Laws Question? Ask here!

Shelflife

I wouldnt consider that kicking the ball out of a players hand. For me the ball must be off the ground and in the players hands.

But if thats what he pinged him for fair enough, I thought it was for stepping over the ruck which he was in fact entitled to do.

Interested Observer

Shelflife wrote: »

I wouldnt consider that kicking the ball out of a players hand. For me the ball must be off the ground and in the players hands.

But if thats what he pinged him for fair enough, I thought it was for stepping over the ruck which he was in fact entitled to do.

I don't think that's what the law clarification was intended for either, at all. Or else you just keep your hand on the ball in a ruck and any time someone competes with their feet they're committing a penalty offence.

Quintis

I find it hard to blame the ref in this instance, live it seemed he kicked the ball out of Pienaars hands, slowed down this doesn't seem to be the case, if anything it highlights the difficulty involved in being a ref

Quin_Dub

Quintis wrote: »

I find it hard to blame the ref in this instance, live it seemed he kicked the ball out of Pienaars hands, slowed down this doesn't seem to be the case, if anything it highlights the difficulty involved in being a ref

To be fair, I was watching the game and he had only just warned Ball about 90 seconds earlier about persistent infringement so he'd just lost patience..

Had it been another player it would have just been a penalty..

Losty Dublin

Interested Observer wrote: »

I don't think that's what the law clarification was intended for either, at all. Or else you just keep your hand on the ball in a ruck and any time someone competes with their feet they're committing a penalty offence.

The clarification was sought to address an element of foul play not covered with an explicit mention in the law book. In an instance such at this I don't think it's fair for a player picking up or about to pick at a ruck to be at risk of having his hands kicked to bits. Delaying ball at a ruck is already dealt with by means of the "Use It" call.

Interested Observer

Losty Dublin wrote: »

The clarification was sought to address an element of foul play not covered with an explicit mention in the law book. In an instance such at this I don't think it's fair for a player picking up or about to pick at a ruck to be at risk of having his hands kicked to bits. Delaying ball at a ruck is already dealt with by means of the "Use It" call.

You're allowed use your feet in a ruck. Pienaar didn't have the ball, it's there to be won. I don't see how you can possibly rule for someone having not picked it up but is about to pick it up.

"Use it" leaves 5 seconds to use the ball and it doesn't really deal with the guy on the group who has been tackled leaving his hand on the ball after he places it back.

Losty Dublin

Interested Observer wrote: »

You're allowed use your feet in a ruck. Pienaar didn't have the ball, it's there to be won. I don't see how you can possibly rule for someone having not picked it up but is about to pick it up.

To play the ball, yeah. Kicking a player is foul play and should be punished as such. Pienaar was at the back and was playing the ball were it not this illegal kick

Interested Observer

Losty Dublin wrote: »

To play the ball, yeah. Kicking a player is foul play and should be punished as such. Pienaar was at the back and was playing the ball were it not this illegal kick

Well he did play the ball quite obviously. He didn't kick Pienaar. Pienaar hadn't touched the ball, this is all quite clear from the video.

You know stopping the SH playing the ball is the entire point of kicking it right? There's nothing illegal about it.

Quin_Dub

Interested Observer wrote: »

You're allowed use your feet in a ruck. Pienaar didn't have the ball, it's there to be won. I don't see how you can possibly rule for someone having not picked it up but is about to pick it up.

"Use it" leaves 5 seconds to use the ball and it doesn't really deal with the guy on the group who has been tackled leaving his hand on the ball after he places it back.

I think the adjustment to the rule is to stop players stretching out 1 leg and flailing wildly at the ball in a manner that is fairly high risk to a guy stooping over to play the ball..

You can of course still drive through the ruck with both feet under you and play the ball with your feet when you reach it..

Bazzo

Unless I'm mistaken there were also 2 incidents in the Connacht Ospreys game where players were pinged for kicking the ball out of the base of the ruck without it seemingly being in the 9s hands.

Quin_Dub

Completely different question.

During a game at the week-end the referee gave a penalty against the opposition fullback for carrying the ball back over his own line.

Basically , the ball was kicked though and the FB went down on the ball about 2 metres from the line, he half stood up and dived back over his line (scoring a try almost) as the attacking line came up to him.

Now typically that would normally be a 5m attacking scrum , but the ref told me afterwards that the law had been changed and that a "deliberate" act of carrying the ball back over your own line was now a penalty.

A bit like deliberately throwing the ball into touch I guess.

I hadn't heard of this change but can see issues with the interpretation of "deliberate" here.

Interested Observer

Don't get why that's a penalty, what is it meant to achieve?

sydthebeat

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Completely different question.

During a game at the week-end the referee gave a penalty against the opposition fullback for carrying the ball back over his own line.

Basically , the ball was kicked though and the FB went down on the ball about 2 metres from the line, he half stood up and dived back over his line (scoring a try almost) as the attacking line came up to him.

Now typically that would normally be a 5m attacking scrum , but the ref told me afterwards that the law had been changed and that a "deliberate" act of carrying the ball back over your own line was now a penalty.

A bit like deliberately throwing the ball into touch I guess.

I hadn't heard of this change but can see issues with the interpretation of "deliberate" here.

Law 10.2 (c) covers that

irishbucsfan

sydthebeat wrote: »

Law 10.2 (c) covers that

Over your own try line? Not as far as I'm aware. Unless OP means carrying the ball back over the dead ball line.

It's not a law that's even feasible if it applies to carrying the ball over your own try line

sydthebeat

Throwing into touch. A player must not intentionally knock, place, push or throw the ball with his arm or hand into touch, touch-in-goal, or over the dead ball line.

Fair point IBF, I was confusing it with placing the ball into touch in the in goal area.

The Lost Sheep

Rather than discuss it in leinster thread... haven't seen game or incident but can anyone show the Rob Kearney incident. He got a yellow(??) for what? What law did he infringe?

molloyjh

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Rather than discuss it in leinster thread... haven't seen game or incident but can anyone show the Rob Kearney incident. He got a yellow(??) for what? What law did he infringe?

Here's the replay. The card was given for a late hit. But I'm going to bow out of discussing it as I've done so enough at this stage. :pac:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLIn07PxiG8

Losty Dublin

molloyjh wrote: »

Here's the replay. The card was given for a late hit. But I'm going to bow out of discussing it as I've done so enough at this stage. :pac:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLIn07PxiG8

Based on that he had no excuse to block the kicker and IMO, yes a card was warranted.

The Lost Sheep

molloyjh wrote: »

Here's the replay. The card was given for a late hit. But I'm going to bow out of discussing it as I've done so enough at this stage. :pac:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLIn07PxiG8

That's a definite yellow. Card totally warranted.

LeinsterDub

In what context is a late hit not related to a tackle? For me 10.4 (e) applies

The Lost Sheep

What do people think of these?

https://www.rte.ie/sport/rugby/2016/1118/832802-world-rugby-new-laws/



Law 3 Number of Players
Uncontested scrums as a result of a sending off, temporary suspension or injury must be played with eight players per side.

Reasoning: To discourage teams from going to uncontested scrums.

Law 5 Time
If a penalty is kicked into touch after time has elapsed without touching another player, the referee allows the throw-in to be taken and play continues until the next time the ball becomes dead.

Reasoning: To discourage teams from infringing in the dying moments of the game.

Law 8 Advantage
When there are multiple penalty infringements by the same team, the referee may allow the captain of the non-offending team to choose the most advantageous of the penalty marks.

Reasoning: To discourage repeat offending when advantage is already being played and to reward teams against whom repeat offending has taken place.

Law 9 Method of Scoring
Penalty Try. If a player would probably have scored a try but for foul play by an opponent, a penalty try is awarded. No conversion is attempted. Value: 7 points

Reasoning: To discourage teams from illegally preventing a probable try from being scored while also saving time on the clock by negating the need for a conversion.

Law 19 Touch and Lineout
A player who is attempting to bring the ball under control is deemed to be in possession of the ball.

Reasoning: This brings into law something that is already applied in practice. It means that a player "juggling” the ball does not have to be in contact with it at the exact moment of touching the touchline or the ground beyond it for the ball to be deemed to be in touch. This makes it easier for the match officials to adjudicate.

Amend eighth definition: If a player jumps and knocks the ball back into the playing area (or if that player catches the ball and throws it back into the playing area) before landing in touch or touch-in-goal, play continues regardless of whether the ball reaches the plane of touch.

Reasoning: To simplify law and to increase ball-in-play time.

Add to definitions: If the ball-carrier reaches the plane of touch but returns the ball to the playing area without first landing in touch, play continues.

Reasoning: To simplify law and to increase ball-in-play time.

In this case, if the ball has passed the plane of touch when it is caught, then the catcher is not deemed to have taken the ball into touch. If the ball has not passed the plane of touch when it is caught or picked up, then the catcher is deemed to have taken the ball into touch, regardless of whether the ball was in motion or stationary.

Reasoning: To simplify law and to increase ball-in-play time.

Clearlier

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

In this case, if the ball has passed the plane of touch when it is caught, then the catcher is not deemed to have taken the ball into touch. If the ball has not passed the plane of touch when it is caught or picked up, then the catcher is deemed to have taken the ball into touch, regardless of whether the ball was in motion or stationary.

Reasoning: To simplify law and to increase ball-in-play time.

Will that one get rid of the scenario where players stick their leg behind the dead ball line and pick up the ball - often used where the ball has gone into the try scoring area but not reached the dead ball line - in order to get a scrum back?

CMOTDibbler

Clearlier wrote: »

Will that one get rid of the scenario where players stick their leg behind the dead ball line and pick up the ball - often used where the ball has gone into the try scoring area but not reached the dead ball line - in order to get a scrum back?

I don't think so. That law requires the ball to be moving when caught dead.

The Lost Sheep

Clearlier wrote: »

Will that one get rid of the scenario where players stick their leg behind the dead ball line and pick up the ball - often used where the ball has gone into the try scoring area but not reached the dead ball line - in order to get a scrum back?

Ball has to be moving for your situation to be allowed
What you quoted is different

Flange/Flanders

Here's a question for you, do you think that if the tackle are was brought down to the nipple line (under the arm pits), it would bring out a lot of the concussion scenarios?

Jump_In_Jack

In the Ire V NZ match yesterday, at around 29 minutes, Barrett slapped the ball out of Jackson's hands (then collected it and ran in for a try) and the referee gave a scrum to Ireland for a knock-on.
Should that not have been a penalty for deliberately slapping the ball forward?

The Lost Sheep

Flange/Flanders wrote: »

Here's a question for you, do you think that if the tackle are was brought down to the nipple line (under the arm pits), it would bring out a lot of the concussion scenarios?

No it wouldn't as quite often players are dipping, both ball carrier and tackler, as they go into contact and they clash heads. I don't see lowering point of where you can tackle happening.

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

In the Ire V NZ match yesterday, at around 29 minutes, Barrett slapped the ball out of Jackson's hands (then collected it and ran in for a try) and the referee gave a scrum to Ireland for a knock-on.
Should that not have been a penalty for deliberately slapping the ball forward?

No. Barrett was trying to rip the ball and take possession and ref will have judged it as a knock on. He was attempting to play the ball so not a penalty IMO

Jump_In_Jack

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

No it wouldn't as quite often players are dipping, both ball carrier and tackler, as they go into contact and they clash heads. I don't see lowering point of where you can tackle happening.

No. Barrett was trying to rip the ball and take possession and ref will have judged it as a knock on. He was attempting to play the ball so not a penalty IMO

Is there a definition of what a "rip" is?
I would have assumed that is when two players are grappling for the ball and one player literally rips the ball free, almost certainly using two hands.

If it is a definite slap or fist to dislodge the ball I would assume it's not a "rip".
But enlighten me if there's a wording in the laws that would cover this situation.

Otherwise there's a gap in the laws IMO.

Quintis

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

In the Ire V NZ match yesterday, at around 29 minutes, Barrett slapped the ball out of Jackson's hands (then collected it and ran in for a try) and the referee gave a scrum to Ireland for a knock-on.
Should that not have been a penalty for deliberately slapping the ball forward?

Was thinking that, below is from the World Rugby Laws...

'A knock-on occurs when a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward, or when a player hits the ball forward with the hand or arm, or when the ball hits the hand or arm and goes forward, and the ball touches the ground or another player before the original player can catch it.

If a player in tackling an opponent makes contact with the ball and the ball goes forward from the ball carrier’s hands, that is a knock-on.

If a player rips the ball or deliberately knocks the ball from an opponent's hands and the ball goes forward from the ball carrier's hands, that is not a knock-on.'

For me he doesn't try to tackle him, he goes to play the ball so the second paragraph isn't relevant.

The second part to me implies if the ball goes forward from the ball carriers hands while an oppisiton player rips or deliberately plays the ball it isn't a knock on, so if in playing the ball Barrett ripped or knocked it from Jacksons hands and it went forward from Jacksons hands towards the NZ goal line it isn't a knock on as the opposition player played it back towards his own goal line rather than the carrier 'knocking' the ball on. The key phrase is 'forward from the ball carrier's hands' not tacklers hands, so for me it is a knock on, imo at least

phog

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

No it wouldn't as quite often players are dipping, both ball carrier and tackler, as they go into contact and they clash heads. I don't see lowering point of where you can tackle happening.

No. Barrett was trying to rip the ball and take possession and ref will have judged it as a knock on. He was attempting to play the ball so not a penalty IMO

Was it really a rip? Looked more like a slap. I thought it was close to bring a penalty, I reckon if it was Wayne Barnes reffing the game it would have been as penalty.