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!

18687899192115

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 7,047 ✭✭✭Bazzo


    The hit from the Northampton player was a charge down so fine, AFAIK any time the ball goes forward off a player's torso, arms or hands it's deemed to be a knock on which is why SOB is deemed to have knocked it on, otherwise you'd have a situation where players could deliberately fling themselves at the ball with their hands behind their backs or something to prevent a knock on.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,925 ✭✭✭randomname2005


    Bazzo wrote: »
    otherwise you'd have a situation where players could deliberately fling themselves at the ball with their hands behind their backs or something to prevent a knock on.

    I get what you are saying, but the danger of a ball to the face would be quite high and might reduce the desire to just jump in front of the ball with no protection from your hands.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭LeinsterDub


    Don't want to derail the match the thread. So how can you be committed to tackling a player without the ball?

    I understand being committed when a player has the ball and offloads but without it?


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


    Don't want to derail the match the thread. So how can you be committed to tackling a player without the ball?

    I understand being committed when a player has the ball and offloads but without it?

    They mean that he bought the dummy runner and committed to tackling him. The very nice cutout pass took the attacker out of the game.


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


    Don't want to derail the match the thread. So how can you be committed to tackling a player without the ball?

    I understand being committed when a player has the ball and offloads but without it?

    You can't tackle a player who hasn't got the ball. Materiality of the situation should dictate the resulting penalty call on the day. A second after the pass and it's no issue, play on. A few seconds late after the ball has gone and it's probably going to be called up. Tackle early before the ball gets to hand and you are looking at a card, especially if a try beckons. In the case of the one in todays game, there was a skip pass called which may have saved a carding.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 51,687 Mod ✭✭✭✭Stheno


    How do refs decide how long to give for advantage?


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


    Stheno wrote: »
    How do refs decide how long to give for advantage?

    Depends on whether it's penalty or scrum advantage, and also on where on the field it is.

    For scrum advantage, it's usually until a ruck is formed at or ahead of where the infringement took place, or if a kick for territory is made.

    For penalty advantage, if it's a penalty that points could be kicked from, the ref will generally play advantage until either a score, or if a score looks unlikely he'll go back for the penalty. If the penalty isn't in a storable position, he'll generally keep playing advantage until there's a material gain in field position whilst retaining possession (I.e. A decent line break, or box kick and win the aerial contest). If that doesn't happen (or look like happening) he'll blow and go back for the penalty.


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


    Stheno wrote: »
    How do refs decide how long to give for advantage?

    For penalties you need to gain a distinctive tactical advantage. Inside the 22 this generally means a score for the attacking team. You'd blow up straight away for a defending team.

    For scrum offences crossing the gain line or a couple of clean passes to create space or a kick to space generally suffices.

    In cases of serious foul play advantage shouldn't be played at all.


  • Registered Users Posts: 24,742 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    Stheno wrote: »
    How do refs decide how long to give for advantage?

    For penalties you need to gain a distinctive tactical advantage. Inside the 22 this generally means a score for the attacking team. You'd blow up straight away for a defending team.

    For scrum offences crossing the gain line or a couple of clean passes to create space or a kick to space generally suffices.

    In cases of serious foul play advantage shouldn't be played at all.

    For offences leading to scrums don't refs (at pro level) tend to wait until the completion of 1 successful phase (as opposed to a number of passes), crossing the gain line or a successful kick?


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


    molloyjh wrote: »
    For offences leading to scrums don't refs (at pro level) tend to wait until the completion of 1 successful phase (as opposed to a number of passes), crossing the gain line or a successful kick?

    Not scientifically but more or less, yes. A scrum advantage will a lesser infringement to a penalty or free kick advantage so the gains from play will be lesser. The one decent phase or getting the ball away or a gain is usually enough.

    Edit. To acknowledge something that you've raised here and it is a very important point that is missed a lot on fora such as this. The levels of advantage offered at senior and pro levels of rugby far surpass those offered at junior, schools and social rugby. This is due to the skill levels and conditions of the game in question and their perceived ability to make use of the advantage on offer.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 935 ✭✭✭Kevski


    I was wondering if somebody could help me with a laws question that if been thinking about for the past few days.

    The situation: The clock has passed 40mins and play is continuing when the defending team commits a foul that results in a player being sin-binned. The attacking team the taps and continues to play the ball in the hope of scoring a try.

    Question: When does the clock begin to countdown for the sin bin period? As the clock is at 40mins, does the sin-binned player return to the pitch at the 50th minute? To my mind, this scenario would mean that the player would be off the pitch between the 40th and 50th minutes in the second half, plus any time that would have been played after the sin-binning offence at the end of the first half, meaning that there is an additional time penalty for being sin-binned after the clock goes dead at the end of the first half.

    Hope I've explained myself properly. Thanks!


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


    Kevski wrote: »
    I was wondering if somebody could help me with a laws question that if been thinking about for the past few days.

    The situation: The clock has passed 40mins and play is continuing when the defending team commits a foul that results in a player being sin-binned. The attacking team the taps and continues to play the ball in the hope of scoring a try.

    Question: When does the clock begin to countdown for the sin bin period? As the clock is at 40mins, does the sin-binned player return to the pitch at the 50th minute? To my mind, this scenario would mean that the player would be off the pitch between the 40th and 50th minutes in the second half, plus any time that would have been played after the sin-binning offence at the end of the first half, meaning that there is an additional time penalty for being sin-binned after the clock goes dead at the end of the first half.

    Hope I've explained myself properly. Thanks!
    The sin bin clock starts the moment the player crosses the sideline. It keeps running and only stops if the referee calls time off or blows the whistle for half-time.
    If for example, a player is binned at 38 minutes and then the half runs to 42 minutes, the player will be allowed to return at the first break in play (scrum, line-out, penalty or free-kick) after the sixth minute of the second half.


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


    As I understand it the time should come off from the 1st half..

    What you describe is counted as actual playing time , so if a team keeps the ball in play for an extended period of time at the end of the 1st half the "bin time" gets counted and they would return after 10 minutes of play had elapsed.. The Extra time in the 1st half plus the balance remaining from the start of the second.


  • Registered Users Posts: 935 ✭✭✭Kevski


    That makes sense, thank you!


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,208 ✭✭✭rje66


    Its timed from playing time, so if a player gets binned and a serious injury stops play for 8 mins , those 8 mins are not counted as part of the 10 mins in bin


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


    World Rugby have released an update on scrum and high tackles


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,415 ✭✭✭CMOTDibbler


    World Rugby have released an update on scrum and high tackles
    Interesting that the high tackle law emphasises that the player may be sanctioned. So it's not automatic that it's a penalty at minimum.

    The other interesting one is "awareness of non-hooking teams". That would be us against Scotland I suspect.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,914 ✭✭✭mountain


    At an U18 match, and ref played 30 mins in first half and when it was brought to his attention that if should of been 35mins, ref decided to play 40mins in second half,

    Was that correct decision?


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


    mountain wrote: »
    At an U18 match, and ref played 30 mins in first half and when it was brought to his attention that if should of been 35mins, ref decided to play 40mins in second half,

    Was that correct decision?

    Absolutely not.. 2nd mistake doesn't fix the 1st one..


  • Posts: 25,611 ✭✭✭✭ Viviana Kind Shortcake


    In the France/Scotland game shoving a player who wouldn't return the ball for a penalty resulted in the penalty being overturned. That player then retaliated with a shove which was unpunished. Why was it unpunished? Retaliation is specifically outlawed and when retaliating for a punch (I would call it defending oneself) the retaliation is often punished, why not in this case?


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


    In the France/Scotland game shoving a player who wouldn't return the ball for a penalty resulted in the penalty being overturned. That player then retaliated with a shove which was unpunished. Why was it unpunished? Retaliation is specifically outlawed and when retaliating for a punch (I would call it defending oneself) the retaliation is often punished, why not in this case?
    Because you penalise the first incident there and not the next. You the warn the players about future conduct and not to get involved in incidents like this.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,525 ✭✭✭Ardillaun


    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.


  • Subscribers Posts: 40,722 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    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.


  • Posts: 25,611 ✭✭✭✭ Viviana Kind Shortcake


    Because you penalise the first incident there and not the next. You the warn the players about future conduct and not to get involved in incidents like this.
    So punching someone back is fine? Law doesn't seem to be enforced like that.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,415 ✭✭✭CMOTDibbler


    So punching someone back is fine? Law doesn't seem to be enforced like that.
    But that wasn't the case in the incident you referred to. There were no punches thrown that I saw. Also, the Scottish player (Webb I think) was the one who retaliated to the French player holding onto the ball. It wasn't even deliberate as far as I could tell, the French player was just annoyed with himself and turned away in disgust, still holding the ball.

    Holding onto the ball or kicking it away to prevent a quick tap penalty is an offence.


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


    So punching someone back is fine? Law doesn't seem to be enforced like that.
    That wasn't the case you referred to and I never said punching/striking someone was fine.


  • Posts: 25,611 ✭✭✭✭ Viviana Kind Shortcake


    That's what I'm asking. Punching someone back is a yellow card, it is penalised because retaliation is no defence. However retaliation is fine (unpenalised) for shoving? Doesn't really make sense.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,415 ✭✭✭CMOTDibbler


    That's what I'm asking. Punching someone back is a yellow card, it is penalised because retaliation is no defence. However retaliation is fine (unpenalised) for shoving? Doesn't really make sense.
    I just made sense of it for you above. The shove wa retaliation for holding onto the ball. The sanctions don't extend to retaliation for retaliation etc. Otherwise you could have whole teams binned.


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


    That's what I'm asking. Punching someone back is a yellow card, it is penalised because retaliation is no defence. However retaliation is fine (unpenalised) for shoving? Doesn't really make sense.
    It makes perfect sense. There was multiple incidences in which you could penalise players in your example. If you punished all retaliation then the game would be a mess.


  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 25,611 ✭✭✭✭ Viviana Kind Shortcake


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


Advertisement