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

Rugby 101 - Know your rucks from your mauls!

1141517192023

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 11,248 ✭✭✭✭salmocab


    The line out has to be formed between the 5mtr and 15mtr hatched markings on the pitch. You could in theory start 12 mts back but no team would not have defenders up front. Also don’t forget the defending hooker would be loitering around the front somewhere.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,894 ✭✭✭✭Losty Dublin


    Within the Laws a team could form in at the back and the thrower could throw short and join the line to contest his own ball. In theory at least; in practice it'd be some trick to pull off successfully but I'm sure it has been done.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,967 ✭✭✭✭The Lost Sheep


    Muahahaha wrote: »
    Few questions that have been bugging me- subs warming up in the in goal area- is this protocol as such, are they instructed by the fourth ref that this is where they can warm up or do they just go there of their own violition. For some reason I cant seem to remember it happening years ago, I think subs used to just warm up near their teams bench?

    Also anyone remember what was the name of the English player who played circa early to mid nineties and had a huge kicking points total, he might off been the English record points holder until Johnny Wilkinson later took it off him. Off the rugby field he was a dentist and he wore glasses.

    Finally in a contested line out can the hooker throw the ball to himself in the same way a player can when the line out is uncontested?
    Protocol at higher levels will be that you warm up at each end in dead ball area of tryline you're team is scoring into. Subs used to(and do at other levels...) warm up near bench but less room and harder for refs to manage.
    A hooker could throw it to themself in contested lineout but wouldnt win it as ball must travel 5m and straight which wouldnt happen
    Muahahaha wrote: »
    On the line out, that makes sense that it would be virtually impossible for a hooker to throw it to themselves if it has to cover five metres. I was just interested in whether or not the laws of the game allowed for it in contested line outs. Now I know it is legal- another question- does the first player in the line out have to stand at a specific spot X metres from the line? Or could you have a play whereby the first player takes up a position 10 or 12 metres from the line (and the defending team naturally matches their line up to that). The idea being that the attacking team place their line out deeper and trick the defending team into creating enough space for the hooker to throw it 5 metres to themselves and then completely bypass the lineout. I know its an unlikely play to ever see being tried or done but is it technically possible and within the laws?
    Nothing in law stops it happening. Just incredibly unlikely.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,309 ✭✭✭Dave_The_Sheep


    https://v.redd.it/g9bsle7dd0h21/DASH_240

    Double movement or not? Completed tackle?


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,511 ✭✭✭Bogwoppit


    https://v.redd.it/g9bsle7dd0h21/DASH_240

    Double movement or not? Completed tackle?

    Both players still in motion, momentum and strength got the ball carrier over the line before the tackle was completed.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 14,967 ✭✭✭✭The Lost Sheep


    https://v.redd.it/g9bsle7dd0h21/DASH_240

    Double movement or not? Completed tackle?
    Try. Players momentum got them to place ball before tackle completed. No double movement.


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators, Regional West Moderators Posts: 6,773 Mod ✭✭✭✭connemara man


    The no Try in todays Ireland match

    Where in the laws does it say downward pressure or control in the laws?

    like on a loose ball contact is enough and in that scenario I thought contact would be enough


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    The no Try in todays Ireland match

    Where in the laws does it say downward pressure or control in the laws?

    like on a loose ball contact is enough and in that scenario I thought contact would be enough

    Law 21 - grounding the ball

    https://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=21

    "By pressing down on it with a hand or hands, arm or arms, or the front of the player’s body from waist to neck."

    Note the use of 'down'.


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators, Regional West Moderators Posts: 6,773 Mod ✭✭✭✭connemara man


    Basil3 wrote: »
    Law 21 - grounding the ball

    https://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=21

    "By pressing down on it with a hand or hands, arm or arms, or the front of the player’s body from waist to neck."

    Note the use of 'down'.

    I get ya. Then the referees reason not to give it was wrong so.

    Even if you could make the argument as his fingers hit the top half of the ball that downward pressure led it to squirting forward ( but that would a world of semantics)


  • Subscribers Posts: 40,729 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    I get ya. Then the referees reason not to give it was wrong so.

    Even if you could make the argument as his fingers hit the top half of the ball that downward pressure led it to squirting forward ( but that would a world of semantics)

    The referee didn't "disallow" it though.
    The tmo said there was insufficient evidence of downward pressure and Healy knocked the ball forward.... Which was correct


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Sports Moderators, Regional West Moderators Posts: 6,773 Mod ✭✭✭✭connemara man


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    The referee didn't "disallow" it though.
    The tmo said there was insufficient evidence of downward pressure and Healy knocked the ball forward.... Which was correct

    My argument would be as his hand came down on a static ball any touch of the ball on the upper half would apply downward pressure and knock it on in the process. He doesn't have to have control over it.

    The ref says there's no downward pressure and no control as he's placed the ball and the ref has final say. Which is wrong as in that scenario like a loose ball he's not expected or required to place it or control it which

    I'd argue the semantics of what constitutes downward pressure in that scenario though


  • Registered Users Posts: 24,214 ✭✭✭✭lawred2


    Can I ask a question about yesterday's game and Sexton's try?

    Where is the line between being a decoy runner (Larmour) and crossing between a tackler and the ball carrier?


  • Registered Users Posts: 21,066 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    Larmour did not run a line that prevented any French player tackling Sexton. He distracted the French tackler to a dummy runner. If Larmour had run close to Sexton, you're argument would be correct.


  • Registered Users Posts: 24,214 ✭✭✭✭lawred2


    Water John wrote: »
    Larmour did not run a line that prevented any French player tackling Sexton. He distracted the French tackler to a dummy runner. If Larmour had run close to Sexton, you're argument would be correct.

    Wasn't making an argument.

    I was asking where the line was between being a decoy and blocking a tackler...

    Watching the video here on slow motion - Larmour has run right between Sexton and I think it's Huget. So it's obviously a fine margin. Either way - nicely constructed try.

    https://youtu.be/t-TlEozlZ3w?t=37


  • Subscribers Posts: 40,729 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    lawred2 wrote: »
    Wasn't making an argument.

    I was asking where the line was between being a decoy and blocking a tackler...

    In Joe Schmidts head


  • Registered Users Posts: 388 ✭✭sliabh 1956


    What was the TMO's reasoning in giving that last score to France when the grounding of the ball was so hard to see.


  • Registered Users Posts: 24,214 ✭✭✭✭lawred2


    What was the TMO's reasoning in giving that last score to France when the grounding of the ball was so hard to see.

    he said he saw it grounded so not sure why he needed the TMO at all... unless he was asking for a reason not to give it


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,216 ✭✭✭nc6000


    lawred2 wrote: »
    I was asking where the line was between being a decoy and blocking a tackler...
    https://youtu.be/t-TlEozlZ3w?t=37

    The decoy needs to have a realistic chance of getting the ball.


  • Registered Users Posts: 21,066 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    Yes some body mentioned earlier that the ref said he saw it grounded. I think he wanted to award it. The last I saw of it, from the best camera angle in slow mo was on a French player's back. You can see later movement when I suspect they were nuzzling it to the ground, at the time the Irish scrum half stuck in his hand.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,143 ✭✭✭locum-motion


    My argument would be as his hand came down on a static ball any touch of the ball on the upper half would apply downward pressure and knock it on in the process. He doesn't have to have control over it.

    The ref says there's no downward pressure and no control as he's placed the ball and the ref has final say. Which is wrong as in that scenario like a loose ball he's not expected or required to place it or control it which

    I'd argue the semantics of what constitutes downward pressure in that scenario though

    It's quite obvious.

    Hand Movement A = downward pressure = Try
    Hand Movement B = forward pressure = Knock on

    475168.png
    TryNoTry.png


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,438 ✭✭✭kuang1


    It's quite obvious.

    Hand Movement A = downward pressure = Try
    Hand Movement B = forward pressure = Knock on

    475168.png
    TryNoTry.png

    To be tremendously anal about it, and those who ever studied applied maths will know, that movement B actually is responsible for a small amount of downward pressure.


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators, Regional West Moderators Posts: 6,773 Mod ✭✭✭✭connemara man


    kuang1 wrote: »
    To be tremendously anal about it, and those who ever studied applied maths will know, that movement B actually is responsible for a small amount of downward pressure.

    That's kinda my point and Healy's hand didn't come in straight it was in a slight downward trajectory (BTW I know this is pedantry to the highest degree)


  • Subscribers Posts: 40,729 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    this is where the infamous phrase "clear and obvious" comes into play......

    healys touch definitely didnt show clear and obvious downward pressure. The pressure was much more obviously sideways than downwards.


  • Registered Users Posts: 189 ✭✭setanta1000


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    this is where the infamous phrase "clear and obvious" comes into play......

    healys touch definitely didnt show clear and obvious downward pressure. The pressure was much more obviously sideways than downwards.

    I may have missed the explanation on the TV but how was Healy allowed to go for the ball (regardless of successful downward pressure or not) - was he not coming in from the side or was the ball playable at that stage because it was behind the goal line?

    EDIT - Nevermind, Murray Kinsella just explained it on The 42 - ruck ended once the ball touches or goes beyond the goal line and so no offside so ball is out


  • Subscribers Posts: 40,729 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    I may have missed the explanation on the TV but how was Healy allowed to go for the ball (regardless of successful downward pressure or not) - was he not coming in from the side or was the ball playable at that stage because it was behind the goal line?

    there is no off side in the goal area (try area)... and the line is considered part of that area....

    so once the ball touches the line, theres then no offside so healy can come from where he wants to touch the ball down


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators, Regional West Moderators Posts: 6,773 Mod ✭✭✭✭connemara man


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    this is where the infamous phrase "clear and obvious" comes into play......

    healys touch definitely didnt show clear and obvious downward pressure. The pressure was much more obviously sideways than downwards.

    But there's no mention of clear and obvious in the laws it's just downward pressure.

    It's one of those area that's upto the ref. Fun thought argument though :)

    Like if another reffing team allowed it you could see why


  • Subscribers Posts: 40,729 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    But there's no mention of clear and obvious in the laws it's just downward pressure.

    It's one of those area that's upto the ref. Fun thought argument though :)

    Like if another reffing team allowed it you could see why

    'clear and obvious' isnt mentioned anywhere in the laws..... buts its a principle by which a lot of decision are made... especially with TMO


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 152 ✭✭Simple_Simone


    Anyone else reckon that the French red card in the ladies' (womens'?) game was a tad harsh? Unlikely to have been red in a male game.

    For me it looked like a hand-off that went a bit high after contact? Penno definitely; yellow card if you're feeling grumpy, but red was on the harsh side, as the TMO Claire Hodnett tried to tell the ref. Fortunately it didn't affect the result.


  • Registered Users Posts: 21,066 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    What ended up as a short arm tackle to the neck, is dangerous play that could have caused serious injury. Should be red card in any rugby game.
    It started as a hand off but moved quickly to a short arm.

    If Healy hadn't knocked on, Murray was probably getting the try.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 10,460 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    lawred2 wrote: »
    Wasn't making an argument.

    I was asking where the line was between being a decoy and blocking a tackler...

    Watching the video here on slow motion - Larmour has run right between Sexton and I think it's Huget. So it's obviously a fine margin. Either way - nicely constructed try.

    https://youtu.be/t-TlEozlZ3w?t=37

    I believe it's fine because:
    • Larmour is onside the whole time.
    • Larmour is arguably competing for possession.
    • Larmour doesn't charge or push the French player.
    • Sexton isn't the ball carrier until after Larmour has blocked the French player.
    Larmour would have to be guilty of one of these to be obstructing.


Advertisement