Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Laws Question? Ask here!

Options
1…6791112…115

Comments

  • Options
    #242
    Podge_irl
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 25,629 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    Not sure where to put this, so this seems as good a place as any.

    Are there 22 or 23 man squads for the AIs?


  • Options
    #243
    JustinDee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,684 ✭✭✭JustinDee


    Fairly sure its 22.
    Can double-check in morning.


  • Options
    #244
    daveharnett
    Registered Users Posts: 2,567 ✭✭✭daveharnett


    Tricky one for ye:
    Blue player fields the ball outside his 22. He is driven back and brought to ground by red such that his upper body (and the ball) land outside the 22, but his legs are in the 22. Blue then posts the ball behind the 22, and an arriving blue player (who is in the 22) kicks the ball directly into touch (no ruck had formed).

    Does gain-in-ground apply?


  • Options
    #245
    JustinDee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,684 ✭✭✭JustinDee


    daveharnett wrote: »
    Tricky one for ye:
    Blue player fields the ball outside his 22. He is driven back and brought to ground by red such that his upper body (and the ball) land outside the 22, but his legs are in the 22. Blue then posts the ball behind the 22, and an arriving blue player (who is in the 22) kicks the ball directly into touch (no ruck had formed).

    Does gain-in-ground apply?
    No.


  • Options
    #246
    karlitob
    Registered Users Posts: 2,586 ✭✭✭karlitob


    No


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #247
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    If a player intentionally knocks the ball down (backwards) it is a penalty, correct?

    Just couldn't find the ruling in the laws.


  • Options
    #248
    karlitob
    Registered Users Posts: 2,586 ✭✭✭karlitob


    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    If a player intentionally knocks the ball down (backwards) it is a penalty, correct?

    Just couldn't find the ruling in the laws.


    Law 12.1 (e)

    - it can't be a knock on if the ball goes backward therefore you can't have a penalty against it. The penalty is only when you knock the ball on intentionally forward.

    Hope that helps


  • Options
    #249
    durkadurka
    Registered Users Posts: 6,207 ✭✭✭durkadurka


    how is a chargedown distinguished from a knock on?


  • Options
    #250
    karlitob
    Registered Users Posts: 2,586 ✭✭✭karlitob


    durkadurka wrote: »
    how is a chargedown distinguished from a knock on?

    Law 12 www.irb.com

    A chargedown is when a players kick is blocked by another player. The ball comes forward as you block a kick. A knock on is when the player who has the ball or receiving the ball is not in control of the ball and it knocks forward from their hand/s or upper arm.


  • Options
    #251
    durkadurka
    Registered Users Posts: 6,207 ✭✭✭durkadurka


    Ok but a fumbled catch of a high ball willl be a knock on though, obviously.is it something to do with the ball still going upwards?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #252
    amacachi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,316 ✭✭✭✭amacachi


    durkadurka wrote: »
    Ok but a fumbled catch of a high ball willl be a knock on though, obviously.is it something to do with the ball still going upwards?

    Maybe that's one way of defining it but the name is enough for me really. A charge down isn't an attempt to catch, it's an attempt to block a kick. When someone sets themselves for a few seconds to make a catch, that's what they're doing, attempting to make a catch.


  • Options
    #253
    karlitob
    Registered Users Posts: 2,586 ✭✭✭karlitob


    durkadurka wrote: »
    Ok but a fumbled catch of a high ball willl be a knock on though, obviously.is it something to do with the ball still going upwards?

    How do you mean 'keep going upwards'?


  • Options
    #254
    durkadurka
    Registered Users Posts: 6,207 ✭✭✭durkadurka


    I mean if the ball is still going up to the sky from the opposing player's boot. I suspect that's the informal rule of thumb. Kinda what i'm trying to get to.


  • Options
    #255
    karlitob
    Registered Users Posts: 2,586 ✭✭✭karlitob


    durkadurka wrote: »
    I mean if the ball is still going up to the sky from the opposing player's boot. I suspect that's the informal rule of thumb. Kinda what i'm trying to get to.

    Sorry, still don't understand you. Do you mean if a player blocks a ball from a kick and the ball still continues upward. If so, youre being too literal? That is considered a charge down. If the ball, on it's descent, is fumbled and knocked forward - that's a knock on.

    How do you mean rule of thumb?


  • Options
    #256
    daveharnett
    Registered Users Posts: 2,567 ✭✭✭daveharnett


    durkadurka wrote: »
    Ok but a fumbled catch of a high ball willl be a knock on though, obviously.is it something to do with the ball still going upwards?
    Trajectory isn't really important. In theory you could block a grubber (goalie style) which was heading straight into the ground. Time is the important factor (the law says "immediately after the kick"). If the blocker is more than a few meters away from the kick, he's probably out of luck.

    The other important factor is that the blocker makes no attempt to catch the ball.


  • Options
    #257
    karlitob
    Registered Users Posts: 2,586 ✭✭✭karlitob


    daveharnett wrote: »
    Trajectory isn't really important. In theory you could block a grubber (goalie style) which was heading straight into the ground. Time is the important factor (the law says "immediately after the kick"). If the blocker is more than a few meters away from the kick, he's probably out of luck.

    The other important factor is that the blocker makes no attempt to catch the ball.

    You can't block a grubber kick! Its a knock-on. If stop a ball with your hands from, for example, a kick-off as its traveling along the ground and don't pick it up - its a knock-on. Thats why you should stop the ball with your feet. Its a fine line - as I say if you block, not attempt to pick/catch a kick off if its traveling along the ground then that is considered a knock on


  • Options
    #258
    tolosenc
    Registered Users Posts: 6,889 ✭✭✭tolosenc


    Something from the Leinster - Connacht game last week that I've been meaning to ask about.

    In the match, Sexton kicked for touch from outside the 22, and Fanning caught it with a foot in touch, or so it seemed, resulting in the kick being out on the full. In fact, when he caught it, his left foot was in the air, and his right was in-bounds on the pitch. His left foot then, after he had caught the ball, hit the ground out of bounds.

    Surely then, he caught the ball in play and carried it out, and the ref was wrong to give a Connacht line-out back in line with the kick as it should have been a Leinster line-out where Fanning stepped out?


  • Options
    #259
    Risteard
    Registered Users Posts: 2,698 ✭✭✭Risteard


    tolosenc wrote: »
    Something from the Leinster - Connacht game last week that I've been meaning to ask about.

    In the match, Sexton kicked for touch from outside the 22, and Fanning caught it with a foot in touch, or so it seemed, resulting in the kick being out on the full. In fact, when he caught it, his left foot was in the air, and his right was in-bounds on the pitch. His left foot then, after he had caught the ball, hit the ground out of bounds.

    Surely then, he caught the ball in play and carried it out, and the ref was wrong to give a Connacht line-out back in line with the kick as it should have been a Leinster line-out where Fanning stepped out?

    Yeah, think the Touch judge was wrong. His foot has to be in touch when he catches it I think. I remember a similar decision that went our way in the QF against Ospreys a few years ago where Howlett did the same. It's just it's very difficult to see that in real time as the margins are very close.


  • Options
    #260
    karlitob
    Registered Users Posts: 2,586 ✭✭✭karlitob


    tolosenc wrote: »
    Something from the Leinster - Connacht game last week that I've been meaning to ask about.

    In the match, Sexton kicked for touch from outside the 22, and Fanning caught it with a foot in touch, or so it seemed, resulting in the kick being out on the full. In fact, when he caught it, his left foot was in the air, and his right was in-bounds on the pitch. His left foot then, after he had caught the ball, hit the ground out of bounds.

    Surely then, he caught the ball in play and carried it out, and the ref was wrong to give a Connacht line-out back in line with the kick as it should have been a Leinster line-out where Fanning stepped out?

    I agree with you - Leinster lineout where Fanning caught the ball.


  • Options
    #261
    tolosenc
    Registered Users Posts: 6,889 ✭✭✭tolosenc


    Cheers lads, just wanted to be sure I had the law straight in my head.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #262
    daveharnett
    Registered Users Posts: 2,567 ✭✭✭daveharnett


    Law 12, Definition: Knock On
    ...
    Exception: Charge down.
    If a player charges down the ball as an opponent kicks it, or immediately after the kick, it is not a knock-on even though the ball may travel forward.
    karlitob wrote: »
    You can't block a grubber kick!
    Sure you can. Picture a player throwing themselves hands first across the path of the kicker (say 1 metre in front of him) as he grubbers the ball forward. He will block the ball 'immediately' after the kick is made, and his intention is clearly to block the ball rather than take possession of it, so no knock on.
    karlitob wrote: »
    If stop a ball with your hands from, for example, a kick-off as its traveling along the ground and don't pick it up - its a knock-on.
    Agreed. I'm not for a moment suggesting that a ball can legally be blocked after it has traveled 10M. For me 5M is about the limit of what the law intends, and only then if the ball is rifled straight at the blocker.


  • Options
    #263
    karlitob
    Registered Users Posts: 2,586 ✭✭✭karlitob


    daveharnett wrote: »
    Sure you can. Picture a player throwing themselves hands first across the path of the kicker (say 1 metre in front of him) as he grubbers the ball forward. He will block the ball 'immediately' after the kick is made, and his intention is clearly to block the ball rather than take possession of it, so no knock on.

    Agreed. I'm not for a moment suggesting that a ball can legally be blocked after it has traveled 10M. For me 5M is about the limit of what the law intends, and only then if the ball is rifled straight at the blocker.

    Hi, might have been a bit too general in my 'can't block a grubber'.

    If a player, throws themselves across the path of a ball, after it has been kicked and comes forward from his hand - knock-on. For me, that player would want to have been VERY near his boot as he kicks it. If the kicking player attempts a grubber and the blocking player sprawls in front of it 5 m away - thats too far in my opinion and is a knock on.

    As for limit of how far its traveled. Its a tough one but 5m is very far. Lets say the kicking player puts in a long boot with a low-ish trajectory, if the blocking player is 5m back and blocks the ball - i think thats too far back to be considered a charge down. If he fails to catch the ball then its a knock-on.
    The blocking player would want to be charging at the kicker, jumping and with hands fully stretched, in my opinion, for me to allow a charge down.

    Its very hard to type in here the examples that you want to give.


  • Options
    #264
    Shelflife
    Registered Users Posts: 3,073 ✭✭✭Shelflife


    I have a tag law query, as you know a girl try is worth 3points. in a tournament recently when team A had the ball the girls would automatically run ahead of the play so that in the event of a break they would be at the try line in order to get a simple pop pass and a 3 point try.

    now technically the girls were offside when they ran ahead of the play, but they are put back onside once the male who makes the break runs ahead of them. but and this is my point , by running ahead in an offside position they obviously gain an advantage but are never penalised.

    Is this playing to the spirit of the game or should it be penalised.


  • Options
    #265
    JustinDee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,684 ✭✭✭JustinDee


    Shelflife wrote: »
    I have a tag law query, as you know a girl try is worth 3points. in a tournament recently when team A had the ball the girls would automatically run ahead of the play so that in the event of a break they would be at the try line in order to get a simple pop pass and a 3 point try.

    now technically the girls were offside when they ran ahead of the play, but they are put back onside once the male who makes the break runs ahead of them. but and this is my point , by running ahead in an offside position they obviously gain an advantage but are never penalised.

    Is this playing to the spirit of the game or should it be penalised.

    Its certainly not playing in the spirit of the game. I don't know whether its technically legal or not in the IRFU tag rugby programme.
    Shall raise with our refs dept and see where we go from there.

    Thanks for raising.
    Interesting conundrum.


  • Options
    #266
    randomname2005
    Registered Users Posts: 1,932 ✭✭✭randomname2005


    Shelflife wrote: »
    I have a tag law query, as you know a girl try is worth 3points. in a tournament recently when team A had the ball the girls would automatically run ahead of the play so that in the event of a break they would be at the try line in order to get a simple pop pass and a 3 point try.

    now technically the girls were offside when they ran ahead of the play, but they are put back onside once the male who makes the break runs ahead of them. but and this is my point , by running ahead in an offside position they obviously gain an advantage but are never penalised.

    Is this playing to the spirit of the game or should it be penalised.

    When breaking from a ruck/maul/scrum, attacking players will not run behind their backline, but instead, run straight for the breakdown situation. They are ahead of the ball, gain an advantage because it is the shortest route, but are never penalised because they are put onside before they take part in the game. It would be very easy to look at your situation in the same way.

    The defending team has a numbers advantage, making defending easier.


  • Options
    #267
    JustinDee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,684 ✭✭✭JustinDee


    Have asked on this.

    In our tag leagues (IRFU), this was brought up before this year.

    Basically this form of offside is against the spirt of the game and refs have been instructed to warn teams not to do it and otherwise penalise accordingly (ie. as an offside/obstruction offence would be sanctioned).


  • Options
    #268
    daveharnett
    Registered Users Posts: 2,567 ✭✭✭daveharnett


    Shelflife wrote: »
    I have a tag law query, as you know a girl try is worth 3points. in a tournament recently when team A had the ball the girls would automatically run ahead of the play so that in the event of a break they would be at the try line in order to get a simple pop pass and a 3 point try.

    now technically the girls were offside when they ran ahead of the play, but they are put back onside once the male who makes the break runs ahead of them. but and this is my point , by running ahead in an offside position they obviously gain an advantage but are never penalised.

    Is this playing to the spirit of the game or should it be penalised.
    The bigger problem for me is that this tactic is denying the girls the opportunity to take part in the game fully. A policy of managing it out of the game makes a lot of sense.

    As to the legality, it depends on whether you take union or league as your starting point. In union when your offside, not only can you not take part in play, you also can't move forward or towards the ball. In league, it's not a problem.


  • Options
    #269
    Shelflife
    Registered Users Posts: 3,073 ✭✭✭Shelflife


    daveharnett wrote: »
    The bigger problem for me is that this tactic is denying the girls the opportunity to take part in the game fully. A policy of managing it out of the game makes a lot of sense.

    Youve hit the nail on the head here dave, you basically had the girls just running up and down the line and never making a break or really getting involved in the game.

    I wouldnt dream of asking our girls to do that as it ruins the game for them, i questioned the tactic with a ref and he replied that unless they interfere with a player or the ball then they are ok. i just found it an unsportmanslike tactic.

    Nice to see that they will try and remove it from the game.


  • Options
    #270
    CIARAN_BOYLE
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 14,599 Mod ✭✭✭✭CIARAN_BOYLE


    Could someone explain to me the laws regarding a taking a quick line out


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #271
    Risteard
    Registered Users Posts: 2,698 ✭✭✭Risteard


    CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »
    Could someone explain to me the laws regarding a taking a quick line out

    Same ball must be used.

    The ball must not have it any other person e.g. fans can't hand the ball back to the player and a quick lineout be taken.

    The lineout musn't be marked. (think it's two opposition players.)

    Ball can travel backwards.

    Ball must be thrown in from the mark or behind it.


Advertisement