Rugby 101 - Know your rucks from your mauls!

Ardillaun

In the Arg-NZ game, I think it was Smith who threw the ball into a retreating Argentinian and got a penalty. It looked deliberate. When do refs warn players not to do that when it looks deliberate? I saw Nigel Owens doing that recently.

theintern

Ardillaun wrote: »

In the Arg-NZ game, I think it was Smith who threw the ball into a retreating Argentinian and got a penalty. It looked deliberate. When do refs warn players not to do that when it looks deliberate? I saw Nigel Owens doing that recently.

That's a tricky one because legitimately that's an offside penalty. If the SH wants to play the ball in a certain direction, he should he allowed to do so. A retreating player is offside and the penalty should be given.

That said, the rugby laws have a couple of handy tricks. Firstly there's a law against unsportsmanlike behaviour.

_9.27 A player must not do anything that is against the spirit of good sportsmanship_

A referee is within their rights to not give a penalty for this reason, or can fall back on the classic 6.5a

_The referee is the sole judge of fact and of law during a match._

So in summary. Situations like this are often a stonewall penalty by the letter of the offside law. But when Nigel Owens or another ref warns a scrum half not to obviously try to buy the penalty, they're within their rights to do so with one of the laws above. It's all part of refereeing with empathy for the players, rather than being a robotic law applier.

padjocollins

Ardillaun wrote: »

In the Arg-NZ game, I think it was Smith who threw the ball into a retreating Argentinian and got a penalty. It looked deliberate. When do refs warn players not to do that when it looks deliberate? I saw Nigel Owens doing that recently.

as far as i remember , he even threw it forward. i would have given a penalty against Smith, deliberate unsportsman like behavior

Pudsy33

Does anyone know anything about the very low chop tackle that England were hitting Ireland with around the rucks yesterday? Is it legal? There seemed to be very little arms involved and all shoulder. Surely if there is no attempt to grab then it's not allowed?

padjocollins

For me not a forward pass. leaves Stockdales hands flat or a few degrees backwards. of course the ball goes foward, he's running
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iK5iWCvGV18 -- about 7.30 in the video . It's very marginal though, prob flat here and i've no prob not giving it or giving it. as long as everybody knows how to judge it because from what i'm hearing from the commentators they don't take into account forward momentum of the player and the only/best way to judge it is did the ball leav the hand in a backwards motion/angle (or nearly flat) .

open to opinions/correction on this.

Water John

Agree, it wouldn't have been questioned only for the half way line. His other cut out pass which was exactly the same wasn't given against him.
Slo-mow is not the way to view it. It needs to be viewed in real time.

The Lost Sheep

padjocollins wrote: »

For me not a forward pass. leaves Stockdales hands flat or a few degrees backwards. of course the ball goes foward, he's running
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iK5iWCvGV18 -- about 7.30 in the video . It's very marginal though, prob flat here and i've no prob not giving it or giving it. as long as everybody knows how to judge it because from what i'm hearing from the commentators they don't take into account forward momentum of the player and the only/best way to judge it is did the ball leav the hand in a backwards motion/angle (or nearly flat) .

open to opinions/correction on this.

for me its clearly forward. Yes his hands go back but when the ball is clearly and obviously gone forward then you cant consider it a score.
If the distance was marginal maybe but it wasnt. he threw pass on line and pass collected several steps ahead of the line.

Water John

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

for me its clearly forward. Yes his hands go back but when the ball is clearly and obviously gone forward then you cant consider it a score.
If the distance was marginal maybe but it wasnt. he threw pass on line and pass collected several steps ahead of the line.

So many passes would be ruled forward on that basis. That's why the direction of the hands is included.

GreeBo

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

for me its clearly forward. Yes his hands go back but when the ball is clearly and obviously gone forward then you cant consider it a score.
If the distance was marginal maybe but it wasnt. he threw pass on line and pass collected several steps ahead of the line.

Then you are basically saying that he was running too fast...

Nermal

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

for me its clearly forward. Yes his hands go back but when the ball is clearly and obviously gone forward then you cant consider it a score.

It doesn’t matter if the ball goes forward, it matters only if it was thrown forward. Players have forward momentum; if they throw a flat pass it will travel forwards. It was a bad call. Top level referees routinely use language that makes me think they don’t understand this.

Water John

If Stokdale continued running he would be far ahead of where the ball landed.

The Lost Sheep

Nermal wrote: »

It doesn’t matter if the ball goes forward, it matters only if it was thrown forward. Players have forward momentum; if they throw a flat pass it will travel forwards. It was a bad call. Top level referees routinely use language that makes me think they don’t understand this.

Try ref like that. try treat every situation like that.

Water John

Georgia never called either Stokdale passes forward or objected to the ref TMK.
Anyone who has played rugby knows every game is different depending on the nuances of the ref. A lot of calls are marginal but accepted by both sides, otherwise rugby would be stopped an awful lot.

72sheep

Why do the 10's before a drop-kick kickoff often bounce the ball off the turf a couple of times? Is it to flatten the grass, get a feel for the bounce, other... Thanks.

padjocollins

Water John wrote: »

If Stokdale continued running he would be far ahead of where the ball landed.

check the video , Stockdale's still moving and is ahead of the ball when McCloskey caught it.

purpleisafruit

World Rugby even made a video explaining why that wasn't a forward pass!

BoardsMember

72sheep wrote: »

Why do the 10's before a drop-kick kickoff often bounce the ball off the turf a couple of times? Is it to flatten the grass, get a feel for the bounce, other... Thanks.

To check the firmness/bounce of the ground, so they can time the kick properly. If it's soft they might look for a better patch.

locum-motion

purpleisafruit wrote: »

World Rugby even made a video explaining why that wasn't a forward pass!

I posted that same video before in this forum.

The number of people who don’t understand this is shocking.

First Up

MJohnston wrote:

Rugby 101 cheat sheet. During the RWC we'll undoubtably get an influx of new posters into our community. If you're unsur- ?e of what a ruck is, or a line out, or where the offside line is, then ?

MJohnston wrote:

Rugby 101 cheat sheet. During the RWC we'll undoubtably get an influx of new posters into our community. If you're unsure of a a ruck is, or a line out, or where the offside line is, then this is the thread to ask!

First Up

MJohnston wrote:

Rugby 101 cheat sheet. During the RWC we'll undoubtably get an influx of new posters into our community. If you're unsure of what a ruck is, or a line out, or where the offside line is, then this is the thread to ask!

MJohnston wrote:

It's fair to say we're all buzzing for Friday's kickoff, but I figure (and hope) this RWC is going to bring a few people onboard to watching rugby who've never seen it before. As I've been basically stuck with nothing to do in a hotel room this week (steady on), and am fairly handy with the oul Photoshop I decided to make a sort of printable poster to provide a newbie guide to the game.

MJohnston wrote:

MOD: Massive thanks to MJohnston for doing up

MJohnston wrote:

It's fair to say we're all buzzing for Friday's kickoff, but I figure (and hope) this RWC is going to bring a few people onboard to watching rugby who've never seen it before. As I've been basically stuck with nothing to do in a hotel room this week (steady on), and am fairly handy with the oul Photoshop I decided to make a sort of printable poster to provide a newbie guide to the game.

MJohnston wrote:

MOD: Massive thanks to MJohnston for doing up

d

MJohnston wrote:

It's fair to say we're all buzzing for Friday's kickoff, but I figure (and hope) this RWC is going to bring a few people onboard to watching rugby who've never seen it before. As I've been basically stuck with nothing to do in a hotel room this week (steady on), and am fairly handy with the oul Photoshop I decided to make a sort of printable poster to provide a newbie guide to the game.

?

MJohnston wrote:

Thanks all, I'm making some changes thanks to your advice. I've got this wording for the gate now: "is a line at the rear of the ruck facing their own goal line."

s?#-÷--=

Think this is the right place for a few questions.

Why are grubber kicks so under-utilised in Rugby Union? Especially for penalty advantage. I also don't understand on penalty advantage why high cross-field kicks seem to be the go-to when surely a flat kick to an under-defended area is the way to go? Earls today with the disallowed try showed the benefit, changes a competed ball with it being all down to accuracy of the kick.

Other thing that seems massively under-utilised is drop goals. With modern pitch conditions they can pop it over from 35 for fun.

And finally. :pac: Anyone ever seen a defending team play smart around a ruck and let someone just go to ground on a pick-and-go? See it all the time where the player takes the ball and has no intention of staying on his feet but as soon as a finger touches him he's legal to touch the ground.

locum-motion

With the grubber, you’ve to thread the kick between defenders, which isn’t always easy.

Re. Drop goals; More often than not, if you’re within 35m, you’re better off going forward the 5 or 7 points. If you’re one or two points behind with little or no time left, then your drop goal is worthwhile.

On your third question; I really cannot understand what you’re on about. The question makes no sense.

locum-motion

locum-motion wrote: »

With the grubber, you’ve to thread the kick between defenders, which isn’t always easy.

Fair enough.

Re. Drop goals; More often than not, if you’re within 35m, you’re better off going forward the 5 or 7 points. If you’re one or two points behind with little or no time left, then your drop goal is worthwhile.

If you score 3 points every time you're anywhere near the 22 it'll add up pretty damn quickly though. 3 penalties to no score is a nice start, seems handy DGs would be a decent option.

On your third question; I really cannot understand what you’re on about. The question makes no sense.

Might be one of those things in Rugby that people pretend doesn't happen. Team is ahead. They have the ball and want to run the clock out. Player takes the ball from the ruck and runs and his heading towards the ground. If the team without the ball can avoid him then he's going to ground with the ball which isn't allowed AFAIK.

Lost Ormond

Deleted User wrote: »

Think this is the right place for a few questions.

Why are grubber kicks so under-utilised in Rugby Union? Especially for penalty advantage. I also don't understand on penalty advantage why high cross-field kicks seem to be the go-to when surely a flat kick to an under-defended area is the way to go? Earls today with the disallowed try showed the benefit, changes a competed ball with it being all down to accuracy of the kick.

Grubbers almost certainly will give the ball to the opposition and therefore advantage is over a high cross field kick has a far greater potential to be dropped/land in space etc and result in a greater advantage or a score.

Other thing that seems massively under-utilised is drop goals. With modern pitch conditions they can pop it over from 35 for fun.

Because they are not easily scorable and if you do miss you have a 22 drop out kicked well into your half and you have to work hard to get back up the field to attack again.

And finally. :pac: Anyone ever seen a defending team play smart around a ruck and let someone just go to ground on a pick-and-go? See it all the time where the player takes the ball and has no intention of staying on his feet but as soon as a finger touches him he's legal to touch the ground.

That doesnt make much sense.

Losty Dublin

Deleted User wrote: »

Might be one of those things in Rugby that people pretend doesn't happen. Team is ahead. They have the ball and want to run the clock out. Player takes the ball from the ruck and runs and his heading towards the ground. If the team without the ball can avoid him then he's going to ground with the ball which isn't allowed AFAIK.

There is no law that bars a player in possession with the ball from going to ground but I think I understand what you are getting at here. When the defending team avoid a player and his teammates at the breakdown then there is no ruck. There is also no obligation on forming a ruck; choose to not engage and as such it’s open play. Similarly there is no obligation to form a maul where a player from each team are on their feet and one is holding the ball. Crucially though there is no new offside line formed at the breakdown and it can cause a lot of confusion to player and fan alike.

Italy did this more than once against England in recent years while Ireland employed a defensive tactic of this nature at the line-out to avoid creating a maul.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMi_p_n9Pv0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nz_E5PJANik

Losty Dublin

Losty Dublin wrote: »

There is no law that bars a player in possession with the ball from going to ground but I think I understand what you are getting at here.

Fair enough, not sure where that thought came from.

padjocollins

i've been blown up for going to ground without being tackled. can't remember what the ref called but i didn't fancy the upcoming collision and thought we'd secure the ball with a few metres gained. ref could have made the wrong call of course.

sydthebeat

padjocollins wrote: »

i've been blown up for going to ground without being tackled. can't remember what the ref called but i didn't fancy the upcoming collision and thought we'd secure the ball with a few metres gained. ref could have made the wrong call of course.

its a weird one, but i suppose you can be called for playing the ball on the ground...

as no tackle has occurred you dont have the benefit of "making the ball available" from the ground

Losty Dublin

Deleted User wrote: »

Fair enough, not sure where that thought came from.

From the bit when you said.....

Deleted User wrote: »

Anyone ever seen a defending team play smart around a ruck and let someone just go to ground on a pick-and-go? See it all the time where the player takes the ball and has no intention of staying on his feet but as soon as a finger touches him he's legal to touch the ground

No issue with a player going to ground if he wishes :pac:

Water John

padjocollins wrote: »

i've been blown up for going to ground without being tackled. can't remember what the ref called but i didn't fancy the upcoming collision and thought we'd secure the ball with a few metres gained. ref could have made the wrong call of course.

Ha, the ref decided you undermined the whole rugby ethos by flunking the hit!!!