on his feet, is entitled to form a ruck by engaging the green player. He can't 'tackle' him but he can ruck over the ball/clear out the player.

16.1 Forming a ruck
(a) Where can a ruck take place. A ruck can take place only in the field of play.
(b) How can a ruck form. Players are on their feet. At least one player must be in physical contact with an opponent. The ball must be on the ground. If the ball is off the ground for any reason, the ruck is not formed.

There's nothing to say that a tackle has to happen before a ruck can be formed.

In these circumstance, I'd say it's penalty green - if he is deemed to have released the ball (if only for a second), then a ruck formed and he can't play it again (he's offside). If he didn't release the ball, it's a penalty for failing to do so, as he didn't get up or release or pass the ball 'immediately'. Even if Green is deemed to have tackled a man without the ball (because the ball is off the ground and a ruck can't form, therefore he can't touch him), the first offence is white's, so it's still a penalty to green.

GiftofGab · 22-08-2014 1:45pm

Quick question - which I'm mostly sure of the answer.

At a ruck - when scrum half touches the ball - is the ball only considered 'out' when it leaves the hind feet or when the scrum half touches the ball?

The Lost Sheep · 22-08-2014 1:49pm

GiftofGab wrote: »

Quick question - which I'm mostly sure of the answer.

At a ruck - when scrum half touches the ball - is the ball only considered 'out' when it leaves the hind feet or when the scrum half touches the ball?

The ball is only considered out when the ball is out of the ruck. Hands on by any player doesn't mean you can attempt to tackle them

awec · 22-08-2014 1:50pm

GiftofGab wrote: »

Quick question - which I'm mostly sure of the answer.

At a ruck - when scrum half touches the ball - is the ball only considered 'out' when it leaves the hind feet or when the scrum half touches the ball?

When it moves past the hind foot (i.e. lifted out to play it).

awec · 22-08-2014 1:52pm

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

The ball is only considered out when the ball is out of the ruck. Hands on by any player doesn't mean you can attempt to tackle them

Am I right in thinking that once the scrum half puts his hands on it he can't set it down again?

I.e. once he has hands on he must play it?

phog · 22-08-2014 2:08pm

awec wrote: »

Am I right in thinking that once the scrum half puts his hands on it he can't set it down again?

I.e. once he has hands on he must play it?

Yes and he can't dummy a move either

.ak · 22-08-2014 2:08pm

Yes, that's correct.

Different refs interpret it differently, but it'd take a pretty mean ref to say once the hands are on the ball that the scrummie is fair game.

Having said that I've seen guys who take an age to get the ball out with their hands on the ball, and the ref will say the ball is out at that point.

The Lost Sheep · 22-08-2014 2:09pm

awec wrote: »

Am I right in thinking that once the scrum half puts his hands on it he can't set it down again?

I.e. once he has hands on he must play it?

Yes. Once hands are on they must play the ball. They cant dummy a pass and if they do its a penalty against them

rje66 · 24-08-2014 8:51pm

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Yes. Once hands are on they must play the ball. They cant dummy a pass and if they do its a penalty against them

I agree with the dummy but hands on the ball is not a green light for defending players to pile in. Once its off the ground and being delivered, it is then open season for scrum halves:D

even if a SH has hands on the ball at back of ruck and is having a look around for best options he only has 5 seconds , not a lot of time really!!!

The Lost Sheep · 24-08-2014 9:08pm

rje66 wrote: »

I agree with the dummy but hands on the ball is not a green light for defending players to pile in. Once its off the ground and being delivered, it is then open season for scrum halves:D

even if a SH has hands on the ball at back of ruck and is having a look around for best options he only has 5 seconds , not a lot of time really!!!

I never said hands on was the ok sign for defenders to jump in. The defenders must wait until the ball is out of the ruck before attempting to tackle ball carrier
5 seconds is a lot of time at senior level but not much at junior and age grade level

rje66 · 24-08-2014 10:12pm

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

I never said hands on was the ok sign for defenders to jump in. The defenders must wait until the ball is out of the ruck before attempting to tackle ball carrier
5 seconds is a lot of time at senior level but not much at junior and age grade level

But you did say they 'must'play the ball once hands are on. Which isn't correct.

Losty Dublin · 24-08-2014 10:33pm

rje66 wrote: »

But you did say they 'must'play the ball once hands are on. Which isn't correct.

It is correct; once the player puts their hands on the ball then s/he must play it.

The Lost Sheep · 24-08-2014 10:38pm

rje66 wrote: »

But you did say they 'must'play the ball once hands are on. Which isn't correct.

What was not correct about what I said?

rje66 · 25-08-2014 7:33am

Losty Dublin wrote: »

It is correct; once the player puts their hands on the ball then s/he must play it.

It's just that I can't see it anywhere in the law book. Can you direct me to the specific law?.

Losty Dublin · 25-08-2014 11:24am

They are there just not in a specific point of law itself.

Law 16.4 F covers a player making a dummy pass (Free Kick) while law 16.7 tells us that the ref will call to a team to "use it" within 5 seconds whenever clean possession is afforded to a team at a tick. The ball can only be played when it emerges. Where a player makes contact with fellow players at the ruck other law points such as correct binds or handing on the floor may come into the equation.

If a player or his team is taking the mickey with then Law 10 may come into play; this shouldn't arise if a referee manages his game well.

Shelflife · 25-08-2014 11:38am

rje66 wrote: »

It's just that I can't see it anywhere in the law book. Can you direct me to the specific law?.

16.4.b

Players must not handle the ball in a ruck.

If the player is taking the ball out thats fine, or even if he is pulling the ball out between bodies, but he cant touch the ball and then leave it in the ruck.

As Losty said its a situation that needs to be managed.

rje66 · 25-08-2014 12:38pm

Shelflife wrote: »

16.4.b

Players must not handle the ball in a ruck.

If the player is taking the ball out thats fine, or even if he is pulling the ball out between bodies, but he cant touch the ball and then leave it in the ruck.

As Losty said its a situation that needs to be managed.

think the scenario we are talking about i s the SH /other player in that position with hands on the ball not player in a ruck.
Disagree with the 2 law refs above to cover this.
But do agree it's a management issues if piss taking starts. But the 5 second rule generally eliminates this being an issue.

wicklowstevo · 28-08-2014 10:40am

im not about to read 135 pages of this so this might already have been asked but ......

at what point can a player leave the back of the line out to attack the out half ,

is it when the scrum half gets the ball or when he passes it or what ?

Shelflife · 28-08-2014 12:00pm

When the ball leaves the lineout or crosses the line of touch. Effectively when the ball is played off the top to the SH, then you can attck the outhalf position.

wicklowstevo · 28-08-2014 1:10pm

Shelflife wrote: »

When the ball leaves the lineout or crosses the line of touch. Effectively when the ball is played off the top to the SH, then you can attck the outhalf position.

wouldnt that mean you would be ahead of the ball when the sh passes it ?

Shelflife · 28-08-2014 3:09pm

wicklowstevo wrote: »

wouldnt that mean you would be ahead of the ball when the sh passes it ?

If youre that quick then yes, once you start from an onside position you are fine.

once the ball has left the line of touch then its open play and you can stand where you want.

wicklowstevo · 28-08-2014 4:33pm

Shelflife wrote: »

If youre that quick then yes, once you start from an onside position you are fine.

once the ball has left the line of touch then its open play and you can stand where you want.

fast enough to scare the chocolate out of a slow out half anyway .

cheers

Losty Dublin · 28-08-2014 4:53pm

wicklowstevo wrote: »

fast enough to scare the chocolate out of a slow out half anyway .

cheers

4 video examples of when the line out is over are included on the link below

http://www.irblaws.com/index.php?law=19.9

matthew8 · 30-08-2014 2:59pm

If it comes off the shoulder is it a knock on?

rje66 · 30-08-2014 3:21pm

matthew8 wrote: »

If it comes off the shoulder is it a knock on?

Did player make an attempt to catch it?!!!!

matthew8 · 30-08-2014 3:21pm

rje66 wrote: »

Did player make an attempt to catch it?!!!!

Yes.

rje66 · 30-08-2014 6:12pm

matthew8 wrote: »

If it comes off the shoulder is it a knock on?

Technically no. It's hands or arm.
But .....
In a scenario where a player trying to field a high ball and it first hits shoulder /upper bicep area and drops between elbows it's hard not to give a KO.
Whereas a player gets a bullet pass and before he can react it hits his shoulder/upper bicep area and goes forward it's hard to call a KO.
A bit of 'how the ref sees it and how sympathetic he is' goes into the mix also...

The Lost Sheep · 01-09-2014 11:41pm

matthew8 wrote: »

If it comes off the shoulder is it a knock on?

rje66 has it fairly spot on

rje66 wrote: »

Technically no. It's hands or arm.
But .....
In a scenario where a player trying to field a high ball and it first hits shoulder /upper bicep area and drops between elbows it's hard not to give a KO.
Whereas a player gets a bullet pass and before he can react it hits his shoulder/upper bicep area and goes forward it's hard to call a KO.
A bit of 'how the ref sees it and how sympathetic he is' goes into the mix also...

Also where referee is positioned in relation to player as what the line of sight is will be a factor and you will see pass very different depending on your angle of seeing the pass..

matthew8 · 01-09-2014 11:48pm

Question was in relation to La Rochelle-Toulouse. Came off the top off his shoulder as he tried to field a kick (ball bounced up off it, away from him) and a try was scored a few seconds later but was disallowed because the tmo believed it a knock on. Earlier in the half Toulouse were awarded a controversial try after a player rolled forward around 5 metres after going down (not tackled though) without releasing the ball and the try was scored next phase. Sky Sports felt it was a terrible call. Who was right?

Losty Dublin · 02-09-2014 1:04am

matthew8 wrote: »

Question was in relation to La Rochelle-Toulouse. Came off the top off his shoulder as he tried to field a kick (ball bounced up off it, away from him) and a try was scored a few seconds later but was disallowed because the tmo believed it a knock on. Earlier in the half Toulouse were awarded a controversial try after a player rolled forward around 5 metres after going down (not tackled though) without releasing the ball and the try was scored next phase. Sky Sports felt it was a terrible call. Who was right?

Just looked at the incidents in question.

The knock forward was okay as he made to play for the ball and knocked it forward off his corner of his arm/shoulder.

The non release was fine as the player was not held in a tackle and entitled to do what he did. Yes he took the piss but he was fine. Next time if he tried that at a breakdown he probably got rucked to hell and back :pac:

Shelflife · 03-09-2014 11:39am

I haven't seen the try in question but if a player goes to ground

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

So if he rolled or crawled or if he looked as if he was trying to grain ground without getting up I would penalise him.

Snickers Man · 05-09-2014 11:12am

This one is inspired by my many sleepless nights since the All Blacks beat us at the death a year ago. (OK I'm obsessional. Forgive me)

Imagine the scenario. A team is leading a test match by 5 points with less than a minute left. They are in possession around midfield and are picking and driving to run the clock down. They know they are vulnerable to the referee dealing harshly with any killing the ball or going off their feet so they decide to vary the play.

The out half attempts a drop at goal from half way. The referee scampering back to adjudicate is satisfied that the ball went between the posts but is unsure whether it cleared the crossbar. He is entitled to ask the TMO to verify.

BUT....

a defender covering back has retrieved the ball before it went dead and has opted not to touch it down for a 22m drop out given the state of the clock but to run it out instead.

Question: does the referee have the right to stop the play AT THIS POINT even though the ball may still be live? Or can he let it run to the next natural stopppage and then go back to see if the ball was indeed over the bar and that three points should be awarded?

To my mind two controversial outcomes could ensue from this. If he stops the play there and then, with the defender trying to run the ball out to start a counter attack, only to find that the ball didn't clear the bar, surely the defending team is put at a disadvantage by having to drop the ball out to the opposition.

Or in an alternative scenario, the ref doesn't immediately go to TMO, the defender who retrieved the ball sets up a counter attack which eventually results in his team scoring a try long after the 80 minutes have expired. Then the ref consults the TMO to find that the original drop goal attempt HAD been successful, so he overturns the try, awards the three points and the match to the other team.

When is the correct time for the ref to got to TMO in this scenario and what should be the protocol with restarting the game at this late stage?

.ak · 05-09-2014 11:34am

It's interesting because the ref can now go back to any point in the game. It's almost akin to letting the team score a try, but then going back to the TMO to see if a pass in the build up was forward.

However, refs generally use a cop on. Whilst no law actually stipulates how many phases they can go back I've heard refs over the mic refuse players pleas for the TMO stating it happened to far back in the field.

you'd imagine if a player ran the 100m he wouldn't go back to the TMO. Also, a drop goal is an act of scoring points, so again I reckon the ref would go to the TMO straight away if there was any doubt.

awec · 05-09-2014 11:38am

I think it's an unlikely scenario anyway.

For there to be a defender in position to catch a drop goal that lands short and be able to run it back for a try would suggest that the attacking team aren't that far from the try line. So at this distance, you'd imagine the referee and the assistants would have a pretty good view anyway.

If the drop goal was from distance then I'd say it's unlikely that a defender would be in position to catch it if it landed short, and by the time they got back to it the attacking team would be on top of him (or close to it).

Losty Dublin · 05-09-2014 11:49am

Snickers Man wrote: »

The out half attempts a drop at goal from half way. The referee scampering back to adjudicate is satisfied that the ball went between the posts but is unsure whether it cleared the crossbar. He is entitled to ask the TMO to verify.

BUT....

a defender covering back has retrieved the ball before it went dead and has opted not to touch it down for a 22m drop out given the state of the clock but to run it out instead.

Question: does the referee have the right to stop the play AT THIS POINT even though the ball may still be live? Or can he let it run to the next natural stopppage and then go back to see if the ball was indeed over the bar and that three points should be awarded?

When is the correct time for the ref to got to TMO in this scenario and what should be the protocol with restarting the game at this late stage?

A TMO can only be consulted on matters when the ball has been played dead or at a stoppage in play. If the ball is still in play then play must continue. If it means bringing it back then so be it. Bear in mind that the referee can only ask two things in relation to the act of scoring; is it a score, yes or no and if there any reason why he can't award a score. So to answer your question, a ref cannot stop play to check the score.

There was a situation in a Connaught game a few years ago whereby a dubious kick was sent upstairs; I can't find the clip to see what happened then

matthew8 · 05-09-2014 12:15pm

Here you go, looks like the ref is happy to go back:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFQ0Qk7vp-s

05-09-2014 12:21pm

Clancy handles that brilliantly tbf.

Snickers Man · 05-09-2014 1:32pm

awec wrote: »

I think it's an unlikely scenario anyway.

For there to be a defender in position to catch a drop goal that lands short and be able to run it back for a try would suggest that the attacking team aren't that far from the try line. So at this distance, you'd imagine the referee and the assistants would have a pretty good view anyway.

If the drop goal was from distance then I'd say it's unlikely that a defender would be in position to catch it if it landed short, and by the time they got back to it the attacking team would be on top of him (or close to it).

On the contrary.

If it was a long-distance attempt on goal, and it passed near the crossbar it is quite likely that the ball would not carry over the dead ball line and a full back running back to cover might very easily retrieve (the word I used) the ball before it went dead. In that scenario, if he believed a drop goal had not been scored and with time running out, his ONLY option would be to run the ball out and attempt a counter attack.

You say it is unlikely a try could be scored at the other end from such an inauspicious start. How old are you and how long have you been watching this game? Do phrases like "Brilliant! Brilliant! Oh that's brilliant!" from 1973 or the "Try from the end of the world" (l'essai du bout du monde) from the 1990s mean anything to you?

Or you might just consider the All Blacks winning try well into the red time zone emanating from a penalty inside their own half from the match last year.....Arghh!! You've made me think of it again. DAMN YOU!!!!!!

Losty Dublin · 05-09-2014 3:17pm

Snickers Man wrote: »

On the contrary.

If it was a long-distance attempt on goal, and it passed near the crossbar it is quite likely that the ball would not carry over the dead ball line and a full back running back to cover might very easily retrieve (the word I used) the ball before it went dead. In that scenario, if he believed a drop goal had not been scored and with time running out, his ONLY option would be to run the ball out and attempt a counter attack.

The TMO will only come into it if the referee reckons that it may well be a score and he wants to be sure; it is not the other way around. If the ball was definitely not going over then it will be a play on situation and the TMO won't be involved.

As a tactical thing, unless it's the last play or you are playing for somebody like Fiji then most teams would take the comfort and sure yards by grounding and opting for a 22 rather than chancing a break from behind their own goal line.

LeinsterDub · 05-09-2014 9:31pm

Will get lost in the match thread. You've to kick it before the 80?

Losty Dublin · 05-09-2014 9:32pm

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Will get lost in the match thread. You've to kick it before the 80?

Answered in the thread but once again, you may kick it at any time when the ball is in play once you don't time waste at a place kick.

LeinsterDub · 05-09-2014 9:36pm

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Answered in the thread but once again, you may kick it at any time when the ball is in play once you don't time waste at a place kick.

In fairness he wasn't exactly taking the piss. The ref seemed to rush the kick from the minute he blew up. Offically it's 60 seconds from the time the penalty is awarded or the ball becomes available?

Losty Dublin · 05-09-2014 9:55pm

LeinsterDub wrote: »

In fairness he wasn't exactly taking the piss. The ref seemed to rush the kick from the minute he blew up. Offically it's 60 seconds from the time the penalty is awarded or the ball becomes available?

The 60 seconds applies from when the kick option is given. If there is a break in play then it applies from when play restarts.

I agree that he wasn't taking too long but there's always the chance in such a situation where a player will try his luck to there's no harm in a gentle reminder

locum-motion · 05-09-2014 10:05pm

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Will get lost in the match thread. You've to kick it before the 80?

I thought that was a bit off.

What if a penalty is awarded for a horrendous foul that breaks a guy's neck, to a team that's 2 points down, 30m out from the centre of the posts, with 79:58 on the clock, in the World Cup final?

Does the kicker have 2 seconds in which to take a high-pressure kick?

And if the answer to that is "No, he gets a minute to kick it":
Then what is the difference in the Laws of the Game between that and an offside where no injury happens, where the offending team is leading by 17 points, 68m out from the posts, 1m in from the touchline, with 79:01 on the clock in the 3rd weekend of the Leinster Metropolitan J5 League?

Answer: There is no difference. The circumstances don't matter. You've either got a minute or you don't. AFAIK, you have a minute, regardless of the match clock. If I'm right, tonight's referee was wrong.

locum-motion · 05-09-2014 10:18pm

You're right that it's fairly unlikely, but the Law is the Law regardless of the actual circumstances (as I outlined in my last post about tonight's ref's "You have to kick it before the 80 is up" call).

I am unfamiliar with the Connacht example that another poster mentioned, but certainly George Clancy looks to me to have done the right thing in the Toulouse-Wasps example; at the next stop in play, he went back to look to see if points had been scored.
Someone was shouting "TMO, TMO", and I don't know if that was an appeal from a Wasps player or if it was George's way of saying "I'm going to go back and look", but if it was George, fair play to him.
To me, a good ref would make sure that the players were aware that the his attitude was along the lines of "Play on for now, but we're going to look at that later". It's similar to when he sticks out his arm and shouts "Offside - penalty advantage - play on". Everyone knows where they stand.

Snickers Man wrote: »

This one is inspired by my many sleepless nights since the All Blacks beat us at the death a year ago. (OK I'm obsessional. Forgive me)

Imagine the scenario. A team is leading a test match by 5 points with less than a minute left. They are in possession around midfield and are picking and driving to run the clock down. They know they are vulnerable to the referee dealing harshly with any killing the ball or going off their feet so they decide to vary the play.

The out half attempts a drop at goal from half way. The referee scampering back to adjudicate is satisfied that the ball went between the posts but is unsure whether it cleared the crossbar. He is entitled to ask the TMO to verify.

BUT....

a defender covering back has retrieved the ball before it went dead and has opted not to touch it down for a 22m drop out given the state of the clock but to run it out instead.

Question: does the referee have the right to stop the play AT THIS POINT even though the ball may still be live? Or can he let it run to the next natural stopppage and then go back to see if the ball was indeed over the bar and that three points should be awarded?

To my mind two controversial outcomes could ensue from this. If he stops the play there and then, with the defender trying to run the ball out to start a counter attack, only to find that the ball didn't clear the bar, surely the defending team is put at a disadvantage by having to drop the ball out to the opposition.

Or in an alternative scenario, the ref doesn't immediately go to TMO, the defender who retrieved the ball sets up a counter attack which eventually results in his team scoring a try long after the 80 minutes have expired. Then the ref consults the TMO to find that the original drop goal attempt HAD been successful, so he overturns the try, awards the three points and the match to the other team.

When is the correct time for the ref to got to TMO in this scenario and what should be the protocol with restarting the game at this late stage?

awec · 28-10-2014 6:10pm

We all know the front row is a place of dark magic, a secret members society where only those involved have any idea what is really going on.

How do referees know who is responsible for wheeling a scrum? Ulster got pinged for wheeling their first scrum, how did Barnes know it was Herbst pushing sideways and not that it was Hayman getting shoved back by Warwick on the other side causing it to go sideways naturally?

Also, sometimes it's clear who collapses a scrum and sometimes it isn't. What do referees actually look for?

The Lost Sheep · 28-10-2014 6:18pm

awec wrote: »

We all know the front row is a place of dark magic, a secret members society where only those involved have any idea what is really going on.

How do referees know who is responsible for wheeling a scrum? Ulster got pinged for wheeling their first scrum, how did Barnes know it was Herbst pushing sideways and not that it was Hayman getting shoved back by Warwick on the other side causing it to go sideways naturally?

Also, sometimes it's clear who collapses a scrum and sometimes it isn't. What do referees actually look for?

Where on the field the scrum is taking place is a factor, what has happened at previous scrums in the game is a factor. hard to give a definitive answer as so many variables but they're some of the things I look for when refereeing games
Referee's at pro level are micced up so will have the aid of touch judges who can see things from another angle

awec · 28-10-2014 6:23pm

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Where on the field the scrum is taking place is a factor, what has happened at previous scrums in the game is a factor. hard to give a definitive answer as so many variables but they're some of the things I look for when refereeing games
Referee's at pro level are micced up so will have the aid of touch judges who can see things from another angle

So basically it's an educated guess?

Teferi · 28-10-2014 6:34pm

When it comes to collapsing at amateur level it's basically just a wheel of fortune whereby a ref picks a different person based on the way the wind is blowing, the placement of the moon in relation to Jupiter etc.

Laws Question? Ask here!

Comments