Laws Question? Ask here!

LostGirly

daveharnett wrote: »

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.

Thanks for that - is there a rule about members of oppossition approaching/entering the technical zone! i.e. would Team coach of A be permitted to enter Technical zone of Team B???

daveharnett

LostGirly wrote: »

Thanks for that - is there a rule about members of oppossition approaching/entering the technical zone! i.e. would Team coach of A be permitted to enter Technical zone of Team B???

Since entering tachnical zone B would require them to leave technical zone A, no If an opposing coach is making a nuisance of himself, let the ref know at the next stoppage (ideally via your team captain depending on the age group), and he should be happy to put him back in his box (pun intended).

Shelflife

Lost girly, at the beginning of the game mention to the head coach politely that they are required to stay in the technical zone. then as dave said its easy to put them back in their box if they misbehave.

durkadurka

That last minute conversion for the ospreys last weekend.

Bounced kind of inwards off the very top of the goalpost.

Two touch judges immediately gave it.
Crowd incensed.
Decided the game.

How come it counted? Didn't pass between the posts...

MungBean

Would it have been possible for Cullen to contest it and have it checked by the video ref ?

MyKeyG

MungBean wrote: »

Would it have been possible for Cullen to contest it and have it checked by the video ref ?

No way. There's no challenge system in rugby. Players can complain till the cows come home. In all my years watching and playing rugby I've never seen a referee contradict his touch judges while under the posts. It would be a bit arrogant in fairness.

pigeonbutler

MyKeyG wrote: »

MungBean wrote: »

Would it have been possible for Cullen to contest it and have it checked by the video ref ?

No way. There's no challenge system in rugby. Players can complain till the cows come home. In all my years watching and playing rugby I've never seen a referee contradict his touch judges while under the posts. It would be a bit arrogant in fairness.

Had to check the laws. Apparently the TMO CAN be asked to judge on kicks at goal. Have never seen it though. Of course like all TMO decisions its up to the ref to ask. He's unlikely to do that where two TJ's put up flags.

durkadurka

I've seen Nigel owens refer a kick to the TMO.

But that's beside the point. Why was the kick good?

castie

durkadurka wrote: »

I've seen Nigel owens refer a kick to the TMO.

But that's beside the point. Why was the kick good?

I have had a look through the laws and it doesnt seem like theres one to cover scoring a penalty except it must cross the crossbar.

9.A.2

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

From this the posts do contain the crossbar and so a ball travelling over the posts will also be travelling over the crossbar.

Open to correction here.

castie

Like to get some higher up feedback on this.

Leinster game at the weekend alot of people are saying they should have gone uncontested as they lost both tightheads.

Now the law states

When a normal scrum takes place, the players in the three front row positions and the two lock positions must have been suitably trained for these positions.
If a team cannot field such suitably trained players because:
either they are not available, or
a player in one of those five positions is injured or
has been sent off for Foul Play and no suitably trained replacement is available, then the referee must order uncontested scrums.

In a game were its a 22 man squad you cannot go uncontested even if you have a LH on the bench and the TH gets injured. (i.e England game)

The addition of an extra man in the squad as far as I know hasnt changed the rules. It states front row players rather than specific positions.
There is a mean about speicifc Union regulations

I know the AP you must use all your options as going uncontested means you play with 14 as you cant replace the prop coming off.
Not sure if this applies to Rabo though.

In my view Leinster could not have gone contested as with one prop injured we were back to the old situation when one side prop gets injured and you have to make do.

Thoughts?

JustinDee

Team offered the following:-

1) Playing another prop as tighthead
2) Going uncontested

Leinster chose to play another prop in at 3. They deemed him "suitably trained".

Bad call Leinster.
Correct call by officials.

castie

JustinDee wrote: »

Team offered the following:-

1) Playing another prop as tighthead
2) Going uncontested

Leinster chose to play another prop in at 3. They deemed him "suitably trained".

Bad call Leinster.
Correct call by officials.

But where is this covered in the laws? Unless theres something competition specific and as I said the AP requires you not replace the prop your taking off so down to 14 men. (22 mins with 14 men may not have been good either)

Downtime

In Rabo as there are 23 players i.e. 8 subs the following applies

5.7. If a Front Row Player has to be replaced and his Team cannot provide a replacement or other suitably qualified player from those who started the match or from the nominated replacements to enable the match to continue safely, the match referee will order uncontested scrums. Should this happen, the Team concerned shall not be entitled to replace the player whose departure caused uncontested scrums.

In Internationals uncontested scrums can also be ordered but a team does not have to drop to 14 unless all subs have been used and are injured i.e. a replacement can not be made available.

Downtime

JustinDee wrote: »

Team offered the following:-

1) Playing another prop as tighthead
2) Going uncontested

Leinster chose to play another prop in at 3. They deemed him "suitably trained".

Bad call Leinster.
Correct call by officials.

You can hear the referee having a conversation with the 4th official while Hagan was injured. The 4th seemed to be telling the ref that a loosehead was coming on at tighthead. The ref also offered that Leinster could go uncontested. I presume Leinster opted to stay with 15 and deemed the replacement capable.

JustinDee

Downtime wrote: »

You can hear the referee having a conversation with the 4th official while Hagan was injured. The 4th seemed to be telling the ref that a loosehead was coming on at tighthead. The ref also offered that Leinster could go uncontested. I presume Leinster opted to stay with 15 and deemed the replacement capable.

I've just had a chat with the AR2 from the game and a referee administrator about this. It is as you pointed out just now, a competition rule. If Leinster went uncontested, they lose a player. If not, they've fifteen on the field.

Apparently they've installed this in French competition, where before its implementation they had 125 instances of uncontested scrums opted for in the season before. Then after its implementation (ie. losing a player if taken up), number of times it happened was . . . two.

MyKeyG

pigeonbutler wrote: »

Had to check the laws. Apparently the TMO CAN be asked to judge on kicks at goal. Have never seen it though. Of course like all TMO decisions its up to the ref to ask. He's unlikely to do that where two TJ's put up flags.

I said a player couldn't challenge it. I never actually said a kick couldn't be referred to the TMO it can I've seen it once or twice. Nor did I say a referee couldn't contradict his flag men I said I just never saw it.

OP going on your description I can only come to one conclusion. If the ball hit the top of the post and bounced in then the kick is good. It's exactly like the ball striking the lower upright and going in. The posts in rugby merely identify the space within which a player must kick the ball. If the ball strikes any part of the upright and bounces in then, even if that be the top of the post, the kick is good. Likewise if an attacking player touches the ball to the base of a post then it's a try.

castie

Downtime wrote: »

In Rabo as there are 23 players i.e. 8 subs the following applies

5.7. If a Front Row Player has to be replaced and his Team cannot provide a replacement or other suitably qualified player from those who started the match or from the nominated replacements to enable the match to continue safely, the match referee will order uncontested scrums. Should this happen, the Team concerned shall not be entitled to replace the player whose departure caused uncontested scrums.

In Internationals uncontested scrums can also be ordered but a team does not have to drop to 14 unless all subs have been used and are injured i.e. a replacement can not be made available.

5.7 of what? Do you have a link to the competition rules?
Not doubting it as its the same in the AP also.

Downtime

http://www.rabodirectpro12.com/statzone/competition_rules.php

castie

Downtime wrote: »

http://www.rabodirectpro12.com/statzone/competition_rules.php

Thanks

Podge_irl

Quick question. On 6 and a half minutes into the Leinster Munster game, Cronin appears to initially dummy a throw into the lineout before then throwing it. Am I right in saying he is not allowed do this?

castie

19.7

(b) The throw-in at the lineout must be taken without delay and without pretending to throw.
Sanction: Free Kick on the 15-metre line

castie

Penalty against me at the weekend.

Hit the ball up and turned to form a maul.
Was facing the direction of play and a player lifted my leg.
He ended up just holding onto my boot with my leg above parallel. (Extremely uncomfortable for a prop!)

In order to free myself I shook my foot with no success so shook harder.
Managed to free my foot and the foot made contact with the guys face.
It was a complete reaction to him letting my leg go.

Penalised and told be more careful with swinging my foot.

My question is I would of thought it was the other guy with the dangerous play and I had a right to get myself out of a position that left me well open and liable to a broken leg if someone hits me right.


As an aside I dont rate this ref anyway.
He called me over to chat and asked I be more careful.
I raised that I felt I was in danger and was just protecting myself.
He said "the player put you down safely you were in no danger".

It was a maul and I never hit the deck. he gave the penalty while I was still standing. Went to the ground afterwards to stretch out my leg.

Thud

If a player dives on the ball how long does he have to get up?

Near the end of the Leinster v Munster game Madigan tackled Murphy (i think) on the ground, he initially hesitated to allow him get up but Murphy didn't appear to be getting up instantly so Madigan tackled him and referee didn't penalise him.

Similar situation happened me a few weeks back after chasing a kick fullback dived/slid onto the ball, I didn't tackle player on ground, while I was waiting for him to get up his winger looped around him and he popped the ball to him from the ground. It wasn't instant but was a second or two, could i have tackled or was he allowed to play ball on the ground?

Shelflife

You cant tackle a player on the ground but you can contest for the ball.

armchaircoach

You only have to let a player get up if he is attempting to get up. He is not immune if he just lies there and does nothing. Commentators always get this wrong.

Podge_irl

armchaircoach wrote: »

You only have to let a player get up if he is attempting to get up. He is not immune if he just lies there and does nothing. Commentators always get this wrong.

You don't have to let the player up at all. You just can't go off your feet.

JustinDee

Podge_irl wrote: »

You don't have to let the player up at all. You just can't go off your feet.

If they're off their feet, you can't tackle them so you must go for the ball. Easy penalty to gain as they'll hang on to it waiting for support.

If they're low on feet but rising, free to flatten them however its at this point that a ball carrier is at their weakest stance, so a turnover is a definite goal. Get that ball.

Thud

so was Madigan right or wrong to hit him at the weekend?

If he's getting up how far up does he have to be before you can hit him?

I presume you are supposed to ruck/jackal over him to get the ball if he doesn't get up?

JustinDee

Thud wrote: »

so was Madigan right or wrong to hit him at the weekend?

Was fine.

Thud wrote: »

If he's getting up how far up does he have to be before you can hit him?

Once on feet.

Thud wrote: »

I presume you are supposed to ruck/jackal over him to get the ball if he doesn't get up?

Free to grab at.

JustinDee

There are lots of popularly mis-read laws of the game that are presumed as implemented.
One in particular is a favourite of mine. At back of scrum when opposition have ball and it is at the 8th man's feet, the nr 8 must have a shoulder to back of scrum. Otherwise they are unbound. Once unbound, its game on for the defending halfback to go for the ball.

Worth bringing up with refs beforehand by telling them if you see the 8th not bound, you're going to go for it as it is within laws of the game.