Laws Question? Ask here!

Swiwi · 04-03-2013 7:33pm

kensutz wrote: »

What rules? All I know are laws

And aside from the know-it-all, there is of course the pedant

Shelflife · 04-03-2013 7:35pm

ahhh but the pendant is Technically Correct, The best type of correct !!

pickarooney · 04-03-2013 9:37pm

Shelflife wrote: »

ahhh but the pendant is Technically Correct, The best type of correct !!

Ahm, you let a mistake slip in there.

locum-motion · 05-03-2013 1:28am

Before posting earlier today I watched the first video. Then I got interrupted and I'm only getting back to it now. I've just watched the second video, and I'm listening to the radio interview.

In the second video, the TMO said that Halal committed a foul act. That much is clear, and fair enough. He then says "take him out of the equation, therfore yellow... gold would have scored a try".

So, what he is saying is that Savea would have scored if he had been the only player there. This is true. However, I don't think it's fair to remove the player entirely from the equation. Had Halal been present, but not committed a foul act (ie if he had attempted to legally ground the ball himself), then it is unlikely that Savea would have scored. As Deaker says, "surely common sense would suggest, you remove the action made by a player, not the player, out of the equation"

Lyndon Bray's answer doesn't really answer the question directly, but what I think he's saying is that he'd interpret it that way as well (as in, the same way as Deaker does). Bray talks about the other example, of a player comitting a high tackle, and he mentions that you've to consider the possibility that the player might have made a legal tackle. Therefore, the SANZAR referees' manager thinks that the TMO's decision was wrong.

So, MY answers to your 2 questions are:
The decision in the Dagg example was correct.
The decision in the Savea example was incorrect.

Swiwi wrote: »

Any refs out there, I would be interested to know your professional views on 2 controversial TMO decisions in the SXV to date

1) Dagg is tackled by Ranger, but gets up again and crosses the chalk. TMO rules he didn't release the ball when first tackled, and try is disallowed. I do know that knee on the ground = tackled, but how long does it take before you are considered "held in the tackle", and therefore obliged to release the ball, rather than get up and continue running? (Blues v Crusaders)

2) Halal & Savea chase grubber kick into in-goal. Halal bats the ball into touch, TMO rules deliberate, penalty try is given, and Halal gets a YC. I wasn't at all sure that it was deliberate (Savea has his arm on Halal's), and even if it was deliberate, I'm not sure Savea would have definitely scored a try anyway. (Blues v Canes)

Footage here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ghEQ5iJt3A&list=UUpqdSLHXz6u9QPWflAbhyPw&index=5 (from 8:52)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEmuRcZiUbg (from 5:25)

Swiwi wrote: »

Thanks to Radio Sport NZ for answering my Q...are there no refs out there on boards?

http://radiosport.co.nz/player/ondemand/1425119180-lyndon-bray-on-referees

Sundy · 05-03-2013 7:18am

kensutz wrote: »

What rules? All I know are laws

Well then you should get to know the laws a bit better. The IRB regulating make rulings on laws.

Tim Robbins · 06-03-2013 11:58am

Sundy wrote: »

Well then you should get to know the laws a bit better. The IRB regulating make rulings on laws.

This thing about calling them laws is a bit silly

The words "law and "rule" are used inter changeably like fly out / out half and ten.

For Paws · 06-03-2013 12:14pm

Tim Robbins wrote: »

This thing about calling them laws is a bit silly The words "law and "rule" are used inter changeably like fly out / out half and ten.

Do the IRB use the words "law and "rule" inter changeably ?

Do referees, or assistant referees, or TMOs ?

Who, in your opinion, when referring to rugby union, uses these words inter changeably ?

Theta · 06-03-2013 12:38pm

Tim Robbins wrote: »

This thing about calling them laws is a bit silly The words "law and "rule" are used inter changeably like fly out / out half and ten.

There is a difference, laws have a legal standing I think whereas rules dont. Similarly to the way we have laws regarding motoring but we have the rules of the road on how to drive (these have no legal penalty for breaking them really).

Tim Robbins · 06-03-2013 12:40pm

For Paws wrote: »

Do the IRB use the words "law and "rule" inter changeably ?

Do referees, or assistant referees, or TMOs ?

Who, in your opinion, when referring to rugby union, uses these words inter changeably ?

Me. I also use words like "pillar" and "sack" which aren't in the laws either.

Theta wrote:

There is a difference, laws have a legal standing I think whereas rules dont. Similarly to the way we have laws regarding motoring but we have the rules of the road on how to drive (these have no legal penalty for breaking them really).

Yeah so the word law is a bad use of the word by the IRB. It's a historical thing as the original "law" was written by a few "lawyer".

But I wouldn't get my nickers twisted over it now.

Theta · 06-03-2013 12:46pm

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Me. I also use words like "pillar" and "sack" which aren't in the laws either.

Yeah so the word law is a bad use of the word by the IRB. It's a historical thing as the original "law" was written by a few "lawyer".

But I wouldn't get my nickers twisted over it now.

I thought it had to do with the way the IRB disciplined players which is far more like a legal hearing for breaking a law than lets say football where they are just given a ban for breaking a rule no?

Tim Robbins · 06-03-2013 12:49pm

Theta wrote: »

I thought it had to do with the way the IRB disciplined players which is far more like a legal hearing for breaking a law than lets say football where they are just given a ban for breaking a rule no?

No technically there are laws about knocking on - there are no rules.

Civil law is an entirely different matter.

For Paws · 06-03-2013 1:54pm

The rules of the game of Rugby Union are called The Laws. Cricket also has Laws rather than rules.
Whoever first laid down the initial methodology decided to call them 'Laws' instead of rules or chicken nuggets or whatever.
Why they did so doesn't really matter. But they have always been called 'Laws'.

So if you're talking about or referring to Rugby Union then please use 'Laws'.
Simples.

(I regularly refer to the ball as the 'pigskin', and yet oddly enough I can find no mention of the word 'pigskin' in the Laws)

Tim Robbins · 06-03-2013 2:33pm

For Paws wrote: »

So if you're talking about or referring to Rugby Union then please use 'Laws'.
Simples.

Language evolves.

For Paws · 06-03-2013 3:19pm

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Language evolves.

Ah, you are quite correct Tim.

Personally, I look forward to the time when the evolution of language will have all referring to the governing principles of the game as
'The Chicken Nuggets of Rugby Union'

But until that great day ...

Tim Robbins · 06-03-2013 3:21pm

For Paws wrote: »

Ah, you are quite correct Tim.

Personally, I look forward to the time when the evolution of language will have all referring to the governing principles of the game as
'The Chicken Nuggets of Rugby Union'

But until that great day ...

People regularly refer to them as rules. It is a better word and makes more sense. Some people cling to law to express some pedantry (something I am not immune to myself so I should not complain). Also, some people refer to Rugby as Football but Rugby make more sense even if they are technically not incorrect. Anyway, I think we are going off topic so I'll give you the last word.

For Paws · 06-03-2013 3:35pm

Tim Robbins wrote: »

People regularly refer to them as rules. It is a better word and makes more sense. Some people cling to law to express some pedantry (something I am not immune to myself so I should not complain). Also, some people refer to Rugby as Football but Rugby make more sense even if they are technically not incorrect. Anyway, I think we are going off topic so I'll give you the last word.

Yet again, I'm amused by the use of 'pedantry' to refer to the practice of using the correct word in the correct manner.

I understand that 'rules' has a similar meaning to 'laws' in the context of rugby.
But is it correct ?. And if it is not, is it important to use the correct word ?.
To me, it is. But that's just me, a crazy old fool.

Losty Dublin · 06-03-2013 5:58pm

For Paws wrote: »

Yet again, I'm amused by the use of 'pedantry' to refer to the practice of using the correct word in the correct manner.

I understand that 'rules' has a similar meaning to 'laws' in the context of rugby.
But is it correct ?. And if it is not, is it important to use the correct word ?.
To me, it is. But that's just me, a crazy old fool.

Look on it like this; if they don't know that the game is played under Laws and not rules then what little hope have they of knowing the contents of the Law Book in the first place?

Sundy · 07-03-2013 4:31am

For Paws wrote: »

So if you're talking about or referring to Rugby Union then please use 'Laws'.
Simples.

What about if you are referring to rulings on laws?

To be honest people just use the laws & rules thing to draw attention to how superior they think their knowledge is.

The most important thing about the Laws is knowing how to interpret them. If you don't know that, you don't know shit.

irishbucsfan · 07-03-2013 6:45am

For Paws wrote: »

Yet again, I'm amused by the use of 'pedantry' to refer to the practice of using the correct word in the correct manner.

That's exactly what a pedant would say, j'accuse!

pickarooney · 07-03-2013 7:42am

A rule is applied, a law is interpreted. You would not need a referee if there were rules.

Swiwi · 07-03-2013 8:08am

For Paws wrote: »

Yet again, I'm amused by the use of 'pedantry' to refer to the practice. But that's just me, a crazy old fool.

As long as you mean pedantry and not pederasty - otherwise I'd tell you to b*gg*r off... :pac::pac::pac:

City boy turned country · 07-03-2013 9:11am

Hi,

Can someone answer a question for me? Sorry about the length of this message want to make sure all info is available

When can players break from a scrum? Is it when the no.8/scrum half has their hands on the ball or is it when the ball has been taken out of the scrum?

We had a game on Sunday and the opposition SH kept scragging our SH by basically going over the back of our number 8. At half time, I told my number 8 to stand up when he sees our SH has his hands on the ball as the ball is live and this would(i was going to say block but that is obviously illegal) make it more difficult for their SH to get to ours.

The first time he did it their SH ended up on his ass as he was laying on his back and the referee pinged our 8 for breaking early. However when he asked (he's the captain) what he did wrong, the referee told him that though our SH had hands on the ball (the ref said he seen his hands on the ball) he hadn't lifted the ball so it was still in. Now there was literally 2 seconds between the SH putting hands on the ball and the ball being passed, it's not like he stood there waiting to see what would happen.

I have always been under the impression that as the SH is not part of the scrum (as in not bound to any part of it) so once he touches the ball at the no.8's feet, it's live.

irishbucsfan · 07-03-2013 9:28am

Generally I'd consider the ball to be out when the scrum half picks it rather than putting their hands on. That interpretation may not follow the wording of the law precisely but it does stay within the spirit of it while allowing 9s to adjust the ball before they pass it.

Realistically there's no way your 8 should gave to break to protect the 9. Unless he's the shortest man on the planet or the oppo 9 is 8 feet tall! He must have been a bit inexperienced at 8?

Tim Robbins · 07-03-2013 10:34am

This is a good question. At a higher level, either 8 or scrum half will wipe it out very quickly so you can take a literal interpretation on when the scrum ends. At lower levels, you need to remember that say for an 8 to break and pick up the ball will take a few seconds longer. So I think the at lower levels I wouldn't apply the laws literally.

To prevent this happening you can always shout at the defending scrum half he has to have two feet behind the ball and be very strict on this.

Obviously, if you have a dumb ass 8 or attacking scrum half they deserve to be creamed. Just give them a split second longer. And you can always shout "Scrum over" then no-one can complain.

It's very similar to the ruck.

You get a cleaner game if you don't apply the laws as literally as you would at the upper levels but at the same time you have to allow a fair contest etc. So interpret the laws rather than re-write them.

Losty Dublin · 07-03-2013 2:04pm

The scrum ends when...

The ball leaves the scrum except via the tunnel.
When the ball is at the feet of the hindmost player and he unbinds (note, this is not specific to the number 8 being that player).
When the ball in a scrum crosses over the goal line.

A player may not handle the ball when it's in the scrum but the scrum half may only play the ball when the ball is at the hindmost players feet; there is no entitlement for them to reach in to a scrum to play the ball. If the hindmost player touches his hands on the ball he has broken his bind and the scrum is over. If he or any player break when the ball has not left the scrum then it's a penalty for an early unbind.

In real terms this means that a scrum half may either pick up and run or pass the ball but it needs to be done that instant at risk of a free kick for dummying or nor releasing the ball at the scrum or in this case an early break penalty.

In short, the ball has to leave the scrum for it to be over which didn't happen in this case.

City boy turned country wrote: »

Hi,

Can someone answer a question for me? Sorry about the length of this message want to make sure all info is available

When can players break from a scrum? Is it when the no.8/scrum half has their hands on the ball or is it when the ball has been taken out of the scrum?

We had a game on Sunday and the opposition SH kept scragging our SH by basically going over the back of our number 8. At half time, I told my number 8 to stand up when he sees our SH has his hands on the ball as the ball is live and this would(i was going to say block but that is obviously illegal) make it more difficult for their SH to get to ours.

The first time he did it their SH ended up on his ass as he was laying on his back and the referee pinged our 8 for breaking early. However when he asked (he's the captain) what he did wrong, the referee told him that though our SH had hands on the ball (the ref said he seen his hands on the ball) he hadn't lifted the ball so it was still in. Now there was literally 2 seconds between the SH putting hands on the ball and the ball being passed, it's not like he stood there waiting to see what would happen.

I have always been under the impression that as the SH is not part of the scrum (as in not bound to any part of it) so once he touches the ball at the no.8's feet, it's live.

For Paws · 15-03-2013 5:02pm

Just seen something (play that ended the Waratahs vs Cheetahs Super 15 game Fri 15th March).
Ref ruled ball was held up, ruck never formed, scrum to tackling / defending side, no side.
But it seems to me that the tackler most directly preventing the tackled player going to ground was himself on the ground underneath the ball carrier and had not released the ball carrier.
Surely this should have resulted in a penalty to the attacking side -'tackler not releasing'.

Comments ??

kensutz · 15-03-2013 5:17pm

For Paws wrote: »

Just seen something (play that ended the Waratahs vs Cheetahs Super 15 game Fri 15th March).
Ref ruled ball was held up, ruck never formed, scrum to tackling / defending side, no side.
But it seems to me that the tackler most directly preventing the tackled player going to ground was himself on the ground underneath the ball carrier and had not released the ball carrier.
Surely this should have resulted in a penalty to the attacking side -'tackler not releasing'.

Comments ??

Was it a maul? If it was then there is no obligation for the player to be released after being brought to ground. If the ball is unavailable to be played immediately then it is a scrum to the other team.

For Paws · 15-03-2013 5:47pm

kensutz wrote: »

Was it a maul? If it was then there is no obligation for the player to be released after being brought to ground. If the ball is unavailable to be played immediately then it is a scrum to the other team.

I did not hear the Ref say maul, either when the play was underway, or when it ended, but it would seem he ruled it a maul.

But,

If the defending team brings a maul to ground are they
(a) collapsing a maul
(b) still obligated to release the tackled player
(c) if on the ground (off their feet), not entitled to play the ball or any other player

Surely a maul only continues whilst the players involved remain on their feet.
Then, the ball not being available, a restart (scrum) is awarded to the defending side. If however, any player in the maul goes to ground, they must retreat behind the hindmost foot, or risk being adjudged offside.
How then can a tackler, lying on his back on the ground, continue to hold ball carrier (legally) ?

It seems that the Ref adjudged that the maul collapsed not as the result of foul play - Law 17.6(b)
whereas it seemed clear to me that the original tackler never released, even when he went to ground, and that he did so almost immediately after making the tackle, and the 'maul' continued even after the tackler had gone to ground, ie; foul play.

sydthebeat · 15-03-2013 7:12pm

its my understanding that if a player brings ball into contact, a ruck doesn't form and the ball is made unplayable, the attacking team looses possession as its their responsibility to get the ball available.

A tackler who CANNOT roll away obviously cannot... so if the attacking player is lying on top of him and other bodies join then so be it.

Its not really an unusual situation.

For Paws · 15-03-2013 8:04pm

sydthebeat wrote: »

its my understanding that if a player brings ball into contact, a ruck doesn't form and the ball is made unplayable, the attacking team looses possession as its their responsibility to get the ball available.

A tackler who CANNOT roll away obviously cannot... so if the attacking player is lying on top of him and other bodies join then so be it.

Its not really an unusual situation.

A player becoming trapped in a ruck or maul situation is not unusual.
And it is not unusual to see players claiming they were trapped after being penalised for not rolling away.

But in the situation I cited the tackler had kept his arms wrapped around the ball carrier, thus preventing release, whilst being himself on the ground.
He was not only, imo, failing to roll away, but also not attempting to do so, as his energies were focused on keeping the ball carrier in a bear hug.