Laws Question? Ask here!

pickarooney · 25-04-2018 8:40am

Ive seen under 8s with some amazing skills.

The Lost Sheep · 09-07-2018 12:55am

What do people think of changes scottish union are introducing at age grade level for the new season?
Law changes are below
http://www.scottishrugby.org/sites/default/files/editor/docs/aglv_national_trials_2018-19.pdf
and here is the article explaining how there will be further trials in certain areas of the game
http://www.scottishrugby.org/news/18/07/06/scottish-rugby-issue-more-detail-age-grade-law-variations

Cant say i can agree with quite a few of the changes

shoutman · 09-07-2018 8:07am

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

What do people think of changes scottish union are introducing at age grade level for the new season?
Law changes are below
http://www.scottishrugby.org/sites/default/files/editor/docs/aglv_national_trials_2018-19.pdf
and here is the article explaining how there will be further trials in certain areas of the game
http://www.scottishrugby.org/news/18/07/06/scottish-rugby-issue-more-detail-age-grade-law-variations

Cant say i can agree with quite a few of the changes

I think a lot of these are positive steps by the SRU.

Certainly seem like they are looking to focus on the skills aspect of the game by ensuring that ball is kept alive and in play as much as possible (I.e. pop off the ground & no defensive targeting of the ball)

Will be interesting to see how this works out for them, but certainly think it could be a positive.

Hands Like Flippers · 09-07-2018 8:15am

I like them.

I think the tackle height stuff is right.

Discourage dangerous tackles and encourage offloads and passing out of tackles.

Not sure why u15 can only kick between 15's mind.

The Lost Sheep · 09-07-2018 9:12am

Hands Like Flippers wrote: »

I like them.

I think the tackle height stuff is right.

Discourage dangerous tackles and encourage offloads and passing out of tackles.

Not sure why u15 can only kick between 15's mind.

On the kicking. I can see why u15s take kicks between 15s. Many simply cant get near posts if further out. It should be in place at all u13/14 and first year/second year school games here.
Actually reading the laws properly now i actually do agree with them all.
Wonder if IRFU will ever look at something similar

Hands Like Flippers · 09-07-2018 3:11pm

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Hands Like Flippers wrote: »

I like them.

I think the tackle height stuff is right.

Discourage dangerous tackles and encourage offloads and passing out of tackles.

Not sure why u15 can only kick between 15's mind.

On the kicking. I can see why u15s take kicks between 15s. Many simply cant get near posts if further out. It should be in place at all u13/14 and first year/second year school games here.
Actually reading the laws properly now i actually do agree with them all.
Wonder if IRFU will ever look at something similar

Would be good if they did.

On the kicking point i know what you mean but some kids can do it. I saw an u15 kick a touchline conversion from the touchline at kingspan in the u15 medallion final this year. His team won by 2 points. Surely if the kid is good enough and it isnt endangering anyone why not...

The Lost Sheep · 09-07-2018 3:19pm

Hands Like Flippers wrote: »

Would be good if they did.

On the kicking point i know what you mean but some kids can do it. I saw an u15 kick a touchline conversion from the touchline at kingspan in the u15 medallion final this year. His team won by 2 points. Surely if the kid is good enough and it isnt endangering anyone why not...

Some can and it should be at discretion of player/coach but in the vast majority of cases the kicks should from the 15m line

BigHeel · 10-07-2018 6:00am

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

On the kicking. I can see why u15s take kicks between 15s. Many simply cant get near posts if further out. It should be in place at all u13/14 and first year/second year school games here.
Actually reading the laws properly now i actually do agree with them all.
Wonder if IRFU will ever look at something similar

The IRFU have had similar law variations for quite a while. The difference here is SRU have spaced them out from U8 to U15 while the IRFU have it from U8 to U13. The IRFU introduced the waste high tackle two seasons ago and no tackeling of the ball or ripping up to U12.

The Lost Sheep · 11-07-2018 12:00am

BigHeel wrote: »

The IRFU have had similar law variations for quite a while. The difference here is SRU have spaced them out from U8 to U15 while the IRFU have it from U8 to U13. The IRFU introduced the waste high tackle two seasons ago and no tackling of the ball or ripping up to U12.

you mean u12 and have they as from my rather limited experience of mini rugby recently i havent seen that being the case. u13 isnt like that here at all.

BigHeel · 11-07-2018 12:57pm

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

you mean u12 and have they as from my rather limited experience of mini rugby recently i havent seen that being the case. u13 isnt like that here at all.

check out
http://www.irishrugby.ie/downloads/2016-17_IRFU_Mini_and_Leprechaun_Regulations.pdf

The Lost Sheep · 11-07-2018 1:10pm

BigHeel wrote: »

check out
http://www.irishrugby.ie/downloads/2016-17_IRFU_Mini_and_Leprechaun_Regulations.pdf

I mean from my experiences of mini rugby it isnt refereed like that and you also referred to under 13 and it certainly isnt the case at that level.

BigHeel · 12-07-2018 6:40am

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

I mean from my experiences of mini rugby it isnt refereed like that and you also referred to under 13 and it certainly isnt the case at that level.

My reference to U13 was is that it is more or less what SRU at at U15. Although interestingly their approach to the lineout I would argue is the complete opposite to ours (SRU = uncontested but lifting allowed IRFU = contested but no lift)
The present IRFU mini regs, which introduced stage 4 and the tackle hight, have been in effect for 2 seasons now and in my experience are being widely applied.

I do believe we need to look at how the game is coached and played from U12 to U15 with incremental stages at U13 and U14 leading to the full in 19 variation at U15.

The Lost Sheep · 15-09-2018 6:21pm

Taken this from another thread

Muligatawney wrote: »

Anyone know about the law the ref was talking about with the ball being kicked out of Fardy's hands? Says it has to be a tackle, touch judge and TMO seemed to be leading him to it being a penalty but he was insistent.

I dont and think the Assistant Ref and TMO were correct.
https://rugbyreferee.net/2015/09/17/law-clarification-kicking-ball-out-of-players-hands/

Captain_Crash · 16-09-2018 8:57am

Towards the end of the NZ V SA game, NZ we’re camped on the SA line and recycled a ruck about 1M out and tried to barge over, SA looked to have stolen it but Nigel Owens called it back and said it was “short” I used quotations cause that’s the only word of what he said that I could make out. But he awarded a scrum to NZ... obviously if it was short it should be an SA scrum.... does anyone know what happened or was it just a mistake? (bad one at that, if he knew it was short)

blackwhite · 16-09-2018 9:01am

Captain_Crash wrote: »

Towards the end of the NZ V SA game, NZ we’re camped on the SA line and recycled a ruck about 1M out and tried to barge over, SA looked to have stolen it but Nigel Owens called it back and said it was “short” I used quotations cause that’s the only word of what he said that I could make out. But he awarded a scrum to NZ... obviously if it was short it should be an SA scrum.... does anyone know what happened or was it just a mistake? (bad one at that, if he knew it was short)

I got the impresssion he thought SA had turned over illegally, but hadn’t actually seen an infringement.

Scrum was an easy way out to avoid a controversial penalty

Captain_Crash · 16-09-2018 9:06am

blackwhite wrote: »

I got the impresssion he thought SA had turned over illegally, but hadn’t actually seen an infringement.

Scrum was an easy way out to avoid a controversial penalty

That does makes sense yeah, but he said short and that’s what confused me!

Synode · 16-09-2018 10:48pm

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Taken this from another thread

I dont and think the Assistant Ref and TMO were correct.
https://rugbyreferee.net/2015/09/17/law-clarification-kicking-ball-out-of-players-hands/

So a penalty, perhaps a penalty try should have been awarded in the Fardy situation?

I didn't hear any of the conversation between the officials

Losty Dublin · 16-09-2018 10:49pm

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Taken this from another thread

I dont and think the Assistant Ref and TMO were correct.
https://rugbyreferee.net/2015/09/17/law-clarification-kicking-ball-out-of-players-hands/

The issue we saw was if the ball was in the hands or not when it was played. The referee obviously didn't see the issue of possession on the floor and instead went for clarification on how to restart the game. While his visual call was wrong he deserves some merit for sticking to his guns.

joseywhales · 17-09-2018 4:04pm

Quick question:
If the goalpost and padding are considered part of the goal line and therefore part of the in goal area and if the hindmost foot in a ruck is on our behind the goal line, then the goal line is used as the offside line.
Is a player not onside if they stand touching the goalpost?
I ask beside I see sides struggling to defend goalpost tries because they are being blocked by the post. Why not stand in front of the post with your arse against it as your starting point?

Quin_Dub · 17-09-2018 5:15pm

joseywhales wrote: »

Quick question:
If the goalpost and padding are considered part of the goal line and therefore part of the in goal area and if the hindmost foot in a ruck is on our behind the goal line, then the goal line is used as the offside line.
Is a player not onside if they stand touching the goalpost?
I ask beside I see sides struggling to defend goalpost tries because they are being blocked by the post. Why not stand in front of the post with your arse against it as your starting point?

Not exactly - It's only the very bottom of the post - The ball has to be on the ground and touching the bottom of the post for a try to count - If the ball is off the ground it doesn't count.

So , in theory you could be potentially onside in front of the post if both feet were in continuous contact with the ground and the base of the post , any movement away from that and you'd be done..And that assumes that you took up that position before the goal line became the offside line as if you stepped up to take your spot, you'd be offside as soon as you moved.

In practice however - You'd be offside.

joseywhales · 17-09-2018 5:51pm

Quin_Dub wrote: »

joseywhales wrote: »

Quick question:
If the goalpost and padding are considered part of the goal line and therefore part of the in goal area and if the hindmost foot in a ruck is on our behind the goal line, then the goal line is used as the offside line.
Is a player not onside if they stand touching the goalpost?
I ask beside I see sides struggling to defend goalpost tries because they are being blocked by the post. Why not stand in front of the post with your arse against it as your starting point?

Not exactly - It's only the very bottom of the post - The ball has to be on the ground and touching the bottom of the post for a try to count - If the ball is off the ground it doesn't count.

So , in theory you could be potentially onside in front of the post if both feet were in continuous contact with the ground and the base of the post , any movement away from that and you'd be done..And that assumes that you took up that position before the goal line became the offside line as if you stepped up to take your spot, you'd be offside as soon as you moved.

In practice however - You'd be offside.

It was my belief that the bottom of the post is used for scoring a try because the ball must be grounded(ie touch the ground) in the in goal area but that the entire post is still treated as the goal line.
However, you might be right since you have to be behind the offside line, not just touching it.
I think its ridiculous though that teams are just blocked by the post almost guaranteeing a try.

phog · 18-09-2018 7:48am

joseywhales wrote: »

It was my belief that the bottom of the post is used for scoring a try because the ball must be grounded(ie touch the ground) in the in goal area but that the entire post is still treated as the goal line.
However, you might be right since you have to be behind the offside line, not just touching it.
I think its ridiculous though that teams are just blocked by the post almost guaranteeing a try.

The alternative is that the defending team end up with 2 extra defenders when the attacking team are trying to score a try near the goal area.

At least with the current law the attacking team is rewarded.

Jump_In_Jack · 18-09-2018 8:10am

Why doesn't rugby just adopt the NFL goalposts? Seeing as rugby doesn't have a use for the part below the crossbar.

prawnsambo · 18-09-2018 8:27am

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

Why doesn't rugby just adopt the NFL goalposts? Seeing as rugby doesn't have a use for the part below the crossbar.

It would be very expensive to implement I'd imagine. With one support, the entire structure would need to be beefed up dramatically.

Jump_In_Jack · 18-09-2018 9:06am

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

Why doesn't rugby just adopt the NFL goalposts? Seeing as rugby doesn't have a use for the part below the crossbar.

prawnsambo wrote: »

It would be very expensive to implement I'd imagine. With one support, the entire structure would need to be beefed up dramatically.

Actually, I just read up on the NFL goalposts, and they had issues with them and decided to move them back to the end of the end zone, so unless rugby agreed to move them back it probably couldn't be done.
I think there's only so much support in that forked structure so it couldn't stretch all the way from the dead-ball line, and also, rugby doesn't have a specified dead-ball length which is another complication.
If the forked structure could be stretched far enough you would still have an issue where the ball could hit the bent stanchion on the way down, such as from a garryowen.

Probably best to leave it as it is then.

sydthebeat · 18-09-2018 10:09am

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

Actually, I just read up on the NFL goalposts, and they had issues with them and decided to move them back to the end of the dead zone, so unless rugby agreed to move them back it probably couldn't be done.
I think there's only so much support in that forked structure so it couldn't stretch all the way from the dead-ball line, and also, rugby doesn't have a specified dead-ball length which is another complication.
If the forked structure could be stretched far enough you would still have an issue where the ball could hit the bent stanchion on the way down, such as from a garryowen.

Probably best to leave it as it is then.

there is another alternative... most the posts back to the dead ball line

locum-motion · 18-09-2018 11:24am

sydthebeat wrote: »

there is another alternative... most the posts back to the dead ball line

Doesn't matter fr conversions, but it does for penalties/drop goals; makes them much harder.

Also, the length of the dead-ball area would have to be standardised.

errlloyd · 18-09-2018 11:29am

sydthebeat wrote: »

there is another alternative... most the posts back to the dead ball line

I guess they may not have to go the whole way back. Just like 3 metres behind the line or whatever. Enough space for a ruck to happen, and not much else. They'd make drop goals and penalties slightly harder, but that may not be a bad thing?

pickarooney · 18-09-2018 11:57am

I'm missing something here...
What's the issue with a y shaped post whose base is a metre back in the in goal area and whose crossbar is parallel with the try line?

There's no more base of the post malarkey, the size of in goal is irrelevant and for kicking there's no change.

prawnsambo · 18-09-2018 12:39pm

pickarooney wrote: »

I'm missing something here...
What's the issue with a y shaped post whose base is a metre back in the in goal area and whose crossbar is parallel with the try line?

There's no more base of the post malarkey, the size of in goal is irrelevant and for kicking there's no change.

What I said earlier in terms of expense. Much heavier materials required and a pretty strong foundation. That would cost rugby clubs a significant amount of money.

pickarooney · 18-09-2018 12:44pm

prawnsambo wrote: »

What I said earlier in terms of expense. Much heavier materials required and a pretty strong foundation. That would cost rugby clubs a significant amount of money.

Every high school in America has one, surely?

They do seem to be 3-4 times the price of rugby posts if bought in the UK, though.

blackwhite · 18-09-2018 12:56pm

pickarooney wrote: »

Every high school in America has one, surely?

They do seem to be 3-4 times the price of rugby posts if bought in the UK, though.

Plenty of American high schools use rugby style H-posts (usually the schools without a lot of funding)

prawnsambo · 18-09-2018 1:14pm

pickarooney wrote: »

Every high school in America has one, surely?

They do seem to be 3-4 times the price of rugby posts if bought in the UK, though.

A lot of US high schools would have bigger football budgets than the average amateur rugby clubs. But the 3-4 times price needs to be looked at in the conterxt of the price of the H posts. Which are roughly about €2,500 a pair. And that's not taking into account the cost of actually fitting such posts.

pickarooney · 18-09-2018 1:37pm

It'll be hologram posts soon enough I suppose.

Former Former · 18-09-2018 2:14pm

pickarooney wrote: »

I'm missing something here...
What's the issue with a y shaped post whose base is a metre back in the in goal area and whose crossbar is parallel with the try line?

To answer a question that no-one asked, that's what Canadian football uses.

errlloyd · 18-09-2018 2:40pm

Let's just suspend the posts in massive stadiums from the roof on Cables. No base of the post at all.

joseywhales · 18-09-2018 5:02pm

Existing posts shorten field by 6m, no expense.

irishbucsfan · 18-09-2018 5:49pm

We don't need posts at all.

We should just have 3 judges on the sideline, then the kickers can kick to where the posts used to be and the judges can rate the beauty of their kicks out of 3 and the kicking team will get the average score.

joseywhales · 18-09-2018 5:52pm

irishbucsfan wrote: »

We don't need posts at all.

We should just have 3 judges on the sideline, then the kickers can kick to where the posts used to be and the judges can rate the beauty of their kicks out of 3 and the kicking team will get the average score.

Objections to be contested by roshambo

18-09-2018 7:35pm

sure soon enough there won't be posts as the poor lads in NZ don't make kickers

Losty Dublin · 18-09-2018 10:24pm

sydthebeat wrote: »

there is another alternative... most the posts back to the dead ball line

Once upon a time the goal line was the limit of the playing area, there being no defined "In Goal" at either end. Do you really think that is wise?

randomname2005 · 19-09-2018 6:58am

pickarooney wrote: »

I'm missing something here...
What's the issue with a y shaped post whose base is a metre back in the in goal area and whose crossbar is parallel with the try line?

There's no more base of the post malarkey, the size of in goal is irrelevant and for kicking there's no change.

More potential interference with the ball coming down from a kick?

The Lost Sheep · 27-09-2018 5:51pm

World Rugby have introduced a new law with immediate effect:

9.19
In open play, any player may lift or support a player from the same team. Players must lower the player to the ground safely as soon as the ball is won by a player of either team.

Sanction: FK

Quin_Dub · 27-09-2018 6:03pm

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

World Rugby have introduced a new law with immediate effect:

9.19
In open play, any player may lift or support a player from the same team. Players must lower the player to the ground safely as soon as the ball is won by a player of either team.

Sanction: FK

Sanction for what , dropping your own player on their head?

Have you not always been able to do this or was it limited to kick-offs and lineouts?

The Lost Sheep · 27-09-2018 9:43pm

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Sanction for what , dropping your own player on their head?

Have you not always been able to do this or was it limited to kick-offs and lineouts?

Its essentially that teams who lift their own player must return the lifted player straight away and cant leave the player in the air in order to ‘create’ a potential collision with any on coming players

randomname2005 · 04-10-2018 1:33pm

Didn't see anything related to the tmo trial in November.
Try decision is an on field decision but all 4 can contribute.

I wonder if this is to get around the question that the ref asks being important.

No on the run chats with the tmo, now ref will have to ask.

Hopefully the three on the fields are paying attention.
Taken from the42, through Google news so no link, sorry.

04-10-2018 1:52pm

http://www.the42.ie/world-rugby-tmo-reivision-closed-trial-november-tests-4266965-Oct2018/

armchaircoach · 04-10-2018 5:15pm

The ‘on the run’ chat between the match officials and TMO for foul play will be removed

This part in particular is massively at odds with player welfare. As long as the ref is faceing the other way you can have a cheap shot at a player.

Expect to see plenty of late charges on Johnny during the November tests

The Lost Sheep · 04-10-2018 5:19pm

armchaircoach wrote: »

The ‘on the run’ chat between the match officials and TMO for foul play will be removed

This part in particular is massively at odds with player welfare. As long as the ref is faceing the other way you can have a cheap shot at a player.

Expect to see plenty of late charges on Johnny during the November tests

No it doesnt. It doesnt mean you can have a cheap shot as assistant refs can still make calls to the ref and flag potential red and yellow cards/penalties

sydthebeat · 04-10-2018 6:10pm

Surely the captain can still request a review as well?

Laws Question? Ask here!

Comments