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

AbusesToilets

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Yeah. Just think to England Italy last year i know the law has since changed but its up to teams to adapt. By prohibiting hands in the ruck at all you are preventing a fair contest for the ball and that isnt right or good for the sport.

I feel it would make for a fairer contest tbh, cut out the cheating that's so prevalent in the game at the minute.

The Lost Sheep

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I feel it would make for a fairer contest tbh, cut out the cheating that's so prevalent in the game at the minute.

But it doesnt make for a fairer contest. How does it?

AbusesToilets

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

But it doesnt make for a fairer contest. How does it?

Both teams have to actually ruck over as opposed to hands everywhere, slowing things down. What's unfair about that?

The Lost Sheep

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Both teams have to actually ruck over as opposed to hands everywhere, slowing things down. What's unfair about that?

A ruck is a contest over the ball. You dont have to nor should you have to go completely beyond the ball to play the ball. Its completely unnecessary to look for that change. Slowing the ball legally is possible and shouldnt be prevented.

randomname2005

I am surprised there has been very little said of this incident:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFlTd4eFE94&t=2820s

It is about 39 mins on the game clock, Leavy just on to replace VDF and he seems to be "getting welcomed to the game". To me it looks like a clear strike using a head (it is a scrum, Leavy looks bound correctly, French flanker seems to creep around to perform the action) which would be a card, but haven't seen it mentioned anywhere.
Anyone else thing it deserved a looking at, at least?

as_mo_bhosca

randomname2005 wrote: »

I am surprised there has been very little said of this incident:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFlTd4eFE94&t=2820s

It is about 39 mins on the game clock, Leavy just on to replace VDF and he seems to be "getting welcomed to the game". To me it looks like a clear strike using a head (it is a scrum, Leavy looks bound correctly, French flanker seems to creep around to perform the action) which would be a card, but haven't seen it mentioned anywhere.
Anyone else thing it deserved a looking at, at least?

Yeah. Didn't spot that during the match at all. Watching the scrum from around 44 mins in real time, you can see him creep up to do it. Seems to do more damage to himself, but that's not the point. Could have been a card if it was picked up.

pickarooney

AbusesToilets wrote: »

France is the biggest rugby market in the world, games are not conducted through english. How many players would be functional in English?

Everyone here would agree that managing the ref is a huge part of the game, seems a touch unfair if one team is incapable of communicating with the ref is all.

Last year we had Barnes attempt to communicate with Atonio in French, language neither is particularly conversant in. Only the captain really needs to speak to the ref and the vocabulary necessary is not vast.

Captain_Crash

pickarooney wrote: »

Last year we had Barnes attempt to communicate with Atonio in French, language neither is particularly conversant in. Only the captain really needs to speak to the ref and the vocabulary necessary is not vast.

Isn't Wayne Barnes fluent in French?

pickarooney

Wayne Barnes wrote:

"I try to use my French as much as I can, but I have had French captains ask me to speak in English because they will understand me better.

"The best referees can communicate with a nod and a wink, or one crisp, clear line - you don't have to go into too much detail."

He does his best but is it really worth it?

Captain_Crash

pickarooney wrote: »

He does his best but is it really worth it?

Ahh... I always thought he was fluent in it... although I suppose he could be saying anything really and I still wouldn't be able to tell

Quintis

Anyone know which law exactly covers playing the ball on the ground, seeing a few refs blow for playing the ball on the ground lately?

sydthebeat

Quintis wrote: »

Anyone know which law exactly covers playing the ball on the ground, seeing a few refs blow for playing the ball on the ground lately?

http://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=13

The Lost Sheep

Quintis wrote: »

Anyone know which law exactly covers playing the ball on the ground, seeing a few refs blow for playing the ball on the ground lately?

What is the context of the player playing ball on ground? Law 13 covers player on ground in open play otherwise look at the tackle and ruck laws which are laws 14/15

joseywhales

Can a tackler release the tackled player but obstruct the on coming player attempting to ruck without entering through the "gate", since an offside line has yet to be established? If he does not move to obstruct but either steps in front of the tackled player and holds his ground or continues his forward momentum into the on coming player?

Neil3030

joseywhales wrote: »

Can a tackler release the tackled player but obstruct the on coming player attempting to ruck without entering through the "gate", since an offside line has yet to be established? If he does not move to obstruct but either steps in front of the tackled player and holds his ground or continues his forward momentum into the on coming player?

If the tackler is still deemed "over the ball" that obstruction might be considered the start of a ruck, otherwise it should be a penalty for preventing the tackled player's team-mates from legally playing the ball.

sydthebeat

joseywhales wrote: »

Can a tackler release the tackled player but obstruct the on coming player attempting to ruck without entering through the "gate", since an offside line has yet to be established? If he does not move to obstruct but either steps in front of the tackled player and holds his ground or continues his forward momentum into the on coming player?

No.

The tackler must get back to his feet and enter through the gate if they want to affect play. This was part of last year's law amendments

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

The Lost Sheep

Think a few people need to check up some laws based on some of the comments in the leinster thread
10m law on kicks catching a few people

prawnsambo

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Think a few people need to check up some laws based on some of the comments in the leinster thread
10m law on kicks catching a few people

No, I think they expect other people to do it for them. :rolleyes:

blackwhite

https://www.facebook.com/sixnationsrugby/videos/10155728136182772/

Anyone able to explain why England weren’t pinged for dummy throws at the last line out? 2.50 in the video above.

Or was it just Peyper not wanting to deny England a last opportunity and letting them away with a technical infringement?

[Deleted User]

blackwhite wrote: »

https://www.facebook.com/sixnationsrugby/videos/10155728136182772/

Anyone able to explain why England weren’t pinged for dummy throws at the last line out? 2.50 in the video above.

Or was it just Peyper not wanting to deny England a last opportunity and letting them away with a technical infringement?

Maybe he just didn't see it?

prawnsambo

Interested Observer wrote: »

Maybe he just didn't see it?

Yeah. Surprised the AR didn't call it though. Was pretty obvious.

blackwhite

Interested Observer wrote: »

Maybe he just didn't see it?

I can’t see how the AR could have missed it - assuming he was standing where he was supposed to have been

b.gud

Was watching the 2nd half of the Blues Chiefs match this morning. Blues had a forward sin binned and conceded a scrum. They didn't bring a back in to the scrum to make up 8 but I thought there was a rule change this season to say if you were down a forward you had to bring a back into the scrum to make up the numbers. Am I imagining this or is it a law that is only in certain competitions?

Shelflife

Only have to match numbers if it’s uncontested.

blackwhite

Was out watching a game today, and an incident around a choke tackle got me wondering on the rules around the whole choke tackle v maul interpretation by referees.

An attacking player was held up about 10m from the line, and the defence managed to get a few players latched on to stop him transferring the ball to teammates.

The attacking team piled in, and got the maul moving towards the line, presumably hoping for, at worst, a 5m scrum if they got over the line.

Inside the five, the defending team very obviously dropped the maul, and the referee blew and awarded them a scrum.

I’m sure we’ve all seen similar happen time and again, and I know we’ve often benefited from it in games ourselves. But what I can’t understand is how a choke tackle being the initiator of a maul, seemingly changes the laws to make a deliberate collapse of an advancing maul now acceptable?

irishbucsfan

Once it becomes a maul, a collapse is a penalty offense. However before it becomes a maul, a collapse is just the completion of the tackle.

Losty Dublin

blackwhite wrote: »

Was out watching a game today, and an incident around a choke tackle got me wondering on the rules around the whole choke tackle v maul interpretation by referees.

An attacking player was held up about 10m from the line, and the defence managed to get a few players latched on to stop him transferring the ball to teammates.

The attacking team piled in, and got the maul moving towards the line, presumably hoping for, at worst, a 5m scrum if they got over the line.

Inside the five, the defending team very obviously dropped the maul, and the referee blew and awarded them a scrum.

I’m sure we’ve all seen similar happen time and again, and I know we’ve often benefited from it in games ourselves. But what I can’t understand is how a choke tackle being the initiator of a maul, seemingly changes the laws to make a deliberate collapse of an advancing maul now acceptable?

Forget the choke tackle as it isn't material; how did you reckon that it was an illegal collapse of a maul?

blackwhite

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Once it becomes a maul, a collapse is a penalty offense. However before it becomes a maul, a collapse is just the completion of the tackle.

In which case the tacklers still have to roll away, and there isn’t an automatic turnover to the defending team

blackwhite

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Forget the choke tackle as it isn't material; how did you reckon that it was an illegal collapse of a maul?

A combination on them shouting to down it before the line, and previously unengaged players taking out the lead players nearest the line.

It was moving towards the line with a bit of momentum - and it was a fairly obvious tactic to avoid the 5m attacking scrum. I’ve been a defender in that situation before, and we’ve yet to see a ref give a penalty for pulling it down if the maul was initiated by a choke tackle.

My understanding was that how a maul started was immaterial, but what I’ve seen time and again from referees was making me doubt that.

Losty Dublin

blackwhite wrote: »

A combination on them shouting to down it before the line, and previously unengaged players taking out the lead players nearest the line.
.

Shouts are not always relevant, sorry

Can't comment on the latter other than to say that you need to bind from the back and not the sides