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!

System

This discussion was created from comments split from: Ireland Team Talk XII: Farrell's First Fifteen.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Alan_007_

What is the ruling for a mark to be given?I always thought that two feet had to be on the ground but from the match today it doesnt seem so.

Buceph

As long as there's a clear catch within the 22, and the catcher calls for it, it's given. If you had to have both feet down, then you'd be at a huge disadvantage.

uberwolf

Buceph wrote: »

As long as there's a clear catch within the 22, and the catcher calls for it, it's given. If you had to have both feet down, then you'd be at a huge disadvantage.

I think it used to be the case that you needed planted feet.

Alan_007_

Buceph wrote: »

As long as there's a clear catch within the 22, and the catcher calls for it, it's given. If you had to have both feet down, then you'd be at a huge disadvantage.

Thanks.

castie

Sure if hes off the ground and gets hit its a penalty anyway.
So makes sense to give the mark

Guy:Incognito

Not sure if this varies between top level rugby and partisipation level (J4)
If theres a ruck right on the try line and you come up behind it, pick the ball and go over it (through the gate), is it a try (assumeing you manage to ground the ball?

irishbucsfan

Stekelly wrote: »

Not sure if this varies between top level rugby and partisipation level (J4)
If theres a ruck right on the try line and you come up behind it, pick the ball and go over it (through the gate), is it a try (assumeing you manage to ground the ball?

Yes it is. You'd rarely see it though due to modern rucking techniques and blanket defenses at ruck time.

I think a few years back Martin Corry picked the ball and went through a ruck to score against Ireland for England in this manner (The ruck wasn't on the try line, he had to run a fair distance, but the same rules apply). As long as no one is in front of you obstructing any defenders the try should be given.

j4supporter

I have a question in relation to the above. I know that a scrum half is not allowed dummy a pass from the base of a scrum.

But lets say for example that the number 8 dummied a pick up (left the ball on the ground) and ran from the base of the scrum without making contact with an oppisition player and the SH picked up the ball from where the no.8 was and went the other way.

Is this considered an illegal 'dummy' move or is this legal?

Downtime

j4supporter wrote: »

I have a question in relation to the above. I know that a scrum half is not allowed dummy a pass from the base of a scrum.

But lets say for example that the number 8 dummied a pick up (left the ball on the ground) and ran from the base of the scrum without making contact with an oppisition player and the SH picked up the ball from where the no.8 was and went the other way.

Is this considered an illegal 'dummy' move or is this legal?

This is illegal as the No.8 has unbound from the scrum and has not played the ball and should be therefore penalized. Also don't forget that scrum half relates to the player in that position not just the person wearing the number 9 jersey.

Further to this if the number 8 unbinds the opposition scrum half can play the ball. It is likely if the No.8 goes one way he might obstruct the opposition scrum half.

durkadurka

Paul o connells sin binning on friday against northampton for hands in the ruck. What precisely was he doing wrong?

davidpfitz

durkadurka wrote: »

Paul o connells sin binning on friday against northampton for hands in the ruck. What precisely was he doing wrong?

He handled the ball when the ball was in the ruck - that's not allowed (it briefly was, under the ELVs - but never before, and no more). It contravenes law 16.4.

He was also off his feet and attempting to play the ball, contravening law 15.6.

Not necessarily a yellow in itself, but I think the ref was a bit annoyed with him for what her saw as persistent complaining... so took the opportunity to stamp his authority.

EDIT: http://www.irblaws.com/EN/ has a handy web site which talks you through the laws. There's also a more complete PDF file on http://www.irb.com which has the full text of the laws, and also another text of interpretations - and also official questions and answers from unions!

durkadurka

Could have sworn he was ON his feet?.... If he was on his feet couldn't he have used his hands to get the ball?

davidpfitz

durkadurka wrote: »

Could have sworn he was ON his feet?.... If he was on his feet couldn't he have used his hands to get the ball?

Nope. You can't play the ball with your hands in a ruck, even when on your feet. The scrum-half is given special dispensation... Technically, they're breaking the law of the game, but it's allowed as it'd be stupid otherwise!

Downtime

durkadurka wrote: »

Could have sworn he was ON his feet?.... If he was on his feet couldn't he have used his hands to get the ball?

Only if he was the first player there which he wasn't.

big neilly

as far as i know tackler or first supporting player allowed hands in aslong as its before ref calls ruck

davidpfitz

big neilly wrote: »

as far as i know tackler or first supporting player allowed hands in aslong as its before ref calls ruck

That's the 'Jackler' interpretation / protocol ... there's a document on the irb web site which discusses it.

The way the interpretation appears to be, is that the first player on his feet in the tackle zone (i.e. the tackler) may play the ball with his hands. If a ruck forms, he does not have to release it, but no other player may touch it. He can pick it up to form a maul if another player binds on.

NB: Laws questions, and interpretations questions are always very different things!

randomname2005

There is also the issue of a ruck vs collapsed maul. A collapsed maul does not become a ruck, a ruck is only formed when the ball is on the ground.

If a player sees the ball in a collapsed maul and picks it out, then surely that is not a problem?

davidpfitz

prepetualstudnt wrote: »

If a player sees the ball in a collapsed maul and picks it out, then surely that is not a problem?

So long as the player is on their feet, and in an onside position then no - no problem.

Tim Robbins

prepetualstudnt wrote: »

There is also the issue of a ruck vs collapsed maul. A collapsed maul does not become a ruck, a ruck is only formed when the ball is on the ground.

If a player sees the ball in a collapsed maul and picks it out, then surely that is not a problem?

If a maul goes to ground (because it is not collapsed) the ball must be played immediately otherwise its turnover ball.

If there's some award fall, the defensive team still need to comply with usual breakdown law - i.e. roll away etc.

j4supporter

What is the issue with the no.8 locking down in the scrum behind the 2nd rows and then once the ball is put in, moving to behind the flanker and the 2nd row?

Is this allowed? Not allowed?

Is it possible to do it at all levels from AIL to J4. Seen different things happen around this.

randomname2005

j4supporter wrote: »

What is the issue with the no.8 locking down in the scrum behind the 2nd rows and then once the ball is put in, moving to behind the flanker and the 2nd row?

Is this allowed? Not allowed?

Is it possible to do it at all levels from AIL to J4. Seen different things happen around this.

AFAIK it is not allowed, they are technically breaking from the scrum. Number 8 must have an arm completly touching a lock to the level of the armpit, and this would be quite difficult to retain when moving from between the 2nd rows to between 2nd row and flanker. But, I do think it is ok to move before the ball comes in.

shaunhulme

Is it only a ruck when the ref calls it or when there is 2 or more at a breakdown, ie tackle:D

Podge_irl

I presume you mean a ruck rather than a maul. A ruck is only formed when there is one attacker, one defender and a third player from either team. But its all up to the ref's judgement ultimately.

Tim Robbins

Podge_irl wrote: »

I presume you mean a ruck rather than a maul. A ruck is only formed when there is one attacker, one defender and a third player from either team. But its all up to the ref's judgement ultimately.

Ruck is formed when there is a player from each team contesting for the ball on the ground. It begins as soon as the players contact each other and are bound on to each other.

Maul is formed when there is two attackers and one defender and the attackers are carrying the ball.

The ref never has to call ruck or maul. The only reason why they do it is to remind players it is a ruck and to obey the ruck law so that the game keeps moving and there are less penalties. Or they just like the sound of their own voice!

JustinDee

j4supporter wrote: »

What is the issue with the no.8 locking down in the scrum behind the 2nd rows and then once the ball is put in, moving to behind the flanker and the 2nd row?

Is this allowed? Not allowed?

Is it possible to do it at all levels from AIL to J4. Seen different things happen around this.

Once the ball leaves the halfback's hands (ie. is fed), the nr8 must stay bound in same channel til they leave the scrum or scrum ends. They can bind between lock and flanker or lock and lock but must remain there. They may not change bind-channel mid-scrum

At U19 level below, only permitted to bind between lock and lock.

Brayruit

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Maul is formed when there is two attackers and one defender and the attackers are carrying the ball.

Doesn't the defender have to be bound?

If no defender is bound, can a defender tackle the ball carrier and hence pull down the 'maul'?

Tim Robbins

Brayruit wrote: »

Doesn't the defender have to be bound?

Yes

If no defender is bound, can a defender tackle the ball carrier and hence pull down the 'maul'?

Yes

Brayruit

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Yes

Yes

Thanks... so taking this further then, does the following make sense?

If the attacking team forms what is intended to be a maul (e.g. after taking the ball down from a line out) and starts moving the ball forward, and if the defending team does not 'co-operate' in that no defender binds with another player...

1) All defenders can try to tackle the ball carrier from any angle

2) If a non ball carrying attacker is bound to the intended maul and is hence in the way of an intended tackle on the ball carrier, the attacker is offside and is penalised

?

Tim Robbins

Brayruit wrote: »

Thanks... so taking this further then, does the following make sense?

If the attacking team forms what is intended to be a maul (e.g. after taking the ball down from a line out) and starts moving the ball forward, and if the defending team does not 'co-operate' in that no defender binds with another player...

1) All defenders can try to tackle the ball carrier from any angle

Yes. But they need to cute on how they do this. If they bind onto the upper body of the ball carrier - by definition they have started a maul so they can't.

2) If a non ball carrying attacker is bound to the intended maul and is hence in the way of an intended tackle on the ball carrier, the attacker is offside and is penalised

?

Yes. You are right there.

The IRB did some rulings on this. I'll dig them up at lunch and post them.

shaunhulme

Is the ball out of the scrum once the scrum-half places his hands on the ball or is it when he plays the ball. Can he put his hands on and wait until he is ready to pass?