Laws Question? Ask here!

daveharnett

Risteard wrote: »

Yeah but now where in a situation where none of the props know when the 'engage' call is going to be made. It's the most annoying thing in the front row when you're set ready to engage and the ref delays the call.

That's more or less an admission that you are looking to 'beat' the other team to the engage. Which the law would suggest you shouldn't be. The pause was introduced to improve player safety, but it actually makes the engage more dangerous for everybody unless it is obeyed.

Top level referees had been shortening the pause (to avoid the perception of 'fussiness'), to the point where it was becoming "touchpauseengage". I have no problem with the IRB reminding the ref's of the pause's importance.

Risteard wrote: »

They should just take the hit out of it and make sure everyone is binding correctly before the ball is put in and that it goes in straight.

I think most referees, physios, and front rows over thirty would agree with you. The thing is, the engage makes for good tv, which seems to be a higher priority.

Taco Corp

When a team has a 22 drop out, you would often see teams passing ball around in the 22 and pretty much messing around. If the spill the ball over the 22, is it back in play? Or does the ball have to be a drop kicked back into play?

davidpfitz

Surley wrote: »

When a team has a 22 drop out, you would often see teams passing ball around in the 22 and pretty much messing around. If the spill the ball over the 22, is it back in play? Or does the ball have to be a drop kicked back into play?

It must be drop kicked ; there's a number of laws governing this area, but if the kicking team is taking the mick and throwing the ball around too much, they can get pinged:

Law 13.11: The drop-out must be taken without delay.
Penalty: Free Kick on the 22-metre line

Law 13.12 DROP-OUT INCORRECTLY TAKEN
If the ball is kicked with the wrong type of kick, or from the wrong place, the opposing team has two choices:
To have another drop-out, or to have a scrum at the centre of the 22-metre line and they throw in the ball.

castie

davidpfitz wrote: »

It must be drop kicked ; there's a number of laws governing this area, but if the kicking team is taking the mick and throwing the ball around too much, they can get pinged:

Law 13.11: The drop-out must be taken without delay.
Penalty: Free Kick on the 22-metre line

Law 13.12 DROP-OUT INCORRECTLY TAKEN
If the ball is kicked with the wrong type of kick, or from the wrong place, the opposing team has two choices:
To have another drop-out, or to have a scrum at the centre of the 22-metre line and they throw in the ball.

Quite often you hear ref's saying "Next one" meaning next guy you pass to has to kick it.

locum-motion

There is no time limit. It can go on until the team with the advantage gains a 'tactical or territorial' advantage. Andre Watson said at a meeting he addressed that I attended that it could in theory last for 40 minutes, but that a) for a scrum advantage: he considers it 'advantage over' if the team holding the advantage gets a clean ball out of a ruck or maul in the same or similar part of the pitch to where the scrum would have been, and b) for a penalty advantage inside the opponents 22, it's not 'advantage over' unless they get points on the board.

shawpower wrote: »

What's the actual rule with regards to the timing of an advantage? I've seen refs say advantage over after 20-30 seconds despite the attacking team not getting over the gainline, and I've seen other refs come back after 7-8-9-10 phases of play (Fitzgibbon - Leinster v Edinburgh in the 1st half for us).

If someone kicks ahead, normally it ends straight away regardless of whether any advantage is earned or not. On the flip side you can "kick ahead" by going for a drop goal, but that doesn't affect the advantage unless you score.

Very strange and arbitary. Is there actually any rules or guidelines involved? Don't get me wrong, I think the advantage law is a good one, but I'm just not clear on the exact rules of it.

davidpfitz

locum-motion wrote: »

There is no time limit. It can go on until the team with the advantage gains a 'tactical or territorial' advantage. Andre Watson said at a meeting he addressed that I attended that it could in theory last for 40 minutes, but that a) for a scrum advantage: he considers it 'advantage over' if the team holding the advantage gets a clean ball out of a ruck or maul in the same or similar part of the pitch to where the scrum would have been, and b) for a penalty advantage inside the opponents 22, it's not 'advantage over' unless they get points on the board.

I've often thought that on penalty advantage if a try isn't clearly "on", the attacking team should put up a garryowen into the in-goal area. Reasonable chance of a try coming off, but if not - come back for the penalty.

locum-motion

davidpfitz wrote: »

I've often thought that on penalty advantage if a try isn't clearly "on", the attacking team should put up a garryowen into the in-goal area. Reasonable chance of a try coming off, but if not - come back for the penalty.

Or go for a DG. If you miss, you get the pen.
Say you go for the garryowen try, and the winger or whoever touches/half catches the ball but fails to control it. The ref (if it's not Andre Watson!) might adjudicate that the advantage was over the moment the winger touched the ball, and that the subsequent knock on is a mistake in a separate phase of play. => 22 drop out.

Dr Nic

Hi Guys,
First year training with the firsts this year and i've seen some fairly brutal hand-offs in training.
And i want to do it too

But im wondering about the rules.
One of the Tongans playing with us literally smashes guys with the heel of his palm right into the 1st rib/throat/chin area. Its as close to a punch as you can get. With devastating consequences usually.

Is this legal?
Can you hand off to the face?
And if so, would this semi-punch be legal?
I doubt it, and i dont intend on busting anyone in the face. But i would smash them in the chest if i thought i could and it wasnt a peno.

What do you think?
Thanks!

Downtime

Dr Nic wrote: »

Hi Guys,
First year training with the firsts this year and i've seen some fairly brutal hand-offs in training.
And i want to do it too

But im wondering about the rules.
One of the Tongans playing with us literally smashes guys with the heel of his palm right into the 1st rib/throat/chin area. Its as close to a punch as you can get. With devastating consequences usually.

Is this legal?
Can you hand off to the face?
And if so, would this semi-punch be legal?
I doubt it, and i dont intend on busting anyone in the face. But i would smash them in the chest if i thought i could and it wasnt a peno.

What do you think?
Thanks!

A player in possession of the ball can hand off another player anywhere. There is no specific law to this. A player my not however strike and opponent with hand, arm, elbow etc. In my own view if a hand off is delivered at pace to the face using a semi closed fist I would look at it carefully and most likely penalize it.

randomname2005

davidpfitz wrote: »

It must be drop kicked ; there's a number of laws governing this area, but if the kicking team is taking the mick and throwing the ball around too much, they can get pinged:

Law 13.11: The drop-out must be taken without delay.
Penalty: Free Kick on the 22-metre line

Law 13.12 DROP-OUT INCORRECTLY TAKEN
If the ball is kicked with the wrong type of kick, or from the wrong place, the opposing team has two choices:
To have another drop-out, or to have a scrum at the centre of the 22-metre line and they throw in the ball.

There is also precedent for a penalty kick being given in front of the posts for delaying the drop out.

Downtime

randomname2005 wrote: »

There is also precedent for a penalty kick being given in front of the posts for delaying the drop out.

It would want to be an extreme case for this.

randomname2005

Downtime wrote: »

It would want to be an extreme case for this.

Im sure some of the Connaught supporters here will remember the time they were passing the ball around for a bit and a penalty was awarded against them, in the last minute of an away magners league match they were winning.

Downtime

randomname2005 wrote: »

Im sure some of the Connaught supporters here will remember the time they were passing the ball around for a bit and a penalty was awarded against them, in the last minute of an away magners league match they were winning.

Thats an extreme case - they were winning, last minute, and they were messing about and were told to use the ball.

randomname2005

Downtime wrote: »

Thats an extreme case - they were winning, last minute, and they were messing about and were told to use the ball.

I suppose extreme is subjective! Wanting to see the Irish team win, I didn't think it was an extreme case, but I do understand why it was seen as such by the ref.

For any players who might want to use similar tactics in the closing stages of a game, that is an option that the referee has.

davidpfitz

Dr Nic wrote: »

Hi Guys,
First year training with the firsts this year and i've seen some fairly brutal hand-offs in training.
And i want to do it too

But im wondering about the rules.
One of the Tongans playing with us literally smashes guys with the heel of his palm right into the 1st rib/throat/chin area. Its as close to a punch as you can get. With devastating consequences usually.

Is this legal?
Can you hand off to the face?
And if so, would this semi-punch be legal?
I doubt it, and i dont intend on busting anyone in the face. But i would smash them in the chest if i thought i could and it wasnt a peno.

What do you think?
Thanks!

My understanding has always been that a hand-off can be as brutal as you like (to the face is fine), but the key thing was that it must be done with a straight elbow. i.e. you can't 'spring' your hand into the opponents face. You must strike with a locked elbow. This way, there is limited force behind the hand-off - but it can still hurt a hell of a lot!

Clenched fist is obviously a no-no, so it has to be an open palm.

daveharnett

Risteard wrote: »

Yeah but now where in a situation where none of the props know when the 'engage' call is going to be made. It's the most annoying thing in the front row when you're set ready to engage and the ref delays the call.

They should just take the hit out of it and make sure everyone is binding correctly before the ball is put in and that it goes in straight.

The instructions from the IRB is to slow the sequence even further this year.

Their latest dvd also includes a reminder about getting the ball in straight. So, you might see the odd fk for it when the assessors are about

Daragh86

daveharnett wrote: »

The instructions from the IRB is to slow the sequence even further this year.

Their latest dvd also includes a reminder about getting the ball in straight. So, you might see the odd fk for it when the assessors are about

I've had three games so far this season at loosehead and haven't had a problem at all with the slowed down scrum sequence. In fact I might even prefere it as it gives you an extra couple of seconds to get your footing perfect. Everything is the same as before but a small bit slower. I think it's good news that refs are being educated on the scrum a bit more, I've been pulled up on a couple things I probably would have got away with last season.

Also before each game this season the refs have explained in detail and gone through the new sequence with the front rows so no one was left guessing. The engage call is a constant, just delayed more so than last season.

Daragh86

Risteard wrote: »

They should just take the hit out of it and make sure everyone is binding correctly before the ball is put in and that it goes in straight.

Why take the hit out? Who can scrummage without making a good hit? The hit is the most important part of the scrum and without it you may as well call it a very organised maul, you'd certainly cheer up the aussies with that thought.

daveharnett

Daragh86 wrote: »

I've had three games so far this season at loosehead and haven't had a problem at all with the slowed down scrum sequence. In fact I might even prefere it as it gives you an extra couple of seconds to get your footing perfect.

Delighted to hear it. I think it should make life easier for everybody - front rows can get a proper touch and get themselves set before the engage, and refs have a little more time to make sure everything is kosher.

Risteard

Daragh86 wrote: »

Why take the hit out? Who can scrummage without making a good hit? The hit is the most important part of the scrum and without it you may as well call it a very organised maul, you'd certainly cheer up the aussies with that thought.

Well the scrum has to be stationary before the ball goes in anyway it just means that the players won't be flying into each other and makes it easier for everybody to get a proper bind and for the ref to ensure proper binding.

Anyway I don't think the slower sequence is much of an issue now as it's been gotten used to.

Also Australia with their first choice front row actually have a decent scrum. I'm not sure why everyone keeps saying they have a **** scrum.

Daragh86

Risteard wrote: »

Well the scrum has to be stationary before the ball goes in anyway it just means that the players won't be flying into each other and makes it easier for everybody to get a proper bind and for the ref to ensure proper binding.

Anyway I don't think the slower sequence is much of an issue now as it's been gotten used to.

Also Australia with their first choice front row actually have a decent scrum. I'm not sure why everyone keeps saying they have a **** scrum.

In the rule book it says the scrum has to be stationary but that doesn't mean that no one is putting pressure on. The hit in the scrum sets you up for the rest. On the hit you shouldn't ease off on any pressure at all, maintain the pressure then when the ball comes in let loose! (or if you want to chance your arm get the jump on just before the ball) I couldn't imagine a scrum that leans together then suddenly push when the ball comes in, it would be a dreadful mess! It'd be more like a league scrum then. If you take away the hit in the scrum your one step closer to the dreaded rugby league :eek:

Aus actually do have a very decent front row at the moment but in the past when things weren't good for them up front they had a good whinge and moan about the scrum. No doubt in years to come if they go downhill again they'll have another moan. :rolleyes:

Risteard

Daragh86 wrote: »

In the rule book it says the scrum has to be stationary but that doesn't mean that no one is putting pressure on. The hit in the scrum sets you up for the rest. On the hit you shouldn't ease off on any pressure at all, maintain the pressure then when the ball comes in let loose! (or if you want to chance your arm get the jump on just before the ball) I couldn't imagine a scrum that leans together then suddenly push when the ball comes in, it would be a dreadful mess! It'd be more like a league scrum then. If you take away the hit in the scrum your one step closer to the dreaded rugby league :eek:

I suppose. I was just saying in my view that most scrum collapse come from the hit and that might have something to do with it. Though that was a few months ago, I've noticed that there seems to be some reduction in collapses though.

Aus actually do have a very decent front row at the moment but in the past when things weren't good for them up front they had a good whinge and moan about the scrum. No doubt in years to come if they go downhill again they'll have another moan. :rolleyes:

True. I wouldn't put it past them. They're looking **** hot in most facets of play now though (except defence)

davidpfitz

Daragh86 wrote: »

Why take the hit out?

Because (a) over time, it can cause serious injuries to players, and (b) that's the origination point for most failed scrums and slows down the game.

Watch this video. You'll notice there's no 'hit', per-se. The packs bind, and scrum. It's done quickly, and with power. Scrums in those days were not diminished by the lack of a hit... but it did mean the game got restarted faster and more reliably. In this case, from the point that the referee signaled 'scrum', right through to when the ball came out of the scrum is 13 seconds. You wouldn't see that today - they'd faff around for a couple of minutes, and re-set a few times.

Edit: It was a cracker of a try, too!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vbMena5qy4

Daragh86

davidpfitz wrote: »

Because (a) over time, it can cause serious injuries to players, and (b) that's the origination point for most failed scrums and slows down the game.

Watch this video. You'll notice there's no 'hit', per-se. The packs bind, and scrum. It's done quickly, and with power. Scrums in those days were not diminished by the lack of a hit... but it did mean the game got restarted faster and more reliably. In this case, from the point that the referee signaled 'scrum', right through to when the ball came out of the scrum is 13 seconds. You wouldn't see that today - they'd faff around for a couple of minutes, and re-set a few times.

In fairness I don't think any part of rugby now and 84 can be compared, it is a totally different game.

If I was as unfit as some of those front rowers playing I wouldn't want to make a hit either!

In general I find all comments such as this come from (no offence intended) people who are uneducated on the scrum. I can understand the frustration it must cause for the backs standing around in the rain.

A scrum without a hit just won't work these days and rugby union without a scrum just isn't rugby and not worth playing. In the SA coach's words, why don't we all go down to the dance shop and get tutus. :rolleyes:

davidpfitz

Daragh86 wrote: »

In fairness I don't think any part of rugby now and 84 can be compared, it is a totally different game.

Sure, you're right - it's just not always different for the better.

If I was as unfit as some of those front rowers playing I wouldn't want to make a hit either!

You could argue that modern players have much more rest time while the scrum is going on. All that waiting around allows you to catch your breath!

Daragh86

davidpfitz wrote: »

You could argue that modern players have much more rest time while the scrum is going on. All that waiting around allows you to catch your breath!

Try play front row, you don't get a rest at scrum time. Believe me we don't want the scrums to collapse either, it's incredibly tiring hitting scrum after scrum. And we don't get a break at the lineout either!

You backs with your colourful boots and hair gel have it all too easy!

daveharnett

22.12 BALL OR PLAYER TOUCHING A FLAG OR FLAG (CORNER) POST
If the ball or a player carrying the ball touches a flag or a flag (corner) post at the intersection of the touch-in-goal lines and the goal lines or at the intersection of the touch-in-goal lines and the dead ball lines without otherwise being in touch or touch-in-goal the ball is not out of play unless it is first grounded against a flag post.

So that's the law. Now what does it mean in the scenario where a ball is kicked and touches the corner flag?

My reading is that the flag (and the 'post' that supports it) is considered a non-entity, and play continues - provided the ball bounces back into the field of play/goal area. Can anybody confirm?

Now, for the harder parts.

• The base of the corner flag is touch-in-goal. A ball which is kicked dead directly over the flag is also considered to be kicked into touch-in-goal?
  
• An attacking ball is kicked along the ground, bounces against the flag, and lands in touch. Lineout 5m or 22 drop-out? (ie is it in touch, or touch-in-goal?)
  
• A ball is kicked against the flag on the full, and then lands in touch. Does gain-in-ground apply (ie has it bounced in the field of play)?

JustinDee

daveharnett wrote: »

Now, for the harder parts.

• The base of the corner flag is touch-in-goal. A ball which is kicked dead directly over the flag is also considered to be kicked into touch-in-goal?

Yes

daveharnett wrote: »

An attacking ball is kicked along the ground, bounces against the flag, and lands in touch. Lineout 5m or 22 drop-out? (ie is it in touch, or touch-in-goal?)

Lineout on the 5

daveharnett wrote: »

A ball is kicked against the flag on the full, and then lands in touch. Does gain-in-ground apply (ie has it bounced in the field of play)?

No. Its out on the full.

There my answers anyway.
Do I win a prize?

daveharnett

JustinDee wrote: »

Do I win a prize?

You get to TJ my U15 game in Kilfeakle on Sunday morning

Downtime

daveharnett wrote: »

You get to TJ my U15 game in Kilfeakle on Sunday morning

Booby prize