Laws Question? Ask here!

armchaircoach · 04-10-2018 06:15PM

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 06:19PM

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 07:10PM

Surely the captain can still request a review as well?

randomname2005 · 08-10-2018 08:43AM

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

08-10-2018 08:48AM

randomname2005 wrote: »

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?

randomname2005 · 08-10-2018 01:37PM

Jasper Narrow Desk wrote: »

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/ )

Losty Dublin · 10-10-2018 12:37AM

randomname2005 wrote: »

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.

Jasper Narrow Desk wrote:

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.

randomname2005 · 11-10-2018 07:53AM

Losty Dublin wrote: »

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).

pickarooney · 13-10-2018 01:27PM

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?

prawnsambo · 13-10-2018 01:56PM

pickarooney wrote: »

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.

Losty Dublin · 13-10-2018 02:32PM

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

pickarooney wrote:

Reffed my first training game today.

I knew you'd come good some day, son

Shelflife · 14-10-2018 12:04AM

Welcome to the dark side pickarooney !

The Lost Sheep · 14-10-2018 12:11AM

pickarooney wrote: »

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.

sydthebeat · 23-10-2018 02:10PM

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

errlloyd · 25-10-2018 12:07PM

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.

Losty Dublin · 26-10-2018 12:21AM

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.

The Lost Sheep · 09-11-2018 03:38PM

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

KBurke85 · 09-11-2018 06:03PM

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

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

Steve · 31-12-2018 10:35PM

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

Bazzo · 13-01-2019 02:11PM

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?

sydthebeat · 13-01-2019 02:15PM

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.

Bazzo · 13-01-2019 02:20PM

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.

sydthebeat · 13-01-2019 02:28PM

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

Bazzo · 13-01-2019 02:33PM

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.

sydthebeat · 13-01-2019 02:40PM

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

Bazzo · 13-01-2019 02:52PM

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.

Captain_Crash · 14-01-2019 12:18PM

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?

prawnsambo · 14-01-2019 12:26PM

Captain_Crash wrote: »

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.

sydthebeat · 14-01-2019 12:29PM

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

Losty Dublin · 14-01-2019 12:37PM

Captain_Crash wrote: »

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.

Laws Question? Ask here!

Comments