Laws Question? Ask here!

who_me

Cheers for the responses.

castie wrote: »

Scenario one is offside.
Once he puts the ball down Im assuming he moves past it to try form the ruck your talking about. Any interference from him in stopping a player going past him to claim the ball results in him interfering with play while in an offside position and hence penalty against him.

Not sure it would be offside, the player would check and set the ball at his feet. If he was adjudged to be offside/blocking, it would be a tough call considering some of the running-past-the-ruck clearing out that goes unpunished these days.

I've seen comments in another forum suggesting it was a common tactic years go, but I've never seen it in any footage; so was wondering if any element of it might be illegal (or just not worthwhile) under current rules.

castie wrote: »

Scenario two


16.1 (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.

So unless the tackler gets his ass out of there fast then the defenders will make contact with him and form the ruck.

Its a very dangerous tactic though as you need to be 100% on whether the ref is adjudging a ruck formed or not.

I think the player in contact with the opponent has to be on his feet (as per the previous sentence above). So a ruck can't form without one player from either side being on their feet and in contact; tacklers don't count unless they get back up and contest the ball.

It would be risky, which is why the captain should try and have a quiet word with the ref in advance if possible. Wasps used it a lot when they were at their peak; I'm surprised teams don't try it in the scenario mentioned previously, where the opposing team just has to get the ball off the pitch.

castie

who_me wrote: »

Cheers for the responses.



Not sure it would be offside, the player would check and set the ball at his feet. If he was adjudged to be offside/blocking, it would be a tough call considering some of the running-past-the-ruck clearing out that goes unpunished these days.

Yes but its very deliberate if you are tackling a defender with the ball on the deck to be won versus hitting someone just past a pile of bodies.

who_me wrote: »

I think the player in contact with the opponent has to be on his feet(as per the previous sentence above). So a ruck can't form without one player from either side being on their feet and in contact; tacklers don't count unless they get back up and contest the ball.

It would be risky, which is why the captain should try and have a quiet word with the ref in advance if possible. Wasps used it a lot when they were at their peak; I'm surprised teams don't try it in the scenario mentioned previously, where the opposing team just has to get the ball off the pitch.

I quoted the IRB law does not say that a player from both sides needs to be on their feet just that players need to and then a subsequent clause is there must be contact. The full stop is there for a reason in my opinion but with most things referred to as law it could be interpreted both ways.

irishbucsfan

The second example is one thats been used by teams I've played on. It's been used by other teams for years and is perfectly legit.

Mostly it's effective in two areas:

1) The first breakdown after a set piece. Make the tackle, put a sweeper behind the tackle area, then send a back rower flying into their side of the breakdown! Very hard to get right.

2) Mauls. This is where its extremely useful and I brought it to England with me. After a lineout just back away from the opposition. They walk the maul forward while sending the ball to the back. When the ball is at the back somebody makes a call and two defenders run arround the maul and go straight for the ball. Or else the ref blows for accidental offside if you're lucky and he's particularly clued in.

Generally for these things to work you have to mention them to the ref before the game and go through the rules with him. Or else they get surprised and blow out of shock!

who_me

castie wrote: »

Yes but its very deliberate if you are tackling a defender with the ball on the deck to be won versus hitting someone just past a pile of bodies.

If the two players collide and neither have the ball, I'm not sure which one would/should be pinged. To clarify, the 'ball carrier' wouldn't tackle the tackler in this situation, but place the ball at his own feet and brace for being hit. Given the stricter refereeing in modern times, you might be quite right, this might get pinged every time.

castie wrote: »

I quoted the IRB law does not say that a player from both sides needs to be on their feet just that players need to and then a subsequent clause is there must be contact. The full stop is there for a reason in my opinion but with most things referred to as law it could be interpreted both ways.

You may be right! I'm not sure - I thought the wording of the ruck definition used to be different, featuring "one player from either team on their feet bound over the ball" or words to that effect.

I think once a 3rd player joins the breakdown (after ballcarrier & tackler) a ref might instinctively assume a ruck, given that's the common pattern of play. (Tackle->Turnover attempt->Clearout->Ruck->Next phase)

Thud

in the first scenario, why wouldn't the opposition player dive on the ball? would think it would be far more likely than engaging in a wrestling match over a free ball and if you have made a line break why would you stop?

Stheno

Excuse my ignorance, what do IQ and NIQ mean?

Thanks

Deano7788

Stheno wrote: »

Excuse my ignorance, what do IQ and NIQ mean?

Thanks

Irish Qualified and Non-Irish Qualified.:)

Stheno

Deano7788 wrote: »

Irish Qualified and Non-Irish Qualified.:)

Thanks In another thread there was talk of there being a limited amount of NIQ players allowed play for the provinces, how does that work?

Deano7788

Stheno wrote: »

Thanks In another thread there was talk of there being a limited amount of NIQ players allowed play for the provinces, how does that work?

Now it's getting complicated. It's an IRFU rule. Currently, each province is allowed 4 NIQ's plus 1 project player, who is an NIQ but hasn't been capped so can become eligible for Ireland under residency after 3 years, like Strauss did this year. They can be in any position.The IRFU plan to change that next season where there can only be 1 NIQ between Leinster, Ulster and Munster in each position (Connacht are immune from this), e.g. Pienaar is an NIQ scrum half so Munster and Leinster can't bring one in. They haven't really said how it's going to work exactly yet.

Stheno

Deano7788 wrote: »

Now it's getting complicated. It's an IRFU rule. Currently, each province is allowed 4 NIQ's plus 1 project player, who is an NIQ but hasn't been capped so can become eligible for Ireland under residency after 3 years, like Strauss did this year. They can be in any position.The IRFU plan to change that next season where there can only be 1 NIQ between Leinster, Ulster and Munster in each position (Connacht are immune from this), e.g. Pienaar is an NIQ scrum half so Munster and Leinster can't bring one in. They haven't really said how it's going to work exactly yet.

Thanks for your patience you've explained that really nicely thanks

So essentially the three stronger provinces from next year will be allowed have no more than essentially 15 players between them who are not IQ, one in each position, with no duplication.

Is the intent here to increase the pool of IQ players in the provinces in all positions/enable the emergence of IQ players from the academies/try to eliminate weaknesses in the national squad, e.g. Prop etc?

Hope that makes sense.

Deano7788

Stheno wrote: »

Thanks for your patience you've explained that really nicely thanks

So essentially the three stronger provinces from next year will be allowed have no more than essentially 15 players between them who are not IQ, one in each position, with no duplication.

Is the intent here to increase the pool of IQ players in the provinces in all positions/enable the emergence of IQ players from the academies/try to eliminate weaknesses in the national squad, e.g. Prop etc?

Hope that makes sense.

Yeah that's pretty much it and essentially the prop situation brought it about.

Stheno

Deano7788 wrote: »

Yeah that's pretty much it and essentially the prop situation brought it about.

Thanks again, appreciate the patience

pickarooney

So do Afoa and Botha get to draw straws or who gets to keep his job?

Deano7788

pickarooney wrote: »

So do Afoa and Botha get to draw straws or who gets to keep his job?

Botha's apparently going to Toulon so that won't be a problem.

tolosenc

Regarding THAT Zebo play earlier:

1. Did he actually play himself off side?
2. Isn't there something about not being allowed to kick the ball with you heel unless you're the hooker at a scrum?

Arguments flying back and forth here...

pickarooney

tolosenc wrote: »

Regarding THAT Zebo play earlier:

1. ctually play himself off side?
2. Isn't there something about not being allowed to kick the ball with you heel unless you're the hooker at a scrum?

Arguments flying back and forth here...

I don't see how - he wasn't in front of himself! Good luck to the referee trying to distinguish between a heel and ankle at that speed and distance

tolosenc

pickarooney wrote: »

I don't see how - he wasn't in front of himself! Good luck to the referee trying to distinguish between a heel and ankle at that speed and distance

I guess the argument we're having here boils down to whether it's the ball or the kicker of the ball that sets the offside line.

I'm still not sure whether it was his heel or not, even in slo mo, but am I right about that being the rule?

BeardySi

Can someone clarify the rules on stamping for me? Fair enough on the ref not seeing Sexton getting a boot in the face, but I'm sure I saw a lot of kicks and stamps going into players on the floor in front of him.

pickarooney

tolosenc wrote: »

I guess the argument we're having here boils down to whether it's the ball or the kicker of the ball that sets the offside line.

I'm still not sure whether it was his heel or not, even in slo mo, but am I right about that being the rule?

Either way, his foot was level with the ball at worst. Although maybe if any off your body is in front of it you're offside. It would be an awful call to make. I know only the hooker can heel in the scrum but never heard it apply to open play

locum-motion

tolosenc wrote: »

Regarding THAT Zebo play earlier:

1. Did he actually play himself off side?
2. Isn't there something about not being allowed to kick the ball with you heel unless you're the hooker at a scrum?

Arguments flying back and forth here...

Law 7 includes the phrase "A player may throw it or kick it".
No mention there about heels, ankles, toes or insteps.
Mind you, I didn't read the WHOLE book just now, so maybe it says it elsewhere.
I don't think it does, though.

Shelflife

the defending players have to put their feet somewhere, if you are lying on the wrong side, (and lets face it its very rare that a player gets into a position that they didnt want to be in or cant get out of) then you have to accept that you may get stood on.

alot of the "stamping" that people see is the scrum half trying to release the ball from the ruck area.

Losty Dublin

Shelflife wrote: »

the defending players have to put their feet somewhere, if you are lying on the wrong side, (and lets face it its very rare that a player gets into a position that they didnt want to be in or cant get out of) then you have to accept that you may get stood on.

alot of the "stamping" that people see is the scrum half trying to release the ball from the ruck area.

To add to this excellent observation, the consensus is that if the foot is being solely used to work the ball out and in a toe towards ground motion then it is fine. Anything else is illegal. Using the sole of a foot or using your foot on a player not near the ball should end with a penalty and a card. Look at 5 and 6 in here and they are fine.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7mvkYVRcfc

Black 6, in this second clip, on the other hand is illegal. The footage is very clear and shows clearly what not to do.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ci8pxxKX3Bs

locum-motion

You've put in the same clip twice there.

What year was that?

Losty Dublin wrote: »

To add to this excellent observation, the consensus is that if the foot is being solely used to work the ball out and in a toe towards ground motion then it is fine. Anything else is illegal. Using the sole of a foot or using your foot on a player not near the ball should end with a penalty and a card. Look at 5 and 6 in here and they are fine.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7mvkYVRcfc

Black 6, in this second clip, on the other hand is illegal. The footage is very clear and shows clearly what not to do.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7mvkYVRcfc

who_me

tolosenc wrote: »

Regarding THAT Zebo play earlier:

1. Did he actually play himself off side?
2. Isn't there something about not being allowed to kick the ball with you heel unless you're the hooker at a scrum?

Arguments flying back and forth here...

Not sure how you could play yourself offside But I thought I remembered some rule like that - a heel not being counted as a kick. If there was such a rule it's either ignored or gone; I seem to remember Geordan Murphy doing a pretty flamboyant backheel grubber kick which was obvious to see but wasn't penalised.

davidpfitz

tolosenc wrote: »

I guess the argument we're having here boils down to whether it's the ball or the kicker of the ball that sets the offside line.

I'm still not sure whether it was his heel or not, even in slo mo, but am I right about that being the rule?

It doesn't matter - hitting the ball with your foot is not a kick, as defined in the laws of the game:

Kick: A kick is made by hitting the ball with any part of the leg or foot, except the heel, from the toe to the knee but not including the knee; a kick must move the ball a visible distance out of the hand, or along the ground.

There's no reference in the laws to now being allowed to hit the ball with your heel, so so if the ball was on the ground, and you hit it down the pitch facing your own try line with your heel, players in front of you from your own team may not be considered offside!

davidpfitz

tolosenc wrote: »

Regarding THAT Zebo play earlier:

1. Did he actually play himself off side?
2. Isn't there something about not being allowed to kick the ball with you heel unless you're the hooker at a scrum?

Arguments flying back and forth here...

Not just the hooker - anyone in the front row. Law 20 (definition of a scrum):

A scrum is formed in the field of play when eight players from each team, bound together in three rows for each team, close up with their opponents so that the heads of the front rows are interlocked. This creates a tunnel into which a scrum half throws in the ball so that front row players can compete for possession by hooking the ball with either of their feet.

Losty Dublin

locum-motion wrote: »

You've put in the same clip twice there.

What year was that?

Thanks for that, man. Only getting on now so I've edited it accordingly

castie

For offside you must be in front of the kicker.
Since you cannot be in front of yourself then its a non issue.

locum-motion

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Thanks for that, man. Only getting on now so I've edited it accordingly

I was looking at that second clip and thinking "There's nothing wrong with that, his foot is on the ground beside the opposing player; he's not stamping at all."
Then Black 6 lifted his left foot and stood on a guys head.
"Ah, there it is!" said I.

Sundy

irishbucsfan wrote: »

The second example is one thats been used by teams I've played on. It's been used by other teams for years and is perfectly legit.



2) Mauls. This is where its extremely useful and I brought it to England with me. After a lineout just back away from the opposition. They walk the maul forward while sending the ball to the back. When the ball is at the back somebody makes a call and two defenders run arround the maul and go straight for the ball. Or else the ref blows for accidental offside if you're lucky and he's particularly clued in.

Thats illegal and you should be penalised for leaving the lineout before it is over.
You cant just step out of a lineout.