Laws Question? Ask here!

Yeah_Right wrote: »

It was Eden Park 2013 and Poite was the ref. Have a look. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IxIQ2JxiX0

Ah holy Jesus, the reverse angle makes it perfectly clear he wrapped his arms there. Nothing wrong with that. Crazy decision.

Most refs will ping the player if they go before they call that the ball is out, that's what I thought happened, even though the ball was clearly out.

This the definition of a knock on from the IRB Laws app

"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."

Clear sequence for a knock on is ball going forward from a player's hand / arm and THEN touching the ground or an oppo player before a re-gather.

Not your ref's sequence of the ball being dropped backwards from hand/arm, hitting the ground and then going forward. He's got it arseways.

Challenging players in the air - Law 10.4(i)

Play on – Fair challenge with both players in a realistic position to catch the ball. Even if the player(s) land(s) dangerously, play on
Penalty only – Fair challenge with wrong timing - No pulling down
Yellow card – Not a fair challenge, there is no contest and the player is pulled down landing on his back or side
Red card – Not a fair challenge, there is no contest and the player lands on his head, neck or shoulder

Finally

Clearlier wrote: »

I had a similar thought when I saw that. Referees have been too quick to evaluate the outcome without paying attention to the preceding action. There was a real danger that contests for high balls were going to be driven out of the game.

I think that they could have gone a little further though. I would have liked an explicit clarification of what happens to someone who tries to catch the ball but fails to get off the ground and takes out a player who is jumping for the ball. For my money it's not a fair contest and a yellow/red card but as the Finn Russell case showed there's not a lot of clarity within the general public about it.

We, referees, were doing that as they were the guidelines passed down. We were being advised at referee meetings etc(that's all referees from junior level to pro)

Perhaps they should have clarified your second point but again it really should be up to referees discretion in those cases.

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

We, referees, were doing that as they were the guidelines passed down. We were being advised at referee meetings etc(that's all referees from junior level to pro)

Perhaps they should have clarified your second point but again it really should be up to referees discretion in those cases.

I could have written that better. I'm glad that the emphasis on the outcome is shifting a little - a bit too utilitarian for me!

On the second point in the end it's all up to referees judgement - I just think that it would have been helpful to clarify what should happen when a player on the ground hits a player in the air where there's no obvious intention to hit the player. IMO, the player on the ground owes the rest of the players on the pitch a duty of care to either be sure that he won't be taking someone out or to get into the air to catch the ball. There are others who would disagree with me though.

Clearlier wrote: »

I could have written that better. I'm glad that the emphasis on the outcome is shifting a little - a bit too utilitarian for me!

On the second point in the end it's all up to referees judgement - I just think that it would have been helpful to clarify what should happen when a player on the ground hits a player in the air where there's no obvious intention to hit the player. IMO, the player on the ground owes the rest of the players on the pitch a duty of care to either be sure that he won't be taking someone out or to get into the air to catch the ball. There are others who would disagree with me though.

Is it not clarified there... That would be a penalty only as its a fair challenge with wrong timing...

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

World Rugby today announced the proposed changes to laws that will be looked at over the next few seasons. Any thoughts?

http://pulse-static-files.s3.amazonaws.com/test/worldrugby/document/2015/09/05/0b9c59b0-bd64-449d-94be-6d6ef938f7f2/150906_Law_Trials.pdf

I like the idea of the 8 man scrum.

I'm not sure about downgrading the pen to two points, cynical play by the defence in their red zone might be rewarded. A strong ref might award a penalty try or issue a card but we've seen weak refs chicken out of using these punishments.

pickarooney wrote: »

The Welsh premiership is trialling 6 point tries, two point penalties and 8 point penalty tries this season I read.

Not sure if that eight points includes an automatic conversion or if it's just to dissuade defenders giving away cheap penalties.

The 8 points includes an automatic conversion...
Many of these trials are being looked at in Wales this season

I hadn't scrolled down far enough to see the law changes for Law 22

Good idea to allow the defending team who would previously have been awarded a 5m scrum to restart the game can now oot for a 5m drop out.

I think that has the potential to speed up the game.