Laws Question? Ask here!

Quin_Dub

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.

There are serious discussions underway about lower the tackle level to the waist at Underage level to discourage the big "hit" that now pervades.

In my view it's a good idea , bring players back to the original tackle - cheek to cheek , wrap the arms around the legs and so on.

Yes it would mean more off-loading in the tackle , but would that really be a bad thing for the game?

irishbucsfan

Quin_Dub wrote: »

There are serious discussions underway about lower the tackle level to the waist at Underage level to discourage the big "hit" that now pervades.

In my view it's a good idea , bring players back to the original tackle - cheek to cheek , wrap the arms around the legs and so on.

Yes it would mean more off-loading in the tackle , but would that really be a bad thing for the game?

It could well happen at underage but it will be much younger where it happens (IE where a lot of unions already have lower tackles as a requirement).

It won't happen at senior level. And the tackling at the older levels of underage rugby will always mimic senior level, it would be dangerous to have waist level tackling required up until adult level and then suddenly everyone relearning to tackle. So it's something we might, maybe, see at u13 level but nothing above that.

Connacht2KXX

youtube . com/watch?v=HBHiZOwum0o

From the match yesterday. Go to 58:45 on the youtube video (around 42:15 on the match clock).

Jack McGrath carries, Crockett competes for the ball then Toner and Furlong do the clearout work. So a ruck has formed by this point.

However, Read then proceeds to latch onto the ball and NZ win a penalty.

This makes no sense as the rules state that the only time when the opposition can put their hands on the ball is BEFORE the ruck has formed.

The only interpretation I can see is that McGrath wasn't releasing. But Peyper should have penalised him earlier for not releasing, not after Read decided to put his hands on the ball.

Can anyone clarify this for me?

Buer

For there to be a ruck there needs to be two players on their feet competing. There's nobody on their feet when Read goes after the ball. Fair call.

FellasFellas

I've always wondered; can you dummy a quick throw in? I would guess you can judging by noones been penalised for it, as maybe it's considered the ball isn't dead. It's an interesting one.

Quintis

Buer wrote: »

For there to be a ruck there needs to be two players on their feet competing. There's nobody on their feet when Read goes after the ball. Fair call.

I would disagree, a ruck had been formed as there was one or more player from each team on their feet in physical contact over the ball, Furlong & Toner and Crockett, i.e. a ruck is formed and exists until the ball leaves the ruck, this was a wrong call imo, however, we were lucky, the phase before Toner goes flying off his feet, this was dangerous and should have been a penalty first off

Connacht2KXX

Buer wrote: »

For there to be a ruck there needs to be two players on their feet competing. There's nobody on their feet when Read goes after the ball. Fair call.

Law 16.6 states that a ruck is finished when the ball leaves the ruck.

Buer

Connacht2KXX wrote: »

Law 16.6 states that a ruck is finished when the ball leaves the ruck.

I'd still be of the opinion that the ruck is over as it no longer exists.

But how and ever, it could be argued that the ball is then out of the ruck. The NZ prop has been cleared out to the side and is no longer in the ruck. The ball is beyond the hindmost foot on the NZ side which makes it available to play.

sydthebeat

first off... what dev did at 58:45 is mental and i dont know how he didnt get pinged for it

on teh read thing theres a couple of issues
1. the ref may not have seen the ball on the ground and the rucking actions brought the ball up off the ground therefore he though no ruck exists when the ball is off the ground
2. the ref may have deemed the ball to have "left the ruck" by the fact the ball was off the ground... fair game for read

blackwhite

Connacht2KXX wrote: »

youtube . com/watch?v=HBHiZOwum0o

From the match yesterday. Go to 58:45 on the youtube video (around 42:15 on the match clock).

Jack McGrath carries, Crockett competes for the ball then Toner and Furlong do the clearout work. So a ruck has formed by this point.

However, Read then proceeds to latch onto the ball and NZ win a penalty.

This makes no sense as the rules state that the only time when the opposition can put their hands on the ball is BEFORE the ruck has formed.

The only interpretation I can see is that McGrath wasn't releasing. But Peyper should have penalised him earlier for not releasing, not after Read decided to put his hands on the ball.

Can anyone clarify this for me?

Read is wearing a black jersey with a fern on it. Special rulebook applies :P


Joking aside - the Irish clear-out never managed to drive past/over the ball. An argument can be made that the ball is "out" of the ruck at this point (I'm not sure that was Peyper's interpretation, but anyway!).

Read can't be offside, as the offside line for Read is McGrath's shoulders - there is no "hindmost foot" anywhere closer to the NZ line due to the Irish clear-out failing to drive over the ball..

It could also be argued that as Read hasn't contacted or bound to any of the players in the ruck, thus he isn't part of the ruck, and can reach in for the ball much like a scrum half.

The Lost Sheep

Quin_Dub wrote: »

There are serious discussions underway about lower the tackle level to the waist at Underage level to discourage the big "hit" that now pervades.

In my view it's a good idea, bring players back to the original tackle - cheek to cheek, wrap the arms around the legs and so on.

Yes it would mean more off-loading in the tackle , but would that really be a bad thing for the game?

There isn't actually any serious discussion underway at lowering tackle level for underage rugby in Ireland anyway.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

It could well happen at underage but it will be much younger where it happens (IE where a lot of unions already have lower tackles as a requirement).

It won't happen at senior level. And the tackling at the older levels of underage rugby will always mimic senior level, it would be dangerous to have waist level tackling required up until adult level and then suddenly everyone relearning to tackle. So it's something we might, maybe, see at u13 level but nothing above that.

Yep. Wont happen at senior and shouldn't and possibly at under 13(first level where kids should be playing full pitch 15 a side rugby... rugby schools an exception of course...:rolleyes:)

FellasFellas wrote: »

I've always wondered; can you dummy a quick throw in? I would guess you can judging by noones been penalised for it, as maybe it's considered the ball isn't dead. It's an interesting one.

Yes. Cant penalise it. Many do dummy as they don't really want to take l/o quick but give impression they are.

Ardillaun

Collapsing the scrum. Does it have to be deliberate and how is that determined?

Losty Dublin

Buer wrote: »

I'd still be of the opinion that the ruck is over as it no longer exists.

But how and ever, it could be argued that the ball is then out of the ruck. The NZ prop has been cleared out to the side and is no longer in the ruck. The ball is beyond the hindmost foot on the NZ side which makes it available to play.

The ruck is considered over when the ball moves beyond the back foot. Even if the defenders or attackers withdraw from the ruck it is still lawfully taking place so long as players from either team remain in situ.

The Lost Sheep

Ardillaun wrote: »

Collapsing the scrum. Does it have to be deliberate and how is that determined?

No it wont have to deliberate as players will slip and you can penalise them though you will often reset for a slip depending on the scrum.
You look at their bind, how they lost bind, how players end up at conclusion of scrum.

The Lost Sheep

World Rugby have revised foul play sanctions and enhanced disciplinary processes
http://www.worldrugby.org/news/206986

NiallBoo

Ardillaun wrote: »

Collapsing the scrum. Does it have to be deliberate and how is that determined?

Yes, according to the laws it has to be deliberate.

It's determined by the ref looking at the scrum, failing completely to spot any one of the 3-4 infringements happening at any one time, getting fed up and picking a random team to penalise. Often they'll just penalise the team going forward, thus rewarding the team that's best at cheating.

That's a joke...except it's not.

The laws actually say very little: a lot of things you hear like "deliberate wheeling" have no basis in law.

Mr. Rugby Boss Man wrote:

All players: Collapsing. A player must not intentionally collapse a scrum. A player must not intentionally fall or kneel in a scrum. This is dangerous play.

This law is effectively ignored because refs don't have the expertise to understand how scrummaging works.

It's depressing and I prefer not to think about it.

Stheno

Quick question. I saw what looked like knock ons during a couple of rucks yesterday that weren't picked up


Are they still knock ons during a ruck and the ref just didn't spot them?

Interested Observer

Stheno wrote: »

Quick question. I saw what looked like knock ons during a couple of rucks yesterday that weren't picked up


Are they still knock ons during a ruck and the ref just didn't spot them?

Yes they certainly are knock ons if they happen in a ruck. I didn't see any of them myself but ref mustn't have spotted them, or the ball possibly went forward from a foot and it just looked like a knock on?

The Lost Sheep

Stheno wrote: »

Quick question. I saw what looked like knock ons during a couple of rucks yesterday that weren't picked up

Are they still knock ons during a ruck and the ref just didn't spot them?

Can you show a clip of these missed knock ons? it is a knock on if in a ruck but officials will miss things, let things go at times
If went forward off foot its not a knock on but to many it will appear like it was

Stheno

Interested Observer wrote: »

Yes they certainly are knock ons if they happen in a ruck. I didn't see any of them myself but ref mustn't have spotted them, or the ball possibly went forward from a foot and it just looked like a knock on?

There was one in particular where we were attacking, ruck formed and the ball looked to be knocked on from a hand.

No matter:) I was just curious

Tarf1234

Quick one, on the law that allows people kick the ball to touch with time up and have the lineout. Am I correct in saying it is not in yet in any domestic comp in Ireland?

aloooof

Stheno wrote: »

There was one in particular where we were attacking, ruck formed and the ball looked to be knocked on from a hand.

No matter:) I was just curious

Would that not be hands in the ruck then, or am I having a brain-fade moment?

jacothelad

On the point above on the wheeling of the scrum, I think the current laws say that players must push parallel to touch, i.e. square and straight. There was one scrum in the NZ Ireland game where there had obviously been an AB ploy to run it around. You could see from the way they set their feet etc that they were simply driving across and round. It is something they do regularly. In this particular incident they were actually penalised. They often get away with it. It was such a judgement - which was wrong -by Nigel that cost Ireland the game in NZ in 2012????? They blitzed the NZ scrum which simply fell apart and Ireland, - instead of a routine 3 pointer that would most likely have put the game out of reach of the ABs, - were wrongly penalised.

NiallBoo

jacothelad wrote: »

On the point above on the wheeling of the scrum, I think the current laws say that players must push parallel to touch, i.e. square and straight. There was one scrum in the NZ Ireland game where there had obviously been an AB ploy to run it around. You could see from the way they set their feet etc that they were simply driving across and round. It is something they do regularly. In this particular incident they were actually penalised. They often get away with it. It was such a judgement - which was wrong -by Nigel that cost Ireland the game in NZ in 2012????? They blitzed the NZ scrum which simply fell apart and Ireland, - instead of a routine 3 pointer that would most likely have put the game out of reach of the ABs, - were wrongly penalised.

Nope, the laws only say what I quoted above, plus that a wheeled scrum should be reset and some stuff about feeding, off-side lines etc.

What you're describing sounds more like "sheering" - when the whole front row pushes to the side in unison. It would fall under the very broad "deliberately attempting to collapse the scrum"

There are certain phrases like "push parallel to touch" and "stepping out" that are used as guidelines/indicators to help referees spot infringements.

The two ways of destabilising a scrum(/general unsafe play) they address are sheering and boring in (when a prop drives in towards their hooker). Driving parallel addresses both, stepping out indicates boring in.

I don't like these indicators myself. They're not unsafe in themselves and aren't much easier to spot than the actual infringements. Some props can also sheer/bore in without obviously going away from parallel/stepping out.

Anyway...as I said, refs just aren't good with scrums and typically end up guessing. Best to just accept how it goes.

Ardillaun

Not a laws question so much as a suggestion, as in would something like this be possible? I posted in the general section but got no response:

Infractions of rugby laws are a constant in the game and there's no way a ref can keep up or stop play for every one. What about retrospective lists of unpunished infractions in the stats? We have the critical nerd capacity around the world now to put lines on the screen after the game and look at every lineout, ruck and scrum etc. for offside, crooked throw-ins, throw-ins over one's own team (my particular bugbear), crooked put-ins, obstruction and, of course, any dirty play. The match could be scored by a neutral panel of five and the average taken for each offence (dirty play obviously being looked at more seriously). The stats could be reported in some euphemistic way to avoid sounding too definitive but they could be used in discussions before a match with teams that have a high average offside rate, for example. World Cup matches at the knock-out stages might benefit from more linesmen to check for offside and the magic white paint of soccer could be used to define where the hooker can stand for a throw-in so he doesn't sneak over to his own side.

Losty Dublin

Referee assessors sit down with match officials after games and analyse what happened, trends and what was and wasn't called. World Rugby take note and will call up things if they are causing any issues. Most teams that are worth their salt conduct similar analysis exercises as well.

In relation to your specific points, rugby referees apply what is called Materiality to law infringements in game. In short this means that some offences which really aren't going to affect things may be overlooked if it makes for a smoother game as a whole. A team supposedly stealing a few inches isn't going to make a difference, especially when every team does it.

Ardillaun wrote: »

Not a laws question so much as a suggestion, as in would something like this be possible? I posted in the general section but got no response:

Infractions of rugby laws are a constant in the game and there's no way a ref can keep up or stop play for every one. What about retrospective lists of unpunished infractions in the stats? We have the critical nerd capacity around the world now to put lines on the screen after the game and look at every lineout, ruck and scrum etc. for offside, crooked throw-ins, throw-ins over one's own team (my particular bugbear), crooked put-ins, obstruction and, of course, any dirty play. The match could be scored by a neutral panel of five and the average taken for each offence (dirty play obviously being looked at more seriously). The stats could be reported in some euphemistic way to avoid sounding too definitive but they could be used in discussions before a match with teams that have a high average offside rate, for example. World Cup matches at the knock-out stages might benefit from more linesmen to check for offside and the magic white paint of soccer could be used to define where the hooker can stand for a throw-in so he doesn't sneak over to his own side.

Ardillaun

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Referee assessors sit down with match officials after games and analyse what happened, trends and what was and wasn't called.  World Rugby take note and will call up things if they are causing any issues.  Most teams that are worth their salt conduct similar analysis exercises as well.  

In relation to your specific points, rugby referees apply what is called Materiality to law infringements in game.  In short this means that some offences which really aren't going to affect things may be overlooked if it makes for a smoother game as a whole.  A team supposedly stealing a few inches isn't going to make a difference, especially when every team does it.

The 'few inches' should be quantified. They could make a difference in a close match. How many times is one team offside compared to the other when you slow the frames down and get the ruler out? That matters.
The line-out throws could be better reffed with soccer paint, and the laws on scrum put-ins should either be abandoned or enforced.   
I'm beginning to wonder whether some types of obstruction should be allowed. Would make for more tries.
Mr. Francis has some ideas on reffing:
http://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/international-rugby/neil-francis-there-would-be-murder-if-rugby-introduced-a-second-official-heres-my-solution-to-the-referee-problem-35265971.html

The Lost Sheep

Ardillaun wrote: »

The 'few inches' should be quantified. They could make a difference in a close match. How many times is one team offside compared to the other when you slow the frames down and get the ruler out? That matters.
The line-out throws could be better reffed with soccer paint, and the laws on scrum put-ins should either be abandoned or enforced.
I'm beginning to wonder whether some types of obstruction should be allowed. Would make for more tries.
Mr. Francis has some ideas on reffing:
http://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/international-rugby/neil-francis-there-would-be-murder-if-rugby-introduced-a-second-official-heres-my-solution-to-the-referee-problem-35265971.html

It doesn't need to be quantified. It will vary per game and you wont be stopping to look at frames on a screen so it is irrelevant. Line out throws don't need to be reffed better in most respects and scrum put ins could improve but abandon for what?

The Lost Sheep

World Rugby has further strengthened its commitment to injury prevention by announcing details of a zero-tolerance approach to reckless and accidental head contact in the sport.

While injuries in the game are not on the rise, the federation continues to be proactive in furthering evidence-based strategies to reduce injury risk for all players.

In a change to law, World Rugby has redefined illegal (high) tackle categories and increased sanctions to deter high tackles via a law application guideline. This will apply at all levels of the game from 3 January 2017 introducing minimum on-field sanctions for reckless and accidental contact with the head, effectively lowering the acceptable height of the tackle.The guideline will be supported with a global education programme.
http://www.worldrugby.org/news/213339

randomname2005

A 'what if' question in the contect of the ruled out try in the NH-Leinster match last weekend. Looking at the video

https://youtu.be/3LsGh7nR0W8?t=2616

(43.36 on video time if it doesn't link correctly)

Two potential sequences of actions are:
Kick from SOB
Bounce off NH 12's chest and then forward from his hand (is this a knock on as it would be the 2nd movement of a charge down?)
Roll of ball off SOB's arm backwards
Bounce off SOB's collarbone forwards

Kick from SOB
Bounce of NH 12
Bounce off SOB's collarbone forwards.

If either of these were what happened, would it be a knock on? Looking at the law (Section 12) I can't see where a knock on would come from:

A knock-on occurs when a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward Does not have possession, so can't be this

or when a player hits the ball forward with the hand or arm only in the first potential sequence is there an interaction with a hand or arm, and it goes backwards

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. Couldn't be this as the ball hit the arm and went backward

Of course there could be other sequences from different angles which show a clear forward movement from the hand (e.g the bounce off the forearm), but just wanted to put those sequences out there.

RN