Laws Question? Ask here!

daveharnett · 13-11-2011 08:19PM

FrPhelimYoung wrote: »

Penalty kick at posts. Ball goes over the post. Is that 3 points???

Or is it ball over crossbar and BETWEEN posts???

High winds or crooked posts? I'm not sure that it's explicitly covered by law, but my understanding that it has to be between the posts.

What happens when the ball goes above crooked posts is up for debate though - would be a good idea to ask the ref how he'd handle it before kickoff.

FrPhelimYoung · 13-11-2011 08:35PM

Not really concerned with high winds or crooked posts scenarios.

Simply is it strictly between the posts or if a ball goes over the top of the post as adjudicated by a touch judge are the 3 points awarded. My opinion would be the former. Any refs out there who can clear this up or does anyone know if this is dealt with in the laws of the game???

daveharnett · 13-11-2011 09:06PM

FrPhelimYoung wrote: »

Not really concerned with high winds or crooked posts scenarios.

Simply is it strictly between the posts or if a ball goes over the top of the post as adjudicated by a touch judge are the 3 points awarded. My opinion would be the former. Any refs out there who can clear this up or does anyone know if this is dealt with in the laws of the game???

Sure. Imagine that the posts stretch all the way up to space. If the ball would have gone between them, goal awarded. If it would have hit one of the posts (ie it goes above the top of a post), no goal.

FrPhelimYoung · 13-11-2011 09:35PM

daveharnett wrote: »

Sure. Imagine that the posts stretch all the way up to space. If the ball would have gone between them, goal awarded. If it would have hit one of the posts (ie it goes above the top of a post), no goal.

True!!! If only it were that simple. Some other lad might say it could have hit off the all the way to space posts and deflected in over!!! ;~)

A recent example is here on RugbyDump.
http://www.rugbydump.com/2011/11/2236/ryan-lamb-calls-for-tmo-after-high-flying-penalty

I assume this has been interpreted somewhere. It doesn't seem to be clear in the laws.

JustinDee · 14-11-2011 09:20AM

daveharnett wrote: »

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

Thats what I said. 'Held' is 'held'.
If tackler has no grip on any part of the tackled player when they go to ground, they can play the ball and should not be penalised.

durkadurka · 15-11-2011 12:43AM

Here's one.

As far as I know the scrum half isn't allowed to fake or dummy pulling the ball out of the ruck.

It looked like the Northampton scrum half was kind of at it on Saturday. He has a good look around then bends down really swiftly as if he was about to fling it out.
There's one example at around 31.01 .

Is that legal?

Tigerandahalf · 15-11-2011 01:47AM

It was legal one time but not anymore. Gone since the early pro days I think.
Question for ye...something that kind of puzzles me...
I've often seen in a game, e.g. ball goes up in air after bouncing on ground, players compete, player taps it back to his team but low and behold a fellow from the opposition is standing in an apparent offside position, yet is able to take the ball. How is this allowed?

castie · 15-11-2011 04:09AM

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

It was legal one time but not anymore. Gone since the early pro days I think.
Question for ye...something that kind of puzzles me...
I've often seen in a game, e.g. ball goes up in air after bouncing on ground, players compete, player taps it back to his team but low and behold a fellow from the opposition is standing in an apparent offside position, yet is able to take the ball. How is this allowed?

There is no offside in open play once you begin from an onside position or are put onside in certain conditions like the chaser of a kick.

daveharnett · 15-11-2011 11:57AM

durkadurka wrote: »

Here's one.

As far as I know the scrum half isn't allowed to fake or dummy pulling the ball out of the ruck.

It looked like the Northampton scrum half was kind of at it on Saturday. He has a good look around then bends down really swiftly as if he was about to fling it out.
There's one example at around 31.01 .

Is that legal?

To my mind, no.

16.4 (f) A player must not take any action to make the opposing team think that the ball is out of the ruck while it is still in the ruck.
Sanction: Free Kick

A scrum half might try to quibble that he is just giving the impression that the ball is about to come out.

This is one that can be managed without the whistle most of the time imo. If nobody is unduly disadvantaged the first time it happens, let it go and make sure it doesn't happen again.

durkadurka · 15-11-2011 01:55PM

Thanks, did you get to see the clip to see what I was on about?

Shelflife · 15-11-2011 02:54PM

Durka, i know the movement that you are on about, he doesnt make any passing movement or running movement so he is prob allright, he is flying close to the wind however and it could backfire big time on him.

ref should have a little word with him

rje66 · 20-11-2011 10:53PM

just catching up on a few posts back.

Pillars standing offside are fair game for a shove in my book

:eek::eek: no no.... allowing this creates flash points in the game, resulting in handbags

If attacking team pillars are in front of back foot and have a material effect on play then quick peep and penalty to opp, offside.

if they dont have a material effect, then play on and manage it at next break in play, ie word with capt. to remind his players where the off side line is.

For minor enough stuff youd generally, 'Ask, Tell, Penalise'

castie · 21-11-2011 02:56AM

Something I have seen a bit and curious as to how the two situations differ in peoples mind.

Scenario 1

Team A knock on.
While under advantage Team B infringe at the ruck with a penalty the proper outcome.

Ref then comea back for Scrum to B.

Scenario 2

Team A knock on.
While under advantage Team also knock the ball on.
Player from Team A gathers and is taken high around the neck.

Ref gives Team A a penalty for the high tackle.

I have seen both these things happen and I wonder what people think.
To me a penalty is a penalty and Scenario 2 should go back for the scrum also.

Downtime · 21-11-2011 09:31AM

castie wrote: »

Something I have seen a bit and curious as to how the two situations differ in peoples mind.

Scenario 1

Team A knock on.
While under advantage Team B infringe at the ruck with a penalty the proper outcome.

Ref then comea back for Scrum to B.

Scenario 2

Team A knock on.
While under advantage Team also knock the ball on.
Player from Team A gathers and is taken high around the neck.

Ref gives Team A a penalty for the high tackle.

I have seen both these things happen and I wonder what people think.
To me a penalty is a penalty and Scenario 2 should go back for the scrum also.

If advantage is being played for Team A that would result in a scrum being awarded and a more serious infringement occurs that would result in Team A getting a penalty during advantage then the more serious infringement is penalised.

If advantage is being played for Team A that would result in a scrum or penalty being awarded and Team A infringe in any way then it reverts to the previous restart i.e. the scrum or penalty being awarded.

Reloc8 · 21-11-2011 10:43AM

castie wrote: »

Something I have seen a bit and curious as to how the two situations differ in peoples mind.

Scenario 1

Team A knock on.
While under advantage Team B infringe at the ruck with a penalty the proper outcome.

Ref then comea back for Scrum to B.

That's straightforward - Team B have advantage and to return for their scrum is correct.

castie wrote: »

Scenario 2

Team A knock on.
While under advantage B Team also knock the ball on.
Player from Team A gathers and is taken high around the neck.

Ref gives Team A a penalty for the high tackle.

I have seen both these things happen and I wonder what people think.
To me a penalty is a penalty and Scenario 2 should go back for the scrum also.

I presume you meant to refer to Team B as the second team knocking on, and the team which commit the high tackle.

The high tackle is an act of foul play committed with the ball in play. Law 10.5(a) any player infringing any part of the foul play law must be admonished, or cautioned and temporarily suspended for a period of ten minutes, or sent off.

Law 8 advantage applies to infringement by the same team to allow fresh advantage for the second offence, and whee the advantage is played for the second offence, and not taken, the referee applies the sanction for that second offence (Law 8.5(a)). Law 8.5(a) also states that where either sanction (first or second offence) is for foul play, the referee applies the appropriate sanction for the foul play, returning to the appropriate mark where the foul play occurred.

Law 8.5(b) states that where advantage is being played following an infringement by one team and the other team commits an infringement, the referee applies the sanctions associated with the first infringement.

That means that in the second example the Referee should consider whether the high tackle by Team B warrants a yellow card/sending off. If not he must admonish the offender in accordance with Law 10. If a yellow card/sending off is warranted he shows the offender a the card. In either event Law 8 seems to require him to return to the first knock on by Team A for a scrum to Team B.

This may seem a bit anomalous as the intent of the laws is to prioritise the sanction for foul play as seen in law 8.5(a), where two offences are committed by the same time but there is a consistent reading which I will try to set out.

As a ref I would rule as follows :-

Knock on team A : 'advantage'

Knock on Team B : 'advantage over' and I blow quickly, priority to blow as opposed to making the verbal call. Ball is now dead.

High Tackle by Team B on Team A gathering the ball.

Law 10 (n) covers misconduct when the ball is out of play. It states that the same sanction as generally applies will apply, but the penalty will be at the point where play would have restarted without the foul play. The classi example is the kick through and late tackle. In your example, play would restart with a scrum to Team B at the first knock on.

In your example I would therefore restart play with a penalty to Team A at that location, and this accords with Law 8 and Law 10.

The key point is that when the second knock on happens, there is no longer advantage being played to Team B and the ball is dead (instantaneously with the knock on).

If advantage was over from the first knock on, and Team B then knock on, then it is 'advantage' to team A, followed by high tackle Team B in which case law Law 8.5(a) will apply to rule that the sanction should be for the act of foul play (2 offences committed by the same team during advantage).

castie · 21-11-2011 12:22PM

Reloc8 wrote: »

That's straightforward - Team B have advantage and to return for their scrum is correct.

I presume you meant to refer to Team B as the second team knocking on, and the team which commit the high tackle.

The high tackle is an act of foul play committed with the ball in play. Law 10.5(a) any player infringing any part of the foul play law must be admonished, or cautioned and temporarily suspended for a period of ten minutes, or sent off.

Law 8 advantage applies to infringement by the same team to allow fresh advantage for the second offence, and whee the advantage is played for the second offence, and not taken, the referee applies the sanction for that second offence (Law 8.5(a)). Law 8.5(a) also states that where either sanction (first or second offence) is for foul play, the referee applies the appropriate sanction for the foul play, returning to the appropriate mark where the foul play occurred.

Law 8.5(b) states that where advantage is being played following an infringement by one team and the other team commits an infringement, the referee applies the sanctions associated with the first infringement.

That means that in the second example the Referee should consider whether the high tackle by Team B warrants a yellow card/sending off. If not he must admonish the offender in accordance with Law 10. If a yellow card/sending off is warranted he shows the offender a the card. In either event Law 8 seems to require him to return to the first knock on by Team A for a scrum to Team B.

This may seem a bit anomalous as the intent of the laws is to prioritise the sanction for foul play as seen in law 8.5(a), where two offences are committed by the same time but there is a consistent reading which I will try to set out.

As a ref I would rule as follows :-

Knock on team A : 'advantage'

Knock on Team B : 'advantage over' and I blow quickly, priority to blow as opposed to making the verbal call. Ball is now dead.

High Tackle by Team B on Team A gathering the ball.

Law 10 (n) covers misconduct when the ball is out of play. It states that the same sanction as generally applies will apply, but the penalty will be at the point where play would have restarted without the foul play. The classi example is the kick through and late tackle. In your example, play would restart with a scrum to Team B at the first knock on.

In your example I would therefore restart play with a penalty to Team A at that location, and this accords with Law 8 and Law 10.

The key point is that when the second knock on happens, there is no longer advantage being played to Team B and the ball is dead (instantaneously with the knock on).

If advantage was over from the first knock on, and Team B then knock on, then it is 'advantage' to team A, followed by high tackle Team B in which case law Law 8.5(a) will apply to rule that the sanction should be for the act of foul play (2 offences committed by the same team during advantage).

Just to clear up Advantage is still with B when a player from B commits a high tackle.
I have only seen this once but was surprised at the penalty to A rather than going back for the scrum to B.

daveharnett · 21-11-2011 03:09PM

castie wrote: »

Something I have seen a bit and curious as to how the two situations differ in peoples mind.

Scenario 1

Team A knock on.
While under advantage Team B infringe at the ruck with a penalty the proper outcome.

Ref then comea back for Scrum to B.

Scenario 2

Team A knock on.
While under advantage Team also knock the ball on.
Player from Team A gathers and is taken high around the neck.

Ref gives Team A a penalty for the high tackle.

I have seen both these things happen and I wonder what people think.
To me a penalty is a penalty and Scenario 2 should go back for the scrum also.

It's an interesting question. The only real difference is that Scenario 2 involves dangerous play.

Even if the incident didn't require a card, I don't think I'm comfortable with any kind of dangerous play going completely unpunished.

rje66 · 21-11-2011 06:38PM

Team A knock on.
While under advantage Team also knock the ball on.
Player from Team A gathers and is taken high around the neck.

Ref gives Team A a penalty for the high tackle.

dangerous play trumps a scrum

Reloc8 · 21-11-2011 09:22PM

castie wrote: »

Just to clear up Advantage is still with B when a player from B commits a high tackle.
I have only seen this once but was surprised at the penalty to A rather than going back for the scrum to B.

But it can't be - on the knock on from B the ball is dead (we are now going back the scrum to B at initial knock on) when it is regathered by team A and the high tackle occurs.

Losty Dublin · 22-11-2011 12:54AM

Reloc8 wrote: »

But it can't be - on the knock on from B the ball is dead (we are now going back the scrum to B at initial knock on) when it is regathered by team A and the high tackle occurs.

The ball is only dead when the referee blows his whistle to that effect and makes a call on same

A penalty offence can be committed by a player at any time of the game regardless of the ball being dead or in play. If it is caught by the referee it will override any knock on advantage decision or even other penalty calls under certain circumstances. Examples would be if players players are fighting after a dead ball or something signaled by the assistant referee.

Reloc8 · 22-11-2011 09:34AM

The instant team b knock on the ref will blow - or should do - because team b can no longer have advantage if they knock on. Of course a penalty can be committed at any time. But the ref shouldn't be standing looking at the second knock on to see what will happen next. It's a matter of good game management for him to blow promptly.

If the ball is dead law 10(n) applies.

Losty Dublin · 22-11-2011 03:34PM

Reloc8 wrote: »

But the ref shouldn't be standing looking at the second knock on to see what will happen next. It's a matter of good game management for him to blow promptly.

If the ball is dead law 10(n) applies.

Not quite but I take your point and agree with it's essence. We won't be playing on for an additional advantage for a knock on and we should blow up for the scrum straight away but we will still, well should, be watching what goes on at that breakdown immediately after a break of play otherwise we may miss some jiggerypokery as McClaren used to call it; we have to referee what you lads are/are not doing all of the time

Reloc8 · 22-11-2011 07:17PM

I'm a gamekeeper not a poacher

It can go beyond academic interest - being that we are 100% in agreement that the high tackle should not go unpunished - it is one of those slightly curious situations where the correct location of the penalty can in fact be important.

e.g if the first knock on by A is middle of the pitch and within range of the posts the second knock on during advantage to B is in the tramlines and the high tackle by B occurs close by. The correct location of the penalty is back in the middle of the pitch.

Or, outside of the advantage law, say Team B fullback catches a kick in play, steps into touch and is late/foul tackled - penalty to Team B is where the lineout to Team would have been - so near where he caught the ball. Say if Team B catches a kick which is 'straight out' so no gain in ground and is late/foul tackled, the ball being dead. Penalty will be back where Team A kicked from, law 10(n) applying.

You could get yourself in a bit of bother post-match with a coach/player that knows the rules if his team loses to a penalty kick given from an incorrect mark, or indeed with a team who should have had a penalty in an easier position to kick, or indeed just the potential to have a penalty kick from a mark deep in the opposition half versus within their own 22.

thomond2006 · 26-11-2011 10:50PM

In the Munster game referee Neil Patterson gave a yellow card to an Edinburgh prop during a succession of scrums in which Munster were dominant.

What is the rule/recommendation regarding giving YCs or penalty tries in these situations? In my view it should have been a YC and a PT.

Podge_irl · 27-11-2011 02:39PM

The penalty try law isn't really situation dependent. It should only be awarded if the infringement stopped a probable try. That's rarely enough the case in scrum situations. Commentators calling for penalty tries because of repeat infringements at scrums annoy me.

castie · 27-11-2011 04:02PM

Podge_irl wrote: »

The penalty try law isn't really situation dependent. It should only be awarded if the infringement stopped a probable try. That's rarely enough the case in scrum situations. Commentators calling for penalty tries because of repeat infringements at scrums annoy me.

If one side loses the hit and drops the scrum or stops binding they are preventing the attacking team using their earned advantage to move the scrum forward.

Hence my opinion is that if your stopping the attackers using their advantage you are preventing a probable try given that it is 5 metres out.

Its not as clear as other situations so Id issue a warning that I feel they are preventing the opposition from pushing the scrum over the line illegally and if they do not correct it I would award a penalty try.

rje66 · 27-11-2011 08:47PM

It should only be awarded if the infringement stopped a probable try.

agree

Commentators calling for penalty tries because of repeat infringements at scrums annoy me.

agree, as well as 'he has to let him up', when player goes down on ball quickly followed by chasers who are on their feet trying to get the ball

YC was prob for repeated infringments after warning

phog · 27-11-2011 09:23PM

castie wrote: »

If one side loses the hit and drops the scrum or stops binding they are preventing the attacking team using their earned advantage to move the scrum forward.

Hence my opinion is that if your stopping the attackers using their advantage you are preventing a probable try given that it is 5 metres out.

Its not as clear as other situations so Id issue a warning that I feel they are preventing the opposition from pushing the scrum over the line illegally and if they do not correct it I would award a penalty try.

couldnt have said it better myself.

castie · 28-11-2011 04:51AM

rje66 wrote: »

agree, as well as 'he has to let him up', when player goes down on ball quickly followed by chasers who are on their feet trying to get the ball

Failing to see what you mean with this bit?
The PT being called was for the scrum.

Chuck Stone · 28-11-2011 05:22AM

How come some conversion attempts can be charged down and others can't? Or is it penalties?

Laws Question? Ask here!

Comments