Laws Question? Ask here!

jolley123

If the hooker is on the pitch, does he have to be the player who throws the ball in at the line-out. For instance, SOB threw in because there was no hooker on the field, but would he be allowed to if either JHW or Strauss were on the pitch.

JustinDee

jolley123 wrote: »

If the hooker is on the pitch, does he have to be the player who throws the ball in at the line-out

No.

durkadurka

The concept of a team yellow. Ie one player binned for persistent offences by different players on a team. Eh Devin toner vs Saracens last week I think.

Is there a basis in the laws for this?

davidpfitz

durkadurka wrote: »

Is there a basis in the laws for this?

No, there is not.

Downtime

durkadurka wrote: »

The concept of a team yellow. Ie one player binned for persistent offences by different players on a team. Eh Devin toner vs Saracens last week I think.

Is there a basis in the laws for this?

The concept of a team yellow is in law under laws 10.3 (b) and (c) - persistent infringements

davidpfitz

Downtime wrote: »

The concept of a team yellow is in law under laws 10.3 (b) and (c) - persistent infringements

I usually pride myself on geeky levels of knowledge of the laws, but you've got me there. The law is not great, I think:

"Repeated infringements by the team. When different players of the same team repeatedly commit the same offence, the referee must decide whether or not this amounts to repeated infringement. If it does, the referee gives a general warning to the team and if they then repeat the offence, the referee cautions and temporarily suspends the guilty player(s) for a period of 10 minutes playing time. If a player of that same team then repeats the offence the referee sends off the guilty player(s)."

So it comes down to bad luck on the player who commits the offence just before the ref loses his rag - it might be the first infringement that the player commits.

crisco10

davidpfitz wrote: »

I usually pride myself on geeky levels of knowledge of the laws, but you've got me there. The law is not great, I think:

"Repeated infringements by the team. When different players of the same team repeatedly commit the same offence, the referee must decide whether or not this amounts to repeated infringement. If it does, the referee gives a general warning to the team and if they then repeat the offence, the referee cautions and temporarily suspends the guilty player(s) for a period of 10 minutes playing time. If a player of that same team then repeats the offence the referee sends off the guilty player(s)."

So it comes down to bad luck on the player who commits the offence just before the ref loses his rag - it might be the first infringement that the player commits.

Interesting that if the team keep offending, the team keep getting yellows.

Another question:

Team A knock on the ball and team B continue to play on. BUT then a player from team A infringes at the next ruck. The ref seems to always go back for the scrum, would the penalty at ruck time not constitute an advantage from the original knock on?

JustinDee

davidpfitz wrote: »

So it comes down to bad luck on the player who commits the offence just before the ref loses his rag - it might be the first infringement that the player commits.

Doesn't matter. Captain is warned and told to warn rest of team.
Easily communicated.

Downtime

crisco10 wrote: »

Another question:

Team A knock on the ball and team B continue to play on. BUT then a player from team A infringes at the next ruck. The ref seems to always go back for the scrum, would the penalty at ruck time not constitute an advantage from the original knock on?

Depends on the infringement. Team A knock on the ball, team B continue to play, team A at next tackle (assuming adv. not over) come in from the side. it is a penalty to team B. The penalty overrides the previous scrum advantage and the referee does not go back for a scrum. If however team b knock on then we go back for a scrum to the original knock or or indeed if team a knock on again we also go back.

Downtime

JustinDee wrote: »

Doesn't matter. Captain is warned and told to warn rest of team.
Easily communicated.

Spot on Justin. The referee should have issued a warning prior to 'losing his rag'.

davidpfitz

Downtime wrote: »

Spot on Justin. The referee should have issued a warning prior to 'losing his rag'.

Yep - he should. But you had to feel sorry for Devin Toner in the Saracens match just gone. He'd only just come on the pitch, so was not responsible for the team actions beforehand, but since he was the one who was penalised when the ref had enough he got the yellow card.

It's hard to think of an alternative, though. It's pretty hard to apply a sanction to a whole team as opposed to an individual.

Downtime

davidpfitz wrote: »

Yep - he should. But you had to feel sorry for Devin Toner in the Saracens match just gone. He'd only just come on the pitch, so was not responsible for the team actions beforehand, but since he was the one who was penalised when the ref had enough he got the yellow card.

It's hard to think of an alternative, though. It's pretty hard to apply a sanction to a whole team as opposed to an individual.

At the same time Devon Toner has been sitting there watching the match. He's got to think to himself, right the ref is annoyed with the consistent infringing so I better err on the side of caution when I get on.

daveharnett

castie wrote: »

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.

I thought the Wales-England game last night was a particularly good (bad) example of this phenomenon. Symptomatic of a poor performance with the whistle by Rolland's standards.

castie

daveharnett wrote: »

I thought the Wales-England game last night was a particularly good (bad) example of this phenomenon. Symptomatic of a poor performance with the whistle by Rolland's standards.

Its becoming common place unfortunately. When will officals open there eyes?

Hazys

Q1 Is there any law that says only the designated hooker has to throw the ball into a lineout?


If you had a hooker that is an excellant scrimmager but couldnt throw the ball straight past 5 yards to save his life and if you had lets say, an outhalf that was an excellant passer of the ball, can he throw it in for the lineout and let the hooker stand out in the backs for lineouts?

I presume there is no law against this, but why dont you see other players attempting to throw the ball in for lineouts? Tradition?



Q2 Also similar question, hopefully not confusing the first Q, is it only the designated scrumhalf that can put the ball into the scrum?


Lets say you have a scrum 5 yards out. You have all their forwards somewhat occupied in the scrum. You put on you extra No8 to replace the scrumhalf* the No8 puts the ball into the scrum now a quick break off the scrum youve got a 2 No8s Vs 1 No8 and a small scrumhalf, how come this doenst happen**? Especially in situations where the oppostion has a back row in the bin.

*Hypetical situation subsitution to simplify the Q. You could easily put your centre in at flanker and have the flanker put the ball in. Then flanker and No8 Vs No8 and scrumhalf.
**If there is no rule against it, the defense will simply counter by putting in their extra big man as scrum half, but if this is done the first time ever the defense wont know how to counter right away.
***i'm leaving out the flankers for simplicity

Shelflife

Anyone can throw the ball into the lineout

anyone can put the ball into the scrum.

A substituted player can only return to the pitch in very limited circumstances (blood I think) so you would have no scrumhalf for the rest of the game.

Hazys

Shelflife wrote: »

Anyone can throw the ball into the lineout

anyone can put the ball into the scrum.

A substituted player can only return to the pitch in very limited circumstances (blood I think) so you would have no scrumhalf for the rest of the game.

Thanks, thats what i presumed but why doesn't it occur tho?

Just FYI i wasnt saying sub the scrum half, just swap him with the center for the scrum.

daveharnett

Hazys wrote: »

Q1 Is there any law that says only the designated hooker has to throw the ball into a lineout?

Q2 Also similar question, hopefully not confusing the first Q, is it only the designated scrumhalf that can put the ball into the scrum?

As others have said, neither of these jobs are enshrined in law.

I suspect the reason that these jobs are left to specialists is simply that both require lots and lots of practice and experience to do well.

CIARAN_BOYLE

Hazys wrote: »

Thanks, thats what i presumed but why doesn't it occur tho?

It telegraphs that you will be picking and going rather than spearding the ball wide.

eggchaser

I saw a gwme in the Las Vegas sevens recently and a player from I think it was Kenya took a successful conversion from behind the goal and the referee allowed it. The commentators were bemused.
Is this legal?

Downtime

eggchaser wrote: »

I saw a gwme in the Las Vegas sevens recently and a player from I think it was Kenya took a successful conversion from behind the goal and the referee allowed it. The commentators were bemused.
Is this legal?

In sevens, yes.

karlitob

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

It telegraphs that you will be picking and going rather than spearding the ball wide.

Or does it?????

karlitob

Hazys wrote: »

Q1 Is there any law that says only the designated hooker has to throw the ball into a lineout?


If you had a hooker that is an excellant scrimmager but couldnt throw the ball straight past 5 yards to save his life and if you had lets say, an outhalf that was an excellant passer of the ball, can he throw it in for the lineout and let the hooker stand out in the backs for lineouts?

I presume there is no law against this, but why dont you see other players attempting to throw the ball in for lineouts? Tradition?

Interestingly, New Zealand used to have the winger throw in the ball. Even stranger, the winger would stand on the touch line, face his own goal line and throw the ball, end over end into the line out. Mad. That was only in the 70's too.

Even more interestingly, at the turn of the 1900s, maybe earlier. the nz used to line out their front row 2-3-2-1 rather than our now traditional 3-4-1. They're props would both be tight-heads as such.

And of course nowadays, nz considers its stand offs as first five-eight and second five-eight. Interesting concept.

Podge_irl

Quick question - in today's game Owen said he was going to bin the next Ireland player to infringe at the breakdown in our half. Leamy then proceeded to do so but Parks got the drop goal while Owens was playing advantage.

I presume Owens could still have yellow carded Leamy or does he have to have actually given a penalty in order to do so?

karlitob

Podge_irl wrote: »

Quick question - in today's game Owen said he was going to bin the next Ireland player to infringe at the breakdown in our half. Leamy then proceeded to do so but Parks got the drop goal while Owens was playing advantage.

I presume Owens could still have yellow carded Leamy or does he have to have actually given a penalty in order to do so?

He can bin him whenever he wants. There are examples (they escape me now) of ref's sending a player off in the dressing rooms before and after games. I remember an incident in my own club where the ref sent a player off in the showers. I suppose that meant that he reported the player to the Munster Branch for an incident.

There are other examples of where a team may have scored and the ref gives a penalty against an offending team from the kick off. Again, this is local stuff and not international level.

The ref is boss!!!

karlitob

Shelflife wrote: »

Anyone can throw the ball into the lineout

anyone can put the ball into the scrum.

A substituted player can only return to the pitch in very limited circumstances (blood I think) so you would have no scrumhalf for the rest of the game.

A substituted player can return for a blood replacement or injury. In effect, you should not have to be reduced to 15 for any reason (unless all 7 subs are injured and a player on the pitch.)

Podge_irl

karlitob wrote: »

There are other examples of where a team may have scored and the ref gives a penalty against an offending team from the kick off. Again, this is local stuff and not international level.

I've seen that alright (even at international level), but it still results in a penalty being given. I was just curious as to whether he can give a yellow with technically awarding a penalty. (I'm guessing, as you say, that the answer is yes).

karlitob

Podge_irl wrote: »

I've seen that alright (even at international level), but it still results in a penalty being given. I was just curious as to whether he can give a yellow with technically awarding a penalty. (I'm guessing, as you say, that the answer is yes).

i presume you mean 'without' technically awarding a penalty. I'm gonna say yes.

I always refer to Law 6.A.4 9a) The referee is the sole judge of fact and of Law during the match.


A more interesting question is that of advantage. It has changed in recent yeas. Owens gave us advantage today then after a ruck on the backfoot, he asked did we want a penalty, we played on and put in a poor kick into scottish hands and advantage was over.
- you always play the whistle so asking if you want a penalty is not the right option as players dont know what to do. Also, it gives a lot of discretion to the ref as to what is advantage. It should be 'clear and real' - ambiguous or what?

remwhite

Was playing a match the other week and one of our players was trying to catch a loose pass. The ball was dropping at his feet and he just managed to get a hand to it and flick it up. He gave it a fairly substantial flick and it went about 2 meters forward an over head height but he caught it. He was away and the ref blew it up and said "ya can't do that". Never touched anything but his hands, no opposition and not the turf. Didn't matter a whole lot but am I right in saying the ref was incorrect.

Risteard

remwhite wrote: »

Was playing a match the other week and one of our players was trying to catch a loose pass. The ball was dropping at his feet and he just managed to get a hand to it and flick it up. He gave it a fairly substantial flick and it went about 2 meters forward an over head height but he caught it. He was away and the ref blew it up and said "ya can't do that". Never touched anything but his hands, no opposition and not the turf. Didn't matter a whole lot but am I right in saying the ref was incorrect.

It's tricky one. I think it should have been allowed but I remember a few years ago when Agen were playing Leinster I think and the ball was chipped, bounced over the Leinster player's head and Caucau running on to it kind of slapped it forwards and caught it before it hit the ground or any other player, but it was ruled a knock on.

I also have a question of myown, can a mark be called from a missed penalty kick?