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

karlitob

Surley wrote: »

I thought the TMO could rule on anything, if asked, in the act of scoring?

Yeah, the act of downing the ball. Not the phases of play that led up to it or the hands in the ruck that won the ball etc

Just downing it. Did he down it, was it in touch in goal, was it over the dead ball, was their any foul play in the downing of the ball.

I do miss the excitement of determining whether a players feet hit the corner posts before he touched it down. It was way more fun.

karlitob

phog wrote: »

My understanding of a penalty advantage is that if you decide that you want the penalty then you cant take a quick one but if the ref stops play to award the penalty then you can take the quick tap. If I'm correct then that means a player or team can let the ref know they want the penalty and some teams (mainly S/H teams) do this by a deliberate knock-on.

Sorry - that doesn't make any sense to me.

If the ref blows a peno then the player with the ball can take a quick one. The ref can let this go or pull it back if he likes depending. If defence are not back 10 then the ref can award a further 10m. You'll often hear players say that he cant take another quick one. I would disagree - he can take another quick one but the ref cant award another 10m if opposition are offside..

Naturally, if its advantage the pay hasn't stopped so how can u take a quick penalty. You already have the advantage - why would you stop and give their players time to retire behind the ball and get set.

RuggieBear

Surley wrote: »

I thought the TMO could rule on anything, if asked, in the act of scoring?

That's what i thought but i looked it up after listening to J Davies whining about it following the scarlets ulster game

IRB LAW wrote:

6.A.6 REFEREE CONSULTING WITH OTHERS

(a) The referee may consult with assistant referees in regard to matters relating to their duties, the Law relating to foul play or timekeeping and may request assistance related to other aspects of the referee’s duties including the adjudication of offside.

(b) A match organiser may appoint an official who uses technological devices. If the referee is unsure when making a decision in in-goal involving a try being scored or a touch down, that official may be consulted.
The official may be consulted if the referee is unsure when making a decision in in-goal with regard to the scoring of a try or a touch down when foul play in in-goal may have been involved.
The official may be consulted in relation to the success or otherwise of kicks at goal.
The official may be consulted if the referee or assistant referees are unsure if a player was or was not in touch when attempting to ground the ball to score a try.
The official may be consulted if the referee or assistant referees are unsure when making a decision relating to touch-in-goal and the ball being made dead if a score may have occurred.
(c) A match organiser may appoint a timekeeper who will signify the end of each half.
(d) The referee must not consult with any other persons.

Taco Corp

RuggieBear wrote: »

TMO can only rule on stuff within In-goal area

I thought the TMO could rule on anything, if asked, in the act of scoring?

RuggieBear

TMO can only rule on stuff within In-goal area

CatFromHue

i have a question on the tmo that comes from the below article another poster posted.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/rugby_union/12989898.stm

in specific

Referee Knox, officiating in only his 12th league game, ruled out Stoddart's try on advice from television match official (TMO) Marshall Kilgore, even though it was not within the TMO jurisdiction.

if i remember the ball was knocked on about 2 seconds before the try was scored and was critical to the try being scored.

so how was this not within the tmo's jurisdiction

cython

karlitob wrote: »

My gripe is with players who on purpose knock the ball on. The referee is the person who decides when to blow the whistle. The players must play the whistle. If the ref has allowed advantage to happen then the team with the ball must respect that decision and play within the spirit of that decision. So if a player knocks on the ball on purpose I would give a penalty against them.

So what would your take be on how Wales got "that" missed Stephen Jones penalty back in 2009? Ref called advantage, and one of them got passed the ball from the ruck, and halfheartedly ran up against O'Gara, practically asking for the penalty - he didn't knock on, but it wasn't exactly playing the whistle either

phog

karlitob wrote: »

My gripe is with players who on purpose knock the ball on. The referee is the person who decides when to blow the whistle. The players must play the whistle. If the ref has allowed advantage to happen then the team with the ball must respect that decision and play within the spirit of that decision. So if a player knocks on the ball on purpose I would give a penalty against them.

My understanding of a penalty advantage is that if you decide that you want the penalty then you cant take a quick one but if the ref stops play to award the penalty then you can take the quick tap. If I'm correct then that means a player or team can let the ref know they want the penalty and some teams (mainly S/H teams) do this by a deliberate knock-on.

karlitob

Magic Eight Ball wrote: »

Is there actually an official length of time when advantage is given to a side? I ask this because in the last few weeks alone between internationals and league games I’ve seen the duration change from mere 30 seconds to a side going through multiple phases before being called back.

I can’t seem to see any consistency with referees. Sure sometimes the same ref isn’t even consistent with it.

Can anyone shed some light?

There's no such thing as penalty advantage, knock on advantage, scrum advantage.

Advantage must be "clear and real". Advantage is supposed to be up to the discretion of the referee. Its a good thing that this is allowed happen and not standardised. Thats the reason that we have laws and not rules. Its so the referee can be judicious in his judgement on what he sees in front of him rather than being stuck to rules. Its what makes the game what it is.

Always, play the whistle!!!

I would agree with Tim Robbins. You need to clear your lines. Under pressure in the 22, I would blow it up and offer the team ...whatever.. peno scrum etc.

My gripe is with players who on purpose knock the ball on. The referee is the person who decides when to blow the whistle. The players must play the whistle. If the ref has allowed advantage to happen then the team with the ball must respect that decision and play within the spirit of that decision. So if a player knocks on the ball on purpose I would give a penalty against them.

karlitob

castie wrote: »

I dont think the ruck ending like that is quite right.
As theres plenty of examples of rucks where people are off there feet and scrumhalf hasnt taken the ball but players arent running around to steal it.

I think it is quite right because it is right.

Since this ball was on top of a melee of players then it can't be likened to coming around to steal the ball because the ball is in the middle of the melee with noone over it.

If players have to come around then there are players that are over the ball and therefore the ruck is still ongoing.

The fact remains that the play was allowed to continue - the referee was happy and the reason I gave was the reason the ref gave when he spoke with O Callaghan.

Tim Robbins

One of the best tips I got as a ref was not to bother playing advantage to a team struggling in their own 22 and under pressure. Another good one was to not to keep playing advantage if the attacking team aren't getting quick ball. Obviously these things vary depending on how a match is going but they are things worth thinking about. It's incredible how deep an understanding x - refs and more experienced refs have of the game.

It's all those little things that make the difference. The top refs (the Lewis's and Rolland's) have this all down to a tee.

Downtime

ajeffares wrote: »

Just on that advantage length, what is the story if you kick it? As far as I can see, for scrum advantage, it ends when you kick it, but for penalty advantage you see some refs call advantage over when the ball bounces while others call it back when it bounces. Is it a matter of opinion on the refs part?

As Tim said advantage is territorial or tactical. A penalty advantage is a bigger offence. If you boot the ball down the pitch you have a gain in territory. You need to judge how far the ball has gone, where it has gone, is there an immediate attacking option for the opposition etc. If it is from a knock on a shorter gain in ground would suffice whilst as the the penalty is a bigger offence you look for a bigger gain.

Gelio

Just on that advantage length, what is the story if you kick it? As far as I can see, for scrum advantage, it ends when you kick it, but for penalty advantage you see some refs call advantage over when the ball bounces while others call it back when it bounces. Is it a matter of opinion on the refs part?

Tim Robbins

Magic Eight Ball wrote: »

Is there actually an official length of time when advantage is given to a side? I ask this because in the last few weeks alone between internationals and league games I’ve seen the duration change from mere 30 seconds to a side going through multiple phases before being called back.

I can’t seem to see any consistency with referees. Sure sometimes the same ref isn’t even consistent with it.

Can anyone shed some light?

You're supposed to let it go until there's been a tactical or territorial advantage. In my book, once the attacking team are in the other team's half there's a chance they could have gone for posts and scored, on a penalty advantage so I think it's a bit harsh calling advantage over unless they score or get significant advantage - a clean line break. If they don't get that I'd usually go back.

For a knock on advantage, refs would usually call advantage over much quicker -once there's been a gain of any sort and the attacking team are still on the front foot in control of the ball.

Magic Eight Ball

Is there actually an official length of time when advantage is given to a side? I ask this because in the last few weeks alone between internationals and league games I’ve seen the duration change from mere 30 seconds to a side going through multiple phases before being called back.

I can’t seem to see any consistency with referees. Sure sometimes the same ref isn’t even consistent with it.

Can anyone shed some light?

castie

karlitob wrote: »

I know what your point was - He also told Donnacha O Callaghan after that play that the ruck was over and ball was playable. If theres no ruck, then open play then go in and fetch it out. And since he did reach in, then obviously he can reach in. Players in the ruck cannot put hands on the ruck but players outside the ruck can reach in and get the ball if its availabke. Boss was not part of the ruck before it did not become a ruck because all the ruck players fell on the ground.

They didnt turn it over in contact, the players fell onto the ground - ruck over. Ball in open play.

Also, you cant just 'shoe' in a ruck,. You have to drive/ruck over the ball. If scrum halves do stick their foot in its because they dont want to knock it on and want to pull it out into a better position to grab it..

I dont think the ruck ending like that is quite right.
As theres plenty of examples of rucks where people are off there feet and scrumhalf hasnt taken the ball but players arent running around to steal it.

Anthonyk2010

karlitob wrote: »

I know what your point was - He also told Donnacha O Callaghan after that play that the ruck was over and ball was playable. If theres no ruck, then open play then go in and fetch it out. And since he did reach in, then obviously he can reach in. Players in the ruck cannot put hands on the ruck but players outside the ruck can reach in and get the ball if its availabke. Boss was not part of the ruck before it did not become a ruck because all the ruck players fell on the ground.

They didnt turn it over in contact, the players fell onto the ground - ruck over. Ball in open play.

Also, you cant just 'shoe' in a ruck,. You have to drive/ruck over the ball. If scrum halves do stick their foot in its because they dont want to knock it on and want to pull it out into a better position to grab it..

`
Ok they start out bound over the ball (ruck) but fall over, when this happens the ruck ends and the ball is in open play?

karlitob

Anthonyk2010 wrote: »

You can clearly hear the ref say "ruck release it red", my point is can he reach that far in to the ruck and pick the ball out. Should he shoe it first to bring It out more, did the ref give boss the advantage because they turned it over in contact ?

The more I look at it I believe it was a good turn over for Leinster, but I'm just wondering about that law.

I know what your point was - He also told Donnacha O Callaghan after that play that the ruck was over and ball was playable. If theres no ruck, then open play then go in and fetch it out. And since he did reach in, then obviously he can reach in. Players in the ruck cannot put hands on the ruck but players outside the ruck can reach in and get the ball if its availabke. Boss was not part of the ruck before it did not become a ruck because all the ruck players fell on the ground.

They didnt turn it over in contact, the players fell onto the ground - ruck over. Ball in open play.

Also, you cant just 'shoe' in a ruck,. You have to drive/ruck over the ball. If scrum halves do stick their foot in its because they dont want to knock it on and want to pull it out into a better position to grab it..

Anthonyk2010

karlitob wrote: »

Players in the ruck can't put their hands on the ball. A ruck is when two players from opposing teams are over the ball which is on the ground. In the Isaac Boss case, the players had all fallen away from the ruck and where lying on the ground - they are out of the game, they may as well be imaginary in the eyes of the law. Boss, on his feet, onside and since no ruck was formed as no players were over the ball, he was able to reach in and pick up the ball. Open play - the ball may as well have spilled out of the ruck in that instance.

You can clearly hear the ref say "ruck release it red", my point is can he reach that far in to the ruck and pick the ball out. Should he shoe it first to bring It out more, did the ref give boss the advantage because they turned it over in contact ?

The more I look at it I believe it was a good turn over for Leinster, but I'm just wondering about that law.

karlitob

Anthonyk2010 wrote: »

Question about the laws if the ruck. In tonights match between munster v Leinster boss reached in the middle of the ruck and pulled the ball out.

Munster had the ball going into contact the red called ruck, then boss pull it out.

Is it illegal to do this or not?

Players in the ruck can't put their hands on the ball. A ruck is when two players from opposing teams are over the ball which is on the ground. In the Isaac Boss case, the players had all fallen away from the ruck and where lying on the ground - they are out of the game, they may as well be imaginary in the eyes of the law. Boss, on his feet, onside and since no ruck was formed as no players were over the ball, he was able to reach in and pick up the ball. Open play - the ball may as well have spilled out of the ruck in that instance.

Anthonyk2010

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

dis he go through the gate?

Ya he did. But I still think he can't go in to the middle of the ruck like that, he should shoe the ball out some part of the way. May be I'm wrong.

CIARAN_BOYLE

Anthonyk2010 wrote: »

Question about the laws if the ruck. In tonights match between munster v Leinster boss reached in the middle of the ruck and pulled the ball out.

Munster had the ball going into contact the red called ruck, then boss pull it out.

Is it illegal to do this or not?

dis he go through the gate?

Anthonyk2010

Question about the laws if the ruck. In tonights match between munster v Leinster boss reached in the middle of the ruck and pulled the ball out.

Munster had the ball going into contact the red called ruck, then boss pull it out.

Is it illegal to do this or not?

karlitob

castie wrote: »

Aye Ref would have blown it which was the original question.

It may have been the first question, but there were two other questions/comments. The poster was obviously of the opinion that you could play on after a conversion - he was corrected.

karlitob

Hersheys wrote: »

During a conversion if the kicker of team a takes too long, can team b come and pick up the ball and run? Or if they block it down what happens?

A kicker can only take a minute. I would see it as important to remind the referee of this. So I would charge out after the minute and kick the ball away and if the ref asks, explain the one minute law and shrug our shoulders and say sorry. You'll keep the ref honest and get to put the kicker off too. The worst that will happen is that the kick will be taken again.

You can't do anything else but block down a conversion - play resumes in a kick off always.

karlitob

newby.204 wrote: »

I'll ask for some patience with this question.

now i understand the basics of the offside rules of rugby however i have a question about the offside rule from kicks.

When a player kicks the ball he has to chase to get everyone else onside? but sometimes say ROG kicks and someone else chases? both kicks are from play but two different chasers

if anything needs to be clarified about my question feel free to tear the post apart and ill happily answer

First rule of rugby - there are only laws!.

Not only the kicker but whoever is behind him can put everyone else onside by running forward. However, everyone ahead of the kicker must also make an effort to get themselves onside and not simply wait to be put onside.

karlitob

castie wrote: »

Did he get to ground?
If he gets to ground youve got to release him, hands on the ball or not.

It doesn't matter if the player gets to ground. It where the ball is that matters
A maul is when the ball is off the ground with two players from one team and one player from another team around it. The ref should have called this.
A ruck is when the ball hits the deck. When the player goes to ground (which can mean even his knees on the ground or his knees on a player on the ground deems the player on the ground) he should release the ball and roll away (as is incumbent on every player to do). At that stage, you would be left holding the ball.

Penalty against the player on the ground for not releasing.

castie

Khan77 wrote: »

Referee pinged me twice last week for hands on the ball in a ruck situation. Opposing player had taken the ball into contact and been tackled by one of our team without going to ground and I had contested the ball and got my hands on it. Other players had then joined and a maul had then (IMO) formed although the ref never called it as such. Opposing player then tried to go to ground but I still had my hands on the ball approx 3 ft off the ground. Was the ref right?

Did he get to ground?
If he gets to ground youve got to release him, hands on the ball or not.

Khan77

Referee pinged me twice last week for hands on the ball in a ruck situation. Opposing player had taken the ball into contact and been tackled by one of our team without going to ground and I had contested the ball and got my hands on it. Other players had then joined and a maul had then (IMO) formed although the ref never called it as such. Opposing player then tried to go to ground but I still had my hands on the ball approx 3 ft off the ground. Was the ref right?

castie

JustinDee wrote: »

If it has taken too long, the ref will have blown it up as so therefore the defenders will be running to block. If it has been pinged, ball is dead so its unlikely they'll be charging.

Aye Ref would have blown it which was the original question.