nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Laws Question? Ask here!

Alan_007_

Just wondering.If the ball is on the ground and you kick it over do you get the 3 points or is it play on?

Find more posts tagged with

rugby

conversion

charge

kick

chargedown

Quick Links

Comments

Losty Dublin

Stheno wrote: »

How do refs decide how long to give for advantage?

For penalties you need to gain a distinctive tactical advantage. Inside the 22 this generally means a score for the attacking team. You'd blow up straight away for a defending team.

For scrum offences crossing the gain line or a couple of clean passes to create space or a kick to space generally suffices.

In cases of serious foul play advantage shouldn't be played at all.

molloyjh

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Stheno wrote: »

How do refs decide how long to give for advantage?

For penalties you need to gain a distinctive tactical advantage. Inside the 22 this generally means a score for the attacking team. You'd blow up straight away for a defending team.

For scrum offences crossing the gain line or a couple of clean passes to create space or a kick to space generally suffices.

In cases of serious foul play advantage shouldn't be played at all.

For offences leading to scrums don't refs (at pro level) tend to wait until the completion of 1 successful phase (as opposed to a number of passes), crossing the gain line or a successful kick?

Losty Dublin

molloyjh wrote: »

For offences leading to scrums don't refs (at pro level) tend to wait until the completion of 1 successful phase (as opposed to a number of passes), crossing the gain line or a successful kick?

Not scientifically but more or less, yes. A scrum advantage will a lesser infringement to a penalty or free kick advantage so the gains from play will be lesser. The one decent phase or getting the ball away or a gain is usually enough.

Edit. To acknowledge something that you've raised here and it is a very important point that is missed a lot on fora such as this. The levels of advantage offered at senior and pro levels of rugby far surpass those offered at junior, schools and social rugby. This is due to the skill levels and conditions of the game in question and their perceived ability to make use of the advantage on offer.

Kevski

I was wondering if somebody could help me with a laws question that if been thinking about for the past few days.

The situation: The clock has passed 40mins and play is continuing when the defending team commits a foul that results in a player being sin-binned. The attacking team the taps and continues to play the ball in the hope of scoring a try.

Question: When does the clock begin to countdown for the sin bin period? As the clock is at 40mins, does the sin-binned player return to the pitch at the 50th minute? To my mind, this scenario would mean that the player would be off the pitch between the 40th and 50th minutes in the second half, plus any time that would have been played after the sin-binning offence at the end of the first half, meaning that there is an additional time penalty for being sin-binned after the clock goes dead at the end of the first half.

Hope I've explained myself properly. Thanks!

The Lost Sheep

Kevski wrote: »

I was wondering if somebody could help me with a laws question that if been thinking about for the past few days.

The situation: The clock has passed 40mins and play is continuing when the defending team commits a foul that results in a player being sin-binned. The attacking team the taps and continues to play the ball in the hope of scoring a try.

Question: When does the clock begin to countdown for the sin bin period? As the clock is at 40mins, does the sin-binned player return to the pitch at the 50th minute? To my mind, this scenario would mean that the player would be off the pitch between the 40th and 50th minutes in the second half, plus any time that would have been played after the sin-binning offence at the end of the first half, meaning that there is an additional time penalty for being sin-binned after the clock goes dead at the end of the first half.

Hope I've explained myself properly. Thanks!

The sin bin clock starts the moment the player crosses the sideline. It keeps running and only stops if the referee calls time off or blows the whistle for half-time.
If for example, a player is binned at 38 minutes and then the half runs to 42 minutes, the player will be allowed to return at the first break in play (scrum, line-out, penalty or free-kick) after the sixth minute of the second half.

Quin_Dub

As I understand it the time should come off from the 1st half..

What you describe is counted as actual playing time , so if a team keeps the ball in play for an extended period of time at the end of the 1st half the "bin time" gets counted and they would return after 10 minutes of play had elapsed.. The Extra time in the 1st half plus the balance remaining from the start of the second.

Kevski

That makes sense, thank you!

rje66

Its timed from playing time, so if a player gets binned and a serious injury stops play for 8 mins , those 8 mins are not counted as part of the 10 mins in bin

The Lost Sheep

World Rugby have released an update on scrum and high tackles

CMOTDibbler

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

World Rugby have released an update on scrum and high tackles

Interesting that the high tackle law emphasises that the player may be sanctioned. So it's not automatic that it's a penalty at minimum.

The other interesting one is "awareness of non-hooking teams". That would be us against Scotland I suspect.

mountain

At an U18 match, and ref played 30 mins in first half and when it was brought to his attention that if should of been 35mins, ref decided to play 40mins in second half,

Was that correct decision?

Quin_Dub

mountain wrote: »

At an U18 match, and ref played 30 mins in first half and when it was brought to his attention that if should of been 35mins, ref decided to play 40mins in second half,

Was that correct decision?

Absolutely not.. 2nd mistake doesn't fix the 1st one..

[Deleted User]

In the France/Scotland game shoving a player who wouldn't return the ball for a penalty resulted in the penalty being overturned. That player then retaliated with a shove which was unpunished. Why was it unpunished? Retaliation is specifically outlawed and when retaliating for a punch (I would call it defending oneself) the retaliation is often punished, why not in this case?

The Lost Sheep

Deleted User wrote: »

In the France/Scotland game shoving a player who wouldn't return the ball for a penalty resulted in the penalty being overturned. That player then retaliated with a shove which was unpunished. Why was it unpunished? Retaliation is specifically outlawed and when retaliating for a punch (I would call it defending oneself) the retaliation is often punished, why not in this case?

Because you penalise the first incident there and not the next. You the warn the players about future conduct and not to get involved in incidents like this.

Ardillaun

What about a time rule for tackles - a max time limit between the ball leaving the player and contact being made? It would make things simpler. Downside would be more TMO involvement.

sydthebeat

Ardillaun wrote: »

What about a time rule for tackles - a max time limit between the ball leaving the player and contact being made? It would make things simpler. Downside would be more TMO involvement.

What's wrong with the way it's reffed currently?
I don't see late hits as being some kind of blight on the game that needs special consideration.
The "committed to the tackle" viewpoint is good enough in my opinion.

[Deleted User]

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Because you penalise the first incident there and not the next. You the warn the players about future conduct and not to get involved in incidents like this.

So punching someone back is fine? Law doesn't seem to be enforced like that.

CMOTDibbler

Deleted User wrote: »

So punching someone back is fine? Law doesn't seem to be enforced like that.

But that wasn't the case in the incident you referred to. There were no punches thrown that I saw. Also, the Scottish player (Webb I think) was the one who retaliated to the French player holding onto the ball. It wasn't even deliberate as far as I could tell, the French player was just annoyed with himself and turned away in disgust, still holding the ball.

Holding onto the ball or kicking it away to prevent a quick tap penalty is an offence.

The Lost Sheep

Deleted User wrote: »

So punching someone back is fine? Law doesn't seem to be enforced like that.

That wasn't the case you referred to and I never said punching/striking someone was fine.

[Deleted User]

That's what I'm asking. Punching someone back is a yellow card, it is penalised because retaliation is no defence. However retaliation is fine (unpenalised) for shoving? Doesn't really make sense.

CMOTDibbler

Deleted User wrote: »

That's what I'm asking. Punching someone back is a yellow card, it is penalised because retaliation is no defence. However retaliation is fine (unpenalised) for shoving? Doesn't really make sense.

I just made sense of it for you above. The shove wa retaliation for holding onto the ball. The sanctions don't extend to retaliation for retaliation etc. Otherwise you could have whole teams binned.

The Lost Sheep

Deleted User wrote: »

That's what I'm asking. Punching someone back is a yellow card, it is penalised because retaliation is no defence. However retaliation is fine (unpenalised) for shoving? Doesn't really make sense.

It makes perfect sense. There was multiple incidences in which you could penalise players in your example. If you punished all retaliation then the game would be a mess.

[Deleted User]

So the first offence (holding the ball) goes unpunished?

CMOTDibbler

Deleted User wrote: »

So the first offence (holding the ball) goes unpunished?

For a couple of reasons.

1. Webb's retaliation was out of proportion and started a brawl
2. The holding on to the ball was marginal. It might have got a warning and since there was already a penalty against them, that would have been it. If he'd kicked it away, it could well have been a yellow, but he just turned away.

Retaliation is always punished because it usurps the referee's powers of sanction. Depending on the original offence, a sanction is often given for that too. You often see two yellows given in those situations.

The Lost Sheep

Deleted User wrote: »

So the first offence (holding the ball) goes unpunished?

Yes because what occurred after became much more important to sanction and they need to be sanctioned to maintain control of the game. You warn player about holding the ball but CMOTDibbler is spot on in his response..

Ardillaun

sydthebeat wrote: »

Ardillaun wrote: »

What about a time rule for tackles - a max time limit between the ball leaving the player and contact being made? It would make things simpler. Downside would be more TMO involvement.

What's wrong with the way it's reffed currently?
I don't see late hits as being some kind of blight on the game that needs special consideration.
The "committed to the tackle" viewpoint is good enough in my opinion.

It's too subjective. If a late tackle is missed by the ref, like Moriarty's on Farrell, my suggestion would enable the TMO to inform the ref with the report of a clear infraction.

.ak

There was nothing wrong with the tackle on Farrell. The ref saw it, didn't miss it, and said timing was fine.

sydthebeat

Ardillaun wrote: »

It's too subjective. If a late tackle is missed by the ref, like Moriarty's on Farrell, my suggestion would enable the TMO to inform the ref with the report of a clear infraction.

The tmo has fully abilities to call the ref back for dangerous play.

Ardillaun

.ak wrote: »

There was nothing wrong with the tackle on Farrell. The ref saw it, didn't miss it, and said timing was fine.

I disagree and at the moment we have no objective way of resolving that disagreement. IMO the ref was wrong.

Ardillaun

sydthebeat wrote: »

Ardillaun wrote: »

It's too subjective. If a late tackle is missed by the ref, like Moriarty's on Farrell, my suggestion would enable the TMO to inform the ref with the report of a clear infraction.

The tmo has fully abilities to call the ref back for dangerous play.

If the TMO had a time-based criterion to call a late tackle, he would be far more likely to do so.