Laws Question? Ask here!

Toulousain wrote: »

After a line out, refs raise an arm. What's that about, I've never quite got it, and once or twice thought we had a penalty coming...

We really ought to agree on a different signal. It's not law, just something that evolved to make managing the lineout easier.

A 'stop' signal is an awful lot clearer, and can be useful at scrum time too.

randomname2005

The signal for advantage is an arm outstretched, waist high, towards non-offending team, for a period of approximately five seconds. This is very different to the line out not over signals that the refs use.

What's the actual rule with regards to the timing of an advantage? I've seen refs say advantage over after 20-30 seconds despite the attacking team not getting over the gainline, and I've seen other refs come back after 7-8-9-10 phases of play (Fitzgibbon - Leinster v Edinburgh in the 1st half for us).

If someone kicks ahead, normally it ends straight away regardless of whether any advantage is earned or not. On the flip side you can "kick ahead" by going for a drop goal, but that doesn't affect the advantage unless you score.

Very strange and arbitary. Is there actually any rules or guidelines involved? Don't get me wrong, I think the advantage law is a good one, but I'm just not clear on the exact rules of it.

JustinDee

shawpower wrote: »

(Fitzgobsh1te - Leinster v Edinburgh in the 1st half for us

Whoa there! Out of order there, fella.

Removed. Although he did have a terrible game.

Any thoughts on the actual question?

shawpower wrote: »

Removed. Although he did have a terrible game.

Any thoughts on the actual question?

It's something that annoys me too. But it would be hard to make a set time limit. It's up to the referee's discretion and as long as the referee is consistent in applying it then I don't have a problem.

But IMO for a scrum advantage if you get a pass away to put a man in space, then it should be over. For a penalty advantage if they make a clean linebreak or get a good bit over the gainline then it should be called over.

Of course this is just one of the many areas in rugby that are wide open to interpretation from a referee so there will always be someone who disagrees with decisions like this.

Yeah, didn't expect there to be a time limit, but is the guideline say, up to 5 phases of play, or ten, before bringing it back to the original infringement?

In relation to the kicking of the ball when holding a penalty advantage, how is it fair that you can kick a garryowen, end advantage and then lose the ball, yet you can kick a dropgoal, miss and still get the penalty? Surely it'd make more sense that either you don't get a free drop goal attempt, or that you lose the advantage after you catch your kick ahead, to balance the two out...

Also agree that once the ref is consistent, then it's not a big deal, but it can vary so much between matches.

Downtime

shawpower wrote: »

Yeah, didn't expect there to be a time limit, but is the guideline say, up to 5 phases of play, or ten, before bringing it back to the original infringement?

In relation to the kicking of the ball when holding a penalty advantage, how is it fair that you can kick a garryowen, end advantage and then lose the ball, yet you can kick a dropgoal, miss and still get the penalty? Surely it'd make more sense that either you don't get a free drop goal attempt, or that you lose the advantage after you catch your kick ahead, to balance the two out...

Also agree that once the ref is consistent, then it's not a big deal, but it can vary so much between matches.

Because advantage is territorial or tactical, kicking to the corner would lead to advantage being over as you are kicking for territory. A drop goal is often just a snap chance with little time for the kicker to line it up etc so you come back for the penalty.

Downtime wrote: »

Because advantage is territorial or tactical, kicking to the corner would lead to advantage being over as you are kicking for territory. A drop goal is often just a snap chance with little time for the kicker to line it up etc so you come back for the penalty.

Wasn't really talking about a long kick to the corner. More a 20 yard garryowen. If you don't get the catch, you don't really have any subsequent advantage, but the ref will never bring it back.

However, thinking about it, I do accept that it's easier to say "once you kick forward that the advantage is over". Otherwise it's far harder to referee with way more interpretation involved.

shawpower wrote: »

What's the actual rule with regards to the timing of an advantage?

IRB wrote:

8.1 ADVANTAGE IN PRACTICE
(a) The referee is sole judge of whether or not a team has gained an advantage. The referee has wide discretion when making decisions.
(b) Advantage can be either territorial or tactical.
(c) Territorial advantage means a gain in ground.
(d) Tactical advantage means freedom for the non-offending team to play the ball as they wish.

Part (d) covers the team kicking the ball away.

ScrubsfanChris

During the Leinster/Munster game there, Warrick called for a mark inside the in-goal area.
I didn't know you could do that, thought your options were touch it down/kick it out/ or run.

ScrubsfanChris wrote: »

During the Leinster/Munster game there, Warrick called for a mark inside the in-goal area.
I didn't know you could do that, thought your options were touch it down/kick it out/ or run.

Marks in in-goal are fine. They are rare, players generally prefer to make it dead for the dropout.

ScrubsfanChris

daveharnett wrote: »

Marks in in-goal are fine. They are rare, players generally prefer to make it dead for the dropout.

Cheers daveharnett

Downtime wrote: »

Because advantage is territorial or tactical, kicking to the corner would lead to advantage being over as you are kicking for territory.

I'd argue that a lot of the time, refs get this wrong. When a team with penalty advantage kick to touch, (unless it's a brilliant kick, or their hooker is rubbish) they would usually be better off coming back to the mark, kicking again and getting the put-in.

Different for scrum advantage though, where getting possession and enough time on the ball to kick it is usually advantage enough.

crisco10

shawpower wrote: »

Also agree that once the ref is consistent, then it's not a big deal, but it can vary so much between matches.

By far and away the most important thing.

In last nights game, Owens called scrum advantage over after 1 breakdown everytime. You coulda actually set your clock to it. Not hard to do but great refereeing

JustinDee

crisco10 wrote: »

By far and away the most important thing.

In last nights game, Owens called scrum advantage over after 1 breakdown everytime. You coulda actually set your clock to it. Not hard to do but great refereeing

Yep, I'd agree. Warn the teams to engage properly and refuse to be dragged into endless resets. Penalise the offender if they don't get it right. The hard part is spotting who is cheating the bind.

I think he meant advantage that would award a scrum and not something happening at scrum time there.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a57MjiKM8r0

First up, lets not let any Munster v Leinster debate cloud this question please.

I'm wondering whether Owens was within the rules when he went to the TMO after the TOL v Healy high tackle.

For those that didn't see it, or want to refresh their memory of it:

Owens is clearly heard to say afterwards, "lost forward, tackle was fair".

Then one of two things happened imho. He saw the replays on large stadium screen and realised his mistake. Or you can hear Jennings query with him vociferously, and with that and the fact that Healy was still out for the count, Owens realised that Jenno might be right and it wasn't a legit tackle. Either way, he took a while to think about it, and then phrased his question to the TMO in such a way as to allow a reversal of his original decision.

So whether or not it was a fair tackle, or should have been a yellow card and/or a peno try, was Owens actually within the rules to do what he did? I presume the ref isn't allowed to use the screens to make a decision, but it looks to me that he used the screens to change his mind and then asked a very particular question to the TMO to allow him to correct his initial call.

shawpower wrote: »

First up, lets not let any Munster v Leinster debate cloud this question please.

I'm wondering whether Owens was within the rules when he went to the TMO after the TOL v Healy high tackle.

For those that didn't see it, or want to refresh their memory of it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a57MjiKM8r0

Owens is clearly heard to say afterwards, "lost forward, tackle was fair".

Then one of two things happened imho. He saw the replays on large stadium screen and realised his mistake. Or you can hear Jennings query with him vociferously, and with that and the fact that Healy was still out for the count, Owens realised that Jenno might be right and it wasn't a legit tackle. Either way, he took a while to think about it, and then phrased his question to the TMO in such a way as to allow a reversal of his original decision.

So whether or not it was a fair tackle, or should have been a yellow card and/or a peno try, was Owens actually within the rules to do what he did? I presume the ref isn't allowed to use the screens to make a decision, but it looks to me that he used the screens to change his mind and then asked a very particular question to the TMO to allow him to correct his initial call.

Not sure, but Owens says on his FB page that he made a mistake going to the TMO and should have stuck with his original decision. Also added that he was thankful it didn't affect the outcome of the match.

My opinion is that he shouldn't have gone to the TMO as it's only in the act of scoring that it supposed to be used . He didn't cross the line so he wasn't in the act of scoring. TMO isn't used to check knock-ons or other penalty offences where a player might have scored or did score, only if they actually grounded the ball and were in the field of pay when doing so.(I think.)

Risteard wrote: »

Not sure, but Owens says on his FB page that he made a mistake going to the TMO and should have stuck with his original decision. Also added that he was thankful it didn't affect the outcome of the match.

My opinion is that he shouldn't have gone to the TMO as it's only in the act of scoring that it supposed to be used . He didn't cross the line so he wasn't in the act of scoring. TMO isn't used to check knock-ons or other penalty offences where a player might have scored or did score, only if they actually grounded the ball and were in the field of pay when doing so.(I think.)

I wonder does he mean that his mistake was that he didn't have a legit reason for going to the TMO, or that looking back he now feels it was simply a knock-on and the mistake was giving the peno.

Yeah, in asking the question, I was thinking that he didn't have a legit reason to.

My impression of the TMO was always that the ref could only check grounding of the ball. i.e cant check for a forward pass in the move. So I would have considered a high tackle in the same category as the forward pass and since healy came no where near grounding the ball then the TMO wouldnt be called.

In fairness to owens though, with jennings and the crowd on his back and maybe catching the replay on the screens he was in a tough position and made a very ballsy call.

And as ever great respect for the man to come out and admit when he thinks he got things wrong.

randomname2005

Risteard wrote: »

My opinion is that he shouldn't have gone to the TMO as it's only in the act of scoring that it supposed to be used . He didn't cross the line so he wasn't in the act of scoring. TMO isn't used to check knock-ons or other penalty offences where a player might have scored or did score, only if they actually grounded the ball and were in the field of pay when doing so.(I think.)

They can also check for going into touch on their way to the line - there are a few things that they can check. Healy was within the 5m line, one-on-one, so I figure it could be included in the 'act of scoring'. I think he made his decision and shouldn't have gone to the TMO after he said scrum.

An interesting question regarding the TMO's power though.
Should they be able to make decisions regarding Penalty tries?

castie wrote: »

An interesting question regarding the TMO's power though.
Should they be able to make decisions regarding Penalty tries?

I think no.
- A penalty try is the biggest intervention a ref can make in a game (you could argue the red card, but the following applies to that too). If the try is not so obviously on that the ref (or any other neutral watching) has to think twice, consult, or see it again, then it's not a penalty try.

- As to whether the act preventing the probable try constituted foul play, there are already three referees on the park empowered to identify it (the two assistant refs have little else to do).

tolosenc

Has there been some sort of new IRB directive whereby the "Crouch Touch Pause Engage" has been elongated? The Ireland BaaBaas game yesterday as well as the Wales Boks and the Ireland France U20 matches today all seem to have suffered due to a slower than usual cadence from the refs...

tolosenc wrote: »

Has there been some sort of new IRB directive whereby the "Crouch Touch Pause Engage" has been elongated? The Ireland BaaBaas game yesterday as well as the Wales Boks and the Ireland France U20 matches today all seem to have suffered due to a slower than usual cadence from the refs...

I thought I hear one of the commentators in the U20 match say something about it. It's ridiculous IMO.

Not really when it had turned into who got a the jump first after the ref said Pause.