Laws Question? Ask here!

The Lost Sheep

pickarooney wrote: »

Pro D2 game this afternoon in high winds. White have a penalty 15m out and to the right. Black retreat, expecting the kick at goal. 10 white shapes as though he's going to take the place kick (no tees, players were hiding the ball in place) then spots his left winger unmarked and instead kicks the ball over towards him from his hands. The ball sailed past the winger and bounced twice into touch.

Which team should have the throw in here?

once Penalty Kick has been indicated you must kick at posts and not deliberately elsewhere. Correct decision is to award scrum at place of kick to non-kicking team.

Bazzo

pickarooney wrote: »

Pro D2 game this afternoon in high winds. White have a penalty 15m out and to the right. Black retreat, expecting the kick at goal. 10 white shapes as though he's going to take the place kick (no tees, players were hiding the ball in place) then spots his left winger unmarked and instead kicks the ball over towards him from his hands. The ball sailed past the winger and bounced twice into touch.

Which team should have the throw in here?

Well I thought it was against the laws to indicate you wanted to take a kick at goal without then making a genuine attempt for it but can't find it in the current laws, somebody more knowledgeable may be able to enlighten us. So that would be sanctionable anyway.

But assuming he hadn't actually indicated he wanted to take a shot and kicked cross field I believe as long as nobody else touched the ball before it went into touch it would be a white lineout.

Edit: here it is

If the team indicates to the referee the intention to kick at goal, they must kick at goal.
The intention to kick can be communicated to the referee or signalled by the arrival of
the kicking tee or sand, or when the player makes a mark on the ground.

blindsider

If he hadn't told the ref that he was kicking at goal, AND the tee was not on the pitch, the player can choose what to do i.e. the crossfield kick.

Hiding the ball etc might be considered to be in contravention of Law 9.27, but I haven't seen the incident.

sydthebeat

yeah, id be of the opinion that if no shot at goal is indicated, hen its open play from a kick.

however im confused as to the question as i cannot see any case in which its a white throw.

sydthebeat

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

once Penalty Kick has been indicated you must kick at posts and not deliberately elsewhere. Correct decision is to award scrum at place of kick to non-kicking team.

where do the laws allow for a scrum down after such an incident?

pickarooney

sydthebeat wrote: »

yeah, id be of the opinion that if no shot at goal is indicated, hen its open play from a kick.

however im confused as to the question as i cannot see any case in which its a white throw.

I couldn't hear any communication between the kicker and the ref and there was no fee brought on. As far as I know he just looked at the posts and held the ball under his arm as though sizing up the kick. I wasn't sure if you needed to actually indicate that you were kicking to touch, if you had to kick it straight in and if what was obviously a kick to open play could then be given as a lineout if it failed to reach its target. White lineout was given so seems like the right decision.

The kicking from hand was hilariously bad all game. I had never seen 5 restarts kicked dead over the end line in a game before. Wonder if it's a record.

Bazzo

sydthebeat wrote: »

yeah, id be of the opinion that if no shot at goal is indicated, hen its open play from a kick.

however im confused as to the question as i cannot see any case in which its a white throw.

Why wouldn't it be a white throw? Ball doesn't need to go directly into touch from a penalty for the kicking team to be awarded the throw.

18.8 c

A player kicks the ball into
touch (either directly or first
bouncing in the field of play
or hitting a player or the
referee).
(Location of mark)Where the ball reaches the
touchline.
(Who throws in)The kicking team.

sydthebeat wrote: »

where do the laws allow for a scrum down after such an incident?

Scrum is the accepted sanction for "faking" a kick at goal afaik

The Lost Sheep

sydthebeat wrote: »

where do the laws allow for a scrum down after such an incident?

Its same as sanction for not kicking within time allowed. What do you see happening if above happened in a game?

sydthebeat

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Its same as sanction for not kicking within time allowed. What do you see happening if above happened in a game?

I didn't know what the resultant was as the laws didn't specifically say what it was, that's why I asked.

sydthebeat

Bazzo wrote: »

Why wouldn't it be a white throw? Ball doesn't need to go directly into touch from a penalty for the kicking team to be awarded the throw.

Yeah fair point, for some reason I was picturing it as becoming open play... But if its directly from the hand from the mark then its just a pen for the line

The Lost Sheep

https://www.the42.ie/world-rugby-scrum-law-axial-4725329-Jul2019/
Thoughts on this?

Squidgy Black

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

https://www.the42.ie/world-rugby-scrum-law-axial-4725329-Jul2019/
Thoughts on this?

Commented on it earlier in the General thread, but I agree with it and think it's a good move. Takes away the potential strain on a hookers neck and limits the compression to the head on a dodgy set.

Will also be easier to spot the premature push too I think for the refs.

There'll be a contingent who'll say it's ridiculous, similar to the ones who gave out about removing the hit.

randomname2005

A few questions from decisions Ben Whitehouse made in the connacht cheetahs game. At one point a mail collapsed and he called tackle or ruck, can't remember which, but I was under the impression that a collapsed maul never became either. Did I miss something?
Also, there was a tackle in the air towards the end of the second half, and he said the connacht player jumped across and was tackled in the air so only a penalty. Is this a new directive to stop people doing 'superman' type jumps and getting penalties?

The Lost Sheep

randomname2005 wrote: »

A few questions from decisions Ben Whitehouse made in the connacht cheetahs game. At one point a mail collapsed and he called tackle or ruck, can't remember which, but I was under the impression that a collapsed maul never became either. Did I miss something?
Also, there was a tackle in the air towards the end of the second half, and he said the connacht player jumped across and was tackled in the air so only a penalty. Is this a new directive to stop people doing 'superman' type jumps and getting penalties?

the tackle in air was sport on. How you land has an impact on sanction and player landed on back/side so Penalty only.

A maul can become a ruck. Ball must be available immediately. A maul ends when the ball is on the ground as written in the laws. So yes a maul can become a ruck

Bazzo

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

the tackle in air was sport on. How you land has an impact on sanction and player landed on back/side so Penalty only.

A maul can become a ruck. Ball must be available immediately. A maul ends when the ball is on the ground as written in the laws. So yes a maul can become a ruck

I was under the impression that penalty only for taking someone in the air was reserved for mistimed jumps where the player has a realistic chance of contesting for the ball, if the tackler had no realistic chance of catching the ball then I thought yellow card was the agreed sanction. Didn't have any audio so had no info on what the officials' thought process was but thought Cheetahs player was lucky to get off with a pen as he lined up and smashed a player in the air from what I remember.

ClanofLams

Bazzo wrote: »

I was under the impression that penalty only for taking someone in the air was reserved for mistimed jumps where the player has a realistic chance of contesting for the ball, if the tackler had no realistic chance of catching the ball then I thought yellow card was the agreed sanction. Didn't have any audio so had no info on what the officials' thought process was but thought Cheetahs player was lucky to get off with a pen as he lined up and smashed a player in the air from what I remember.

Thought this also. I thought they had done away with how you land being a factor? Could well be mistaken on that though.


Watched it back, whitehouse said what was mentioned above, there was mitigation because porch jumped across. Seemed strange reasoning, he was coming in off his wing so he did jump at an angle but cheetahs guy was never even close to contesting for ball and made contact with player in air, seemed very fortunate not to get yellow.

Quintis

randomname2005 wrote: »

A few questions from decisions Ben Whitehouse made in the connacht cheetahs game. At one point a mail collapsed and he called tackle or ruck, can't remember which, but I was under the impression that a collapsed maul never became either. Did I miss something?
Also, there was a tackle in the air towards the end of the second half, and he said the connacht player jumped across and was tackled in the air so only a penalty. Is this a new directive to stop people doing 'superman' type jumps and getting penalties?

What do people think of the offside call in the second half, I thought both Connacht defenders were on the line as the ball was picked from the ruck? Would need to see the clip again but wasn't sure where the back foot of the ruck was for Connacht, didn't think it was actually on the line

The Rape of Lucretia

Prompted by some incident in SA-Wal :
guessing it isnt the case, but should it be that where one player dangerously hits a team mate in the air jumping for a high ball (through bad calling or whatever), should it be a penalty to the opposition? The same as if it were one of the opposition who played dangerously. In the interest of protecting players.

randomname2005

Quintis wrote: »

What do people think of the offside call in the second half, I thought both Connacht defenders were on the line as the ball was picked from the ruck? Would need to see the clip again but wasn't sure where the back foot of the ruck was for Connacht, didn't think it was actually on the line

I think it was said during commentary that anywhere else on the pitch they get away with it. Thought it was harsh, and the guy who was offside looked to have no impact on the game.

Edit, the offside line can't be behind the try line

Sattwa06

A maul cannot become a ruck within the same action / phase of play. If a maul goes to ground, it is a *collapsed maul* and not a ruck (ie.defending players involved are not obliged to roll away as they would if it was a ruck). If the ball does not appear, the outcome is a scrum to the defence —> turnover ball (ball taken into a maul and not used).

frosty123

RE: The final peno for SA v Wales..On ITV they said it was because of side entry, on RTE they said it was because of a collapsed maul

...so which was it??

Sattwa06

frosty123 wrote: »

RE: The final peno for SA v Wales..On ITV they said it was because of side entry, on RTE they said it was because of a collapsed maul

...so which was it??

At 74 mins, the referee awarded a penalty against Wales for dragging down the maul, which he may have gotten from his TJ on the near side.

The final penalty was at 79 mins was also against Wales when they infringed at a scrum (rising up in the front row, turning the scrum, the back row unbinding)

Sattwa06

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

the tackle in air was sport on. How you land has an impact on sanction and player landed on back/side so Penalty only.

A maul can become a ruck. Ball must be available immediately. A maul ends when the ball is on the ground as written in the laws. So yes a maul can become a ruck

A maul cannot become a ruck within the same action / phase of play. If a maul goes to ground, it is a *collapsed maul* and not a ruck (ie.defending players involved are not obliged to roll away as they would if it was a ruck). If the ball does not appear immediately, the outcome is a scrum to the defence (the team that didn't take the ball into the maul) —> RESULT :: turnover ball. REASON :: ball taken into a maul and not used. (Law 16.17)

The Lost Sheep

Sattwa06 wrote: »

A maul cannot become a ruck within the same action / phase of play. If a maul goes to ground, it is a *collapsed maul* and not a ruck (ie.defending players involved are not obliged to roll away as they would if it was a ruck). If the ball does not appear immediately, the outcome is a scrum to the defence (the team that didn't take the ball into the maul) —> RESULT :: turnover ball. REASON :: ball taken into a maul and not used. (Law 16.17)

just reading this back. Yeah dont know why I posted that.... I'm blaming being knackered after few long of work over weekend. :pac:
Yeah a maul cant become a ruck.

Quin_Dub

Sattwa06 wrote: »

At 74 mins, the referee awarded a penalty against Wales for dragging down the maul, which he may have gotten from his TJ on the near side.

The final penalty was at 79 mins was also against Wales when they infringed at a scrum (rising up in the front row, turning the scrum, the back row unbinding)

I thought the winning penalty to SA was quite harsh on Wales.. It looked to me like the Welsh player stumbled and then the moving maul fell over him rather then it being a deliberate attempt at a collapse.

Probably correct to the letter of the law , but a harsh call to lose a World-cup final on especially given that the ball was available at the back of the maul.

Sattwa06

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

just reading this back. Yeah dont know why I posted that.... I'm blaming being knackered after few long of work over weekend. :pac:
Yeah a maul cant become a ruck.

...and re-reading my message it sounds a little patronising and wasn't meant to. :-)

Sattwa06

Quin_Dub wrote: »

I thought the winning penalty to SA was quite harsh on Wales.. It looked to me like the Welsh player stumbled and then the moving maul fell over him rather then it being a deliberate attempt at a collapse.

Probably correct to the letter of the law , but a harsh call to lose a World-cup final on especially given that the ball was available at the back of the maul.

I agree, the maul fell on to him rather than him dragging it down, however they will tell you that the first rule of refereeing is not to ref on intent.

frosty123

Sattwa06 wrote: »

At 74 mins, the referee awarded a penalty against Wales for dragging down the maul, which he may have gotten from his TJ on the near side.

)

Yes thats the one I'm on about..but afterwards the pundits on ITV said it was for side entry..the welsh no18

sydthebeat

frosty123 wrote: »

Yes thats the one I'm on about..but afterwards the pundits on ITV said it was for side entry..the welsh no18

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_xl76979TY

at 20:21 in the clip above you can see garces make a one handed signal to indicate "pulling down the maul"

blackwhite

sydthebeat wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_xl76979TY

at 20:21 in the clip above you can see garces make a one handed signal to indicate "pulling down the maul"

Looking at it again Wales 17 fairly clearly taking down the lead SA player and the rest went down to the right of them.
Wales 18 came in from the side at approx the same time, so can't have much complaint with a penalty from that one.