Laws Question? Ask here!

Ste_D wrote: »

I heard talk that in future if a team lose a prop and dont have a replacement, then the ref can decide to go for uncontested scrums but the team are not allowed to replace the prop. They have to play with 14 men. This sounds like a really good idea to me, anyone know anything solid about this??

First of all, a team cannot have any substitutes unless they have front rows on the bench: http://www.irblaws.com/EN/laws/2/3/21/before-the-match/number-of-players-the-team/suitably-trained-and-experienced-players-in-the-front-row/#clause_21

AFAIR, the notion you describe was being kicked around for a while, but was abandoned when Law 3.14 (the 2nd substitute prop) was introduced.

I like the idea of discouraging teams from faking injuries, but this would introduce the danger of a frontrow with a real injury staying on when he shouldn't.

daveharnett wrote: »

First of all, a team cannot have any substitutes unless they have front rows on the bench: http://www.irblaws.com/EN/laws/2/3/21/before-the-match/number-of-players-the-team/suitably-trained-and-experienced-players-in-the-front-row/#clause_21

AFAIR, the notion you describe was being kicked around for a while, but was abandoned when Law 3.14 (the 2nd substitute prop) was introduced.

I like the idea of discouraging teams from faking injuries, but this would introduce the danger of a frontrow with a real injury staying on when he shouldn't.

This is not enforced in Leinster Im sure of.

In Munster its one sub front row enforced.

Losty Dublin

daveharnett wrote: »

First of all, a team cannot have any substitutes unless they have front rows on the bench: http://www.irblaws.com/EN/laws/2/3/21/before-the-match/number-of-players-the-team/suitably-trained-and-experienced-players-in-the-front-row/#clause_21

Dave, as per that rule the suitable cover for the front row need not be on the bench; they can be players on the starting 15.

castie wrote: »

This is not enforced in Leinster Im sure of.

In Munster its one sub front row enforced.

It is enforced in Leinster. If you have no FRR you cannot have any subs. This is not a province by province thing - it is a rugby law. Provinces may only decide on the number of allowed subs per competition.

Downtime wrote: »

It is enforced in Leinster. If you have no FRR you cannot have any subs. This is not a province by province thing - it is a rugby law. Provinces may only decide on the number of allowed subs per competition.

J4 and J5 do not have this in Leinster

castie wrote: »

J4 and J5 do not have this in Leinster

You are correct with regard to J5. Only in the J5 League are FRR not required. The J4 League requires 2 FRR as do the other 26 competitions.

Downtime wrote: »

You are correct with regard to J5. Only in the J5 League are FRR not required. The J4 League requires 2 FRR as do the other 26 competitions.

Then its not enforced as ive been on teams with none and none declared yet still had other subs.

I didnt say the rule wasnt there.

Samich

Whats the law on 21mm studs? legal or not?

And in u-14 are players only allowed kick inside their 22?

Fishooks12

Samich wrote: »

Whats the law on 21mm studs? legal or not?

And in u-14 are players only allowed kick inside their 22?

not sure about the studs rule but the kicking part is correct

Samich wrote: »

Whats the law on 21mm studs? legal or not?

Legal.

Regulation 12, Appendix 2

Studs/cleats of player’s boots must conform with IRB Specifications
(Regulation 12), must not be longer than 21 mm, and must not have any
burring or sharp edges.

Samich wrote: »

Whats the law on 21mm studs? legal or not?

And in u-14 are players only allowed kick inside their 22?

In U14 normal rules apply to kicking from within own 22 and from penalties. Outside of own 22, then the team kicking the ball must retain possession from the kick; if they fail to do so and there is no advantage to the opposition, then a scrum will be awarded to the opposition at the spot from where the ball was kicked.

In Connacht we have been told to ignore these "local" rules and implement irfu rules only.

Team A have the ball, a maul is formed and team A are moving forward at a rate of knots, the maul collapses.

am i correct to say that it now becomes a ruck and team B must release the ball and the players and roll away, if the ball in unplayable do team A get the put in.

if the maul collapses and team b prevent the ball from going to ground what is the call.

Gargled

Shelflife wrote: »

Team A have the ball, a maul is formed and team A are moving forward at a rate of knots, the maul collapses.

am i correct to say that it now becomes a ruck and team B must release the ball and the players and roll away, if the ball in unplayable do team A get the put in.

if the maul collapses and team b prevent the ball from going to ground what is the call.

No, the laws for a collapsed maul are different to rucking laws. There was a clarification this year that if a maul collapses, any players legally taking part in the maul have no obligation to roll away or release the ball. The maul has come to an unsuccessful end and team B get the put in to the scrum

Not sure what you mean by prevent the ball from going to ground. Hope this helps

Shelflife wrote: »

Team A have the ball, a maul is formed and team A are moving forward at a rate of knots, the maul collapses.

am i correct to say that it now becomes a ruck and team B must release the ball and the players and roll away, if the ball in unplayable do team A get the put in.

A maul can't become a ruck. No obligation for anybody to release, and unless the ball is immediately available, scrum to B.

07438991

Quick Question - What constitutes as a tackle because I have seen some players been allowed to get up and play as they were not deemed to be held and other players adjudged to be held in the tackle when it does not look like they were?

I believe this area of the game is getting more difficult to officiate as players are tackling and rolling away from being in an offside position much quicker in recent times so as to avoid giving away a penalty...

Losty Dublin

07438991 wrote: »

Quick Question - What constitutes as a tackle because I have seen some players been allowed to get up and play as they were not deemed to be held and other players adjudged to be held in the tackle when it does not look like they were?

It's a tackle when ball carrier is held and brought to ground by an opposing player/s. The tackler/s are the players who bring you to ground while the tackled player is the ball carried brought to ground. As per the law book, once one knee touches the ground you are deemed to be brought to ground and hence a tackle is made and the obligation to release come into play.

07438991 wrote: »

I believe this area of the game is getting more difficult to officiate as players are tackling and rolling away from being in an offside position much quicker in recent times so as to avoid giving away a penalty...

What makes it harder for referees are players who don't know the rules at the breakdown

07438991

I mean what constitutes as a player being held in the tackle...? I don't think it was clarified too well...

Losty Dublin

07438991 wrote: »

I mean what constitutes as a player being held in the tackle...? I don't think it was clarified too well...

What I stated above is a tackle. If a player isn't brought to ground by an opponent then no tackle has taken place.

We had it clarified at a recent meeting.

where a player is tackled and brought to ground then he is deemed to be tackled and must release the ball.

even if it appears that the tackler has never held him on the ground but has brought him to ground then he is deemed to be held and must release the ball.

a foot tap does not constitute being held and the player may get up and play on.

07438991

Shelflife wrote: »

We had it clarified at a recent meeting.

where a player is tackled and brought to ground then he is deemed to be tackled and must release the ball.

even if it appears that the tackler has never held him on the ground but has brought him to ground then he is deemed to be held and must release the ball.

a foot tap does not constitute being held and the player may get up and play on.

Who's we...? Getting very official. Alain Rolland is that you...? :P

07438991 wrote: »

Who's we...? Getting very official. Alain Rolland is that you...? :P

At a recent refs meeting, we being the local eejits who ref in the west

Downtime wrote: »

In U14 normal rules apply to kicking from within own 22 and from penalties. Outside of own 22, then the team kicking the ball must retain possession from the kick; if they fail to do so and there is no advantage to the opposition, then a scrum will be awarded to the opposition at the spot from where the ball was kicked.

This is now gone. Normal kicking rules apply in U13 and U14.

mikeunt

Shelflife wrote: »

We had it clarified at a recent meeting.

where a player is tackled and brought to ground then he is deemed to be tackled and must release the ball.

even if it appears that the tackler has never held him on the ground but has brought him to ground then he is deemed to be held and must release the ball.

a foot tap does not constitute being held and the player may get up and play on.

Re. the bit in bold. That is fine in open play if an opponent is trying to rob the ball, but I have yet to see a player who is tackled short of the line, brought to ground, not held, gets on his feet again and scores a try being penalised.

JustinDee

Shelflife wrote: »

We had it clarified at a recent meeting.

where a player is tackled and brought to ground then he is deemed to be tackled and must release the ball.

even if it appears that the tackler has never held him on the ground but has brought him to ground then he is deemed to be held and must release the ball.

a foot tap does not constitute being held and the player may get up and play on.

Can I ask which meeting this was? Who gave it?
If you're not held, you're not held and can play ball.

JustinDee wrote: »

Can I ask which meeting this was? Who gave it?
If you're not held, you're not held and can play ball.

Tackle = Held, brought to ground. Not brought to ground, held.

The ball carrier is 'brought to ground' the instant any part of his body other than his feet touch the ground. If at that instant he is being held by an opponent, he is tackled.

Given that we are insisting that the tackler then releases immediately, I think we must give him the benefit of any doubt. The ref calling 'That's a tackle' whenever players might be in doubt can help prevent unnecessary penalties.

Okay going to start by saying not very proud of this but a red mist fell over me and I can not stand an opposition player who goads an injured player as he leaves the field.

So was protecting close into a ruck today but was not joined on.
One of the opposition hits the ruck and stops. He then starts to drive again but away from the ruck itself and drives his head into my nose right beside the ref.

Nose started squirting blood so I went off for a blood sub.
Before I could leave the field he ran up to me and said "Have some of that".
So I have no doubt it was intentional.

Asked the ref on returning his thoughts on the head charge.
He replied with "thats perfectly fine".

Now there I think he is wrong. Surely its dangerous play at least?

So at this point im fuming.
Next ruck see the same guy guarding their ball.
Steam in head first catch him on the chin with top of my head and down he goes.

Taken off pitch and to hospital I heard.

Ref had a word with me to be a bit more careful and I reminded him of our previous conversation and he let it at that.

In my opinion here both deserved yellows. (Possibly red for mine but I dont think you can take into account an injury done really its the same offense)

Thoughts?

castie wrote: »

Okay going to start by saying not very proud of this but a red mist fell over me and I can not stand an opposition player who goads an injured player as he leaves the field.

So was protecting close into a ruck today but was not joined on.
One of the opposition hits the ruck and stops. He then starts to drive again but away from the ruck itself and drives his head into my nose right beside the ref.

Nose started squirting blood so I went off for a blood sub.
Before I could leave the field he ran up to me and said "Have some of that".
So I have no doubt it was intentional.

Asked the ref on returning his thoughts on the head charge.
He replied with "thats perfectly fine".

Now there I think he is wrong. Surely its dangerous play at least?

So at this point im fuming.
Next ruck see the same guy guarding their ball.
Steam in head first catch him on the chin with top of my head and down he goes.

Taken off pitch and to hospital I heard.

Ref had a word with me to be a bit more careful and I reminded him of our previous conversation and he let it at that.

In my opinion here both deserved yellows. (Possibly red for mine but I dont think you can take into account an injury done really its the same offense)

Thoughts?

IRB sent a letter at the start of the season advising refs to clamp down on charging into the ruck - if there's no attempt to bind, PK. Pillars standing offside are fair game for a shove in my book, but that doesn't excuse charging.

Leading with the head is dangerous play, and IMO is well worth a YC if it's deliberate or reckless (ie anything other than a freak accident).

As for the bit in bold, I have no patience for that kind of ****e either. That's at least a PK if I hear it, and pats on the head for players who give away penalties = penalty reversed.