Laws Question? Ask here!

rje66

Well i suppose if you want to be exact about it, after warning the winger to halt and then he kept going the ref should have blown up instantly.

agree

castie

daveharnett wrote: »

Normally yes, when both teams infringe then the first offense that takes precedence. Foul play takes priority though - for example, you can't get away with decapitating an opponent just because he's knocked on the ball and you are playing advantage

What if he ducks?

slowburner

karlitob wrote: »

I looked it up again. I dont think you can. You can mark a ball 'even if it has hit the goal posts or crossbar' but that probably means from open play.

Law 18: a mark cannot be made from a kick-off or restart kick except for a drop out.

A penalty restarts the game. A kick-off restarts the game. A drop out would mean a 22-drop out.

So no - you cant mark from a penalty.

Downtime wrote: »

A penalty is not a kick- off or restart kick and therefore can be marked. It does not restart the game as the game is still live during a penalty kick

karlitob wrote: »

Thanks Downtime. On reflection, well done, I think you're correct. Thanks for that again.

So, can a mark be called from a penalty kick?

Losty Dublin

slowburner wrote: »

So, can a mark be called from a penalty kick?

The answer is no. A free kick and penalty are means of restarting a game after an infringement of the laws has taken place. Law 21 is included in the section relating to restarts of the game during a match.

slowburner

So the ref allowed the mark incorrectly from a penalty in a match I watched recently, then?
He was adamant about the correctness of his decision, in spite of much protest.

Losty Dublin

slowburner wrote: »

So the ref allowed the mark incorrectly from a penalty in a match I watched recently, then?
He was adamant about the correctness of his decision, in spite of much protest.

Certainly in my 19 years of playing, coaching, reffing and spectating the game since the mark returned, I don't recall a mark being given from a penalty or free nor can I remember hearing a player calling for one. What level of a game was it, may we ask?

slowburner

U 19s - not too sure which league though

JustinDee

Losty Dublin wrote: »

The answer is no. A free kick and penalty are means of restarting a game after an infringement of the laws has taken place. Law 21 is included in the section relating to restarts of the game during a match.

Incorrect.

A mark can be called off a free kick or a penalty. It can also be called off a 22 drop-out.

Just checked for you with an international ref and also a referee co-ordinator.

Downtime

JustinDee wrote: »

Incorrect.

A mark can be called off a free kick or a penalty. It can also be called off a 22 drop-out.

Just checked for you with an international ref and also a referee co-ordinator.

This guy knows his stuff. Absolutely spot on JustinDee. Does no one read the law book - http://www.irblaws.com/EN/laws/4/18/160/during-the-match/mark/definitions/#clause_160

Downtime

Losty Dublin wrote: »

The answer is no. A free kick and penalty are means of restarting a game after an infringement of the laws has taken place. Law 21 is included in the section relating to restarts of the game during a match.

Not in law. Restart kicks occur after a score or a touch down. Law 13 Defintions.

slowburner

Law 18 doesn't refer to a penalty kick

A mark cannot be made from a kick-off, or a restart kick except for a drop-out

Downtime

slowburner wrote: »

Law 18 doesn't refer to a penalty kick

The law book isn't great at spelling things out. It says A mark cannot be made from a kick-off, or a restart kick except for a drop-out. Therefore you have to assume it can be made from all other kicks e.g. drop-out, free kick, penalty kick, open kick.

Reloc8

It can certainly be given from a penalty kick.

I've had it done in a match I played in at least twice (one at SCT, one at J1 - the SCT was from a penalty kick for touch which missed and the J1 was a missed, badly sliced, kick for goal from distance).

I've also given it as a ref a couple of times, both off kicks at goal - J2.

Losty Dublin

JustinDee wrote: »

Incorrect.

A mark can be called off a free kick or a penalty. It can also be called off a 22 drop-out.

Just checked for you with an international ref and also a referee co-ordinator.

I was marked down by an assessor once for giving a mark from a free kick; hence my position on this. Until I hear otherwise from a better authority then that's how I will call it

Richard Hillman

Apologies if its been asked before, there are a lot of pages.

Its not really a rules question more of an ethics question. There is a scrum 5 yards from the sideline. The ground is unplayable and the ref has to move it a few yards inside. Would it be a gentlemens agreement not to move a player to the blindside for the team that throws the ball into the scrum or would teams say its fair game and put a somebody on the outside wing?

daveharnett

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Would it be a gentlemens agreement not to move a player to the blindside for the team that throws the ball into the scrum or would teams say its fair game and put a somebody on the outside wing?

I'd say forget about where the scrum 'should' be. Plant big centre on the blindside.

JustinDee

Losty Dublin wrote: »

I was marked down by an assessor once for giving a mark from a free kick; hence my position on this. Until I hear otherwise from a better authority then that's how I will call it

I asked two fellas. One is reffing internationals. The other oversees the guy who oversees the guy who would co-ordinate an assessment.

Edit: Can I ask which branch you're aligned to? If you have been pulled up incorrectly in an assessment such as this instance, I can pass on message to relevant co-ordinator.

irishbucsfan

That law must have been changed re: marks from a penalty. It cost us a match once.

rje66

Losty Dublin wrote: »

I was marked down by an assessor once for giving a mark from a free kick;

assessor got something wrong:eek::eek::eek:

had one once question a forward pass i had 'missed' as he sat looking out from club house

rugbyman2015

Was refereeing a schools match today. Fair few dump tackles but I let them go because I felt the player had been brought back to ground and his body never went above horizontal. There was one tackle though that looked slightly suspect. I gave the defending team the benefit of the doubt however and in the heat of the moment allowed the game to play on.

What criteria would people look for when giving a penalty for a dump tackle. Above horizontal? Dropping the player?

slowburner

rugbyman2015 wrote: »

Was refereeing a schools match today. Fair few dump tackles but I let them go because I felt the player had been brought back to ground and his body never went above horizontal. There was one tackle though that looked slightly suspect. I gave the defending team the benefit of the doubt however and in the heat of the moment allowed the game to play on.

What criteria would people look for when giving a penalty for a dump tackle. Above horizontal? Dropping the player?

I have no right to offer an opinion but I will anyway.
I think that setting criteria is probably the only way that a guideline can be constructed to prevent serious injury to players.
But setting criteria can have its pitfalls. For example, one guideline states that if you pick the player up you must also put him down. That is precisely what happened to BO'D against the All Blacks - he was picked up and brought down with added momentum. That was clearly a savage tackle but was adhering to the guideline above.
The guideline that if the tackler brings the tackled player above horizontal then that is a dangerous tackle. But what constitutes horizontal? If the tackled player's boot goes above horizontal, does that constitute a dump tackle?
To be honest, that is what the referee is for: to decide in the heat of the moment, if the play is dangerous.
Chances are you let play continue because you felt that the tackles were neither malicious or dangerous (like Ferris's tackle at the end of the last Wales game, which I thought was just fine) but technically, and according to the guidelines, they were probably illegal.

Shelflife

rugbyman2015 wrote: »

Was refereeing a schools match today. Fair few dump tackles but I let them go because I felt the player had been brought back to ground and his body never went above horizontal. There was one tackle though that looked slightly suspect. I gave the defending team the benefit of the doubt however and in the heat of the moment allowed the game to play on.

What criteria would people look for when giving a penalty for a dump tackle. Above horizontal? Dropping the player?

Define what you mean by a dump tackle .

daveharnett

rugbyman2015 wrote: »

Was refereeing a schools match today. Fair few dump tackles but I let them go because I felt the player had been brought back to ground and his body never went above horizontal. There was one tackle though that looked slightly suspect. I gave the defending team the benefit of the doubt however and in the heat of the moment allowed the game to play on.

What criteria would people look for when giving a penalty for a dump tackle. Above horizontal? Dropping the player?

10.4(Dangerous Play) (j) wrote:

Lifting a player from the ground and dropping or driving that player into the ground whilst that player's feet are still off the ground such that the player's head and/or upper body come into contact with the ground is dangerous play.

Planting a player down on the flat of his back is fine. If the ball carrier is rotated past horizontal (so his shoulders hit the ground first), then the tackler has a problem. Same applies if the tackler drops him carelessly.

Even where the tackle is legal, I like to have a word with the tackler at the next break in play, to remind them of the consequences should this type of tackle go wrong.

slowburner

daveharnett wrote: »

Planting a player down on the flat of his back is fine. If the ball carrier is rotated past horizontal (so his shoulders hit the ground first), then the tackler has a problem. Same applies if the tackler drops him carelessly.

Even where the tackle is legal, I like to have a word with the tackler at the next break in play, to remind them of the consequences should this type of tackle go wrong.

When you say 'planting a player', I presume you mean putting him down rather than driving him down?

rje66

slowburner wrote: »

. For example, one guideline states that if you pick the player up you must also put him down SAFELY .[/QUOTE]

fixed that for you there:)

BionicRasher

Maybe this has been asked before but here goes.

In yesterday’s game V France Parra scored a penalty that just crept over the bar (the one that hit Tommy Bowe on the head). My question is – can the defending team jump to block/catch the ball if it is within reach to stop it going over the bar? I remember in schools rugby (long time ago!) we used to throw a tall guy up in the air to try to catch conversions etc but not sure if the rule applies to penalties too.

All I can find in the rules is the below statement

If the kicker indicates to the referee the intent to kick at goal, the opposing team must stand still with their hands by their sides from the time the kicker starts to approach to kick until the ball is kicked.

This would suggest that once the ball is kicked then its fair game to try to stop it reaching goal (same applies when a kick to touch I presume where defending team can try to keep the ball in play by catching it before it goes in to touch)

If this was the case then it could have won the game for us yesterday as I would think most of the lads could jump to catch that ball before it got over the bar

Reloc8

Its an infringement to touch the ball in an attempt to prevent a penalty goal being scored.

Law 9.A.2 Kick at Goal - Special Circumstances :-

(a) If after the ball is kicked, it touches the ground or any team-mate of the kicker, a goal cannot be scored.

(b) If the ball has crossed the crossbar a goal is scored, even if the wind blows it back into the field of play.

(c) If an opponent commits an offence as the kick at goal is being taken, but neverthless the kick is successful, advantage is played and the score stands.

(d) Any player who touches the ball in an attempt to prevent a penalty goal being scored is illegally touching the ball.

Sanction: Penalty kick

That would cover somebody leaping or being lifted up to catch or knock down a kicked ball which is on its way over the posts.

Reloc8

Here's one.

Law 17 Maul

Definitions :-

"A maul begins when a player carrying the ball is held by one or more opponents, and one or more of the ball carrier’s team mates bind on the ball carrier. A maul therefore consists, when it begins, of at least three players, all on their feet; the ball carrier and one player from each team. All the players involved must be caught in or bound to the maul and must be on their feet and moving towards a goal line. Open play has ended."

So the maul begins when a player from Team A carrying the ball is held by an opponent from Team B and another player from Team A binds on the ball carrier.

Applying this law to line-out mauls and the '1 player sack' would mean that the sacker from Team B commits an infringement if he sacks where :-

1. He is first holding the ball carrier, i.e. prior to the ball carrier being bound onto another player from Team A, and
2. Brings the now formed maul down, after a player from Team A has bound onto the ball carrier.

This was the subject of a number of Rulings in Law by the Designated Members which did clarify that they're not worried about the sequence of maul formation, i.e. despite the terms of Law 17 it doesn't matter which came first, Team A teammate binding or Team B defender holding the ball carrier. The sequence of rulings did throw up another anomaly though.

March 2003 Reference by Scotland RFU. Text of the Ruling :-

Ruling in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee

Ruling
3-2003
Union
SRU
Law Reference
15, 17
Date
7 June '03
Request

SRU has requested a ruling with regard to Law 15-Tackle & Law 17 Maul:

Team A win the ball in a line-out. The ball carrier is joined by several of his team mates and they move off the line of touch towards their opponents' goal-line. One player of team B on his own grasps the ball -carrier and brings him to ground.

(1) Is the maul formed under Law 17 as soon as the player from Team B grasps the player from Team A and he then collapses the maul?

(2) Is the player from Team B tackling the ball-carrier under Law 15 and play should therefore continue?
Ruling of the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee

(1) By definition, given the abovementioned scenario, a maul has formed. Therefore given this scenario, if the player from Team B collapses the maul, then he is liable to penalty.

(2) By definition, given the abovementioned scenario, a tackle has not occurred.

Ruling ends

Very clear so. The one player sack is a penalty. Note the clear terms of the reference. Players from Team A join onto the ball carrier before the sacker from Team B grasps the ball carrier. This forms a maul in accordance with Law 17. The fact that it is one player from Team B does not matter. The maul is formed and cannot be collapsed.

A further reference was made by the Scots in June 2003 raising the point that Law 17 is highly specific in terms of sequence. Text of the Reference :-


6-2003
Union
SRU
Law Reference
17
Date
3 July '03
Request

SRU has requested a ruling with regard to Law 17:

I refer to Ruling 3: 2003 contained in your fax of 7th June 2003 in response to the SRU with regard to a ruling under Law 15 -Tackle and Law 17 -Maul. It is noted that the designated members ruled that the player is liable to penalty for collapsing the maul. I would ask you to refer the definition of Law 17 -Maul to the designated Members for further consideration.

Under the definition, "A maul occurs when a player carrying the ball is held by one or more opponents and one or more of the ball carriers team mates bind onto the ball carrier."

If this is deemed to be sequential, a maul is not formed if players from the ball carrier's team join on to the ball carrier before the opposition. It is noted under a previous Ruling that where three players move beyond the line of touch to receive the ball they are treated as one player and are not liable to penalty. In our opinion, if we treat the ball carrier and his team mates as one player, this would allow the ball carrier to be brought to ground under the Tackle Law.
Ruling of the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee

1. Under the definition, "A maul occurs when a player carrying the ball is held by one or more opponents and one or more of the ball carriers team mates bind onto the ball carrier." If this is deemed to be sequential, a maul is not formed if players from the ball carrier's team join on to the ball carrier before the opposition.

Whilst a maul is considered to be built by the ball carrier, one or more opponents and one or more of the ball carriers team mates, it does not have to have any of the three player components joining in any specific order.

Ruling ends

So, given this clarification, the sequence of joining is not important. Once there are 3 players, two from Team A one of whom is the ball carrier, and one from Team B bound onto the ball carrier, a maul has formed and cannot be collapsed.

Ireland then ask for clarification in August 2003. Text of Reference :-

Ruling in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee

Ruling
8-2003
Union
IRFU
Law Reference
15, 17
Date
24 July '03
Request

IRFU has requested a ruling with regard to Law 15 Tackle & Law 17 Maul:

We would be grateful for clarification of your ruling of 7th June (Ruling 3:2003) in response to the query from S.R.U.

Our understanding is that:
(1) Team A win the ball and the ball carrier is joined by several of his team mates and they move towards the opponents goal line. If a player from Team B grasps an opponent and thus forms a maul, which he then collapses, he is liable to penalty.

(2) However, if the player from Team B instantaneously brings the ball carrier to ground, then, under Law 7 mode of play, he is not liable to penalty, as this constitutes a tackle. Otherwise the defence of certain situations would appear impossible e.g.:
• Players of Team A joined together, breaking away from a maul with the ball carrier (at the front of this group) not being tackleable.
• Player of Team A, in open play, running towards Team B's goal line is joined by a team mate(s), and not being tackleable.
Ruling of the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee

(1) It is assumed by the wording of the original Law Ruling request from the SRU, and again in this request, that the ball and players had moved off the line of touch. In this scenario, if the player from Team B grasps an opponent who is not the ball-carrier, then a maul has not been formed, and he is playing an opponent without the ball.

If the player was to have grasped the ball-carrier, and did not bind to the ball-carrier as per the definition of binding, then a maul has not been formed. If the grasping player then brings the ball-carrier to ground, there is no penalty as there was no maul formed.

Binding-Definition: Grasping firmly another player's body between the shoulder and the hip with the whole arm in contact from hand to shoulder.

If a player binds on an opposition player who is a ball-carrier (who is already bound to a team mate) from shoulder to hip with at least one arm around the body, by definition he has bound onto the player and therefore any action taken to bring the ball carrier to ground constitutes an illegal collapse of the maul.

If however, the player of the team not in possession of the ball is the first player from his team to make contact with the ball-carrier (who is bound with a team mate), and that player does not bind the ball-carrier around the body from shoulder to hip (i.e grasps the ball-carrier below the hip) he is not bound to the ball-carrier and can complete a tackle in accordance with Law.

(2) It is assumed by the wording of the original Law Ruling request from the SRU, and again in this part of the request, that the ball and players had moved off the line of touch.

In this second scenario, the same issues as noted in Ruling 8.1 above apply, plus the following.

The word 'instantaneously', does not affect the outcomes listed under the Ruling 8.1.

Note: If at a line-out, the catcher of the ball comes to ground (hereafter called the ball-carrier), and then an opposition player immediately brings the ball-carrier to ground, he is not liable to penalty.

Ruling ends

They seem to realise what the problem is and go back to the definition of 'grasping'. Apparently now, if you don't bind on from shoulder to hip with the whole arm, you have not 'grasped' for the purposes of the law and can therefore tackle.

On this clarification, the only legal 'sack' is where Team B tackles the Team A Ball Carrier below the line of the hips.

The New Zealanders now come it with a further reference. Text of Reference

Ruling in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee

Ruling
11-2003
Union
NZRU
Law Reference
15, 17
Date
24 July '03
Request

NZRFU has requested a ruling with regard to Law 15 Tackle and Law 17 Maul:

The NZRFU is in receipt of Ruling 3:2003. The Union seeks further clarification on the interpretation implicit in Ruling 3. In order to bring further clarity to what is involved in forming a maul and collapsing a maul we would request answers to the following questions.

(1) Team A wins a 5m attacking scrum. The #8 detaches with the ball, and #6 binds on immediately and they drive towards the line. A defending player drives in low and wraps his arms around the legs (knee height) of the #8, who still has his #6 bound to him. The #8 still in possession of the ball is brought to ground. By his actions is the defender:

(i) Forming a maul?
(ii) Collapsing a maul?

(2) Team A wins a 5m attacking scrum. The #8 detaches with the ball, and #6 binds on immediately and they drive towards the line. A defending player, while remaining on his feet, grasps his jersey (shoulder region) of the #8, who still has his #6 bound to him, and immediately brings him to ground. By his actions is the defender:

(i) Forming a maul?
(ii) Collapsing a maul?

(3) Team A wins a 5m attacking scrum. The #8 detaches with the ball, and #6 binds on immediately and they drive towards the line. A defending player, while remaining on his feet, drives into the #8, who still has his #6 bound to him, and binds on him in an effort to prevent their forward progress. By his actions is the defender:

(i) Forming a maul?


If the answer to 3.a.i. is yes, and the defender now drags the maul to the ground, is he:

(ii) Collapsing a maul?
Ruling of the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee

(1) The defender has not formed a maul, nor has he collapsed a maul.

(2) The defender, if he has not bound (by definition) to the ball-carrier #8, has not formed a maul, nor has he collapsed a maul.

(3) The defender has formed a maul, and has collapsed a maul, and is therefore subject to penalty.

Ruling ends.

This one relates to scrums but there would be no distinction to lineout play. It seems clear that where the defender tackles below the line of the hips he is not collapsing a maul but otherwise he is, as long as there are two defending players bound together with one carrying the ball.

In passing I note that what's been ignored here is the 'pre-bind' described in the third scenario put up the NZers. That would seem likely to amount to a flying wedge type play.

All is quiet until 2006. The French put one in. Text of Reference

Ruling in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee

Ruling
9-2006
Union
FFR
Law Reference
17
Date
29 November '06
Request

The FFR has requested a ruling with regard to Law 17 Maul

1. During a maul the ball carrier and one of his team mates leave the maul.
a. Can an opponent tackle the ball carrier?
b. Does the ball carrier have to be the lead player?

2. During a maul. The defending team's players leave the maul, with the exception of only one player who remains bound.
a. Can this player tackle the ball carrier?

3. During a lineout, the players who won the ball from a maul but no opponent goes to join this group of players.
a. Does this group of players constitute a maul?
b. Can an opponent tackle the ball carrier?
c. Does the ball carrier have to be the lead player?
Ruling of the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee

1. (a) Yes as it is no longer a maul.
1. (b) Yes otherwise it is obstruction.
2. (a) It is still a maul, and the maul cannot be collapsed.
3. (a) It is not a maul by definition.
3. (b) Yes
3. (c) Yes otherwise it is obstruction.

Ruling ends.

The language being used is still focused on a 'tackle'. On this ruling the earlier restriction remains, i.e. a tackle not amounting to a bind is still required in order for it to be a legal sack.

There was another Law 17 Clarification in 2008 which brought an end to the 'once a maul always a maul' ruling and another in 2011 which dealt with the ball carrier being brought to his knees.

So, appreciating the 'too long didn't read' syndrome may apply , are people happy that this law is being correctly refereed - i.e. how many times do you see a 1 player 'sack' of the lineout where the player sacking will grasp the lineout player higher than the hips using his whole arm or arms and bring him to ground using momentum and not get penalised ?

Seems to me to be one that fell by the wayside of late.

daveharnett

slowburner wrote: »

When you say 'planting a player' [on the flat of his back is legal], I presume you mean putting him down rather than driving him down?

Either would be fine by the letter of the law.

That being said, depending on the level of the players and the forces involved, a tackle can be dangerous without fitting into any specific definition for a 'dangerous tackle'. You are the sole judge of fact and law on the field of play, and player safety is your first priority. If you think a collision was dangerous, deal with it first, and worry about chapter and verse later.

daveharnett

Reloc8 wrote: »

So, appreciating the 'too long didn't read' syndrome may apply , are people happy that this law is being correctly refereed - i.e. how many times do you see a 1 player 'sack' of the lineout where the player sacking will grasp the lineout player higher than the hips using his whole arm or arms and bring him to ground using momentum and not get penalised ?

Seems to me to be one that fell by the wayside of late.

My reading of the first carification is "oh ****, the sack is logically inconsistent with Law 17, and we can't stand over it".
The tenor of every subsequent question and clarification has been "how can we legalise the sack without rewriting half the book"

We all know that refs aren't losing sleep over whether the sacking player had 'grasped' or 'bound' on the ball carrier, and I think that this is the outcome everybody was looking for.

A follow up question. Last year's ruling (link) suggests that a maul can become a ruck. Is this correct, and when did it change?