Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Laws Question? Ask here!

1575860626370

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,985 ✭✭✭randomname2005


    Read something interesting regarding the harlequins try, the ref was checking to see if the ball had crossed the line. I didn't think that mattered. Learn something new everyday


  • Posts: 0 ✭✭✭ Jasper Narrow Desk


    Read something interesting regarding the harlequins try, the ref was checking to see if the ball had crossed the line. I didn't think that mattered. Learn something new everyday

    didn't matter in 2011 during the Leinster v Toulouse when the ball bounced in the in goal area. what's the law that says it matters now?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,985 ✭✭✭randomname2005


    didn't matter in 2011 during the Leinster v Toulouse when the ball bounced in the in goal area. what's the law that says it matters now?

    The ref says something along the lines of "the ball hasn't crossed the line but I want to make sure they were all onside". Maybe he means over the bar rather than anywhere along the try line. (Originally read it on https://www.rte.ie/sport/rugby/2018/1007/1001498-quins-joe-marchant-scores-remarkable-try-in-defeat/ )


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,251 ✭✭✭✭Losty Dublin


    The ref says something along the lines of "the ball hasn't crossed the line but I want to make sure they were all onside". Maybe he means over the bar rather than anywhere along the try line. (Originally read it on https://www.rte.ie/sport/rugby/2018/1007/1001498-quins-joe-marchant-scores-remarkable-try-in-defeat/ )

    By Law you can't choose to place kick and not not have a genuine go for goal. However there's no set offence for not having a go. Offside is an easy one to catch chasers out with if you want something. Fair play to the referee here; he knew it was an unusual one to make a call on but he got it spot on with a correct use of technology.
    didn't matter in 2011 during the Leinster v Toulouse when the ball bounced in the in goal area. what's the law that says it matters now?

    No offside law to worry about In Goal.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,985 ✭✭✭randomname2005


    By Law you can't choose to place kick and not not have a genuine go for goal. However there's no set offence for not having a go. Offside is an easy one to catch chasers out with if you want something. Fair play to the referee here; he knew it was an unusual one to make a call on but he got it spot on with a correct use of technology.



    No offside law to worry about In Goal.

    I don't think that there was any question of it not being a genuine attempt, as the ref says something along the lines of it being held up by the wind, but then goes on to talk about it crossing the line (from my memory at least).


  • Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 35,576 Mod ✭✭✭✭pickarooney


    Reffed my first training game today and there was one incident where I awarded a try despite some protestations. Player was tackled short of the line and touched the ball down just short of the line. He then pushed/rolled the ball into the line without moving his body or losing control of the ball.

    Is this a legitimate repositioning of the ball, a double movement, a knock on or something else?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,375 ✭✭✭✭prawnsambo


    Reffed my first training game today and there was one incident where I awarded a try despite some protestations. Player was tackled short of the line and touched the ball down just short of the line. He then pushed/rolled the ball into the line without moving his body or losing control of the ball.

    Is this a legitimate repositioning of the ball, a double movement, a knock on or something else?
    That's fine. Double movement isn't actually a rugby union law. The actual law is releasing the ball in the tackle. Since there's always time allowed for a tackled player to place the ball, a try scored in the way you describe is fine.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,251 ✭✭✭✭Losty Dublin


    prawnsambo wrote: »
    That's fine. Double movement isn't actually a rugby union law. The actual law is releasing the ball in the tackle. Since there's always time allowed for a tackled player to place the ball, a try scored in the way you describe is fine.

    Law 8 actually allows for both momentum and a reach out and ground if you are short of the line, but it only defines grounding the ball and thus offers no sanction. After that tackle/ruck laws comes into play as appropriate and offer us sanction :)
    Reffed my first training game today.

    I knew you'd come good some day, son :)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,077 ✭✭✭Shelflife


    Welcome to the dark side pickarooney !


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,967 ✭✭✭✭The Lost Sheep


    Reffed my first training game today and there was one incident where I awarded a try despite some protestations. Player was tackled short of the line and touched the ball down just short of the line. He then pushed/rolled the ball into the line without moving his body or losing control of the ball.

    Is this a legitimate repositioning of the ball, a double movement, a knock on or something else?
    Thats fine. Completely legal. Not a knock on as no loss of control of ball and not double movement.


  • Advertisement
  • Subscribers Posts: 41,963 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    Theres been lots of querying and questioning over the last few weeks as to what the directive is regarding the high tackle... especially in the wake of all the red cards we've seen lately....

    so heres a recap:
    Statement from World Rugby

    World Rugby has further strengthened its commitment to injury prevention by announcing details of a zero-tolerance approach to reckless and accidental head contact in the sport. While injuries in the game are not on the rise, the federation continues to be proactive in furthering evidence-based strategies to reduce injury risk for all players.

    In a change to law, World Rugby has redefined illegal (high) tackle categories and increased sanctions to deter high tackles via a law application guideline. This will apply at all levels of the game from 3 January 2017 introducing minimum on-field sanctions for reckless and accidental contact with the head, effectively lowering the acceptable height of the tackle. The guideline will be supported with a global education programme.

    The approach, approved by the World Rugby Council after extensive expert, independent and union evaluation, combines with new disciplinary sanctions and a re-focus of match officials on dangerous play. It will provide a package of measures that aims to change culture in the sport to ensure that the head is a no-go area.

    From 3 January, two new categories of dangerous tackles will carry penalty offences to deter and eradicate high tackles:

    Reckless tackle
    A player is deemed to have made reckless contact during a tackle or attempted tackle or during other phases of the game if in making contact, the player knew or should have known that there was a risk of making contact with the head of an opponent, but did so anyway. This sanction applies even if the tackle starts below the line of the shoulders. This type of contact also applies to grabbing and rolling or twisting around the head/neck area even if the contact starts below the line of the shoulders.
    Minimum sanction: Yellow card
    Maximum sanction: Red card

    Accidental tackle
    When making contact with another player during a tackle or attempted tackle or during other phases of the game, if a player makes accidental contact with an opponent’s head, either directly or where the contact starts below the line of the shoulders, the player may still be sanctioned. This includes situations where the ball-carrier slips into the tackle.
    Minimum sanction: Penalty

    Please note Disciplinary Panels have been alerted to the revised World Rugby Regulation 17 sanctions (PDF attached to this email). Specific changes to Law 10.4(e) Dangerous tackling of an opponent has been highlighted below.

    10.4(e) Dangerous tackling of an Opponent including: (i) a tackle or attempted tackle above the line of the shoulders even if the tackle starts below the line of the shoulders; (ii) grabbing and rolling/twisting around the head/neck area even if the contact starts below the line of the shoulders. LE – 2 weeks
    MR – 6 weeks
    TE – 10+ weeks
    (A dangerous tackle which results in a strike to the head shall result in at least a mid-end entry point sanction 52 weeks)

    Link to educational video from World Rugby: http://www.worldrugby.org/video/213346


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,616 ✭✭✭✭errlloyd


    Does world rugby have site anywhere that has a list of changes to laws and interpretations they've brought in through the professional era?

    Watching Podcasts like Squides and the Molecast it is interesting to hear how entire teams have their gameplans become obsolete because of small law changes, so I wanted to go further into it.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,251 ✭✭✭✭Losty Dublin


    errlloyd wrote: »
    Does world rugby have site anywhere that has a list of changes to laws and interpretations they've brought in through the professional era?

    Watching Podcasts like Squides and the Molecast it is interesting to hear how entire teams have their gameplans become obsolete because of small law changes, so I wanted to go further into it.

    For interpretations you can have a look here.

    https://laws.worldrugby.org/?domain=9

    Or here

    https://laws.worldrugby.org/?domain=10

    No idea about getting hold of older laws or lists of amendments per se, though you could probably look up old press releases if you have a day to google same.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,967 ✭✭✭✭The Lost Sheep


    Match official focus areas as agreed and calibrated in advance of the upcoming tests following a meeting between coaches and refs this week.

    Scrum: The match officials are looking for infringements including pre-engagement, pushing early, crooked feeds, non-hooking and wheeling
    Lineout: The match officials are looking for infringements including closing, stepping or running into the gap before the ball is thrown in
    Space: Match officials are looking for infringements that close space, including from kick-offs and kicks and at the tackle/ruck and maul
    Penalty tries: A penalty try will be awarded if an act of foul play prevents a probable try
    Foul play: Match officials will be vigilant for ball carriers who lead into contact with the elbow or forearm to the neck or head, no arms tackles (Law 9.16), high tackles (Law 9.13), neck rolls and ruck-charging


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,117 ✭✭✭KBurke85


    Match official focus areas as agreed and calibrated in advance of the upcoming tests following a meeting between coaches and refs this week.

    Scrum: The match officials are looking for infringements including pre-engagement, pushing early, crooked feeds, non-hooking and wheeling
    Lineout: The match officials are looking for infringements including closing, stepping or running into the gap before the ball is thrown in
    Space: Match officials are looking for infringements that close space, including from kick-offs and kicks and at the tackle/ruck and maul
    Penalty tries: A penalty try will be awarded if an act of foul play prevents a probable try
    Foul play: Match officials will be vigilant for ball carriers who lead into contact with the elbow or forearm to the neck or head, no arms tackles (Law 9.16), high tackles (Law 9.13), neck rolls and ruck-charging

    So what you're saying is refs are going to apply the laws of the game


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,584 ✭✭✭✭Steve


    For the benefit of Jump_In_Jack and others:

    When you post something and then instantly delete it, the mods can still see it, forum rules still apply and it is still actionable.

    Happy new year all :)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,047 ✭✭✭Bazzo


    Is it just me or has the reffing around the attacking team flying in off their feet at the breakdown and also entering from the side become quite lax?


  • Subscribers Posts: 41,963 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    Bazzo wrote: »
    Is it just me or has the reffing around the attacking team flying in off their feet at the breakdown and also entering from the side become quite lax?

    "in off their feet" is never illegal, once your rucking someone......

    Sealing off is illegal as it prevents the contest... Which s doesn't happen that often and is called pretty quickly by referees as its obvious.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,047 ✭✭✭Bazzo


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    "in off their feet" is never illegal, once your rucking someone......

    Sealing off is illegal as it prevents the contest... Which s doesn't happen that often and is called pretty quickly by referees as its obvious.

    15.5 An arriving player must be on their feet and join from behind their offside line.

    I'm talking about players flying at a ruck and diving into it to prevent someone contesting the ball, I could be wrong but I'm fairly sure it's completely illegal, and I've seen it happening loads over the weekend and more and more over the past while.


  • Advertisement
  • Subscribers Posts: 41,963 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    Bazzo wrote: »
    15.5 An arriving player must be on their feet and join from behind their offside line.

    I'm talking about players flying at a ruck and diving into it to prevent someone contesting the ball, I could be wrong but I'm fairly sure it's completely illegal, and I've seen it happening loads over the weekend and more and more over the past while.

    They have to be on their feet to arrive at the ruck.... They then ruck defenders and more often than not both players end up on the ground.

    If they dive in and prevent a contest by sealing it off then it's a penalty, but as I said I don't think it's a major issue, and is called when it's obvious


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,047 ✭✭✭Bazzo


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    They have to be on their feet to arrive at the ruck.... They then ruck defenders and more often than not both players end up on the ground.

    If they dive in and prevent a contest by sealing it off then it's a penalty, but as I said I don't think it's a major issue, and is called when it's obvious

    Yeah, cheers but I am aware of how a ruck should normally work.... we're talking about two completely different situations, you're discussing a normal ruck whereas I'm talking about a member of the attacking team diving at a ruck to remove a player contesting the ball or a player who is threatening to counter ruck over, definitely not joining on their feet. A couple years ago you saw penalties being blown for clearouts you see every weekend now.


  • Subscribers Posts: 41,963 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    Bazzo wrote: »
    Yeah, cheers but I am aware of how a ruck should normally work.... we're talking about two completely different situations, you're discussing a normal ruck whereas I'm talking about a member of the attacking team diving at a ruck to remove a player contesting the ball or a player who is threatening to counter ruck over, definitely not joining on their feet. A couple years ago you saw penalties being blown for clearouts you see every weekend now.

    Nope im talking about that exact situation.

    Players are taught to clear a ruck like an airplane taking off, so starting low and driving upwards.
    You'll often hear he who is lowest wins the ruck.

    Its a result of the jackle becoming so prominent in the game thrse days.

    30 years ago it didn't feature must at all, as rucks were real wrestling contests


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,047 ✭✭✭Bazzo


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    Nope im talking about that exact situation.

    Players are taught to clear a ruck like an airplane taking off, so starting low and driving upwards.
    You'll often hear he who is lowest wins the ruck.

    Its a result of the jackle becoming so prominent in the game thrse days.

    30 years ago it didn't feature must at all, as rucks were real wrestling contests

    ... but this is not the same thing as a player diving in to a ruck off their feet in order to collapse a player contesting the ball, which is both joining a ruck off your feet and intentionally collapsing a ruck, both of which are illegal.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,863 ✭✭✭Captain_Crash


    Played a game yesterday and the ref was giving penalties every time a tackled player placed the ball back between their legs (squeezing he called it), I've never in my life seen anyone pinged for it either professional or amateur. Was he making up his own laws with this?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,375 ✭✭✭✭prawnsambo


    Played a game yesterday and the ref was giving penalties every time a tackled player placed the ball back between their legs (squeezing he called it), I've never in my life seen anyone pinged for it either professional or amateur. Was he making up his own laws with this?
    It is illegal up to 19s, but in senior rugby only illegal if the ball isn't immediately available. In other words, it has to be passed back quickly or it's holding on.

    Edit: Good video examples here.


  • Advertisement
  • Subscribers Posts: 41,963 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    prawnsambo wrote: »
    It is illegal up to 19s, but in senior rugby only illegal if the ball isn't immediately available. In other words, it has to be passed back quickly or it's holding on.

    Edit: Good video examples here.

    its my understanding all levels below J1 use these u19s rules
    ie no squeeze ball, 1.5 m push on scrums etc.
    so its possible the captain was playing at a level below J1

    https://rugbyready.worldrugby.org/?section=74&tab=tab-4

    http://www.irishrugby.ie/downloads/IRFUAgeGradeVariations201718.pdf


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,251 ✭✭✭✭Losty Dublin


    Played a game yesterday and the ref was giving penalties every time a tackled player placed the ball back between their legs (squeezing he called it), I've never in my life seen anyone pinged for it either professional or amateur. Was he making up his own laws with this?

    I wonder if you were watching the same game that I was yesterday as the referee penalised a few time for the offence of Squeezeball. Certainly it’s a phrase that I’ve not heard used in maybe a decade now.

    The word cropped up in and around 1998. New Zealand teams used to coach players to go to ground face first or even to position themselves that way after a tackle and crounch over the ball to defend at a ruck. Once there you could lay on the ball and either kill a turnover from defenders who couldn’t get at it legally, or you could push the ball out down your torso and under your legs, hence it being called a squeeze ball.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,143 ✭✭✭locum-motion


    I think I also heard the squeeze ball being referred to as 'long body rucking'.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,375 ✭✭✭✭prawnsambo


    I wonder if you were watching the same game that I was yesterday as the referee penalised a few time for the offence of Squeezeball. Certainly it’s a phrase that I’ve not heard used in maybe a decade now.

    The word cropped up in and around 1998. New Zealand teams used to coach players to go to ground face first or even to position themselves that way after a tackle and crounch over the ball to defend at a ruck. Once there you could lay on the ball and either kill a turnover from defenders who couldn’t get at it legally, or you could push the ball out down your torso and under your legs, hence it being called a squeeze ball.
    Well it's also a good turnover opportunity for the opposition. If you get over the player and grab them around the arms or arm, you prevent the ball going back and are also very difficult to shift. You see it happen quite regularly, so it's not an ideal method of recycling the ball any more.


  • Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 16,425 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    its my understanding all levels below J1 use these (below) u19s rules
    ie no squeeze ball, 1 m push on scrums etc.
    so its possible the captain was playing at a level below J1

    https://rugbyready.worldrugby.org/?section=74&tab=tab-4

    You might be right - Definitely a penalty offence at underage , not sure though it carries through to Junior grades at Adult though..


  • Advertisement
  • Subscribers Posts: 41,963 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    Quin_Dub wrote: »
    You might be right - Definitely a penalty offence at underage , not sure though it carries through to Junior grades at Adult though..

    well the last time i played J2 it was applicable, and that was a couple of years ago.

    its not applicable to J1


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,074 ✭✭✭blackwhite


    Quin_Dub wrote: »
    You might be right - Definitely a penalty offence at underage , not sure though it carries through to Junior grades at Adult though..

    It's an offence at all grades under J1 in Leinster anyway


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,251 ✭✭✭✭Losty Dublin


    prawnsambo wrote: »
    Well it's also a good turnover opportunity for the opposition. If you get over the player and grab them around the arms or arm, you prevent the ball going back and are also very difficult to shift. You see it happen quite regularly, so it's not an ideal method of recycling the ball any more.

    Problem is, that’s fine to consider it in theory and when you have old school open side flankers on your team or Sean Cronins carrying in but in practice it is generally rather different when your supporting players aren’t as nimble. More often than not it will be looked at by ref as not letting the man up or playing him on the floor or not staying on your feet. The ball, being under your man, well it’s not quite as obvious a hold so that’s a hard call. And worse again, the players can argument that he was trying to place it and he was interfered with; you can see where this one is going.

    This tactic often went on to deliberaly avoid tackles and legal rucks and it encouraged shoeing and charging into rucks and was getting dangerous to ref. Thankfully it was seen off in its worst form.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,863 ✭✭✭Captain_Crash


    Thanks for the answers, as an aging back this is my first season playing below J1 (J3) so that must be it. Although still haven't seen it pinged this season. I did hear someone after the game saying he was being assessed so maybe being more "by the book" than normal.


  • Subscribers Posts: 41,963 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    Thanks for the answers, as an aging back this is my first season playing below J1 (J3) so that must be it. Although still haven't seen it pinged this season. I did hear someone after the game saying he was being assessed so maybe being more "by the book" than normal.

    to be honest, its good practise to discourage squeeze ball at lower amateur levels on safety grounds.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,863 ✭✭✭Captain_Crash


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    to be honest, its good practise to discourage squeeze ball at lower amateur levels on safety grounds.


    Yeah that's very true to be fair. I never do it on purpose and only if its the easiest way to get the ball to the back. Sometimes you just end up flat on your face haha


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,344 ✭✭✭NUTLEY BOY


    Does a referee's jurisdiction extend beyond the immediate boundaries of the marked playing area ?

    I am thinking of the situation where spectators keep encroaching on the playing area or are even attempting to engage in conduct that might interfere with or impede players on the pitch.

    Can a referee direct non players to leave the immediate precincts outside of the marked playing area for any reason ?


  • Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 35,576 Mod ✭✭✭✭pickarooney


    Played a game yesterday and the ref was giving penalties every time a tackled player placed the ball back between their legs (squeezing he called it), I've never in my life seen anyone pinged for it either professional or amateur. Was he making up his own laws with this?

    Like laying an egg? This is penalisable for player safety in the veterans' matches I (used to) play in in France. Big danger of neck damage, apparently.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,016 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    NUTLEY BOY wrote: »
    Does a referee's jurisdiction extend beyond the immediate boundaries of the marked playing area ?

    I am thinking of the situation where spectators keep encroaching on the playing area or are even attempting to engage in conduct that might interfere with or impede players on the pitch.

    Can a referee direct non players to leave the immediate precincts outside of the marked playing area for any reason ?

    I usually asked them politely to move a safe distance back. They usually do.
    If they don't you can ask them to leave area or they will be reported.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,016 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    Like laying an egg? This is penalisable for player safety in the veterans' matches I (used to) play in in France. Big danger of neck damage, apparently.
    The ball carrier and move away from the ball.
    There is nothing in law beyond that. If the jacklar is trying to get the ball and is prevented because ball carrier is has it tucked under his belly you can ping for not releasing.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,016 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    Reffed my first training game today and there was one incident where I awarded a try despite some protestations. Player was tackled short of the line and touched the ball down just short of the line. He then pushed/rolled the ball into the line without moving his body or losing control of the ball.

    Is this a legitimate repositioning of the ball, a double movement, a knock on or something else?

    He can reach out immediately and score that's fine.
    He can also slide in via momentum. If it's longer than a second it's a "double movement" in local speak but in law speak it's just not making the ball available to play by others and he's on the ground so can't play it.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,967 ✭✭✭✭The Lost Sheep


    NUTLEY BOY wrote: »
    Does a referee's jurisdiction extend beyond the immediate boundaries of the marked playing area?

    I am thinking of the situation where spectators keep encroaching on the playing area or are even attempting to engage in conduct that might interfere with or impede players on the pitch.

    Can a referee direct non players to leave the immediate precincts outside of the marked playing area for any reason ?
    This is the law
    https://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=1
    Yes
    Yes a ref can direct non players to leave marked playing field.


  • Registered Users Posts: 958 ✭✭✭ArmchairQB


    NUTLEY BOY wrote: »
    Does a referee's jurisdiction extend beyond the immediate boundaries of the marked playing area ?

    I am thinking of the situation where spectators keep encroaching on the playing area or are even attempting to engage in conduct that might interfere with or impede players on the pitch.

    Can a referee direct non players to leave the immediate precincts outside of the marked playing area for any reason ?

    Yeah he can stop the game until spectators coaches etc are back away from touch line


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,016 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    ArmchairQB wrote: »
    Yeah he can stop the game until spectators coaches etc are back away from touch line

    Yeah it's great craic doing that. Especially, the proverbial dog owner.

    It's also a very good reason to have someone doig tJ as just them running up and down line helps crowd control.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,251 ✭✭✭✭Losty Dublin


    NUTLEY BOY wrote: »
    Does a referee's jurisdiction extend beyond the immediate boundaries of the marked playing area ?

    I am thinking of the situation where spectators keep encroaching on the playing area or are even attempting to engage in conduct that might interfere with or impede players on the pitch.

    Can a referee direct non players to leave the immediate precincts outside of the marked playing area for any reason ?

    The referee has jurisdiction on the ground, which includes the pitch and perimeter. In Law this is called the Playing Enclosure.

    Law 1 covers the ground and states that it must be safe.
    Law 3 covers the amount of people on the team. An encroachment onto the ground is punishable by the referee; indeed it is actually the first offence in the Law Book. Admittedly this is intended for players only.
    Law 6 covers the Referee. A referee permits access to the pitch of players or medics only, save for water carriers at an injury or after a try or a tee carrier for any kicks at goal; they can come on as appropriate.

    No other person can enter the playing enclosure. If they interfere with play then the game shall stop and restart when ready. A good captain or coach should be called onto manage same if it's a nuisance as it becomes a safety issue if left to fester. I'd refer to Law 1 here as an immediate fix

    Most competitions have local rules that stipulate boundaries or technical area for subs, coaches, medics and other officials. Clubs should adhere to same and should be reported where breached and it becomes a serious issue.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,669 ✭✭✭who_me


    Wonder what people make of the decision in the Racing Toulon game at the weekend? (Neutral here, not a Scarlets fan whining!) Sorry, I don't have the player names, just saw the incident once.

    Racing player has the ball, tackled by Scarlets. A maul/tackle evolves (where it looks like the tackler is holding up the ball-carrier). Referee shouts "release" and the Scarlets players do so. The Racing player regains his balance without going to ground and runs on, resulting in a try to Racing.

    This - to me - is surely a mistake by the referee. If the player is deemed to be on the ground - by virtue of his knee etc. being in contact with the ground - then the tackle is complete, and he must release the ball. Even if - in this case - he never at any stage is lying on the ground.

    It seems to be a recurring problem - if the tackler releases quickly, the tackled player gets away with getting back up; if they don't they're penalised for holding on too long.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,016 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    who_me wrote: »
    Wonder what people make of the decision in the Racing Toulon game at the weekend? (Neutral here, not a Scarlets fan whining!) Sorry, I don't have the player names, just saw the incident once.

    Racing player has the ball, tackled by Scarlets. A maul/tackle evolves (where it looks like the tackler is holding up the ball-carrier). Referee shouts "release" and the Scarlets players do so. The Racing player regains his balance without going to ground and runs on, resulting in a try to Racing.

    This - to me - is surely a mistake by the referee. If the player is deemed to be on the ground - by virtue of his knee etc. being in contact with the ground - then the tackle is complete, and he must release the ball. Even if - in this case - he never at any stage is lying on the ground.

    It seems to be a recurring problem - if the tackler releases quickly, the tackled player gets away with getting back up; if they don't they're penalised for holding on too long.
    Good point would be interesting to see clip.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,967 ✭✭✭✭The Lost Sheep


    who_me wrote: »
    Wonder what people make of the decision in the Racing Toulon game at the weekend? (Neutral here, not a Scarlets fan whining!) Sorry, I don't have the player names, just saw the incident once.

    Racing player has the ball, tackled by Scarlets. A maul/tackle evolves (where it looks like the tackler is holding up the ball-carrier). Referee shouts "release" and the Scarlets players do so. The Racing player regains his balance without going to ground and runs on, resulting in a try to Racing.

    This - to me - is surely a mistake by the referee. If the player is deemed to be on the ground - by virtue of his knee etc. being in contact with the ground - then the tackle is complete, and he must release the ball. Even if - in this case - he never at any stage is lying on the ground.

    It seems to be a recurring problem - if the tackler releases quickly, the tackled player gets away with getting back up; if they don't they're penalised for holding on too long.
    would need to see clip. so it was a choke tackle and ref called release as ball carrier got a knee/knees to ground and therefore not maul?
    If he wasnt held on ground and ref deemed it fine then play on?
    Dont necessarily see this as a problem but do you have a clip or at least idea of time in game it happened?


  • Subscribers Posts: 41,963 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    who_me wrote: »
    Wonder what people make of the decision in the Racing Toulon game at the weekend? (Neutral here, not a Scarlets fan whining!) Sorry, I don't have the player names, just saw the incident once.

    Racing player has the ball, tackled by Scarlets. A maul/tackle evolves (where it looks like the tackler is holding up the ball-carrier). Referee shouts "release" and the Scarlets players do so. The Racing player regains his balance without going to ground and runs on, resulting in a try to Racing.

    This - to me - is surely a mistake by the referee. If the player is deemed to be on the ground - by virtue of his knee etc. being in contact with the ground - then the tackle is complete, and he must release the ball. Even if - in this case - he never at any stage is lying on the ground.

    It seems to be a recurring problem - if the tackler releases quickly, the tackled player gets away with getting back up; if they don't they're penalised for holding on too long.

    are you sure it was the racing game?? no tries scored like that from the highlights ive seen


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,375 ✭✭✭✭prawnsambo


    would need to see clip. so it was a choke tackle and ref called release as ball carrier got a knee/knees to ground and therefore not maul?
    If he wasnt held on ground and ref deemed it fine then play on?
    Dont necessarily see this as a problem but do you have a clip or at least idea of time in game it happened?
    Well if the ref called 'release' he's deemed it to be a completed tackle which should mean the tackled player places the ball for recycle surely? But as syd says, this doesn't seem to have happened for any of the Racing tries unless it was a phase or two before a try was scored.


Advertisement