Laws Question? Ask here!

b.gud

Clearlier wrote: »

As an aside it was interesting to note when reading regulation 8 that there is a small loophole with the restrictions on international eligibility where it seems that if someone plays for a country before they have reached the age of majority (usually 18) they could play for another country after they have reached the age of majority.

This probably wouldn't be that much of a loophole as U18, and for most tier 1 countries U20 as well, games wouldn't normally be considered the countries second team so caps for those teams don't rule you as ineligible.

For instance Eoghan Masterson at Connacht has represented Ireland and Scotland at U20 level, and Emerging Ireland but he still isn't locked into either of the countries because in Ireland the two teams that lock you in are the senior team and the Wolfhounds. In Scotland I'm not sure which team they have designated as their second team but it's not the U20s anyway.

Wales are the only tier 1 team that I can think of that have their U20s as the second team. I remember recently, possibly last year, there were a couple of players who were eligible for Wales and England who were called into the U20s Wales squad but pulled out before playing as they didn't want to be locked in to Wales for the sake of a couple of U20s games

Clearlier

b.gud wrote: »

This probably wouldn't be that much of a loophole as U18, and for most tier 1 countries U20 as well, games wouldn't normally be considered the countries second team so caps for those teams don't rule you as ineligible.

For instance Eoghan Masterson at Connacht has represented Ireland and Scotland at U20 level, and Emerging Ireland but he still isn't locked into either of the countries because in Ireland the two teams that lock you in are the senior team and the Wolfhounds. In Scotland I'm not sure which team they have designated as their second team but it's not the U20s anyway.

Wales are the only tier 1 team that I can think of that have their U20s as the second team. I remember recently, possibly last year, there were a couple of players who were eligible for Wales and England who were called into the U20s Wales squad but pulled out before playing as they didn't want to be locked in to Wales for the sake of a couple of U20s games

I wasn't aware that anyone had nominated their underage team as their 2nd team (it's a bit of a nonsense having a 2nd team IMO).

The loophole I was talking about is much smaller and highly unlikely to occur. It's where someone plays for the senior international team at the age of 17. According to my reading of the regulation they wouldn't not be bound to that country as they won't have reached the age of majority (assuming that it's 18 as it is in most places).

The Lost Sheep

Clearlier wrote: »

I wasn't aware that anyone had nominated their underage team as their 2nd team (it's a bit of a nonsense having a 2nd team IMO).

The loophole I was talking about is much smaller and highly unlikely to occur. It's where someone plays for the senior international team at the age of 17. According to my reading of the regulation they wouldn't not be bound to that country as they won't have reached the age of majority (assuming that it's 18 as it is in most places).

I don't see how its "a bit of nonsense having a 2nd team". Why is it?

There isn't any loophole as the regulations clearly state you are entitled to represent just one nation.

Clearlier

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

I don't see how its "a bit of nonsense having a 2nd team". Why is it?

I see it as a bit of a nonsense having a 2nd team because there isn't actually a second team. It made a lot more sense in the days of 'A' and (showing my age a little) 'B' internationals but I don't think that it does these days when the 2nd team depends on the nomination of the union and is not consistent across the board. I think that it would make more sense to simply limit it to capped internationals.

N.B. This is just my opinion and I don't generally think that it's a big deal.

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

There isn't any loophole as the regulations clearly state you are entitled to represent just one nation.

You would think that and I did too until I read the regulation.

For the purposes of this Regulation, a Player is deemed to have played for the senior fifteen-a-side National Representative Team or the next senior fifteen-a-side National Representative Team of a Union if:
...
[lots of bits about what actually playing for a team constitutes]
...
and has, at the time of the Match reached the age of majority

The point I'm making is that if somebody plays for a country before they have reached the age of majority then for the purposes regulation 8 they will not be deemed to have played for that country.

This opening a slightly unlikely loophole where someone who has for example dual eligibility plays for one country at the age of 17 and another at 18. They wouldn't be allowed to represent the first country again of course.

It's basically saying that deciding which country to represent is an adult decision that a minor cannot take.

It would be a rare situation where this could arise but I guess you could imagine a scenario where a very talented player was selected for a minor rugby country like Switzerland at the age of 17 and then picked up by a French club who subtly pressurise him to prioritise the club ahead of the country and who is then selected to play for France either after a residency period or if they already had dual eligibility.

The Lost Sheep

Clearlier wrote: »

I see it as a bit of a nonsense having a 2nd team because there isn't actually a second team. It made a lot more sense in the days of 'A' and (showing my age a little) 'B' internationals but I don't think that it does these days when the 2nd team depends on the nomination of the union and is not consistent across the board. I think that it would make more sense to simply limit it to capped internationals
N.B. This is just my opinion and I don't generally think that it's a big deal.

But then some international games are not capped and others are. I don't think its a nonsense that there is a second team. Yes the differences between nations and their second team can be an issue but it wont change. There will always be room to move nation for some reason and having a second team will play a role in this.

The point I'm making is that if somebody plays for a country before they have reached the age of majority then for the purposes regulation 8 they will not be deemed to have played for that country.

I don't think so as regulations clearly state in 8.2 that if you have played for the senior International team or the 7s side of a country you cant play for another nation.

Clearlier

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

I don't think so as regulations clearly state in 8.2 that if you have played for the senior International team or the 7s side of a country you cant play for another nation.

Regulation 8.2 does do that but 8.3 talks about how you determine if someone has played for the senior international team, the 2nd international team or the 7's side and it states exactly what I quoted in my previous post. i.e. for the purposes of regulation 8 you will only be deemed to have played for the senior international side, 7's etc. if you have reached the age of majority.

I don't think that it's a stretch to say that this means that if you're 17 years old then for the purposes of regulation 8 you haven't yet committed yourself to a country for international rugby even if you have represented one.

Podge_irl

b.gud wrote: »

Wales are the only tier 1 team that I can think of that have their U20s as the second team. I remember recently, possibly last year, there were a couple of players who were eligible for Wales and England who were called into the U20s Wales squad but pulled out before playing as they didn't want to be locked in to Wales for the sake of a couple of U20s games

France also I believe. I may be wrong here, but I think playing for Wales U20 only makes you ineligible for other teams if you played versus France? Having an U20 team as a "second" team is a joke anyway - they should just not have a designated second team if that was possible.

pickarooney

The France v Wales U20 game is the only one in the six nations that can lock any players in. It could happen that a dual English/Welsh player deliberately misses this match to keep his options open a while longer.

Quin_Dub

Podge_irl wrote: »

France also I believe. I may be wrong here, but I think playing for Wales U20 only makes you ineligible for other teams if you played versus France? Having an U20 team as a "second" team is a joke anyway - they should just not have a designated second team if that was possible.

pickarooney wrote: »

The France v Wales U20 game is the only one in the six nations that can lock any players in. It could happen that a dual English/Welsh player deliberately misses this match to keep his options open a while longer.

Really?

So if a Welsh player played against Ireland at U20 for example , they can choose another country afterwards?

I thought that it was the case that if you played for the "nominated 2nd team" (U20's in Wales case) then that was it , regardless of who they played against?

Interesting if that is the case - Wonder if many potential dual status guys might "pull a hammy" before the French fixture to keep their options open later??

The Lost Sheep

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Really?

So if a Welsh player played against Ireland at U20 for example, they can choose another country afterwards?

I thought that it was the case that if you played for the "nominated 2nd team" (U20's in Wales case) then that was it, regardless of who they played against?

Interesting if that is the case - Wonder if many potential dual status guys might "pull a hammy" before the French fixture to keep their options open later??

Yes. If your country has the under 20s team as their nominated second side you are tied to that country only if you play in a game against another country that also has their under 20s team as the nominated second side. It was clarified recently due to players

Connacht signed a pair who were believed to have been eligible for Ireland but they played welsh 20s v France so were ineligible. If they had played all sides but france they would have been eligible for Ireland
http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/duo-not-eligible-for-ireland-1.573576

A couple of players have been pulled out of teams at 20s level in case they would get tied to that country in recent years...

The Lost Sheep

A number of minor law amendments, approved and announced in September 2015, come into effect from 1 July in the northern hemisphere having already been implemented in the southern hemisphere since the start of the year.

The June tests will be played under the current laws of the game, with the exception of the maul application guideline, which applies from 1 June (see below). Any international tournament that begins in June but overlaps into July will be played under current law.

The implementation of the package of law amendments by World Rugby Council follows detailed analysis and evaluation of union submissions by the specialist Law Review Group (LRG) which reports to the Rugby Committee. This evaluation process also featured specialist input from the Scrum Steering Group (SSG) and the Multi-Disciplinary Injury Prevention Group (MDIPG) over the past year and is the next phase of the law change process.

The main amendments are:
The replacement of a player injured following foul play does not count as one of the allotted number of replacements available to that team
Advantage may be played following a scrum collapse if there is no risk to player safety
Play acting or “simulation” is specifically outlawed in the game in a move that formalises resistance to a practice that has been creeping into the game in recent years. Any player who dives or feigns injury in an effort to influence the match officials will be liable for sanction
Teams must be ready to form a scrum within 30 seconds of the scrum being awarded, unless the referee stops the clock for an injury or another stoppage
At a re-set scrum following a 90-degree wheel, the ball is thrown in by the team that previously threw it in rather than the team not in possession
The scrum-half of the team not in possession at a scrum may not move into the space between the flanker and number eight
When the ball has been at the number eight’s feet in a stationary scrum for 3-5 seconds, the referee will call “use it” and the attacking team must use the ball immediately
http://www.worldrugby.org/news/165437

Thoughts on these?

Clearlier

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

The main amendments are:
The replacement of a player injured following foul play does not count as one of the allotted number of replacements available to that team

Possible blonde moment here but I don't see what the practical implications of this are? You're already allowed to use all of your subs.

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Advantage may be played following a scrum collapse if there is no risk to player safety

From a playing point of view this is a good change but I'm hoping that some kind of research has been done about how well referees can identify risks to player safety in scrums.

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Play acting or “simulation” is specifically outlawed in the game in a move that formalises resistance to a practice that has been creeping into the game in recent years. Any player who dives or feigns injury in an effort to influence the match officials will be liable for sanction

It's a shame that there's a need for this to come in and I hope that it doesn't in a perverse way push people to get better at simulating injury.

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Teams must be ready to form a scrum within 30 seconds of the scrum being awarded, unless the referee stops the clock for an injury or another stoppage

Was there really a problem here that needed to be addressed? Wonder how referees feel about adding another thing to check? I assume that it will only come into play if a team is being stupid and trying to slow down the game.

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

At a re-set scrum following a 90-degree wheel, the ball is thrown in by the team that previously threw it in rather than the team not in possession

This may help with deliberate wheels but you'll still get the step to one side and push movements, it could lead to a greater number of wheeled scrums as one defensive tactic against the step to one side (which is not always spotted by referees) is to whip the scrum around and although IIRC it's still a penalty offence to deliberately wheel a scrum if one teams steps to the side first and the other team pushes on I can easily see a referee calling it as six of one and half a dozen of the other. There's potential for this to lead to messier scrums I think.

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

The scrum-half of the team not in possession at a scrum may not move into the space between the flanker and number eight

Good positive step. The only reason for a scrum half to be in that position is to disrupt. Hopefully this step will clean up the game a little.

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

When the ball has been at the number eight’s feet in a stationary scrum for 3-5 seconds, the referee will call “use it” and the attacking team must use the ball immediately

What's the sanction? Scrum turnover? (I tried clicking on the link within your link but I'm getting a mimecast page which looks very much like a phishing site to me which makes me worried about what's got on my computer). Was this a problem that really needed to be addressed?

sydthebeat

Clearlier wrote: »

Possible blonde moment here but I don't see what the practical implications of this are? You're already allowed to use all of your subs.

yes, but you cannot bring back in a player that was tactically substituted.

so how this will impact would be in a situation like this.

65 mins gone, team A has made all substitutions.
No 8 from team B knees Teams A's lock in the back and the lock cannot continue.

therefore for the rest of the game Team A must play with 14 players and with 7 in the scrum and with a player out of position in the row.

this law change would prevent that as the lock could be replaced.

Quin_Dub

sydthebeat wrote: »

yes, but you cannot bring back in a player that was tactically substituted.

so how this will impact would be in a situation like this.

65 mins gone, team A has made all substitutions.
No 8 from team B knees Teams A's lock in the back and the lock cannot continue.

therefore for the rest of the game Team A must play with 14 players and with 7 in the scrum and with a player out of position in the row.

this law change would prevent that as the lock could be replaced.

Not quite sure how they'll police that one to be honest..

In circumstances where a guy gets injured right there and then (taken out in the air and gets knocked out for example) it's fairly clear , it'll be a card of some colour for the offender and the other guy goes straight off..

But in your example above , let's say Lock A tries to run it off but doesn't succeed and needs to be replaced 5-10 minutes after the act of foul play , but still as a direct result of it...

Who decides if that is covered under this new ruling?

In principle I agree with the concept , just think it could get very messy for referees to adjudicate.

sydthebeat

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Not quite sure how they'll police that one to be honest..

In circumstances where a guy gets injured right there and then (taken out in the air and gets knocked out for example) it's fairly clear , it'll be a card of some colour for the offender and the other guy goes straight off..

But in your example above , let's say Lock A tries to run it off but doesn't succeed and needs to be replaced 5-10 minutes after the act of foul play , but still as a direct result of it...

Who decides if that is covered under this new ruling?

In principle I agree with the concept , just think it could get very messy for referees to adjudicate.

id imagine it must be immediate, as if the player is allow to try to "run it off" then whos to say the significant injury did not happen at the next point of contact??

i havent read the specifics of this though

The Lost Sheep

Clearlier wrote: »

Possible blonde moment here but I don't see what the practical implications of this are? You're already allowed to use all of your subs.

It allows a team make a substitution if you have already used all of them.

From a playing point of view this is a good change but I'm hoping that some kind of research has been done about how well referees can identify risks to player safety in scrums.

This already happens quite a lot in pro rugby and players will let you know if something is wrong anyway and referee always has discretion to go back to point of scrum and do as they would have done before.

It's a shame that there's a need for this to come in and I hope that it doesn't in a perverse way push people to get better at simulating injury.

I don't see it as a shame that this has been clarified. Simulating injuries is under acts contrary to 10.4m acts contrary to good sportsmanship and this clarification by world rugby just reinforces that ....

Was there really a problem here that needed to be addressed? Wonder how referees feel about adding another thing to check? I assume that it will only come into play if a team is being stupid and trying to slow down the game.

Yes there is issues around this. There is a lot of messing around the scrum and this just helps speed things up. Yes it will only come into play if teams are taking the piss but its a good threat for referees to use if there is messing going on.

This may help with deliberate wheels but you'll still get the step to one side and push movements, it could lead to a greater number of wheeled scrums as one defensive tactic against the step to one side (which is not always spotted by referees) is to whip the scrum around and although IIRC it's still a penalty offence to deliberately wheel a scrum if one teams steps to the side first and the other team pushes on I can easily see a referee calling it as six of one and half a dozen of the other. There's potential for this to lead to messier scrums I think.

Possibly could lead to messier scrums but would have to wait and see how it goes in a few games before having a true opinion on it.

Good positive step. The only reason for a scrum half to be in that
position is to disrupt. Hopefully this step will clean up the game a little.

Whats wrong with a scrum half disrupting things? I would prefer no change here.

What's the sanction? Scrum turnover? (I tried clicking on the link within your link but I'm getting a mimecast page which looks very much like a phishing site to me which makes me worried about what's got on my computer). Was this a problem that really needed to be addressed?

Scrum turnover. Yes this was something that had to be addressed. Too often teams keep ball in scrum just to try and work a penalty. Its 3-5 seconds and its when scrum is stationary. If scrum was moving or looking like it will move then play on but if scrum is stationary and not looking like moving again then the ref would be right to look for the ball to move on. Why do you want to see ball needlessly kept in the scrum and not in play, as such?

The Lost Sheep

Anyone played under the new laws changes for this season yet?
Any thoughts/criticisms of the changes?

The Lost Sheep

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Anyone played under the new laws changes for this season yet?
Any thoughts/criticisms of the changes?

Anyone?

Losty Dublin

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Anyone?

The new ruck laws have been causing a lot of fun and game in the pro games; plenty of pings for stepping in and around.

The Lost Sheep

Losty Dublin wrote: »

The new ruck laws have been causing a lot of fun and game in the pro games; plenty of pings for stepping in and around.

Havent had too many issues in games ive refereed at club/schools level so far. And scrums are much tidier

Risteard

Strange one at a match I was at today which we were all bemused by.

Our winger made a break and was running at two opposition players, ball in two hands and options outside. Opposition winger turns his back on ours to run back and the winger pushes him out the way (whilst still bring the ball carrier)

Ref gives a penalty for pushing.

Is that right? I'd argue it was a hand off, not the ball carriers fault the opposition turned his back on him.

Risteard

Risteard wrote: »

Strange one at a match I was at today which we were all bemused by.

Our winger made a break and was running at two opposition players, ball in two hands and options outside. Opposition winger turns his back on ours to run back and the winger pushes him out the way (whilst still bring the ball carrier)

Ref gives a penalty for pushing.

Is that right? I'd argue it was a hand off, not the ball carriers fault the opposition turned his back on him.

Sounds odd. Could be taking a player out off the ball if he wasn't attempting to tackle but I've never seen anything like that applied.

Losty Dublin

Risteard wrote: »

Strange one at a match I was at today which we were all bemused by.

Our winger made a break and was running at two opposition players, ball in two hands and options outside. Opposition winger turns his back on ours to run back and the winger pushes him out the way (whilst still bring the ball carrier)

Ref gives a penalty for pushing.

Is that right? I'd argue it was a hand off, not the ball carriers fault the opposition turned his back on him.

How could it be considered a hand off if the defender was making no attempt to tackle the ball carrier?

Quintis

Anyone see Jake Ball's yellow against Ulster at the weekend, seemed initially for kicking the ball out of the 9s hands at the ruck but the ball seemed to be on the ground, surely he is entitled to play the ball on the ground in a ruck with his feet, i.e. ruck the ball?

Losty Dublin

Quintis wrote: »

Anyone see Jake Ball's yellow against Ulster at the weekend, seemed initially for kicking the ball out of the 9s hands at the ruck but the ball seemed to be on the ground, surely he is entitled to play the ball on the ground in a ruck with his feet, i.e. ruck the ball?

Kicking the ball out of the hands of a player is a big no-no and must be called up by the match official. See below for a clarification from the powers that be on the matter.

http://www.arlb.ie/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/150911-CL-Law-Clarification-7-2015.pdf

Quintis

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Kicking the ball out of the hands of a player is a big no-no and must be called up by the match official. See below for a clarification from the powers that be on the matter.

http://www.arlb.ie/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/150911-CL-Law-Clarification-7-2015.pdf

Thanks, I know they are clamping down on it this year too, just can't understand the yellow?

https://youtu.be/qd6DF4WVcY4?t=2397

Interested Observer

Quintis wrote: »

Thanks, I know they are clamping down on it this year too, just can't understand the yellow?

https://youtu.be/qd6DF4WVcY4?t=2397

That is insanely harsh, doesn't even look like a penalty to me. The quality isn't great but I can't see Pienaar picking the ball up at any stage there. You can compete at a ruck with your feet. That's just completely wrong imo.

Losty Dublin

Quintis wrote: »

Thanks, I know they are clamping down on it this year too, just can't understand the yellow?

https://youtu.be/qd6DF4WVcY4?t=2397

If the clip is anything to go by, the ref said that he was pinged three times that game.

Shelflife

The YC was for repeat infringements by that particular player, however I felt that BW got it wrong on that occasion. You are no longer allowed to step over a collapsed ruck, you can only join it from the hind most foot. In this case Ball was part of the ruck and was perfectly entitled to play the ball with his foot.

sydthebeat

he kicked the ball out of a players hands

http://imgur.com/a/UuYLY

the tackled player is placing the ball back with one hand.

Jake Balls right leg is swinging in this pic, its hidden by ulster 3 right leg...

close enough to warrant a penalty.. if it was repeat offences then the ref is right to YC him.