Laws Question? Ask here!

Deano7788 · 18-10-2012 02:31PM

Would it not be similar to deliberately knocking/passing it into touch? I'd go for a penalty against.

Shelflife · 18-10-2012 02:39PM

Saw a clip in a SH match where the full back did it, he got away with it.

id be going pen and even a possible yellow card for deliberately killing the ball to deny a scoring opportunity if i thought he was pulling a fast one.

jacothelad · 18-10-2012 03:08PM

If he was free enough to make a pass he'd be free enough to kick the ball dead, out of play or................ :Dfull tilt into the ref:D. Knock him out, get a scrum and a breather for the team

daveharnett · 18-10-2012 04:25PM

Shelflife wrote: »

Interesting senario.

Team A kick through, full back of team B collects but is immediatley under pressure from 3 of team A, he is on the 5m line.

Full back throws/passes the ball to/at the ref with the intention of hitting him.

Decision?

A: The ref is fitter than all the players and needs promotion.
B: If the ball hits the ref;

consider penalty try
penalty advantage team A
consider a card once play stops

C: If the ball misses/ref avoids, play on and give a scolding at next stoppage.

As to chapter and verse, I reckon that "Acts contrary to good sportsmanship" would be the best fit?

Note that the law says that when the ball hits the ref and either team gain advantage, play must stop. If a player deliberately causes contact, I'd be inclined to allow advantage to the non-offending team. (No, that doesn't mean the ref should fire a pass out the wing

)
http://www.irblaws.com/EN/laws/2/6/57/before-the-match/match-officials/the-ball-touching-the-referee/

jacothelad wrote: »

If he was free enough to make a pass he'd be free enough to kick the ball dead, out of play or...

Happens more than you'd think that the fullback doesn't realise how much trouble he's in until he's being hauled down and a kick is off the cards. For more details, contact Conor Murray.

rje66 · 18-10-2012 06:02PM

"if a player deliberately causes contact, I'd be inclined to allow advantage to the non-offending team. "

Not good practice. If it says in the lotg that no advantage is to be played then thats what it means. We cant make it up as we go along.
Either pk or scrum. Fast whistle for both.

castie · 19-10-2012 01:22AM

Some people might think its harsh but i would put intentionally hitting the ref with the ball as the same as a push.

You push me you get Red.
If I am 100% you have nailed me on purpose with the ball you are getting an early shower...

tolosenc · 19-10-2012 09:35AM

castie wrote: »

Some people might think its harsh but i would put intentionally hitting the ref with the ball as the same as a push.

You push me you get Red.
If I am 100% you have nailed me on purpose with the ball you are getting an early shower...

Harsh? Yes.

Unfair? No.

Deano7788 · 21-10-2012 04:21PM

Does anyone know what set of laws will be used for the Autumn internationals? The Southern Hemisphere don't adopt the new trial laws until the new year and their new season so will it be the old or the new laws?

Shelflife · 22-10-2012 09:54AM

Sledging.

Do you allow it ? if so how far do you let it go ?

JustinDee · 22-10-2012 10:25AM

Deano7788 wrote: »

Does anyone know what set of laws will be used for the Autumn internationals? The Southern Hemisphere don't adopt the new trial laws until the new year and their new season so will it be the old or the new laws?

Just asked for you. Apparently is the new laws.

rje66 · 22-10-2012 12:47PM

Shelflife wrote: »

Sledging.

Do you allow it ? if so how far do you let it go ?

Usually happens in schools/youths.
Depends on content. Usually a word at first instance cuts it out but on second PK. Head patting a player who just gave away a pen comes under this too.
Dont like seeing it creep into the game.

f1dan · 22-10-2012 11:32PM

Shelflife wrote: »

Sledging.

Do you allow it ? if so how far do you let it go ?

Falls under unsportsmanlike conduct. Really a judgement call for the referee to make.

Jawgap · 25-10-2012 09:06AM

Shelflife wrote: »

Sledging.

Do you allow it ? if so how far do you let it go ?

No - if it's sledging, imo he player should be pulled on it because it's the type of thing that can escalate very quickly.

However, there's a fine line between banter, slagging and sledging - I'd say if a player is trying to get a laugh out of everyone (including me) it's banter - if he's trying to belittle someone, wind up an already wound up player etc, it's sledging - a reversed penalty or 10m can sort it out quite quickly!

redmca2 · 30-10-2012 01:03PM

I am still hurting from our narrow defeat in the 2nd test against the All Blacks. The final drop goal from Carter occurred as follows:
From scrum under our posts Carter attempted a DG, O'Brien got hands to it, whether or not it was headed over the bar is academic. The ball went dead and was adjudged to have been carried over.
Result: another 5m scrum and this time Carter drops the goal.

The rule that such an attempted block down is judged as a carry over whereas a full block down is not ruled as a knock-on seems to be very harsh, and frankly unfair.

Anyone agree? (I guess I'm just a sore loser)

Steve Perchance · 30-10-2012 01:54PM

redmca2 wrote: »

I am still hurting from our narrow defeat in the 2nd test against the All Blacks. The final drop goal from Carter occurred as follows:
From scrum under our posts Carter attempted a DG, O'Brien got hands to it, whether or not it was headed over the bar is academic. The ball went dead and was adjudged to have been carried over.
Result: another 5m scrum and this time Carter drops the goal.

The rule that such an attempted block down is judged as a carry over whereas a full block down is not ruled as a knock-on seems to be very harsh, and frankly unfair.

Anyone agree? (I guess I'm just a sore loser)

Its fair enough to be honest. Same as if you blocked a kick and it went into touch, you wouldnt expect the line out to be given to you. It was rotten, rotten luck, but think the laws are as fair as required there.

daveharnett · 30-10-2012 05:03PM

redmca2 wrote: »

The rule that such an attempted block down is judged as a carry over whereas a full block down is not ruled as a knock-on seems to be very harsh, and frankly unfair.
Anyone agree? (I guess I'm just a sore loser)

Afraid not. I certainly wouldn't call it unfair, since it's known to everybody and applies to both teams.

As to whether it's harsh, yeah sort of. I would say the intent of the block-down law is to make it a 'no-fault' event. In that light and in the circumstances you described, a scrum to the kicking team from the place of the original kick (or the block down) might be more consistent with the spirit of the law than a scrum 5. That being said, I'm not sure if such an unusual outcome warrants the adding of a paragraph to a law book that is already long and complex enough.

Jawgap · 30-10-2012 08:07PM

redmca2 wrote: »

I am still hurting from our narrow defeat in the 2nd test against the All Blacks. The final drop goal from Carter occurred as follows:
From scrum under our posts Carter attempted a DG, O'Brien got hands to it, whether or not it was headed over the bar is academic. The ball went dead and was adjudged to have been carried over.
Result: another 5m scrum and this time Carter drops the goal.

The rule that such an attempted block down is judged as a carry over whereas a full block down is not ruled as a knock-on seems to be very harsh, and frankly unfair.

Anyone agree? (I guess I'm just a sore loser)

My first point would be the old maxim that hard cases make for bad law and this was definitely harsh and hard......

However, a lot of the laws are structured to try and reward attacking play - this is one where I think the intention is to make sure that attacking teams trying to score are rewarded for their efforts where they are not successful - to encourage attacking rugby. Likewise the player who gets a full block is displaying aggression and so should be rewarded for that.

If memory serves the ELVs would now stop the All Blacks doing what they did in the run up to the drop goal- holding the ball at the base of the ruck while they organise pods to attack - scant consolation, but they wouldn't be able to give Carter as much time to compose himself and pick his point from which to kick.

Reloc8 · 31-10-2012 12:41AM

^ well, a full 5 seconds from being told 'use it' by the ref, each time - which is actually a good old chunk of time in play.

BigHeel · 31-10-2012 03:34PM

This is one I regularly hear and see happen but I cant find it in the Laws.

Red team kick ahead. Blue defender goes to ground and grabs the ball. Red attacker arrives, stays on feet and tries to pull the ball from Blue. Red penalised for "not allowing Red to get to his feet".
Can anyone tell me where this is covered in the Law.
My understanding is rugby is a contest for the ball and played by players on their feet. If Red stays on his feet surely he can contest for the ball and Blue being off his feet should not spot him.

rje66 · 31-10-2012 03:45PM

BigHeel wrote: »

This is one I regularly hear and see happen but I cant find it in the Laws.

Red team kick ahead. Blue defender goes to ground and grabs the ball. Red attacker arrives, stays on feet and tries to pull the ball from Blue. Red penalised for "not allowing Red to get to his feet".
Can anyone tell me where this is covered in the Law.
My understanding is rugby is a contest for the ball and played by players on their feet. If Red stays on his feet surely he can contest for the ball and Blue being off his feet should not spot him.

There is no law that states 'you must let him up' so you dont have to. What you must do is stay on your feet as you said and compete for ball. in your senario red is penalised incorrectly. When blue goes to ground his options are pass , place or get up , he must do so at once.
Even' experienced' commentators dont realise this.

sydthebeat · 31-10-2012 03:45PM

you dont have to allow the defender get to his feet, you just have to make sure you are not preventing him/her getting to their feet by lying or diving on them.

Jawgap · 31-10-2012 04:03PM

Law 14 - a player on the ground (not tackled) with the ball must do one of three things - get up with the ball, pass the ball or release the ball.

After that it's a matter of interpretation - an arriving player targeting the ball I'd say should be fine, but if he looks like he's trying to impede the player from doing one of the three things above, even if he is also attacking the ball, you could argue that he's fallen foul of the prohibition on blocking the ball (Law 10).

kensutz · 31-10-2012 04:04PM

Correct, it's a myth that you must allow the player to get to their feet. I've had 2 teams appealing for it in the past few weeks and told them that they do not have to allow players on their feet as long as the attackers stay on their feet and contest for the ball.

daveharnett · 31-10-2012 09:09PM

kensutz wrote: »

Correct, it's a myth that you must allow the player to get to their feet.

Just a +1 from me. Probably the most persistent law myth in the game. The player on his feet is not allowed to fall on top of his opponent, which is usually what gets penalized.

BigHeel · 01-11-2012 12:15PM

daveharnett wrote: »

Just a +1 from me. Probably the most persistent law myth in the game. The player on his feet is not allowed to fall on top of his opponent, which is usually what gets penalized.

Thanks folks. Though I was going mad. I have even seen experienced refs doing this.

Reloc8 · 01-11-2012 04:51PM

It's practically endemic. Had a sideline up in arms with me a couple of weeks ago where retreating defender goes down on a kicked ball and chasers whilst on feet attempt to take the ball from him.

I have penalty for holding on against the defender and the world went briefly bat**** crazy 'HE HAS TO LET HIM UP REF'.

Wexfordboy89 · 01-11-2012 04:56PM

just wondering have they brought in the the rule about being able to replace the whole front row.remember watching the u20 rugby world cup were teams could bring on two props just wondering is it a part of senior rugby yet?

kensutz · 01-11-2012 05:01PM

Wexfordboy89 wrote: »

just wondering have they brought in the the rule

LAWS, LAWS, LAWS!!!!

Wexfordboy89 · 01-11-2012 05:04PM

kensutz wrote: »

LAWS, LAWS, LAWS!!!!

my bad sorry

Snickers Man · 01-11-2012 06:57PM

Shelflife wrote: »

Sledging.

Do you allow it ? if so how far do you let it go ?

Just renewed my Associate Referee status (now called Affiliate) a couple of weeks ago and sledging was very clearly highlighted as one of the things that is not to be tolerated. Especially the sort of sneaky "thank you" or pat on the head to a player who has just conceded a penalty. Immediate reversal of penalty in these occasions. And that's straight from the Leinster Branch horse's mouth.

Actually, I think refs could have been helped greatly in stamping out this sort of thing if Wayne Barnes had had any cojones in the Ireland Wales game this year (2012) in the Aviva.

Stephen Ferris was yellow carded and penalised for a very marginal "tip tackle" in front of the posts in the last minute with Ireland leading by a point. A Welsh player went straight up to him and patted him on the head.

I don't know whether I would have given the penalty against Ferris--it was marginal--but I do know that even if I had I would have certainly reversed it for the sledge. I hate that sort of thing, all bias aside.

And imagine if Barnes had done just that! He would have stamped this out of the game at international level anyway for years. "You cost us that game, Big Mouth" would have stuck and no coach would tolerate a player who did it.

Missed opportunity.

Laws Question? Ask here!

Comments