Laws Question? Ask here!

Steve Perchance

locum-motion wrote: »

Is that a 'Yes' to "Can a player switch?" or to "Does the actual position count?"

Pretty sure its a yes if the player actually knows how to play both positions, no if they don't. If the referee at any time decides a player is not competent, they can order uncontested scrums, but hopefully players/teams have more sense than to let it get to that stage

locum-motion

Steve Perchance wrote: »

Pretty sure its a yes if the player actually knows how to play both positions, no if they don't. If the referee at any time decides a player is not competent, they can order uncontested scrums, but hopefully players/teams have more sense than to let it get to that stage

Thanks, but...

What I was getting at was this:

The post that was being answered (and which was quoted in the answer) contained 2 questions, which were essentially the opposite of each other. If Q1 is Yes, then Q2 is No, and vice versa.

The answerer left a single word answer "Yes".

I want that person to clarify what they meant.



Edit: Here's the post. I've highlighted the two questions in it.

Gamayun wrote: »

Quick Question.

Can a prop switch to hooker during a game? (and vice versa)

So, say a team has a ridiculously dominant scrum, however both the starting and replacement hooker get injured. They do not want to go to uncontested scrums as they have such an advantage, can they bring on a replacement prop to fill in at hooker and contest the scrum?

They should all be registered as front row players, does the actual position count?

Shelflife

If a player has been marked on the team sheet that they can provide cover as prop or hooker then they are allowed to play there.

So a starting prop can replace a hooker as long as he has been marked as a replacement hooker on the team sheet.

In the same way a backrow or winger can also be a replacement in the front row as long as they are clearly marked on the sheet prior to kick off.

Shelflife

Interesting senario.

Team A kick through, full back of team B collects but is immediatley under pressure from 3 of team A, he is on the 5m line.

Full back throws/passes the ball to/at the ref with the intention of hitting him.

Decision?

kensutz

If I spotted that it was intentional to get him out of trouble, penalty against him for unsportsman like conduct.

.ak

Yeh I've seen ref's pinging scrumhalves for doing it....

.ak

.... but if the ref didn't cop it, then it would be a 5m scrum, team B's ball.

Deano7788

Would it not be similar to deliberately knocking/passing it into touch? I'd go for a penalty against.

Shelflife

Saw a clip in a SH match where the full back did it, he got away with it.

id be going pen and even a possible yellow card for deliberately killing the ball to deny a scoring opportunity if i thought he was pulling a fast one.

jacothelad

If he was free enough to make a pass he'd be free enough to kick the ball dead, out of play or................ :Dfull tilt into the ref:D. Knock him out, get a scrum and a breather for the team

daveharnett

Shelflife wrote: »

Interesting senario.

Team A kick through, full back of team B collects but is immediatley under pressure from 3 of team A, he is on the 5m line.

Full back throws/passes the ball to/at the ref with the intention of hitting him.

Decision?

A: The ref is fitter than all the players and needs promotion.
B: If the ball hits the ref;

• consider penalty try
• penalty advantage team A
• consider a card once play stops

C: If the ball misses/ref avoids, play on and give a scolding at next stoppage.

As to chapter and verse, I reckon that "Acts contrary to good sportsmanship" would be the best fit?

Note that the law says that when the ball hits the ref and either team gain advantage, play must stop. If a player deliberately causes contact, I'd be inclined to allow advantage to the non-offending team. (No, that doesn't mean the ref should fire a pass out the wing )
http://www.irblaws.com/EN/laws/2/6/57/before-the-match/match-officials/the-ball-touching-the-referee/

jacothelad wrote: »

If he was free enough to make a pass he'd be free enough to kick the ball dead, out of play or...

Happens more than you'd think that the fullback doesn't realise how much trouble he's in until he's being hauled down and a kick is off the cards. For more details, contact Conor Murray.

rje66

"if a player deliberately causes contact, I'd be inclined to allow advantage to the non-offending team. "

Not good practice. If it says in the lotg that no advantage is to be played then thats what it means. We cant make it up as we go along.
Either pk or scrum. Fast whistle for both.

castie

Some people might think its harsh but i would put intentionally hitting the ref with the ball as the same as a push.

You push me you get Red.
If I am 100% you have nailed me on purpose with the ball you are getting an early shower...

tolosenc

castie wrote: »

Some people might think its harsh but i would put intentionally hitting the ref with the ball as the same as a push.

You push me you get Red.
If I am 100% you have nailed me on purpose with the ball you are getting an early shower...

Harsh? Yes.

Unfair? No.

Deano7788

Does anyone know what set of laws will be used for the Autumn internationals? The Southern Hemisphere don't adopt the new trial laws until the new year and their new season so will it be the old or the new laws?

Shelflife

Sledging.

Do you allow it ? if so how far do you let it go ?

JustinDee

Deano7788 wrote: »

Does anyone know what set of laws will be used for the Autumn internationals? The Southern Hemisphere don't adopt the new trial laws until the new year and their new season so will it be the old or the new laws?

Just asked for you. Apparently is the new laws.

rje66

Shelflife wrote: »

Sledging.

Do you allow it ? if so how far do you let it go ?

Usually happens in schools/youths.
Depends on content. Usually a word at first instance cuts it out but on second PK. Head patting a player who just gave away a pen comes under this too.
Dont like seeing it creep into the game.

f1dan

Shelflife wrote: »

Sledging.

Do you allow it ? if so how far do you let it go ?

Falls under unsportsmanlike conduct. Really a judgement call for the referee to make.

Jawgap

Shelflife wrote: »

Sledging.

Do you allow it ? if so how far do you let it go ?

No - if it's sledging, imo he player should be pulled on it because it's the type of thing that can escalate very quickly.

However, there's a fine line between banter, slagging and sledging - I'd say if a player is trying to get a laugh out of everyone (including me) it's banter - if he's trying to belittle someone, wind up an already wound up player etc, it's sledging - a reversed penalty or 10m can sort it out quite quickly!

redmca2

I am still hurting from our narrow defeat in the 2nd test against the All Blacks. The final drop goal from Carter occurred as follows:
From scrum under our posts Carter attempted a DG, O'Brien got hands to it, whether or not it was headed over the bar is academic. The ball went dead and was adjudged to have been carried over.
Result: another 5m scrum and this time Carter drops the goal.

The rule that such an attempted block down is judged as a carry over whereas a full block down is not ruled as a knock-on seems to be very harsh, and frankly unfair.

Anyone agree? (I guess I'm just a sore loser)

Steve Perchance

redmca2 wrote: »

I am still hurting from our narrow defeat in the 2nd test against the All Blacks. The final drop goal from Carter occurred as follows:
From scrum under our posts Carter attempted a DG, O'Brien got hands to it, whether or not it was headed over the bar is academic. The ball went dead and was adjudged to have been carried over.
Result: another 5m scrum and this time Carter drops the goal.

The rule that such an attempted block down is judged as a carry over whereas a full block down is not ruled as a knock-on seems to be very harsh, and frankly unfair.

Anyone agree? (I guess I'm just a sore loser)

Its fair enough to be honest. Same as if you blocked a kick and it went into touch, you wouldnt expect the line out to be given to you. It was rotten, rotten luck, but think the laws are as fair as required there.

daveharnett

redmca2 wrote: »

The rule that such an attempted block down is judged as a carry over whereas a full block down is not ruled as a knock-on seems to be very harsh, and frankly unfair.
Anyone agree? (I guess I'm just a sore loser)

Afraid not. I certainly wouldn't call it unfair, since it's known to everybody and applies to both teams.

As to whether it's harsh, yeah sort of. I would say the intent of the block-down law is to make it a 'no-fault' event. In that light and in the circumstances you described, a scrum to the kicking team from the place of the original kick (or the block down) might be more consistent with the spirit of the law than a scrum 5. That being said, I'm not sure if such an unusual outcome warrants the adding of a paragraph to a law book that is already long and complex enough.

Jawgap

redmca2 wrote: »

I am still hurting from our narrow defeat in the 2nd test against the All Blacks. The final drop goal from Carter occurred as follows:
From scrum under our posts Carter attempted a DG, O'Brien got hands to it, whether or not it was headed over the bar is academic. The ball went dead and was adjudged to have been carried over.
Result: another 5m scrum and this time Carter drops the goal.

The rule that such an attempted block down is judged as a carry over whereas a full block down is not ruled as a knock-on seems to be very harsh, and frankly unfair.

Anyone agree? (I guess I'm just a sore loser)

My first point would be the old maxim that hard cases make for bad law and this was definitely harsh and hard......

However, a lot of the laws are structured to try and reward attacking play - this is one where I think the intention is to make sure that attacking teams trying to score are rewarded for their efforts where they are not successful - to encourage attacking rugby. Likewise the player who gets a full block is displaying aggression and so should be rewarded for that.

If memory serves the ELVs would now stop the All Blacks doing what they did in the run up to the drop goal- holding the ball at the base of the ruck while they organise pods to attack - scant consolation, but they wouldn't be able to give Carter as much time to compose himself and pick his point from which to kick.

Reloc8

^ well, a full 5 seconds from being told 'use it' by the ref, each time - which is actually a good old chunk of time in play.

BigHeel

This is one I regularly hear and see happen but I cant find it in the Laws.

Red team kick ahead. Blue defender goes to ground and grabs the ball. Red attacker arrives, stays on feet and tries to pull the ball from Blue. Red penalised for "not allowing Red to get to his feet".
Can anyone tell me where this is covered in the Law.
My understanding is rugby is a contest for the ball and played by players on their feet. If Red stays on his feet surely he can contest for the ball and Blue being off his feet should not spot him.

rje66

BigHeel wrote: »

This is one I regularly hear and see happen but I cant find it in the Laws.

Red team kick ahead. Blue defender goes to ground and grabs the ball. Red attacker arrives, stays on feet and tries to pull the ball from Blue. Red penalised for "not allowing Red to get to his feet".
Can anyone tell me where this is covered in the Law.
My understanding is rugby is a contest for the ball and played by players on their feet. If Red stays on his feet surely he can contest for the ball and Blue being off his feet should not spot him.

There is no law that states 'you must let him up' so you dont have to. What you must do is stay on your feet as you said and compete for ball. in your senario red is penalised incorrectly. When blue goes to ground his options are pass , place or get up , he must do so at once.
Even' experienced' commentators dont realise this.

sydthebeat

you dont have to allow the defender get to his feet, you just have to make sure you are not preventing him/her getting to their feet by lying or diving on them.

Jawgap

Law 14 - a player on the ground (not tackled) with the ball must do one of three things - get up with the ball, pass the ball or release the ball.

After that it's a matter of interpretation - an arriving player targeting the ball I'd say should be fine, but if he looks like he's trying to impede the player from doing one of the three things above, even if he is also attacking the ball, you could argue that he's fallen foul of the prohibition on blocking the ball (Law 10).

kensutz

Correct, it's a myth that you must allow the player to get to their feet. I've had 2 teams appealing for it in the past few weeks and told them that they do not have to allow players on their feet as long as the attackers stay on their feet and contest for the ball.