Laws Question? Ask here!

Downtime

Law 13.1 (b) If the ball is kicked off by the wrong type of kick, or from the incorrect place, the opposing team has two choices:

To have the ball kicked off again, or
To have a scrum at the centre of the half way line and they throw in the ball.


I think it should be managed firstly and if it becomes a problem he should be penalised as above.

Shelflife

Ok youre in a ruck, on your feet, SH takes the ball and goes to pass it. are you allowed to tackle him?

looking at bucklys yellow against cardiff , what law did he break?

castie

Unless youve gotten yourself into an off side position or infringed in getting to where you are then as soon as the SH takes the ball out hes fair game I think.

daveharnett

Shelflife wrote: »

Ok youre in a ruck, on your feet, SH takes the ball and goes to pass it. are you allowed to tackle him?

looking at bucklys yellow against cardiff , what law did he break?

As soon as the SH picks up the ball, it's open play. Provided the defender was legal during the ruck (through the gate, bound, on his feet), afaik there's nothing in law to stop him having a go at the SH.

2 points

• Referees don't like to see it happen, as it tends to result in a ****fight. Some will jump on any excuse to penalise it.
• Getting to the scrum half by jumping onto/over the (former) ruck is likely to be considered dangerous play.

castie

daveharnett wrote: »

• Getting to the scrum half by jumping onto/over the (former) ruck is likely to be considered dangerous play.

Been pinged for this

JustinDee

castie wrote: »

Unless youve gotten yourself into an off side position or infringed in getting to where you are then as soon as the SH takes the ball out hes fair game I think.

To do this, a player must be behind hindmost foot. Yes, I know its ironic as it is nigh-on impossible to do it then.
Bit like my Gran's advice that the only thing that should go in your ear is your elbow.

Players for some mysterious reason go deaf however when the ref warns them not to persist with an infringement at the ruck.

castie

JustinDee wrote: »

To do this, a player must be behind hindmost foot. Yes, I know its ironic as it is nigh-on impossible to do it then.
Bit like my Gran's advice that the only thing that should go in your ear is your elbow.

Players for some mysterious reason go deaf however when the ref warns them not to persist with an infringement at the ruck.

If i stay on my feet and come through the gate i'm entitled to tackle the SH whether i'm behind the hindmost or not...thats what I thought anyway?

Butch Cassidy

What do the laws say about Paul O'Connell's sending off over that swinging arm? It didn't look malicious to me, I thought it only caught him with the bank of the hand not elbow.

Downtime

Butch Cassidy wrote: »

What do the laws say about Paul O'Connell's sending off over that swinging arm? It didn't look malicious to me, I thought it only caught him with the bank of the hand not elbow.

It is pretty clear - 10.4 (a) Punching or striking. A player must not strike an opponent with the fist or arm, including the elbow, shoulder, head or knee(s). You could also look at it under 10.4(n) Misconduct while the ball is out of play (as the whistle had just gone). A player, must not, while the ball is out of play, commit any misconduct, or obstruct or in any way interfere with an opponent.

I think like everyone else that he is a great player but it is difficult to say that what he did was not malicious. He caught him full on with the arm and it was quite a hit as well. If you watch it again in real time you can see the impact of it. He might get lucky as the referee sent him off for an elbow to the face which is incorrect.

randomer

Downtime wrote: »

It is pretty clear - 10.4 (a) Punching or striking. A player must not strike an opponent with the fist or arm, including the elbow, shoulder, head or knee(s). You could also look at it under 10.4(n) Misconduct while the ball is out of play (as the whistle had just gone). A player, must not, while the ball is out of play, commit any misconduct, or obstruct or in any way interfere with an opponent.

I think like everyone else that he is a great player but it is difficult to say that what he did was not malicious. He caught him full on with the arm and it was quite a hit as well. If you watch it again in real time you can see the impact of it. He might get lucky as the referee sent him off for an elbow to the face which is incorrect.

I don't think there is any doubt that what Paul O'Connell did was against the laws, but I have a question relating to the punishment.

How does a refere decide between a temporary suspension (yellow card) and sending a player off (red card).

The laws state that "a player must not strike an opponent with the fist or arm, including the elbow, shoulder, head or knee(s)."

They then go on to state that "any player who infringes any part of the Foul Play Law must be admonished, or cautioned and temporarily suspended for a period of ten minutes’ playing time, or sent-off."

On the IRB Laws website, it shows a video (http://www.irblaws.com/EN/laws/3/10/95/during-the-match/foul-play/dangerous-play-and-misconduct/#clause_95) of Julian White throwing multiple punches. The commentator states that "he completely lost it". White received a yellow card.

In this video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puxYyJNRy4s&feature=related, White punches a player in the face, similar to the previous instance and the referee states that he has no option and it is a straight red card.

In this video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ASdxXQnrd8&feature=related, there are a lot of punches thrown, but the referee only gives yellow cards.

In this video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRpFOUsPAHI&feature=related, the touch judge states that "he punched him clearly in the face", and recommends a yellow card.

Can anyone tell me what constitutes a red card versus a yellow card. From what I can see, if you knock them down, you get red, if they stay standing you get yellow?

Crash

randomer wrote: »

On the IRB Laws website, it shows a video (http://www.irblaws.com/EN/laws/3/10/...uct/#clause_95) of Julian White throwing multiple punches. The commentator states that "he completely lost it". White received a yellow card.

Actually, just wanted to pull this one out, I think most people (though i'd be interested in other opinions) can agree that this was a completely wrong decision.Granted Mal had him by the jocks, which is most likely what made White lose it, but it was completely incorrect to only yellow card someone for repeated punches to a player in a headlock, followed by a strong punch after.

Also of the opinion that the ref thought the strikes were less severe due to the fact that MOK stayed on his feet, though i'd be fairly sure that 1) If it was directed at a player who wasn't as tall as MOK, the punches would've connected even worse, and the player would have been floored in a second and 2) MOK has a very very hard head.

randomer

Crash wrote: »

Actually, just wanted to pull this one out, I think most people (though i'd be interested in other opinions) can agree that this was a completely wrong decision.Granted Mal had him by the jocks, which is most likely what made White lose it, but it was completely incorrect to only yellow card someone for repeated punches to a player in a headlock, followed by a strong punch after.

Also of the opinion that the ref thought the strikes were less severe due to the fact that MOK stayed on his feet, though i'd be fairly sure that 1) If it was directed at a player who wasn't as tall as MOK, the punches would've connected even worse, and the player would have been floored in a second and 2) MOK has a very very hard head.

The problem I have is that I don't know which is the right decision and which is the wrong decision. The laws are too vague. Can any referee clarify this with a simple rule such as "strike a player and you get a red card"?

One thing that has impressed me immensely is the fact that when a referee makes a decision the players just accept it, even when the referee is wrong. There is a really good example in this video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqmT1vjLmxU. Scott Murray is sent off for kicking out in retaliation. It appeared to be an instinctive response. He immediately apologizes to the other player and then says "sorry sir" to the referee. Another good example is when Percy Montgomery gets two harsh yellow cards against Wales, and he goes runs straight off the field without questioning either of them.

Shelflife

A basic rule of thumb is that if you have to think about it its a yellow, if your instinct is red then its red.

two players handbagging each other is not the same as a player poleaxing another player. you have to judge each situation on its own merits.

in poc case, whistle had gone, bit of pulling by thomas and poc lands a big one on the money, when i saw it live i thought maybe yellow, when i saw it from the refs angle i thought red.

its basically down to the severity and nastiness of the incident, in the white incident it was a red for me, couldnt understand wht it was yellow, but if the ref didnt see the full incident that might explain it.

randomer

I got an official response on this:

IRB Response wrote:

The Referee has three calls he can make for Foul Play incidents.

1. Admonishment only. (Verbal Warning)
2. Yellow Card (Temporary Suspension)
3. Red Card (Send Off)

In coming to this decision the referee takes several factors into account. They include the seriousness of the offence as he sees them, the temperature of the match to that point, and the subsequent result of the Foul Play (Injury etc). If the Referee errs in his decision the Citing Commissioner can cite a player therefore upgrading the decision of the referee.

In essence each act of Foul Play is judged separately on its own merits so naturally some inconsistencies will occur.

I really dislike the "subsequent result of the foul play" argument. Essentially it means that if you are bad at punching you will get a lesser penalty.

Shelflife

I really dislike the "subsequent result of the foul play" argument. Essentially it means that if you are bad at punching you will get a lesser penalty.[/QUOTE]

effectively yes, if you slap me should you be punished the same as if you poleaxed me and knocked me out?

they are both striking offences yet clearly warrant different sanctions.

randomer

Shelflife wrote: »

effectively yes, if you slap me should you be punished the same as if you poleaxed me and knocked me out?

they are both striking offences yet clearly warrant different sanctions.

Let me give you a different example then. If player A punches player B in the face and player B falls over, player A gets a red card.

However, if player A punches, with the same force, player C and for some reason he doesn't fall over, then player a gets a yellow card.

It would be much simpler if they just said that if you punch or strike an opponent you get a red card. The definition of punch or strike is already defined (Punching or Striking: A player must not strike a player with the fist or arm, including the elbow, shoulder head or knee(s).). What is not well defined is the penalty. This leads to inconsistencies and frustration for all involved.

cython

randomer wrote: »

Let me give you a different example then. If player A punches player B in the face and player B falls over, player A gets a red card.

However, if player A punches, with the same force, player C and for some reason he doesn't fall over, then player a gets a yellow card.

It would be much simpler if they just said that if you punch or strike an opponent you get a red card. The definition of punch or strike is already defined (Punching or Striking: A player must not strike a player with the fist or arm, including the elbow, shoulder head or knee(s).). What is not well defined is the penalty. This leads to inconsistencies and frustration for all involved.

So long as those making the laws, are human, and the referees applying them have discretion, this will always be the case on one level or another. For example, some referees are quicker to card players following repeated infringements by their team than others, or will let advantage be played for differing lengths/durations. The laws or rules of any game can only be so detailed before they become convoluted and excessively verbose.

karlitob

cython wrote: »

So long as those making the laws, are human, and the referees applying them have discretion, this will always be the case on one level or another. For example, some referees are quicker to card players following repeated infringements by their team than others, or will let advantage be played for differing lengths/durations. The laws or rules of any game can only be so detailed before they become convoluted and excessively verbose.

Well said. Totally agree with you.

karlitob

Shelflife wrote: »

Ok youre in a ruck, on your feet, SH takes the ball and goes to pass it. are you allowed to tackle him?

looking at bucklys yellow against cardiff , what law did he break?

Nail him!!!!

karlitob

randomer wrote: »

The problem I have is that I don't know which is the right decision and which is the wrong decision. The laws are too vague. Can any referee clarify this with a simple rule such as "strike a player and you get a red card"?

One thing that has impressed me immensely is the fact that when a referee makes a decision the players just accept it, even when the referee is wrong. There is a really good example in this video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqmT1vjLmxU. Scott Murray is sent off for kicking out in retaliation. It appeared to be an instinctive response. He immediately apologizes to the other player and then says "sorry sir" to the referee. Another good example is when Percy Montgomery gets two harsh yellow cards against Wales, and he goes runs straight off the field without questioning either of them.

I agree with you in that it is a good example of apologising and getting on with it.

I'll totally disagree with you when you say 'even when the referee is wrong'. Although Steve Walsh is the worlds biggest tool, his decision is 100% right.

randomer

karlitob wrote: »

I agree with you in that it is a good example of apologising and getting on with it.

I'll totally disagree with you when you say 'even when the referee is wrong'. Although Steve Walsh is the worlds biggest tool, his decision is 100% right.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that Walsh was wrong. That was my example of apologizing and getting on with it.

The Percy Montgomery example was one of the ref making a mistake.

BBDBB

when being tackled, is it against the laws to hand off an opponent to the face?






bonus points to those who say it should be compulsory

karlitob

BBDBB wrote: »

when being tackled, is it against the laws to hand off an opponent to the face?

Nope. Though the interpretation of whether its an open-handed punch remains with the referee. But essentially, hand off to the face is not illegal.

daveharnett

BBDBB wrote: »

when being tackled, is it against the laws to hand off an opponent to the face?

The hand-off wasn't addressed in law at all until a few months ago actually. It's still pretty vague on what is and isn't allowed. Basically, anything that the ref doesn't consider dangerous is fair game.

karlitob

randomer wrote: »

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that Walsh was wrong. That was my example of apologizing and getting on with it.

The Percy Montgomery example was one of the ref making a mistake.

Defo

castie

When clearing a ruck are you allowed just land in with your shoulder?

I see it being done increasingly in games and surely if you cant tackle someone without wrapping you shouldnt be allowed to dive your shoulder at someone who is wide open for a hit while contesting a ruck.

Shelflife

No its illegal and if the ref deems it to be a cheap shot it can be a card as well.

castie

Shelflife wrote: »

No its illegal and if the ref deems it to be a cheap shot it can be a card as well.

Its happening in every game ive watched lately. Latest being the Leinster game. One of the Leinster back row went streaming in with a shoulder to hit the ruck. Now I dont think he was aiming at anyone in particular though.

amacachi

castie wrote: »

Its happening in every game ive watched lately. Latest being the Leinster game. One of the Leinster back row went streaming in with a shoulder to hit the ruck. Now I dont think he was aiming at anyone in particular though.

It's something that gets my goat. I don't think shouldering should be illegal but it's silly IMO that around rucks etc. there are shoulders flying in on defenceless and unsighted players but when someone is running and would be able to defend themselves there's usually a yellow card given for a shoulder.

castie

amacachi wrote: »

It's something that gets my goat. I don't think shouldering should be illegal but it's silly IMO that around rucks etc. there are shoulders flying in on defenceless and unsighted players but when someone is running and would be able to defend themselves there's usually a yellow card given for a shoulder.

I do agree with no shouldering hence why I cannot understand why people arent being called for it. Agreed its alot more dangerous then shouldering someone in open play due to body position ( i.e sometimes the back of a players neck might be exposed).

Is it really going to take a serious injury for refs to wake up to this?