Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Laws Question? Ask here!

Options
13567…92

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    castie
    Hosted Moderators Posts: 3,807 ✭✭✭castie


    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    How come some conversion attempts can be charged down and others can't? Or is it penalties?

    Only conversions.

    You can start to charge once the opponent has begun to move towards the ball.

    O Connor has a dodgy pre kick ritual that involves him moving towards the ball and back again.

    Fair game what stringer did.


  • Options
    #63
    rje66
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,393 ✭✭✭rje66


    [/QUOTE]
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by rje66 viewpost.gif
    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. [/QUOTE]



    sorry went off on a tanjent, just other things I hate hearing commentators saying


  • Options
    #64
    castie
    Hosted Moderators Posts: 3,807 ✭✭✭castie


    rje66 wrote: »
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by rje66 viewpost.gif
    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. [/QUOTE]



    sorry went off on a tanjent, just other things I hate hearing commentators saying[/QUOTE]

    But they do need to let him up.


  • Options
    #65
    GerM
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,592 ✭✭✭GerM


    The whole charge down of a conversion is a grey area for me. A lot of kickers have a movement of their feet to set themselves before they approach the ball as part of their routine. McFadden, for example, takes a couple of backwards steps before running towards the ball. I think Sexton plants a foot backwards before running forward. Should that constitute a run up? I'm surprised that more kickers don't chance their arms and charge the ball. Few players seem to keep an eye on the clock and the one minute rule either. I've watched a few kickers at conversions take up to 70 seconds from the arrival of the tee to the kick.


  • Options
    #66
    castie
    Hosted Moderators Posts: 3,807 ✭✭✭castie


    (a) All players of the opposing team must retire to their goal line and must not overstep that line until the kicker begins the approach to kick or starts to kick. When the kicker does this, they may charge or jump to prevent a goal but must not be physically supported by other players in these actions.

    Law states approach. So players putting feet backwards i would not consider an approach. What O Connor does is an approach but then he goes back again.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Sundy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,512 ✭✭✭Sundy


    castie wrote: »
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by rje66 viewpost.gif
    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.



    sorry went off on a tanjent, just other things I hate hearing commentators saying[/QUOTE]

    But they do need to let him up.[/QUOTE]


    No they do not. :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #68
    castie
    Hosted Moderators Posts: 3,807 ✭✭✭castie


    Sundy wrote: »
    No they do not. :rolleyes:

    Best I can find at the moment is from Nigel Owens.

    Q: When a player drops to the ground to secure a loose ball, must the opposition let him get to his feet before tackling him? Frequently I see a player bravely go down on the ball, only to be jumped on by opponents and then penalised for holding on!
    David, Sydney

    Yes, the opposition must let a player get to his feet first, but remember that the player who goes to ground must try to get up immediately too.

    From http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/rugby_union/international/4759250.stm

    How about you offer some proof rather than just :rolleyes: ?


  • Options
    #69
    Shelflife
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,096 ✭✭✭Shelflife


    Heres another twist on that, I noticed at the Connacht Ospreys game that some of the welsh players went to ground without any tackle.ie they stopped short of the defensive line and then they rucked over that.

    Surely that is obstruction by ospreys.


  • Options
    #70
    rje66
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,393 ✭✭✭rje66


    How about you offer some proof rather than just rolleyes.gif ?
    anyone got a law reference to support mr owens

    im with sundy on this one.
    Rem. players on feet are king,


  • Options
    #71
    Sundy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,512 ✭✭✭Sundy


    castie wrote: »
    Best I can find at the moment is from Nigel Owens.

    Q: When a player drops to the ground to secure a loose ball, must the opposition let him get to his feet before tackling him? Frequently I see a player bravely go down on the ball, only to be jumped on by opponents and then penalised for holding on!
    David, Sydney

    Yes, the opposition must let a player get to his feet first, but remember that the player who goes to ground must try to get up immediately too.

    From http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/rugby_union/international/4759250.stm

    How about you offer some proof rather than just :rolleyes: ?

    Unfortunately Nigel Owens is wrong in this case
    here is a whole list of rugby 'myths' from here http://www.bucksreferees.co.uk/media/cms/docs/myths.doc
    Great Rugby Laws Myths
    (1) If a player falls on the ball, you do NOT have to let him up. (You can’t put weight on him, but you can compete for the ball straight away and if he doesn’t let go...ping!)
    (2) If a penalty or free kick is advanced 10m, you CAN take a quick tap once the referee has indicated the new mark. This is such a handy one, especially if the ref knows it (can’t vouch for all refs!). The instant he makes the mark, you can go.
    (3) A player in a ruck CANNOT handle the ball even if he is on his feet unless (a) he had his hands on the ball before the ruck formed, or (b) he is the scrum half getting the ball out of the ruck.
    (4) You CAN be offside in in-goal.
    (5) It is NOT obligatory to issue a red or yellow card with a penalty try
    (6) You CAN charge the conversion of a penalty try.
    (7) At an uncontested scrum the Number 8 CAN break off with the ball.
    (8) You MUST NOT ruck players.
    (9) A Mark CAN be called from a penalty kick or drop goal attempt.
    (10) You DO NOT NEED BOTH “control” and “downward pressure” to score a try.
    (11) You CANNOT score a try by touching a goal post above the ground.
    (12) There is NO SUCH THING as “double movement” when stretching out to score a try, its simply “not releasing” if the player hangs onto it (same outcome of course)
    (13) The captain DOES NOT have an automatic right to talk to the referee when he wants to.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Reloc8
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,857 ✭✭✭Reloc8


    rje66 wrote: »
    anyone got a law reference to support mr owens

    im with sundy on this one.
    Rem. players on feet are king,


    The laws do deal with it.

    Law 14 Ball on the Ground - No Tackle

    14.1(a) A Player with the ball must immediately do one of three things - get up with the ball, pass the ball, release the ball (Sanction Penalty Kick)

    14.1(b) A player who passes or releases the ball must also get up or move away from it at once (Sanction PK)

    (14.1(c) and (d) are not really relevant)

    14.2 (a) A Player must not intentionally fall on or over a player with the ball who is lying on the ground (Sanction PK)

    14.2 (b) A Player must not intentionally fall on or over players lying on the ground with the ball between them or near them.

    From 'Definitions' to law 14 :

    'The Game is to be played by players who are on their feet. A player must not make the ball unplayable by falling down. Unplayable means that the ball is not immediately available to either team so that play may continue...

    ...A player who is not tackled but who goes to ground while holding the ball, or a player who goes to ground and gathers the ball, must act immediately'.

    From my point of view 'immediately' means within the time taken to say 'immediately'. The player who goes down on the ball has to do one of the three things permitted in 14.1 'immediately'. As he goes down, the first priority is on chasers to make sure none of them fall on top of him or otherwise lie on, over or near the ball to prevent opponents getting possession of it (see 14.1 (c)). The next priority is that the player who went down 'immediately' passes, gets up, or releases the ball.

    Once chasers have not gone down on the ball/player, they are fully permitted to try and take the ball from the player in possession who went down, they don't have to wait for him to get up.

    'The game is to be played by players who are on their feet'. If you go down, and a chaser stands over you and tries to take the ball, and you do not release 'immediately' you should be pinged.
    Shelflife wrote: »
    Heres another twist on that, I noticed at the Connacht Ospreys game that some of the welsh players went to ground without any tackle.ie they stopped short of the defensive line and then they rucked over that.

    Surely that is obstruction by ospreys.

    Correct. The player on the ground who goes to ground without a tackle must act in accordance with 14.1 immediately including getting up and moving away, there being no tackle. Sanction is penalty kick. Team who spots that the other shower are nose-diving into the dirt should not engage in any contest over the ball to make clear what's going on - a good skipper would have a quiet word with the ref and tip him off first just to be sure that he sees it the same way/knows the law.


  • Options
    #73
    rje66
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,393 ✭✭✭rje66


    Originally Posted by castie viewpost.gif
    Best I can find at the moment is from Nigel Owens.

    Q: When a player drops to the ground to secure a loose ball, must the opposition let him get to his feet before tackling him? Frequently I see a player bravely go down on the ball, only to be jumped on by opponents and then penalised for holding on!
    David, Sydney

    Yes, the opposition must let a player get to his feet first, but remember that the player who goes to ground must try to get up immediately too.

    From http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/rugb...al/4759250.stm

    How about you offer some proof rather than just rolleyes.gif ?
    not quite the same senario , i highlighted in bold.
    In my senario man on feet is only interested in ball he isnt trying to tackle anybody.
    long kick ahead,attacking winger chases and defending winger goes down on ball, at exactly same time attacking winger arrives stays on feet, he has all rights to play the ball and does not have to 'wait' for man on ground to get up. its a popular myth that 'he has to let him up'


  • Options
    #74
    MungBean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,915 ✭✭✭MungBean


    In the Munster v Ospreys game there was a little confusion at one point when a decision went to Ospreys from some infringement at a ruck (may have been a scrum) and them kicking for touch.

    The lineout that resulted was Munster ball. I think I recall O'Shea mentioning it was a free kick and not a penalty and thats why it was Munster ball. I previously didnt separate the two, I thought a free kick was a choice the team made as to how to use the ball after a penalty was awarded, so if they went for touch they retain possession. So when is a free kick awarded instead of a penalty ?


  • Options
    #75
    Losty Dublin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,322 ✭✭✭✭Losty Dublin


    MungBean wrote: »
    In the Munster v Ospreys game there was a little confusion at one point when a decision went to Ospreys from some infringement at a ruck (may have been a scrum) and them kicking for touch.

    The lineout that resulted was Munster ball. I think I recall O'Shea mentioning it was a free kick and not a penalty and thats why it was Munster ball. I previously didnt separate the two, I thought a free kick was a choice the team made as to how to use the ball after a penalty was awarded, so if they went for touch they retain possession. So when is a free kick awarded instead of a penalty ?

    Some minor offences are punished with a free kick award, a list of same can be found in the Law Book. The most common use of a free is from a mark inside ones' 22.

    A team can't score from a free kick nor will they win the throw in from an ensuing line out after a free; the line of touch for a throw in is the same as per a kick to touch in open play. They can tap and go from a free while they can also take a scrum in lieu.


  • Options
    #76
    MyKeyG
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,282 ✭✭✭MyKeyG


    MungBean wrote: »
    In the Munster v Ospreys game there was a little confusion at one point when a decision went to Ospreys from some infringement at a ruck (may have been a scrum) and them kicking for touch.

    The lineout that resulted was Munster ball. I think I recall O'Shea mentioning it was a free kick and not a penalty and thats why it was Munster ball. I previously didnt separate the two, I thought a free kick was a choice the team made as to how to use the ball after a penalty was awarded, so if they went for touch they retain possession. So when is a free kick awarded instead of a penalty ?
    A free kick is often awarded for minor technical infringements like too many players in a line-out or time wasting or not waiting for the engage at a scrum for example. It's also awarded when a player calls a mark.

    The hand signal is different in that rather than hold the arm straight up in the direction of the awarded team the ref will hold his arm towards the awarded team with his hand pointing up. You can kick a free kick to touch but you'll lose possession.


  • Options
    #77
    MungBean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,915 ✭✭✭MungBean


    Are free kicks for infringements rare in the game or have I just been taking them for penalties ?


  • Options
    #78
    Losty Dublin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,322 ✭✭✭✭Losty Dublin


    MungBean wrote: »
    Are free kicks for infringements rare in the game or have I just been taking them for penalties ?

    Rare yes because they are for generally technical things whereas penalties are more so acts during play. Crooked feed to a scrum is a common one, going into a scrum too early or the just mentioned line out and time wasting. In olden days, a free and a penalty were both of equal standing but as the game has sped up and the scoring element removed from same, the free has become an uncommon sight and overtaken by the penalty.


  • Options
    #79
    errlloyd
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,642 ✭✭✭✭errlloyd


    I know I have seen this discussion before on boards, sorry for reposting.

    But is it a forward pass if the player's momentum carries it forward?

    If not why do referees seem to ping it so much. (Particularly in the situation of a passing player getting tackled right after the pass).

    Saw this in the baabaas game.


  • Options
    #80
    castie
    Hosted Moderators Posts: 3,807 ✭✭✭castie


    errlloyd wrote: »
    I know I have seen this discussion before on boards, sorry for reposting.

    But is it a forward pass if the player's momentum carries it forward?

    If not why do referees seem to ping it so much. (Particularly in the situation of a passing player getting tackled right after the pass).

    Saw this in the baabaas game.

    Video here explains it quite well.

    http://www.rugbydump.com/2011/10/2204/what-is-a-forward-pass

    In some cases refs just get it wrong.


  • Options
    #81
    Reloc8
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,857 ✭✭✭Reloc8


    It has to be thrown backwards relative to the player passing it.

    Where the players involved are in motion forwards it more or less will never actually travel backwards over the ground...if it did, a large black hole would open up in the middle of the pitch and the whole universe would be sucked into a tea party with Stephen Hawkings for the rest of time. Although time itself would in fact have ceased to exist.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Losty Dublin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,322 ✭✭✭✭Losty Dublin


    Reloc8 wrote: »
    It has to be thrown backwards relative to the player passing it.

    No, forward means towards the opposition's try line. There are instances in oepn play when a player may pass the ball forward relative to how he is facing; a scrum half from a loose or set scrum being a common enough one :)
    Reloc8 wrote: »
    Where the players involved are in motion forwards it more or less will never actually travel backwards over the ground...if it did, a large black hole would open up in the middle of the pitch and the whole universe would be sucked into a tea party with Stephen Hawkings for the rest of time. Although time itself would in fact have ceased to exist.

    That did happen once in a game; Philosophers/Theroetical Physics XV versus the Sci Fi Ba-Ba's :)


  • Options
    #83
    castie
    Hosted Moderators Posts: 3,807 ✭✭✭castie


    Reloc8 wrote: »
    Where the players involved are in motion forwards it more or less will never actually travel backwards over the ground...

    What a load of rubbish.
    If I throw a pass at a 80 degree angle to the sideline in a backwards direction unless im the flash its going to be moving backwards even though my motion is forwards and so is the guy very deep from me whos recieving.


  • Options
    #84
    Shelflife
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,096 ✭✭✭Shelflife


    castie wrote: »
    What a load of rubbish.
    If I throw a pass at a 80 degree angle to the sideline in a backwards direction unless im the flash its going to be moving backwards even though my motion is forwards and so is the guy very deep from me whos recieving.

    True but if you are running at full speed and throw a flat pass on the halfway line the reciever will collect it past the halfway line. it looks grand until the passer is tackled and stopped on the halfway line and the reciever collects it a metre ahead of the line.


  • Options
    #85
    castie
    Hosted Moderators Posts: 3,807 ✭✭✭castie


    Shelflife wrote: »
    True but if you are running at full speed and throw a flat pass on the halfway line the reciever will collect it past the halfway line. it looks grand until the passer is tackled and stopped on the halfway line and the reciever collects it a metre ahead of the line.

    Agreed and thats what the article I replied with shows.
    But to claim its more or less impossible to throw a ball backwards when running is farcical.


  • Options
    #86
    Gracelessly Tom
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,053 ✭✭✭Gracelessly Tom


    Quick law question......

    Attacking player carries the ball over the line but in the act of trying to ground it the defence get control of the ball and as it is placed at the back of the ruck (ruck is over the tryline in the scoring zone) the ref blows the whistle as he feels the ball has been touched down by the defending team. Is this a scrum 5 or should it be a 22 drop out seeing as the attacking team caused the ball to go over the tryline? Happened in our match on Sat and I'm curious as to the correct call.


  • Options
    #87
    Reloc8
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,857 ✭✭✭Reloc8


    castie wrote: »
    What a load of rubbish.
    If I throw a pass at a 80 degree angle to the sideline in a backwards direction unless im the flash its going to be moving backwards even though my motion is forwards and so is the guy very deep from me whos recieving.

    I take your point. Where the forward motion is less relative to the angle back at which the pass is made, the 'phenomenon' does not arise.

    I should have made clear that I was only talking about the very lateral passes made at a bit of speed illustrated in the link given by yourself. Clearly if the ball is passed at a very acute angle to the sidelines its likely to be moving backwards both over the ground and relative to the point of release. The point is that the law as interpreted and applies only requires compliance with the latter of those two possibilities.

    Bit loose of me - sorry.
    Losty Dublin wrote: »
    No, forward means towards the opposition's try line. There are instances in oepn play when a player may pass the ball forward relative to how he is facing; a scrum half from a loose or set scrum being a common enough one :)

    Very true - its about where his point of release is and whether the ball moves forward from there as opposed to what direction he is facing.
    Gracelessly Tom wrote: »
    Quick law question......

    Attacking player carries the ball over the line but in the act of trying to ground it the defence get control of the ball and as it is placed at the back of the ruck (ruck is over the tryline in the scoring zone) the ref blows the whistle as he feels the ball has been touched down by the defending team. Is this a scrum 5 or should it be a 22 drop out seeing as the attacking team caused the ball to go over the tryline? Happened in our match on Sat and I'm curious as to the correct call.

    Law 22.7 applies in the usual way :-

    "22.7 RESTARTING AFTER A TOUCH DOWN
    (a) When an attacking player sends or carries the ball into the opponents’ in-goal and it becomes dead there, either because a defender grounded it or because it went into touch-in-goal or on or over the dead ball line, a drop-out is awarded. "

    In your example the attacking players have sent or carried the ball into the opponent's in goal where it is made dead by the touchdown - 22 drop out is the correct call.


  • Options
    #88
    Losty Dublin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,322 ✭✭✭✭Losty Dublin


    Gracelessly Tom wrote: »
    Quick law question......

    Attacking player carries the ball over the line but in the act of trying to ground it the defence get control of the ball and as it is placed at the back of the ruck (ruck is over the tryline in the scoring zone) the ref blows the whistle as he feels the ball has been touched down by the defending team. Is this a scrum 5 or should it be a 22 drop out seeing as the attacking team caused the ball to go over the tryline? Happened in our match on Sat and I'm curious as to the correct call.

    Assuming the attacking team carried the ball into "In Goal"...
    • If the attacking player was in possession of the ball and the ball was grounded by an attacking player, it's a try.
    • If the attacking player was in possession and the ball is ripped and grounded by a defending player (Let's assume that's how he got it), it's a 22.
    • If it is unclear as to who grounded the ball or if it's unlcear who grounded then it's a scrum to the team going forward.
    The laws relation to rucks and mauls don't come into it as rucks/mauls don't exist in "In goal" once the ball reaches the try line.


  • Options
    #89
    castie
    Hosted Moderators Posts: 3,807 ✭✭✭castie


    Losty Dublin wrote: »
    Assuming the attacking team carried the ball into "In Goal"...
    • If the attacking player was in possession of the ball and the ball was grounded by an attacking player, it's a try.
    • If the attacking player was in possession and the ball is ripped and grounded by a defending player (Let's assume that's how he got it), it's a 22.
    • If it is unclear as to who grounded the ball or if it's unlcear who grounded then it's a scrum to the team going forward.
    The laws relation to rucks and mauls don't come into it as rucks/mauls don't exist in "In goal" once the ball reaches the try line.

    I think the defender can also put the ball touch in goal and still get a 22 once the attacking team have brought the ball into the in goal area?


  • Options
    #90
    Gracelessly Tom
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,053 ✭✭✭Gracelessly Tom


    Reloc8 wrote: »
    Law 22.7 applies in the usual way :-

    "22.7 RESTARTING AFTER A TOUCH DOWN
    (a) When an attacking player sends or carries the ball into the opponents’ in-goal and it becomes dead there, either because a defender grounded it or because it went into touch-in-goal or on or over the dead ball line, a drop-out is awarded. "

    In your example the attacking players have sent or carried the ball into the opponent's in goal where it is made dead by the touchdown - 22 drop out is the correct call.
    Losty Dublin wrote: »
    Assuming the attacking team carried the ball into "In Goal"...
    • If the attacking player was in possession of the ball and the ball was grounded by an attacking player, it's a try.
    • If the attacking player was in possession and the ball is ripped and grounded by a defending player (Let's assume that's how he got it), it's a 22.
    • If it is unclear as to who grounded the ball or if it's unlcear who grounded then it's a scrum to the team going forward.
    The laws relation to rucks and mauls don't come into it as rucks/mauls don't exist in "In goal" once the ball reaches the try line.

    Thanks lads, my own thought at the time was a 22 drop out and despite my protestations to the ref he insisted on a scrum 5 to us, the defending team. Just wanted to make sure there wasn't some obscure exception to the rule that I wasn't aware of.

    Funny thing was, the ref acknowledged they carried it over and he also felt we grounded it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    Losty Dublin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,322 ✭✭✭✭Losty Dublin


    Gracelessly Tom wrote: »
    Thanks lads, my own thought at the time was a 22 drop out and despite my protestations to the ref he insisted on a scrum 5 to us, the defending team. Just wanted to make sure there wasn't some obscure exception to the rule that I wasn't aware of.

    Funny thing was, the ref acknowledged they carried it over and he also felt we grounded it.

    There are teams who would prefer a scrum 5 instead as it's better possession and a chance to releive ground, maybe he felt sorry for you all :)


Advertisement
Advertisement