Laws Question? Ask here!

Reloc8

Yep. I was going to refer to that also but figured my thesis was already long enough !

They say quite clearly that a maul can become a ruck, twice in that ruling, if the ball gets to the ground.

You see a lot of collapsed mauls being given as scrums to defence on the basis that ball is not playable immediately irrespective of whether it is on the ground at maul end, which is clearly wrong according to this ruling, as if a ruck is allowed to form on a collapsed maul the side going forward immediately before the ruck formed, if ball is unplayable, should get the put in.

Now, if you really wanted to get awkward, try and reconcile the fact that a collapsed maul can become a ruck with Law 15 Tackled Player goes to ground !

rje66

Reloc8 wrote: »

You see a lot of collapsed mauls being given as scrums to defence on the basis that ball is not playable immediately irrespective of whether it is on the ground at maul end, which is clearly wrong according to this ruling,
!

LOTG 17.6(b) unsuccssful end to a maul covers this, scrum to team that was not in possession.

Reloc8

The ruling that Daveharnett linked to says that a collapsed maul can become a ruck if the ball goes to ground.

If you have a ruck, ball on ground, then it would be Law 16.7 Unsuccessful end to a ruck, scrum to team that was moving forward immediately before the ball became unplayable.

My point is that you see scrums given to the side not in possession after an unsuccessful end to maul where the ball has gone to ground but is unplayable. Or to put it another way, when was the last time you saw a ref rule 'collapsed maul, became a ruck, scrum to the side going forward ?'.

Or, as is also envisaged by the ruling, a penalty given from a collapsed maul with ball on ground for not complying with Law 16(4)(d) (player on ground in or near ruck must try to move away from the ball and must not interfere with the ball as it comes out0.

...which is what this ruling would indicate is correct.

rje66

not sure why ruck law 16.7 is anything of reference to an unplayable maul.


ruck laws are different to maul laws. when a maul collapses ruck laws dont come into play, ie there is no obligation to roll away from ball carrier or release him. So in a collapsed maul senario if ball is immediately avail. a shout of 'balls there, play on' will suffice, OR where ball is wrapped up between ball carrier and wrapper and other bodies, as nobody is obliged to move, ball is unplayable so a quick peep and scrum to team not in possession.

rje66

Reloc8 wrote: »

. Or to put it another way, when was the last time you saw a ref rule 'collapsed maul, became a ruck, scrum to the side going forward ?'.

.

you dont see it because its only a ruck in name not law and see senario above.

Reloc8

rje66 wrote: »

not sure why ruck law 16.7 is anything of reference to an unplayable maul.


ruck laws are different to maul laws. when a maul collapses ruck laws dont come into play, ie there is no obligation to roll away from ball carrier or release him. So in a collapsed maul senario if ball is immediately avail. a shout of 'balls there, play on' will suffice, OR where ball is wrapped up between ball carrier and wrapper and other bodies, as nobody is obliged to move, ball is unplayable so a quick peep and scrum to team not in possession.

I'm aware that ruck laws are different to maul laws.

The point is that it now seems that a collapsed maul can become a ruck.

JustinDee

Reloc8 wrote: »

I'm aware that ruck laws are different to maul laws.

The point is that it now seems that a collapsed maul can become a ruck.

A deliberately collapsed maul cannot be. It will be an instant ping unless a score follows in advantage.
Any other circumstance though? Yes.

rje66

Reloc8 wrote: »

The point is that it now seems that a collapsed maul can become a ruck.

was following that clarification ( in daves reply) on another ref web site and the general consensus was that it was a poorly written reply to the request, in that there are no laws to support that if a maul goes to ground with ball on ground its a ruck with ruck laws.

Im my mind if maul goes to ground there are only 2 outcomes
1. ball is immediately available, play on, successful end to maul
or
2. ball not avail.very quick peep, scrum to team not in poss., regardless if ball is on the ground, unsuccessful end to maul, 17.6(b) in LOTG

My point is that you see scrums given to the side not in possession after an unsuccessful end to maul where the ball has gone to ground but is unplayable. Or to put it another way, when was the last time you saw a ref rule 'collapsed maul, became a ruck, scrum to the side going forward ?'.

reason you dont see it is because they view it as point 2 above.

BigHeel

rje66 wrote: »

was following that clarification ( in daves reply) on another ref web site and the general consensus was that it was a poorly written reply to the request, in that there are no laws to support that if a maul goes to ground with ball on ground its a ruck with ruck laws.

Im my mind if maul goes to ground there are only 2 outcomes
1. ball is immediately available, play on, successful end to maul
or
2. ball not avail.very quick peep, scrum to team not in poss., regardless if ball is on the ground, unsuccessful end to maul, 17.6(b) in LOTG


reason you dont see it is because they view it as point 2 above.

But you can have a situation where there is a maul, the ball goes to ground (ball carrier drops it) then it is a ruck.

Reloc8

rje66 wrote: »

was following that clarification ( in daves reply) on another ref web site and the general consensus was that it was a poorly written reply to the request, in that there are no laws to support that if a maul goes to ground with ball on ground its a ruck with ruck laws.

I know. That's part of the point I've been making. The ruling is quite bizarre. It is inconsistent with important aspects of the laws, as noted above.

Further, look for instance at 16.1 Forming A Ruck :-

(b) How can a ruck form. Players are on their feet. At least one player must be in physical contact with an opponent. The ball must be on the ground. If the ball is off the ground for any reason, the ruck is not formed.

A collapsed maul is highly unlikely to have players on their feet in a 'ruck formed' position. I think the whole series of designated members' rulings on the maul are in fact eh...a load of bollix ! However, they do represent how the laws are supposed to be applied.

rje66

ya , would agree

Shelflife

Can a defensive player shove the ref out of the way in order to make a tackle?

bearing in mind that the ref is usually trying to get out of the way, how much -if any contact would you allow?

MyKeyG

Shelflife wrote: »

Can a defensive player shove the ref out of the way in order to make a tackle?

bearing in mind that the ref is usually trying to get out of the way, how much -if any contact would you allow?

I remember a referee years ago in a match admonishing a player not to shove him again even though if I recall correctly the ref was at fault. I would assume the same rules apply to contact with the referee as it does for any opposition player not in possession of the ball, namely no shoving. If the ref interferes with play such as to hinder a tackle, pass or something like that he will award a scrum to the team going forward. There's no need to shove him and it's within the refs discretion to take punitive action.

castie

Shelflife wrote: »

Can a defensive player shove the ref out of the way in order to make a tackle?

bearing in mind that the ref is usually trying to get out of the way, how much -if any contact would you allow?

Really depends on the situation and the force/result.

Im a lump so pretty hard to just push me down but if I went to deck Id deem excessive force and its 10 mins in the bin for you.

If you push me into the path of the ball carrier and i deem it to be on purpose its red.

If nothing results from it but I think youve overstepped a quiet word will be had.

If im in the way and I deem its just a nudge out of the way and nothing happens then play on.


In the cases above though if you lay two hands directly on my back i deem your taking a cheap shot as opposed to trying to get me out of your way and Ill card you.

Reloc8

Shelflife wrote: »

Can a defensive player shove the ref out of the way in order to make a tackle?

bearing in mind that the ref is usually trying to get out of the way, how much -if any contact would you allow?

Anything above very minimal contact is a problem. You're not there to be shoved around. I don't mind a tap on the shoulder or a tug on the sleeve to get me to move if I'm blocking someone's defensive line. Anything more than that which is deliberate you should be thinking about a red card.

The Northampton 3 (Mujati) in this clip got a 6 week ban for this :-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6VFvT2OhTw

Initial push just after 25 secs, admonished at 50 secs by Ref Owens.

Ban seemed fair to me. The length of the ban would indicate that the offence was at the red card level.

Then this one was seen to be more accidental, arising from people looking for the same space on the pitch:-

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

daveharnett

I'm referring to the incident where Bowe collected a cross-field kick, fell over the (Scotland) goal line on his back with a defender on top. He wriggles around for a couple of seconds before eventually grounding the ball, with the defender making a very good effort to prevent him from doing so.

Decision from the TMO, penalty blue, 'second movement'. I was (to say the least) very surprised at this decision.

I thought the only possible outcomes would have been:
A: Held up, scrum green.
B: Try.

There is no offense called 'second movement', but it is sometimes used as a shorthand for 'ball carrier not releasing immediately'. Given that the ball-carrier is in-goal, and the defender (who is still on the ground) is legally preventing him from playing the ball, I don't think you can penalise for not releasing.

So, was the call correct, Yes/No?
If No: scrum, try, other?

daveharnett

Reloc8 wrote: »

Ban seemed fair to me. The length of the ban would indicate that the offence was at the red card level.

Absolutely. I thought Owens was overly-lenient at the time. In fairness, I suppose it's hard to red an incident that (by definition) happened behind your back. No help from the touchline?

Reloc8 wrote: »

Then this one was seen to be more accidental

I'm not so sure. In terms of relative sizes, he's 'accidentally' pushed him in front of a bus. If he wanted past Owens, surely he would have pushed him aside, rather than into the attackers path? At least a YC for me.

Reloc8

On your question DH :

I would have thought scrum 5 attack is correct. It seemed to me he penalised Bowe for trying to score a try, in circumstances where the 'tackle' being in goal neither the tackler was obliged to release nor did Bowe have to comply with Law 15.

Applying all of this with Law 22, it seems to me that this was a 'Ball Held Up In Goal' under 22.10, which goes on to say that the ball is dead, when held up, leading to a 5 metre scrum.

22.10 particularly says that when a player carrying the ball is held up in goal so that the player cannot ground the ball, the ball is dead, a 5 metre scrum is formed.

If the ball is dead when held up, Bowe can't infringe unless guilty of foul play/misconduct.

Scrum 5, attacking team puts in.

That's assuming you rule that the grounding in this case was too long after the tackle completed and went in goal, i.e. ball was dead, which I think is right on the facts of this one.

edit : just watched it again - from one angle it looks like the players were over the line (bits of them) but the ball wasn't...penalty against Bowe is doubly harsh so.

daniels.ducks

Just in regard to pushing the ref. Look at the Ireland match. 8:26 into the match or 44:18 on rte player Sexton pushes the ref!

Shelflife

daniels.ducks wrote: »

Just in regard to pushing the ref. Look at the Ireland match. 8:26 into the match or 44:18 on rte player Sexton pushes the ref!

thats the incident that brought this up, i was watching the game with my son and he asked can you do that to the ref, i said that if that happened to me in a game that id be having words with him.

Reloc8

Heh - I'd forgotten about that. At the game I was giving out about the ref getting in his way. On the footage its clear he does have a wee go at him, in an effort to get to the tackle albeit.

I think that incident is at lot less serious than the two shown in my previous post but would warrant a word along the lines of 'look if I do obstruct you I will deal with that but you can't take it into your own hands to remove me. We all have jobs to do during the course of a match and its not for you to decide where I can be. Consider this a friendly warning'.

JustinDee

daveharnett wrote: »

I'm referring to the incident where Bowe collected a cross-field kick, fell over the (Scotland) goal line on his back with a defender on top. He wriggles around for a couple of seconds before eventually grounding the ball, with the defender making a very good effort to prevent him from doing so.

Decision from the TMO, penalty blue, 'second movement'. I was (to say the least) very surprised at this decision.

I thought the only possible outcomes would have been:
A: Held up, scrum green.
B: Try.

There is no offense called 'second movement', but it is sometimes used as a shorthand for 'ball carrier not releasing immediately'. Given that the ball-carrier is in-goal, and the defender (who is still on the ground) is legally preventing him from playing the ball, I don't think you can penalise for not releasing.

So, was the call correct, Yes/No?
If No: scrum, try, other?

Definitely no try but in retrospect, an attacking 5m scrum should have followed as Tommy Bowe was held up in field of play.

castie

daveharnett wrote: »

Absolutely. I thought Owens was overly-lenient at the time. In fairness, I suppose it's hard to red an incident that (by definition) happened behind your back. No help from the touchline?


I'm not so sure. In terms of relative sizes, he's 'accidentally' pushed him in front of a bus. If he wanted past Owens, surely he would have pushed him aside, rather than into the attackers path? At least a YC for me.

Both Red for me.

From the ones I listed before.

Push me into an oncoming ball carrier is scenario two.
Two hands into my back is scenario one.

castie

JustinDee wrote: »

Definitely no try but in retrospect, an attacking 5m scrum should have followed as Tommy Bowe was held up in field of play.

You cant be held up in the field of play.
If its in the field of play then its a ruck and players must release.

In this case because they are on the line they are deemed in goal by me.
Hence defender can hold on.

Bowe has got the ball down in the field of play so hes brought it from a in goal to in filed of play position.

At this point he must release the ball.
He doesnt and tries to place again so double movement.

Confusing the issue is the fact that its technically a ruck where the ball is but not a ruck where the players are.

If Tommy released the ball in the field of play then a ruck could form around it but Tommy did not have to be released as he himself was in goal and cannot be part of a ruck.

Hope I havent muddled the waters even further!
Would love to put it to Nigel Owens on twitter.

castie

Reloc8 wrote: »

On your question DH :

I would have thought scrum 5 attack is correct. It seemed to me he penalised Bowe for trying to score a try, in circumstances where the 'tackle' being in goal neither the tackler was obliged to release nor did Bowe have to comply with Law 15.

Applying all of this with Law 22, it seems to me that this was a 'Ball Held Up In Goal' under 22.10, which goes on to say that the ball is dead, when held up, leading to a 5 metre scrum.

22.10 particularly says that when a player carrying the ball is held up in goal so that the player cannot ground the ball, the ball is dead, a 5 metre scrum is formed.

If the ball is dead when held up, Bowe can't infringe unless guilty of foul play/misconduct.

Scrum 5, attacking team puts in.

That's assuming you rule that the grounding in this case was too long after the tackle completed and went in goal, i.e. ball was dead, which I think is right on the facts of this one.

edit : just watched it again - from one angle it looks like the players were over the line (bits of them) but the ball wasn't...penalty against Bowe is doubly harsh so.

I agree with alot of what you said except bolded.
Bowe did ground it but grounded it in the field of play rather than in goal.
Its something I think is not covered by the laws and a massive fringe case.

Reloc8

^ Yep on watching it again from one angle (looking up the field 'into' in goal it looks very clearly as if the ball was not over the goal line and therefore not held up in goal.

edit : IRFU should refer to Designated Members for a ruling.

They'll come back and say look its a collapsed maul that became a ruck after the tackle what's your problem ?

Snickers Man

castie wrote: »

Bowe did ground it but grounded it in the field of play rather than in goal.

No he didn't. He grounded it first on the try line. ie in goal.

For me it's an open and shut clear try. He caught the ball, landed on his back with his upper torso in the in goal area. A Scottish defender was grappling with him, which was fine because he the defender was in goal and therefore not required to release the man on the ground. Bowe tried to ground it to his left but was prevented from doing so by the defender. He then wriggled to his right and grounded it.

He is entitled to place the ball when tackled. The first time the ball hit the ground was on the line.

I don't see how it wasn't a try.

Reloc8

OK so this one was bugging me and I went back to the laws again.

Law 22.4 Other ways to score a try

(d) Momentum try. If an attacking player with the ball is tackled short of the goal line but the player’s momentum carries the player in a continuous movement along the ground into the opponents’ in-goal, and the player is first to ground the ball, a try is scored.

(e) Tackled near the goal line. If a player is tackled near to the opponents’ goal line so that this player can immediately reach out and ground the ball on or over the goal line, a try is scored.

(f) In this situation, defending players who are on their feet may legally prevent the try by pulling the ball from the tackled player’s hands or arms, but must not kick the ball.

Watching it again, it looks like a try within 22.4(d) to me, with Bowe being hit short of the line but his momentum carrying him in goal where he is first to ground the ball.

LostGirly

In relation to the technical zones that have become so important in junior rugby these days. Can anyone tell me what the rules are surrounding them. I understand that management are meant to be in there and no more than three people at any time. Are there rules in relation to not staying in them during the game or in relation to entering the opponents zone during the game!

Please help!

daveharnett

LostGirly wrote: »

Are there rules in relation to not staying in them during the game or in relation to entering the opponents zone during the game!

AFAIR the rule is that each techincal area can accommodate up to two managers/coaches plus a physio, who may only leave their area with the ref's permission (or go behind the railing/barrier/whatever). Substitutes are not allowed inside the barrier, except when coming on/off, and should do so through their team's technical area.

How strictly this is enforced will vary from ref to ref (and from game to game). Best to consult before kickoff on what is expected.

Most will be fine with a coach/physio leaving without permission to attend to an injury, deliver a tee, or (while the clock is stopped) deliver water.

The main motives are to stop coaches wandering up and down the sidelines winding players (and each other) up, and to keep them out of the way of touch judges/assistant refs. If none of these problems arise, the ref isn't likely to pay much attention to the sidelines.