Laws Question? Ask here!

Deleted User wrote: »

So the first offence (holding the ball) goes unpunished?

For a couple of reasons.

1. Webb's retaliation was out of proportion and started a brawl
2. The holding on to the ball was marginal. It might have got a warning and since there was already a penalty against them, that would have been it. If he'd kicked it away, it could well have been a yellow, but he just turned away.

Retaliation is always punished because it usurps the referee's powers of sanction. Depending on the original offence, a sanction is often given for that too. You often see two yellows given in those situations.

sydthebeat wrote: »

Ardillaun wrote: »

What about a time rule for tackles - a max time limit between the ball leaving the player and contact being made? It would make things simpler. Downside would be more TMO involvement.

What's wrong with the way it's reffed currently?
I don't see late hits as being some kind of blight on the game that needs special consideration.
The "committed to the tackle" viewpoint is good enough in my opinion.

It's too subjective. If a late tackle is missed by the ref, like Moriarty's on Farrell, my suggestion would enable the TMO to inform the ref with the report of a clear infraction.

sydthebeat wrote: »

Ardillaun wrote: »

It's too subjective. If a late tackle is missed by the ref, like Moriarty's on Farrell, my suggestion would enable the TMO to inform the ref with the report of a clear infraction.

The tmo has fully abilities to call the ref back for dangerous play.

If the TMO had a time-based criterion to call a late tackle, he would be far more likely to do so.

.ak wrote: »

Ardillaun wrote: »

I disagree and at the moment we have no objective way of resolving that disagreement. IMO the ref was wrong.

Well generally you have to use the commitment argument to make a decision. Does he commit when the ball is still in the hands? If it's a yes then it's legal.

I feel there should be a time element to it as well, though. If you're far enough away, you have time to reduce or stop your attempt to tackle. If there was a time limit, people would think twice about finishing tackles 'on the edge of lateness'.

Granny15 wrote: »

Quick question - what side does the scrumhalf feed into the scrum - is it always the blindisde?

The loosehead side. So from the left of his scrum.

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Nothing in law to say which side but you must pick one side and cant change at the same scrum. You must wait until the next scrum to go to the other side.

Out of curiosity is there an infraction for this if for some bizarre reason a scrum half decided to try and change sides in the same scrum?

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Offside..

Essentially as soon as he steps past the no. 8 on the way round to the other side, he must retreat out to where the rest of the backs are otherwise he's offside as the scrum isn't over until the ball comes out.

If he means changing sides to feed the scrum then it's a free kick. The opposing scrum half has to be on the same side as the feed at risk of being offside.

sydthebeat wrote: »

At what point does the "change of sides" come into effect? After the "set" call?

Before the scrum forms, that's my take of it.

Yeah_Right wrote: »

As a former forward who spent a few years in the front row there is an infraction for the HB feeding the scrum from the TH side. The infraction is he a stupid little twat and the punishment is that he is the forwards' tackle bag at the next training and then he will be the ball for scrum practice.

Only if he's your SH as if he's the oppositions its generally fantastic unless your hooker etc are a bit ****

MaybeMaybe wrote: »

What laws govern the tactic Italy used on Sunday? I can find a reference to the 1 meter away from the tackle area in particular.

Poite says that was a tweak in the interpretation that was only made in the last week or so, may not be written down.

FellasFellas wrote: »

In simple terms, a player from each team must be in contact with each other over the ball for it to be a ruck. The reason the players had to stand away from Care/Youngs instead of just diving on the ball as there's a 1m zone around the tackle that is essentially a safe zone for the 9. If the Italians went for the ball, they must come through the 'gate' which is the hindmost foot through the middle from their side. It's a grey area but until World Rugby clarify it, it will still be available as an option.

I think the simplest way to think of it for the casual fan is to imagine a tackle in open field after the attacking team broke through while the defense scrambles. If the attacking player is tackled - but there is no ruck - and the scrumhalf passes the ball to a retreating defender then tough luck. The defending player was never offside so is allowed to take the ball.

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

This is all better suited to the laws thread but a penalty try can only be awarded if a probable try wasn't scored due to foul play. Refs in general do give more benefit to attacking side so there isn't any reason for much more penalty trys to be awarded

The point is I don't think they do, or not enough I reckon.

France infringed twice in the red zone and then got a warning, they then turned the play over which is fair enough but I reckon if they had infringed again then the opposing team should then get a penalty goal kick as a default from there on. The advantage should be given to the opposing side. And France should've been warned after the first infringement in my view.

Defending teams are routinely gambling and winning on infringing two or three times on the try line.

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

They do. And no it shouldnt be like that at all that a team gets a penalty kick as default.

I disagree. I've been watching the 6 nations and in my view defending teams are routinely giving away penalties in the red zone in the knowledge that they'll get 2 or 3 opportunities to give away penalties before they receive a warning. While this is happening the attacking side are frustrated and the pressure builds on them to get over the line often resulting in a turn over as the pressure ramps up and gets to them.

It appears arbitrary, different refs will warn earlier than others in a red zone cycle. I reckon a penalty given away in a red zone should be met with an immediate warning. If the defensive team then offends again, the attacking team should then be afforded the opportunity to go for another try in the knowledge that if the ball is turned over legitimately they can revert to the advantage of a penalty kick and 3 points. Another infringement by the defensive side at that point should result in a penalty try.

That's my view on it, I think something should be done because it's inconsistent with different refs approaching red zone offences in different ways.