Laws Question? Ask here!

The Lost Sheep

BigHeel wrote: »

check out
http://www.irishrugby.ie/downloads/2016-17_IRFU_Mini_and_Leprechaun_Regulations.pdf

I mean from my experiences of mini rugby it isnt refereed like that and you also referred to under 13 and it certainly isnt the case at that level.

BigHeel

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

I mean from my experiences of mini rugby it isnt refereed like that and you also referred to under 13 and it certainly isnt the case at that level.

My reference to U13 was is that it is more or less what SRU at at U15. Although interestingly their approach to the lineout I would argue is the complete opposite to ours (SRU = uncontested but lifting allowed IRFU = contested but no lift)
The present IRFU mini regs, which introduced stage 4 and the tackle hight, have been in effect for 2 seasons now and in my experience are being widely applied.

I do believe we need to look at how the game is coached and played from U12 to U15 with incremental stages at U13 and U14 leading to the full in 19 variation at U15.

The Lost Sheep

Taken this from another thread

Muligatawney wrote: »

Anyone know about the law the ref was talking about with the ball being kicked out of Fardy's hands? Says it has to be a tackle, touch judge and TMO seemed to be leading him to it being a penalty but he was insistent.

I dont and think the Assistant Ref and TMO were correct.
https://rugbyreferee.net/2015/09/17/law-clarification-kicking-ball-out-of-players-hands/

Captain_Crash

Towards the end of the NZ V SA game, NZ we’re camped on the SA line and recycled a ruck about 1M out and tried to barge over, SA looked to have stolen it but Nigel Owens called it back and said it was “short” I used quotations cause that’s the only word of what he said that I could make out. But he awarded a scrum to NZ... obviously if it was short it should be an SA scrum.... does anyone know what happened or was it just a mistake? (bad one at that, if he knew it was short)

blackwhite

Captain_Crash wrote: »

Towards the end of the NZ V SA game, NZ we’re camped on the SA line and recycled a ruck about 1M out and tried to barge over, SA looked to have stolen it but Nigel Owens called it back and said it was “short” I used quotations cause that’s the only word of what he said that I could make out. But he awarded a scrum to NZ... obviously if it was short it should be an SA scrum.... does anyone know what happened or was it just a mistake? (bad one at that, if he knew it was short)

I got the impresssion he thought SA had turned over illegally, but hadn’t actually seen an infringement.

Scrum was an easy way out to avoid a controversial penalty

Captain_Crash

blackwhite wrote: »

I got the impresssion he thought SA had turned over illegally, but hadn’t actually seen an infringement.

Scrum was an easy way out to avoid a controversial penalty

That does makes sense yeah, but he said short and that’s what confused me!

Synode

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Taken this from another thread

I dont and think the Assistant Ref and TMO were correct.
https://rugbyreferee.net/2015/09/17/law-clarification-kicking-ball-out-of-players-hands/

So a penalty, perhaps a penalty try should have been awarded in the Fardy situation?

I didn't hear any of the conversation between the officials

Losty Dublin

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Taken this from another thread

I dont and think the Assistant Ref and TMO were correct.
https://rugbyreferee.net/2015/09/17/law-clarification-kicking-ball-out-of-players-hands/

The issue we saw was if the ball was in the hands or not when it was played. The referee obviously didn't see the issue of possession on the floor and instead went for clarification on how to restart the game. While his visual call was wrong he deserves some merit for sticking to his guns.

joseywhales

Quick question:
If the goalpost and padding are considered part of the goal line and therefore part of the in goal area and if the hindmost foot in a ruck is on our behind the goal line, then the goal line is used as the offside line.
Is a player not onside if they stand touching the goalpost?
I ask beside I see sides struggling to defend goalpost tries because they are being blocked by the post. Why not stand in front of the post with your arse against it as your starting point?

Quin_Dub

joseywhales wrote: »

Quick question:
If the goalpost and padding are considered part of the goal line and therefore part of the in goal area and if the hindmost foot in a ruck is on our behind the goal line, then the goal line is used as the offside line.
Is a player not onside if they stand touching the goalpost?
I ask beside I see sides struggling to defend goalpost tries because they are being blocked by the post. Why not stand in front of the post with your arse against it as your starting point?

Not exactly - It's only the very bottom of the post - The ball has to be on the ground and touching the bottom of the post for a try to count - If the ball is off the ground it doesn't count.

So , in theory you could be potentially onside in front of the post if both feet were in continuous contact with the ground and the base of the post , any movement away from that and you'd be done..And that assumes that you took up that position before the goal line became the offside line as if you stepped up to take your spot, you'd be offside as soon as you moved.

In practice however - You'd be offside.

joseywhales

Quin_Dub wrote: »

joseywhales wrote: »

Quick question:
If the goalpost and padding are considered part of the goal line and therefore part of the in goal area and if the hindmost foot in a ruck is on our behind the goal line, then the goal line is used as the offside line.
Is a player not onside if they stand touching the goalpost?
I ask beside I see sides struggling to defend goalpost tries because they are being blocked by the post. Why not stand in front of the post with your arse against it as your starting point?

Not exactly - It's only the very bottom of the post - The ball has to be on the ground and touching the bottom of the post for a try to count - If the ball is off the ground it doesn't count.

So , in theory you could be potentially onside in front of the post if both feet were in continuous contact with the ground and the base of the post , any movement away from that and you'd be done..And that assumes that you took up that position before the goal line became the offside line as if you stepped up to take your spot, you'd be offside as soon as you moved.

In practice however - You'd be offside.

It was my belief that the bottom of the post is used for scoring a try because the ball must be grounded(ie touch the ground) in the in goal area but that the entire post is still treated as the goal line.
However, you might be right since you have to be behind the offside line, not just touching it.
I think its ridiculous though that teams are just blocked by the post almost guaranteeing a try.

phog

joseywhales wrote: »

It was my belief that the bottom of the post is used for scoring a try because the ball must be grounded(ie touch the ground) in the in goal area but that the entire post is still treated as the goal line.
However, you might be right since you have to be behind the offside line, not just touching it.
I think its ridiculous though that teams are just blocked by the post almost guaranteeing a try.

The alternative is that the defending team end up with 2 extra defenders when the attacking team are trying to score a try near the goal area.

At least with the current law the attacking team is rewarded.

Jump_In_Jack

Why doesn't rugby just adopt the NFL goalposts? Seeing as rugby doesn't have a use for the part below the crossbar.

prawnsambo

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

Why doesn't rugby just adopt the NFL goalposts? Seeing as rugby doesn't have a use for the part below the crossbar.

It would be very expensive to implement I'd imagine. With one support, the entire structure would need to be beefed up dramatically.

Jump_In_Jack

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

Why doesn't rugby just adopt the NFL goalposts? Seeing as rugby doesn't have a use for the part below the crossbar.

prawnsambo wrote: »

It would be very expensive to implement I'd imagine. With one support, the entire structure would need to be beefed up dramatically.

Actually, I just read up on the NFL goalposts, and they had issues with them and decided to move them back to the end of the end zone, so unless rugby agreed to move them back it probably couldn't be done.
I think there's only so much support in that forked structure so it couldn't stretch all the way from the dead-ball line, and also, rugby doesn't have a specified dead-ball length which is another complication.
If the forked structure could be stretched far enough you would still have an issue where the ball could hit the bent stanchion on the way down, such as from a garryowen.

Probably best to leave it as it is then.

sydthebeat

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

Actually, I just read up on the NFL goalposts, and they had issues with them and decided to move them back to the end of the dead zone, so unless rugby agreed to move them back it probably couldn't be done.
I think there's only so much support in that forked structure so it couldn't stretch all the way from the dead-ball line, and also, rugby doesn't have a specified dead-ball length which is another complication.
If the forked structure could be stretched far enough you would still have an issue where the ball could hit the bent stanchion on the way down, such as from a garryowen.

Probably best to leave it as it is then.

there is another alternative... most the posts back to the dead ball line

locum-motion

sydthebeat wrote: »

there is another alternative... most the posts back to the dead ball line

Doesn't matter fr conversions, but it does for penalties/drop goals; makes them much harder.

Also, the length of the dead-ball area would have to be standardised.

errlloyd

sydthebeat wrote: »

there is another alternative... most the posts back to the dead ball line

I guess they may not have to go the whole way back. Just like 3 metres behind the line or whatever. Enough space for a ruck to happen, and not much else. They'd make drop goals and penalties slightly harder, but that may not be a bad thing?

pickarooney

I'm missing something here...
What's the issue with a y shaped post whose base is a metre back in the in goal area and whose crossbar is parallel with the try line?

There's no more base of the post malarkey, the size of in goal is irrelevant and for kicking there's no change.

prawnsambo

pickarooney wrote: »

I'm missing something here...
What's the issue with a y shaped post whose base is a metre back in the in goal area and whose crossbar is parallel with the try line?

There's no more base of the post malarkey, the size of in goal is irrelevant and for kicking there's no change.

What I said earlier in terms of expense. Much heavier materials required and a pretty strong foundation. That would cost rugby clubs a significant amount of money.

pickarooney

prawnsambo wrote: »

What I said earlier in terms of expense. Much heavier materials required and a pretty strong foundation. That would cost rugby clubs a significant amount of money.

Every high school in America has one, surely?

They do seem to be 3-4 times the price of rugby posts if bought in the UK, though.

blackwhite

pickarooney wrote: »

Every high school in America has one, surely?

They do seem to be 3-4 times the price of rugby posts if bought in the UK, though.

Plenty of American high schools use rugby style H-posts (usually the schools without a lot of funding)

prawnsambo

pickarooney wrote: »

Every high school in America has one, surely?

They do seem to be 3-4 times the price of rugby posts if bought in the UK, though.

A lot of US high schools would have bigger football budgets than the average amateur rugby clubs. But the 3-4 times price needs to be looked at in the conterxt of the price of the H posts. Which are roughly about €2,500 a pair. And that's not taking into account the cost of actually fitting such posts.

pickarooney

It'll be hologram posts soon enough I suppose.

Former Former

pickarooney wrote: »

I'm missing something here...
What's the issue with a y shaped post whose base is a metre back in the in goal area and whose crossbar is parallel with the try line?

To answer a question that no-one asked, that's what Canadian football uses.

errlloyd

Let's just suspend the posts in massive stadiums from the roof on Cables. No base of the post at all.

joseywhales

Existing posts shorten field by 6m, no expense.

irishbucsfan

We don't need posts at all.

We should just have 3 judges on the sideline, then the kickers can kick to where the posts used to be and the judges can rate the beauty of their kicks out of 3 and the kicking team will get the average score.

joseywhales

irishbucsfan wrote: »

We don't need posts at all.

We should just have 3 judges on the sideline, then the kickers can kick to where the posts used to be and the judges can rate the beauty of their kicks out of 3 and the kicking team will get the average score.

Objections to be contested by roshambo

MaybeMaybe

sure soon enough there won't be posts as the poor lads in NZ don't make kickers