Laws Question? Ask here!

Shelflife · 29-04-2021 09:20AM

BoardsMember wrote: »

What i thought too. Weird neither of the commentators questioned it, Dragons didn't seem to complain. Seemed pretty back and white to me first time I saw it, perfect for a captain's challenge, especially when u compare it to the failed challenge later on.

Commentators law knowledge is poor at best, they even talk over the referees when they’re explaining what the offence was ! Many of them don’t even know what the referee signals are !

locum-motion · 29-04-2021 11:40PM

Captain_Crash wrote: »

Yeah watched it on a bigger screen this morning, same as the pen Ulster gave away against Connaught that ended up costing them the game. Looks to clearly be involved in the tackle and rips when the player is on the ground!

Where is this “Connaught” of which you speak?

Captain_Crash · 30-04-2021 06:49AM

locum-motion wrote: »

Where is this “Connaught” of which you speak?

184 nautical miles west of Narnia in a land not known for its rugby prowess haha!

Yeah obvs a typo lol

02-05-2021 03:11PM

has the been a law change that has encouraged teams to go for the tap penalty this season?

Sattwa06 · 07-05-2021 10:21AM

Jasper Narrow Desk wrote: »

has the been a law change that has encouraged teams to go for the tap penalty this season?

No, probably just a coaching intervention or perhaps you are just more aware?

Tapping penalties almost disappeared at senior level with teams usually opting for a lineout (sometimes even a scrum) where they could use a practised move.

realhorrorshow · 19-05-2021 12:27PM

Not a laws question as such but not sure where else to put this.

Would it be possible to challenge a try on the basis of off feet/sealing at the breakdown? Think I heard a ref say at the weekend that you can't challenge non-decisions but not 100% sure. Sam Simmonds' second try from the Irish game is a good example, pretty blatant sealing off at the previous ruck (around 2:10 here https://youtu.be/CSN5bcItAbY).

sydthebeat · 19-05-2021 01:05PM

in order to 'seal off' you need to be stopping a genuine attempt for the ball by the defending team

in your example theres two things.
number 6 (Ewers) could be argued to have rucked the defender (Rona) out, and simply went lower and won the ruck.
also, there was no attempt by any defender to jackal for the ball so it can be argued there was no sealing off.

often for a "sealing off" pen youll see a defender slap down with both hands over the sealer to try to get to the ball

randomname2005 · 21-05-2021 04:21PM

sydthebeat wrote: »

in order to 'seal off' you need to be stopping a genuine attempt for the ball by the defending team

in your example theres two things.
number 6 (Ewers) could be argued to have rucked the defender (Rona) out, and simply went lower and won the ruck.
also, there was no attempt by any defender to jackal for the ball so it can be argued there was no sealing off.

often for a "sealing off" pen youll see a defender slap down with both hands over the sealer to try to get to the ball

In the above scenario I agree with realhorrorshow - #6 should be penalised for falling on a player. Himself and another player have gone straight to ground/on top of a player on the ground. (at about 2.14 in the clip)

Law 13, 4, Players on their feet and without the ball must not fall on or over players on the ground who have the ball or who are near it. Sanction: Penalty.

I think the only successful outcome from that challenge would be a penalty to the defending team. Whereas this would have been ignored previously, by the letter of the law, they have infringed.

sydthebeat · 21-05-2021 05:30PM

the ship sailed on that law years when they started allowing the jackal and subsequent cleaners to go off their feet at ruck time.
players land on players on the ground all the time. The only time youll see that as a penalty is when a defender falls onto a prone ball carrier.

it can be easily argued in the situation above that both exeter players were rucking irish players off the ball, and naturally landed off their feet onto the ball carrier. Ewers rucks Rona off and kirsten (exeter 4) rucks out the tackler with the head band.

interestly, not one player binds onto another at ruck time... so theres penalties all round in these situations

randomname2005 · 22-05-2021 11:36PM

sydthebeat wrote: »

the ship sailed on that law years when they started allowing the jackal and subsequent cleaners to go off their feet at ruck time.
players land on players on the ground all the time. The only time youll see that as a penalty is when a defender falls onto a prone ball carrier.

it can be easily argued in the situation above that both exeter players were rucking irish players off the ball, and naturally landed off their feet onto the ball carrier. Ewers rucks Rona off and kirsten (exeter 4) rucks out the tackler with the head band.

interestly, not one player binds onto another at ruck time... so theres penalties all round in these situations

I agree that there are many things going on. Maybe I didn't watch enough angles but I saw some Irish players involved in the tackle but nobody to be cleared out of a ruck.
My point in contributing to this is wondering if we will see decisions seeing the try line bring more pedantically analysed

theVersatile · 29-05-2021 10:51PM

https://twitter.com/WorldRugby/status/1398640268971331587?s=19

Lost Ormond · 22-06-2021 10:30PM

So looks like world rugby are going to approve the 50-22 kick and goal line dropout in Test rugby and all competitions around the world from August 1 for a years trial

thoughts?
https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/all-blacks/300339879/world-rugby-set-to-approve-nrl-inspired-rule-changes-in-all-competitions?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Podge_irl · 23-06-2021 08:28AM

I do not care for the goal-line dropout at all but I also don't think its a particularly huge deal. I think the 50-22 is well worth trying out on a longer term basis. I'm just happy to see the ridiculous 20 min red card rule has been dropped.

Captain_Crash · 23-06-2021 08:41AM

Lost Ormond wrote: »

So looks like world rugby are going to approve the 50-22 kick and goal line dropout in Test rugby and all competitions around the world from August 1 for a years trial

thoughts?
https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/all-blacks/300339879/world-rugby-set-to-approve-nrl-inspired-rule-changes-in-all-competitions?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

No fan of the drop out rule! Always loved the tension of driving over and being held up and the pressure the attacking team can have a defence under! I think it takes the sting out of that part of the game a bit

As for the 50-22?? as a former full back, this is one I love and wish I got to play with.

Shelflife · 23-06-2021 11:30AM

50:22 will be very hard to police at amateur level. Grand in the pro game where you will have 2 decent ARs and a TMO keeping an eye out but on a cold wet Sunday afternoon on your own …..

Jump_In_Jack · 23-06-2021 11:41AM

realhorrorshow wrote: »

Not a laws question as such but not sure where else to put this.

Would it be possible to challenge a try on the basis of off feet/sealing at the breakdown? Think I heard a ref say at the weekend that you can't challenge non-decisions but not 100% sure. Sam Simmonds' second try from the Irish game is a good example, pretty blatant sealing off at the previous ruck (around 2:10 here https://youtu.be/CSN5bcItAbY).

At the end of the Munster match in round 1 of the Rainbow Cup, Munster players pleaded with the ref to review an incident when the ref blew it up for full time and the ref said the captain's challenge can only review a decision made by the ref.
It couldn't be used to go back and check for a knock-on.
I don't know if a yellow card incident or something like that was missed would it be different.

blackwhite · 23-06-2021 02:18PM

Haven't seen enough of the trial games to have taken note - but on the 50/22, is there any "brought back" rule similar to kicking for touch from inside the 22?

Captain_Crash · 23-06-2021 02:38PM

blackwhite wrote: »

Haven't seen enough of the trial games to have taken note - but on the 50/22, is there any "brought back" rule similar to kicking for touch from inside the 22?

No, it’s just a kick from your own half that bounces in the opposition 22 before going into touch is your ball, if it doesn’t bounce it’s an opposition LO from where the ball went dead!

Serbian · 23-06-2021 02:43PM

blackwhite wrote: »

Haven't seen enough of the trial games to have taken note - but on the 50/22, is there any "brought back" rule similar to kicking for touch from inside the 22?

Don't believe so — as long as you are inside your own half and the ball bounces into touch inside the opposition 22, then you're good.

The "brought back" rule is around being able to kick it directly into touch — the mechanism for finding touch doesn't change for 50/22 (i.e. the ball needs to bounce on the field first), so you don't need a law around bringing it back into your own half.

blackwhite · 23-06-2021 02:43PM

Captain_Crash wrote: »

No, it’s just a kick from your own half that bounces in the opposition 22 before going into touch is your ball, if it doesn’t bounce it’s an opposition LO from where the ball went dead!

So you could have a ruck on the opponents 10m line, pass back to out-half who is standing 1m inside his own half and he can hit an O'Gara-esque kick towards the corner to win an attacking lineout?

For some reason I'd assumed that there would be some sort of rule around not carrying it back into your own half before kicking for touch

Captain_Crash · 23-06-2021 03:05PM

blackwhite wrote: »

So you could have a ruck on the opponents 10m line, pass back to out-half who is standing 1m inside his own half and he can hit an O'Gara-esque kick towards the corner to win an attacking lineout?

For some reason I'd assumed that there would be some sort of rule around not carrying it back into your own half before kicking for touch

What Serbian said lol

And to add, you can pass it back into your own half and kick to touch and still avail of the law.

It’s easy to think this will be done all the time but the reality is given time and space it’s a really difficult kick to get right. We won’t see any teams use it as a tactic, it’ll just be an option

sydthebeat · 23-06-2021 03:26PM

blackwhite wrote: »

So you could have a ruck on the opponents 10m line, pass back to out-half who is standing 1m inside his own half and he can hit an O'Gara-esque kick towards the corner to win an attacking lineout?

For some reason I'd assumed that there would be some sort of rule around not carrying it back into your own half before kicking for touch

thats very difficult to do, especially if, as per the reason for the law change, the defence hold their outside backs deep to prevent this occurring.

also, this as well affects kicks from your own 22 that bounce into touch in your opponents half before going out

TRC10 · 23-06-2021 05:23PM

I personally like the goal line drop out.

I don't think having to defend a 5 yard scrum is good enough reward for holding a man up over the try line.

It also discourages the constant pick and jam employed by Leinster and Exeter, as there's more risk of being held up from a pick and jam than there is by running it in.

Lost Ormond · 23-06-2021 05:41PM

Podge_irl wrote: »

I do not care for the goal-line dropout at all but I also don't think its a particularly huge deal. I think the 50-22 is well worth trying out on a longer term basis. I'm just happy to see the ridiculous 20 min red card rule has been dropped.

Agree with that. Goal line drop out should see more ball in play time with less scrums which isnt a bad thing

Captain_Crash wrote: »

No fan of the drop out rule! Always loved the tension of driving over and being held up and the pressure the attacking team can have a defence under! I think it takes the sting out of that part of the game a bit

As for the 50-22?? as a former full back, this is one I love and wish I got to play with.

If it speeds the game up then im all for it.

Podge_irl · 23-06-2021 06:04PM

Does the goal-line drop out apply also for bringing the ball back behind your line and grounding it?

Losty Dublin · 23-06-2021 06:04PM

Shelflife wrote: »

50:22 will be very hard to police at amateur level. Grand in the pro game where you will have 2 decent ARs and a TMO keeping an eye out but on a cold wet Sunday afternoon on your own …..

Which herein lies a big problem with so so many of these law amendments; they rarely fail to take the junior and amateur game into consideration and more so in 2021 as there has been negligible levels of clubs games for such issues to arise and create situations and problems during games.

I foresee that refs will have to deal with aggrieved players in the new season as they find out that their games are struggling to catch up and adapt to changes that materially aren’t made with their interests at heart.

Podge_irl · 23-06-2021 06:10PM

How is a 50-22 any harder to police than a "normal" kick to the corner is now?

randomname2005 · 24-06-2021 03:18AM

Podge_irl wrote: »

How is a 50-22 any harder to police than a "normal" kick to the corner is now?

I think depending on play the ref might not be in a position to accurately judge if the kicker was in their own half if close to the half way, or if the ball bounced inside or outside the 22 if it bounces close to the 22

Nermal · 24-06-2021 09:19AM

Should all 22 drop-outs not be replaced by goal line drop-outs?

Might encourage some more creativity close to the line - if there's a chance the attacker will try a grubber into the in-goal, defenders must consider filling that space, which means more space out wide.

LuckyLloyd · 24-06-2021 10:21AM

I feel like these changes will be very significant. Should lead to more attacking rugby and higher scoring.

Laws Question? Ask here!

Comments