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

b.gud

Watching the Rebels v Crusaders when Mo'unga was taking the conversion he needed someone to hold the ball so it didn't fall off the tee. The person bringing on the tee seemed to signal for someone to come over and do it at which point the hooker came over to hold it. Is there a law that says it has to be a player that holds the ball? It seemed like it would be easier if the tee carrier did it

The Lost Sheep

b.gud wrote:

Watching the Rebels v Crusaders when Mo'unga was taking the conversion he needed someone to hold the ball so it didn't fall off the tee. The person bringing on the tee seemed to signal for someone to come over and do it at which point the hooker came over to hold it. Is there a law that says it has to be a player that holds the ball? It seemed like it would be easier if the tee carrier did it

It has to be a player who is part of the 15 in the game. Can't be sub/medic who comes on with a tee. It's the same with a penalty and considering the game is still on if a penalty is missed and ball remains in play then it should be the same with a conversion.

Losty Dublin

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

It has to be a player who is part of the 15 in the game. Can't be sub/medic who comes on with a tee. It's the same with a penalty and considering the game is still on if a penalty is missed and ball remains in play then it should be the same with a conversion.

In the good on days before all these new fangled kicking tees, he who carried the bucket of sand or sawdust got to hold the ball for the kicker

LeinsterDub

http://www.worldrugby.org/news/266973

2. Law 20.9 (b) Handling in the scrum – exception
The number eight shall be allowed to pick the ball from the feet of the second-rows.
Rationale: To promote continuity.

Can the 8 now pick the ball and the scrum continue to drive forward?

3. Law 20.8 (b) Striking after the throw-in
Once the ball touches the ground in the tunnel, any front-row player may use either foot to try to win possession of the ball. One player from the team who put the ball in must strike for the ball.
Sanction: Free-kick
Rationale: To promote a fair contest for possession.

Can anyone clarify this one I don't understand the "One player from the team who put the ball in must strike for the ball."

4. Law 15.4 (c)
The tackler must get up before playing the ball and then can only play from their own side of the tackle “gate”.
Rationale: To make the tackle/ruck simpler for players and referees and more consistent with the rest of that law.

5. Law 16 Ruck
A ruck commences when at least one player is on their feet and over the ball which is on the ground (tackled player, tackler). At this point the offside lines are created. Players on their feet may use their hands to pick up the ball as long as this is immediate. As soon as an opposition player arrives, no hands can be used.
Rationale: To make the ruck simpler for players and referees.

Aka the anti Italian law is very interesting .

6. Law 16.4: Other ruck offences
A player must not kick the ball out of a ruck. The player can only hook it in a backwards motion.
Sanction: Penalty
Rationale: To promote player welfare and to make it consistent with scrum law.

Boo I loved this law

irishbucsfan

LeinsterDub wrote: »

3. Law 20.8 (b) Striking after the throw-in
Once the ball touches the ground in the tunnel, any front-row player may use either foot to try to win possession of the ball. One player from the team who put the ball in must strike for the ball.
Sanction: Free-kick
Rationale: To promote a fair contest for possession.

Can anyone clarify this one I don't understand the "One player from the team who put the ball in must strike for the ball."

Some teams don't strike or hook the ball at all in the scrum. Because the put in is so crooked they instead put the ball in and then drive over the ball. Greg Feek loves doing this. It leads to a lot of resets in situations where the scrum goes down but it would have been playable had the ball been hooked.

LeinsterDub wrote: »

6. Law 16.4: Other ruck offences
A player must not kick the ball out of a ruck. The player can only hook it in a backwards motion.
Sanction: Penalty
Rationale: To promote player welfare and to make it consistent with scrum law.

Boo I loved this law

Well. There goes my entire career.

Tigerandahalf

Interesting questions.

I presume any player in the front row can hook the ball back. That is what it refers to by 'one player' from the front row.

The question about the number 8 picking up the ball - I'd imagine once he picks up the ball a new offside line is created and the opposition are free to tackle him.

I didn't know you couldn't kick from the ruck any longer. But what do they mean by 'hook back' being allowed?

MJohnston

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

I didn't know you couldn't kick from the ruck any longer. But what do they mean by 'hook back' being allowed?

Presumably the difference is 'kick from' is an aimless kick that goes flying out of a ruck, 'hook back' is pulling the ball back with the foot to a place where you (or maybe someone behind you) can pick it up?

Quin_Dub

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

Interesting questions.

I presume any player in the front row can hook the ball back. That is what it refers to by 'one player'

The question about the number 8 picking up the ball - I'd imagine once he picks up the ball a new offside line is created and the opposition are free to tackle him.

I didn't know you couldn't kick from the ruck any longer. But what do they mean by 'hook back' being allowed?

The true meaning of Rucking - Dragging the ball back to your own side using your foot..

The question will be , are you allowed to "ruck" the ball if there's a body in the way?? :-)

Tigerandahalf

MJohnston wrote: »

Presumably the difference is 'kick from' is an aimless kick that goes flying out of a ruck, 'hook back' is pulling the ball back with the foot to a place where you (or maybe someone behind you) can pick it up?

Indeed. Like a scrum half would.

irishbucsfan

I've actually been penalised, much to my dismay, for kicking the ball out of a ruck before. Because rucking is of course using the heel and we've just been messing with the whole thing for years.

But I am genuinely sad that its gone now because for people like me; who don't have the brains, speed, size, skill, power, technique, hands, feet, carrying or step to be otherwise effective back rows, we now have nothing left.

[Deleted User]

5. Law 16 Ruck
A ruck commences when at least one player is on their feet and over the ball which is on the ground (tackled player, tackler). At this point the offside lines are created. Players on their feet may use their hands to pick up the ball as long as this is immediate. As soon as an opposition player arrives, no hands can be used.
Rationale: To make the ruck simpler for players and referees.

So what's the difference here, previously it took two players over the ball to form a ruck?

irishbucsfan

Interested Observer wrote: »

So what's the difference here, previously it took two players over the ball to form a ruck?

Yes

Good bye 0-ball.

Quin_Dub

4. Law 15.4 (c)
The tackler must get up before playing the ball and then can only play from their own side of the tackle “gate”.
Rationale: To make the tackle/ruck simpler for players and referees and more consistent with the rest of that law.

So Green tackles Blue and ends up on ground on the Blue side of the ball. Under existing rules if they stood up immediately and if no other Blue player was present they could play the ball there and then. With this new rule they have to stand-up and then step back to the Green side before they play the ball, suspect that will give undue advantage to the attack.

Tigerandahalf

Interested Observer wrote: »

So what's the difference here, previously it took two players over the ball to form a ruck?

I'd imagine it is to get a player (trying to win possession back at a ruck - think of Sam Warburton) to release the ball straight away once a support player arrives. Upto this Warburton and others were able to remain competing for the ball at the ruck and thus slowing down the play. It is a very good rule.

MJohnston

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Yes

Good bye 0-ball.

Should call this one the Eddie Jones Memorial Law.

Memorial because he died after crying all of the water out of his body.

[Deleted User]

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

I'd imagine it is to get a player (trying to win possession back at a ruck - think of Sam Warburton) to release the ball straight away once a support player arrives. Upto this Warburton and others were able to remain competing for the ball at the ruck and thus slowing down the play. It is a very good rule.

I don't really like it. Much prefer that if you latch on before the ruck forms you have the rights to hang onto it.

pickarooney

MJohnston wrote: »

Presumably the difference is 'kick from' is an aimless kick that goes flying out of a ruck, 'hook back' is pulling the ball back with the foot to a place where you (or maybe someone behind you) can pick it up?

You're only allowed accixentally kick your own players in the head now.

Tigerandahalf

Interested Observer wrote: »

I don't really like it. Much prefer that if you latch on before the ruck forms you have the rights to hang onto it.

It was killing the game. Slowing it down too much. It is noteworthy that Warburton and others like him aren't having the same influence over games.

pickarooney

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I've actually been penalised, much to my dismay, for kicking the ball out of a ruck before. Because rucking is of course using the heel and we've just been messing with the whole thing for years.

But I am genuinely sad that its gone now because for people like me; who don't have the brains, speed, size, skill, power, technique, hands, feet, carrying or step to be otherwise effective back rows, we now have nothing left.

Welcome to the second row.

blackwhite

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

I'd imagine it is to get a player (trying to win possession back at a ruck - think of Sam Warburton) to release the ball straight away once a support player arrives. Upto this Warburton and others were able to remain competing for the ball at the ruck and thus slowing down the play. It is a very good rule.

Interested Observer wrote: »

I don't really like it. Much prefer that if you latch on before the ruck forms you have the rights to hang onto it.

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

It was killing the game. Slowing it down too much. It is noteworthy that Warburton and others like him aren't having the same influence over games.

Is the "hands" part really going to make a massive difference to how it's currently reffed anyway?

Currently, if you've hands on before the opposition arrive, then the ref will allow you try to play the ball, and once the generally with call some derivative of "hands away now/leave it" or else will award a penalty against the ball carried for holding on.

I can't imagine many refs just blowing for penalties without calling "hands away" first. If someone's gotten their paws on the ball before the opposition get there, but have been prevented from playing it, then surely holding on still will apply.

irishbucsfan

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

I'd imagine it is to get a player (trying to win possession back at a ruck - think of Sam Warburton) to release the ball straight away once a support player arrives. Upto this Warburton and others were able to remain competing for the ball at the ruck and thus slowing down the play. It is a very good rule.

No, what you're describing is actually illegal already, they just get away with it.

It's nothing to do with that. It's to make it easier for referees and players to tell where the offside line is.

[Deleted User]

LeinsterDub wrote: »

http://www.worldrugby.org/news/266973

2. Law 20.9 (b) Handling in the scrum – exception
The number eight shall be allowed to pick the ball from the feet of the second-rows.
Rationale: To promote continuity.

Can the 8 now pick the ball and the scrum continue to drive forward?

3. Law 20.8 (b) Striking after the throw-in
Once the ball touches the ground in the tunnel, any front-row player may use either foot to try to win possession of the ball. One player from the team who put the ball in must strike for the ball.
Sanction: Free-kick
Rationale: To promote a fair contest for possession.

Can anyone clarify this one I don't understand the "One player from the team who put the ball in must strike for the ball."

4. Law 15.4 (c)
The tackler must get up before playing the ball and then can only play from their own side of the tackle “gate”.
Rationale: To make the tackle/ruck simpler for players and referees and more consistent with the rest of that law.

5. Law 16 Ruck
A ruck commences when at least one player is on their feet and over the ball which is on the ground (tackled player, tackler). At this point the offside lines are created. Players on their feet may use their hands to pick up the ball as long as this is immediate. As soon as an opposition player arrives, no hands can be used.
Rationale: To make the ruck simpler for players and referees.

Aka the anti Italian law is very interesting .

6. Law 16.4: Other ruck offences
A player must not kick the ball out of a ruck. The player can only hook it in a backwards motion.
Sanction: Penalty
Rationale: To promote player welfare and to make it consistent with scrum law.

Boo I loved this law

Someone must hook the ball. It cannot be thrown into the second row's feet.

It reads like an attempt to just drive over the ball is not allowed either, a clean hook must at least be attempted.

Quin_Dub

Deleted User wrote: »

Someone must hook the ball. It cannot be thrown into the second row's feet.

It reads like an attempt to just drive over the ball is not allowed either, a clean hook must at least be attempted.

I don't think so - Stepping over the ball on the drive is "winning" the ball.

This is designed to stop those resets where the ball sits in the middle of the tunnel with no one willing or able to strike for it , now it'll be a free-kick (which oddly enough will more often than not be another scrum so I don't think they will get quite the enhancement they are looking for)

The other change for the scrum is the one that allows the scrum-half to stand on his side of the centre line on put in.

1. Law 20.5 and 20.6 (d)
No signal from referee. The scrum-half must throw the ball in straight but is allowed to align their shoulder on the middle line of the scrum, therefore allowing them to stand a shoulder width towards their own side of the middle line.
Rationale: To promote scrum stability, a fair contest for possession while also giving the advantage to the team throwing in (non-offending team).

How the above promotes "a fair contest for possession" I fail to see.

So they have to put it in "straight" but the alignment makes it all but impossible for a strike against the head , you could still in theory be "driven" off your own ball , but the strike against the head is dead.

Tigerandahalf

irishbucsfan wrote: »

No, what you're describing is actually illegal already, they just get away with it.

It's nothing to do with that. It's to make it easier for referees and players to tell where the offside line is.

What is illegal about it? I am trying to figure it out.

A player is tackled and goes to ground. Warburton comes in to snaffle the ball and has hands on it but not possession of it. A support player arrives and tries to clear out Warburton. A ruck has formed. If Warburton hasn't got possession the ref has to call either 'holding on' or 'hands in the ruck'.

I am trying to understand it fully myself. Once the tackled player goes to ground how long is he allowed to hold/touch the ball as often you will see the tackled player feed the ball back through the ruck to present it better.

MJohnston

I presume this is legal somehow?

https://twitter.com/Hurricanesrugby/status/888339063748546561?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.the42.ie%2Fbarrett-try-v-brumbies-3507675-Jul2017%2F

[Deleted User]

It's not a knock on if it comes of a players head. He didn't intentionally head the ball

Quintis

MJohnston wrote: »

I presume this is legal somehow?

https://twitter.com/Hurricanesrugby/status/888339063748546561?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.the42.ie%2Fbarrett-try-v-brumbies-3507675-Jul2017%2F

Not illegal is probably a fairer way of saying it, a knock-on is hands or arms only...

Clearlier

Another player tackled in the air scenario:

I went along to watch my local club play at the weekend. They're in national league 1 so not that high a level but decent enough. There was a break made by a player from my local club - they got tackled near the line, a ruck was formed and the ball quickly moved out the blind side. There was a clear gap to score a try after the first pass but the winger was a touch late starting his run and there was no way he was getting in so he did a Chris Ashton type swallow dive. The covering defender kept going and tackled him into touch on or around the try line while his feet were off the ground.

The referee yellow carded the tackler and gave a penalty for tackling the man in the air. If he was going to give a penalty it should have been a penalty try but it felt like a pretty harsh card. I'm not sure that you could accuse the attacker of jumping through a tackle as when he dived there was no one in front of him but I don't see what the defender could realistically have done to prevent the try.

Was the referee correct to penalise the defender and if so is there anything realistic that the defender could legally have done to prevent the try?

irishbucsfan

Clearlier wrote: »

Another player tackled in the air scenario:

I went along to watch my local club play at the weekend. They're in national league 1 so not that high a level but decent enough. There was a break made by a player from my local club - they got tackled near the line, a ruck was formed and the ball quickly moved out the blind side. There was a clear gap to score a try after the first pass but the winger was a touch late starting his run and there was no way he was getting in so he did a Chris Ashton type swallow dive. The covering defender kept going and tackled him into touch on or around the try line while his feet were off the ground.

The referee yellow carded the tackler and gave a penalty for tackling the man in the air. If he was going to give a penalty it should have been a penalty try but it felt like a pretty harsh card. I'm not sure that you could accuse the attacker of jumping through a tackle as when he dived there was no one in front of him but I don't see what the defender could realistically have done to prevent the try.

Was the referee correct to penalise the defender and if so is there anything realistic that the defender could legally have done to prevent the try?

Nope. The law only protects players jumping for the ball. So it protects players receiving kicks/passes and also players receiving lineouts. If you are diving or any other situation where you're in control of the ball before leaving the ground it doesn't apply.

Quintis

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Nope. The law only protects players jumping for the ball. So it protects players receiving kicks/passes and also players receiving lineouts. If you are diving or any other situation where you're in control of the ball before leaving the ground it doesn't apply.

The attacking player could in theory have been penalized for jumping into a tackle?