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

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.

Respectfully but I must disagree with you here. Tackling a player who's feet are not on a ground is specifically covered under Law 10, which governs foul play. This includes all tackles and not just the super high ones that TV makes an example of. As regards the sanction, well it may have to be one of those "You had to be there" moments.

irishbucsfan

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Respectfully but I must disagree with you here. Tackling a player who's feet are not on a ground is specifically covered under Law 10, which governs foul play. This includes all tackles and not just the super high ones that TV makes an example of. As regards the sanction, well it may have to be one of those "You had to be there" moments.

Which law?

[Deleted User]

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Respectfully but I must disagree with you here. Tackling a player who's feet are not on a ground is specifically covered under Law 10, which governs foul play. This includes all tackles and not just the super high ones that TV makes an example of. As regards the sanction, well it may have to be one of those "You had to be there" moments.

10.4i specifies players jumping for the ball.

Losty Dublin

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Which law?

10.4.E covers dangerous tackles and specifically mentions that tackling a player in possession of the ball and who's feet are off the ground incurs a penalty. Part I covers players who are jumping for line outs, receiving kicks or where the ball is in the air; it doesn't cover ball carriers so it isn't relevant in this case.

Shelflife

Losty Dublin wrote: »

10.4.E covers dangerous tackles and specifically mentions that tackling a player in possession of the ball and who's feet are off the ground incurs a penalty. Part I covers players who are jumping for line outs, receiving kicks or where the ball is in the air; it doesn't cover ball carriers so it isn't relevant in this case.

By that definition Losty any player who dives for the try line and gets any minute amount of airtime is unplayable without giving away a pen and YC .

Losty Dublin

Shelflife wrote: »

By that definition Losty any player who dives for the try line and gets any minute amount of airtime is unplayable without giving away a pen and YC .

What it says is what it says; don't tackle a man who is off the ground. If he is in the air then yes, he is unplayable. Let us remember that the tackleR has a duty to endure the tackleD player gets to the deck safely. It's hard to ensure a safe landing in such a circumstance so it needs to be covered and not left to chance.

There is no mention of a yellow card in the Lawbook here for such an offence but as it is foul play you can't expect no repercussions on the day..

irishbucsfan

Losty Dublin wrote: »

What it says is what it says; don't tackle a man who is off the ground. If he is in the air then yes, he is unplayable. Let us remember that the tackleR has a duty to endure the tackleD player gets to the deck safely. There is no mention of a yellow card in the Lawbook here for such an offence but as it is foul play you can't expect no repercussions on the day..

I'm sure you'd agree that in practice most refs aren't penalised teams for tackling a player who is diving for the try line.

Theres a bit of a grey area here.

Losty Dublin

See above edited post which crossed your post.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I'm sure you'd agree that in practice most refs aren't penalised teams for tackling a player who is diving for the try line.

Theres a bit of a grey area here.

irishbucsfan

Losty Dublin wrote: »

See above edited post which crossed your post.

You do end up with a problem where players will just dive any time they are close to the line, at which point refs will have to ping them for that. Might be worth a clarification.

Shelflife

By definition then the ball carrier has jumped into the tackle or to avoid a tackle which is in itself a pen.

If a player swan dives ala Ashton and is tackled then its play on in my book, unless its clear and obvious then you are making life very difficult for yourself.

I really cant see a situation where I penalise a player for making a safe tackle on a player diving for the line.

Quin_Dub

Shelflife wrote: »

By definition then the ball carrier has jumped into the tackle or to avoid a tackle which is in itself a pen.

If a player swan dives ala Ashton and is tackled then its play on in my book, unless its clear and obvious then you are making life very difficult for yourself.

I really cant see a situation where I penalise a player for making a safe tackle on a player diving for the line.

I'd agree - Surely the only thing that comes into play here is that the tackled player is brought to ground safely..

If by tackling them in the air they go head over heels and come down on their head then that's probably a sanction but if they are just tackled and come to ground in a relatively normal/safe fashion then it's play on in my view.

[Deleted User]

Shelflife wrote: »

By definition then the ball carrier has jumped into the tackle or to avoid a tackle which is in itself a pen.

I'm open to correction but I don't think this is written anywhere in the laws, it falls under a more general dangerous play/gamesmanship law.

It is a bit of a grey area. I think penalising someone for tackling a player diving for the line is crazy though.

Losty Dublin

irishbucsfan wrote: »

You do end up with a problem where players will just dive any time they are close to the line, at which point refs will have to ping them for that. Might be worth a clarification.

No need for any clarification as there isn't any wholesale confusion or law bending here and such a situation in a game is quite rare. Players are entitled to dive for the line to try and ground the ball. Players are not entitled to tackle a man who's off the ground.

Next thing you'll be claiming that the law is bias against backs

Jump_In_Jack

Apologies if this has already been asked and answered,
But,
If a foreign player is signed to a club, clears VISA requirements etc, and enters the country on 31st Dec 2017,
Will they be eligible to qualify for the country on 1st Jan 2021?

OR

Will the 5 year rule kick in and supersede the fact a player was just about qualified by the old rules.

Basically my question is, if a player is here for at least 3 years up to 31st Dec, are they qualified?

Is there a difference if a player is capped or not?

The Lost Sheep

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

Apologies if this has already been asked and answered,
But,
If a foreign player is signed to a club, clears VISA requirements etc, and enters the country on 31st Dec 2017,
Will they be eligible to qualify for the country on 1st Jan 2021?

OR

Will the 5 year rule kick in and supersede the fact a player was just about qualified by the old rules.

Basically my question is, if a player is here for at least 3 years up to 31st Dec, are they qualified?

Is there a difference if a player is capped or not?

This isnt a laws question but its fairly clear The 36-month residency requirement is increased to 60 months with effect from 31 December, 2020 so if not qualified by that date you will have to have 60 months residency

Bazzo

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

Apologies if this has already been asked and answered,
But,
If a foreign player is signed to a club, clears VISA requirements etc, and enters the country on 31st Dec 2017,
Will they be eligible to qualify for the country on 1st Jan 2021?

OR

Will the 5 year rule kick in and supersede the fact a player was just about qualified by the old rules.

Basically my question is, if a player is here for at least 3 years up to 31st Dec, are they qualified?

Is there a difference if a player is capped or not?

Any player who arrives in a country on or before 31 December will be qualified through residency in 3 years and will remain so regardless of whether they are capped as far as I know.

Jump_In_Jack

Bazzo wrote: »

Any player who arrives in a country on or before 31 December will be qualified through residency in 3 years and will remain so regardless of whether they are capped as far as I know.

Thank you, that's the part to which I was referring.

LeinsterDub

During the first half of the game today (Leinster v Ulster) when a short lineout was called a Leinster player stood in an odd position that looked neither in or out of the lineout. Why wasn't he offside? Within 2 metres in my working theory.

The Lost Sheep

LeinsterDub wrote: »

During the first half of the game today (Leinster v Ulster) when a short lineout was called a Leinster player stood in an odd position that looked neither in or out of the lineout. Why wasn't he offside? Within 2 metres in my working theory.

Pic? Time in game?

LeinsterDub

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Pic? Time in game?

I was at the game so I've nothing to work with. Maybe it wasn't noticeable on the tele. I'll check out the highlights and see if it can be seen.

sydthebeat

LeinsterDub wrote: »

During the first half of the game today (Leinster v Ulster) when a short lineout was called a Leinster player stood in an odd position that looked neither in or out of the lineout. Why wasn't he offside? Within 2 metres in my working theory.

On own ball it could have been a player in the scrum half position.

It doesn't always have to be the scrum half.

Losty Dublin

sydthebeat wrote: »

On own ball it could have been a player in the scrum half position.

It doesn't always have to be the scrum half.

Not having seen the game live (I was working and driving and radio dependent.) but it could also be players in the line out moving position, which obviously necessitates them leaving the line out for a moment or two.

That said, we had better wait for a report back from OP when he knows better of the time that it happened. Until then it's a mere surmise of non fact, a horror for the law book to define

AbusesToilets

Owens gets far too much love, he is shockingly bad at reffing the breakdown. Absolute free for alls are a typical facet of games he is in charge of. The fact he hasn't a word of French in his head is pretty damning too imo, as an elite ref he should be required to have a basic ability to communicate with the players.

jacothelad

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Owens gets far too much love, he is shockingly bad at reffing the breakdown. Absolute free for alls are a typical facet of games he is in charge of. The fact he hasn't a word of French in his head is pretty damning too imo, as an elite ref he should be required to have a basic ability to communicate with the players.

I think he communicates very well in his second language which is English, Welsh being his first.

The Lost Sheep

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Owens gets far too much love, he is shockingly bad at reffing the breakdown. Absolute free for alls are a typical facet of games he is in charge of. The fact he hasn't a word of French in his head is pretty damning too imo, as an elite ref he should be required to have a basic ability to communicate with the players.

He isnt shockingly bad at refereeing the breakdown though. You dislike his interpretation but he's consistent and there is no sanction for a ref not being able to speak french. Nor should there. It isnt completely feasible for the ref to have to be able speak french
If you take the Six Nations and the Rugby Championship, there is English, Italian, French and Spanish - and you could put in Welsh on top of that - it's quite difficult to cover them all.
The best referees can communicate with a nod and a wink, or one crisp, clear line sp they don't have to go into too much detail

[Deleted User]

I always thought a refs interpretation was more important than anything else to be honest it's an easier way to talk their performance and effect on the game

Neil3030

Dave_The_Sheep wrote: »

... New Zealand, 2013.

Are you referring to him pinging McGrath? That was a different situation - one where we were ahead, and were trying to kill off the game. But again, it falls under his general philosophy of interpreting the laws in a way that encourages teams to play rugby. So if you're behind, and need a penalty, it needs to be clear cut; if you're ahead and need to recycle a few times to kill off the game, you better be squeaky clean.

I'm not saying he's right, or wrong, just that he is consistent once you factor in the context, and teams should (and I suspect do) know that.

AbusesToilets

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

He isnt shockingly bad at refereeing the breakdown though. You dislike his interpretation but he's consistent and there is no sanction for a ref not being able to speak french. Nor should there. It isnt completely feasible for the ref to have to be able speak french
If you take the Six Nations and the Rugby Championship, there is English, Italian, French and Spanish - and you could put in Welsh on top of that - it's quite difficult to cover them all.
The best referees can communicate with a nod and a wink, or one crisp, clear line sp they don't have to go into too much detail

So players lying offside, not staying on their feet, clearing out beyond the ruck, these are hallmarks of a well reffed breakdown?

He doesn't have an interpretation, he simply ignores the offenses.

As to the language issue, how is it unreasonable to expect an employee at the top level of his sport to have a basic ability to communicate with those he refs? How challenging would it be to parse out simple phrases in French and Italian? I've noticed Barnes, for example, is quite capable of giving guidance in French.

The Lost Sheep

AbusesToilets wrote: »

So players lying offside, not staying on their feet, clearing out beyond the ruck, these are hallmarks of a well reffed breakdown?

He doesn't have an interpretation, he simply ignores the offenses.

As to the language issue, how is it unreasonable to expect an employee at the top level of his sport to have a basic ability to communicate with those he refs? How challenging would it be to parse out simple phrases in French and Italian? I've noticed Barnes, for example, is quite capable of giving guidance in French.

You have to take into account momentum as well. Was ball playable. Players can lie offside and it is noted but not penalised. He very much has an interpretation and its about playing the ball and keeping continuity now you may see that as ignoring offences but i dont see it like that at all.
Because comprehension could then be an issue. Wayne Barnes speaks french but has had french players asking him to speak in english as theyve found it easier to get exactly what he means through english not french.

Shefwedfan

Dave_The_Sheep wrote: »

... New Zealand, 2013.

Ireland trying to kill the game. Should have knew the ref wouldn't allow it. Even BOD has done a number of interviews and said he was roaring from the sideline to tell them to stop it and move the ball out......

Stupid play from Ireland