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!

Alan_007_

Just wondering.If the ball is on the ground and you kick it over do you get the 3 points or is it play on?

Find more posts tagged with

rugby

conversion

charge

kick

chargedown

Quick Links

Comments

Teferi

A ruck is formed. Player A drags opposition Player B out of the ruck and offside. The ball falls loose from the ruck and Player A picks it up. Player B, still offside, tackles Player A. What are the rulings/sanctions here?

.ak

Teferi wrote: »

A ruck is formed. Player A drags opposition Player B out of the ruck and offside. The ball falls loose from the ruck and Player A picks it up. Player B, still offside, tackles Player A. What are the rulings/sanctions here?

Surely once player A picks the ball up the gainline has moved back to him, and therefore player B is no longer offside?

Reloc8

Assuming that Player A is not penalised for playing Player B without the ball, Player B is liable to sanction (penalty) for not retiring from an offside position taken up during a ruck. Player B in those circumstances must retire behind the ruck offisde line at the hindmost feet of his team, unless/until an opponent runs 5 metres with the ball or kicks it.
Until that happens Player B must be in the act of retiring. He can stop retiring once either of those two events happen, or he reaches the ruck offside line, whichever occurs first.

Source :-

Law 11. 8 :-

11.8 PUTTING ONSIDE A PLAYER RETIRING DURING A RUCK, MAUL, SCRUM OR LINEOUT

When a ruck, maul, scrum or lineout forms, a player who is offside and is retiring as required by Law remains offside even when the opposing team wins possession and the ruck, maul, scrum or lineout has ended.

The player is put onside by retiring behind the applicable offside line. No other action of the offside player and no action of that player's team mates can put the offside player onside.

If the player remains offside the player can be put onside only by the action of the opposing team. There are two such actions:

- Opponent runs 5 metres with ball. When an opponent carrying the ball has run 5 metres, the offside player is put onside. An offside player is not put onside when an opponent passes the ball. Even if the opponents pass the ball several times, their action does not put the offside player onside.

- Opponent kicks. When an opponent kicks the ball, the offside player is put onside.

.ak wrote: »

Surely once player A picks the ball up the gainline has moved back to him, and therefore player B is no longer offside?

edit : sorry, in fairness, I was going to just say for completeness that the gainline has no status regarding offside, or in law generally, but I assume you know that and the above is just a typo.

To stress, the first consideration should be whether Player A has legitimately played Player B or not. Assuming that is so, the above applies.

daveharnett

Reloc8 wrote: »

Player B is liable to sanction (penalty) for not retiring from an offside position taken up during a ruck. Player B in those circumstances must retire behind the ruck offisde line at the hindmost feet of his team, unless/until an opponent runs 5 metres with the ball or kicks it.

I'm not so sure about the 'being put onside by opponents' element to your post.

Reloc8 wrote: »

No other action of the offside player and no action of that player's team mates can put the offside player onside.

This is the first element to apply.

Reloc8 wrote: »

If the player remains offside the player can be put onside only by the action of the opposing team.

I read this as meaning 'if the player is still offside (due to an event subsequent to the original ruck/maul/scrum/lineout) after he has retreated behind the original offside line'.

As to playing 'player B' off the ball, if player A's sole intent is to help player B to move away from the ball and everything is done safely, fair enough.

Reloc8

Dave, I think its actually fairly simple.

If you end up offside during the course of a ruck, maul, scrum or lineout you have to retire to the applicable offside line, or be put onside by the actions of your opponents within the provisions of 11.8, or you are liable to sanction in accordance with the provisions of 11. 1

(11.1 OFFSIDE IN GENERAL PLAY
(a) A player who is in an offside position is liable to sanction only if the player does one of three things:
• Interferes with play or,
• Moves forward, towards the ball or
• Fails to comply with the 10-Metre Law (Law 11.4).
A player who is in an offside position is not automatically penalised.
A player who receives an unintentional throw forward is not offside.
A player can be offside in the in-goal.)

In essence in the scenario described, you can't jump up from offside and tackle the ball carrier.

I have to say I don't really understand your post though

There's nothing in Law 11.8 which would support your reading. The player is either put onside, or he retires to onside, or he remains offside. If he retreats behind the original offside line, he's compliant with law, and does not require to be put onside by an action of the opposing team. The actions of the opposing team are relevant only if he does not retire to onside himself.

As regards Player A intending to help Player B move away from the ball, eh, hmmm...would that Player A's would generally proceed with such helpful intent. But for the purpose of this discussion I think we are presuming Player A has not infringed in putting Player B into an offside position.

daveharnett

Reading it again I think you're right. It just seems intuitively wrong to me that a player can stand to benefit from being offside. Suppose the red outhalf receives the ball from the back of the lineout, and runs laterally five meters. The defensive rush is still 5 meters away. Now the blue 8, who was upfield, miles offside, (receiving treatment during the lineout) appears from nowhere to intercept red's pass, turns around and heads back for red's line.

gowayuwilya

Just a Quick Question....Can the hooker throw the ball to himself in the line-out,assuming of course the ball is recovered between the 5 and the 15 by the hooker?

.ak

gowayuwilya wrote: »

Just a Quick Question....Can the hooker throw the ball to himself in the line-out,assuming of course the ball is recovered between the 5 and the 15 by the hooker?

I know you can when you do a quick line out... but why would he bother? He'd have to float it, it'd be so easy to steal.

Losty Dublin

gowayuwilya wrote: »

Just a Quick Question....Can the hooker throw the ball to himself in the line-out,assuming of course the ball is recovered between the 5 and the 15 by the hooker?

Law 19:11 allows a thrower in to join the line out if they wish to do so.

AK, it's unlikely to happen in general. You could form a short line out towards the back of the 15 to give him space to claim his own throw. To pull it off, you'd need to be very quick and die straight.

pickarooney

What exactly does "off feet at tackle" mean? Searching throws up answers for "off feet at ruck" or define it as illegal to go off your feet when making a tackle, which surely can't be right.

JustinDee

pickarooney wrote: »

What exactly does "off feet at tackle" mean? Searching throws up answers for "off feet at ruck" or define it as illegal to go off your feet when making a tackle, which surely can't be right.

You cannot play a ball in the contact area unless on your feet. Player might have been away from tackled player but going for ball while ruck was forming, off their feet.

locum-motion

pickarooney wrote: »

What exactly does "off feet at tackle" mean? Searching throws up answers for "off feet at ruck" or define it as illegal to go off your feet when making a tackle, which surely can't be right.

Although the law doesn't actually phrase it like this, someone once told me that you should think of it like this; rugby is a game played by people who are on their feet.*

A person who is not on their feet is basically not allowed to take any further part in the game until they have got rid of the ball and/or rolled away from it (as appropriate) and got back on their feet.

Whether you're off your feet because you had the ball and were tackled, or you were the one doing the tackling, or you arrived after the tackle and fell or got knocked over, it doesn't matter; if you try to compete for the ball or interfere in attempts by others (who are on their feet) to compete for it, then you will be pinged for it (or should be!)

* Yes, I know; it doesn't always look like it!

locum-motion

locum-motion wrote: »

...A person who is not on their feet ...

I'm gonna come back with the exceptions to this before someone else does!

A person who has the ball and is not on their feet* and is not held by an opponent has the additional option of getting back up immediately.

* This situation may arise because a player goes down on a loose ball, slips/falls while carrying the ball, or is "tackled" but not held by an opponent. I put tackled in inverted commas because, by definition, a player who isn't held hasn't actually been tackled.

Khan77

If team A kick the ball out and team B try to take a quick line out (ball has not been handled out of touch) is it illegal for a member of team A to stand directly in front if the thrower and block the throw (i.e between the 5m line and touch)? See it happening plenty of times.

Losty Dublin

Khan77 wrote: »

If team A kick the ball out and team B try to take a quick line out (ball has not been handled out of touch) is it illegal for a member of team A to stand directly in front if the thrower and block the throw (i.e between the 5m line and touch)? See it happening plenty of times.

It is illegal to prevent a quick line out from taking place; 19.2.H covers this. At the same time, a quick line out can't take place if a line out has begun to be formed so the question then becomes under which circumstance has the line out been prevented; by the natural formation of one (legit) or by intent of loitering (free kick).

As an aside, you'd be rather silly to attempt a quick line out if a player is quick and close enough to be within the 5 at the time of throwing; they'd also be silly to be inside the 5 should they manage to get there. In practice it's only done after a clearing kick allows the 5/8's time and space to pull it off.

thomond2006

What is the result of a kick (during play) that goes straight into touch having been touched in flight by an opposition player? Is the lineout from where the ball was kicked or where the ball went out of play?

For Paws

Lineout at point where ball first crosses touch line.

ArmaniJeanss

Does rugby have an orange ball to be used if snow is excessive (occured to me flicking to Saracens game obviously).

Losty Dublin

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Does rugby have an orange ball to be used if snow is excessive (occured to me flicking to Saracens game obviously).

There isn't anything in law forbidding a coloured ball to be used, once it is the requisite size and shape. In practice, a ball will come from an approved supplier to either a club or a competition so a standard is set from day one. The de facto color is white though coloured balls may appear from time to time; some competitions use balls embossed with logos on them to keep sponsors happy while in junior leagues you will see all sorts of balls show up.

The older posters here may have played with the old fashioned brown leather balls; they were horrible to handle on a wet day, let alone snowy

Swiwi

Losty Dublin wrote: »

There isn't anything in law forbidding a coloured ball to be used, once it is the requisite size and shape. In practice, a ball will come from an approved supplier to either a club or a competition so a standard is set from day one. The de facto color is white though coloured balls may appear from time to time; some competitions use balls embossed with logos on them to keep sponsors happy while in junior leagues you will see all sorts of balls show up.

The older posters here may have played with the old fashioned brown leather balls; they were horrible to handle on a wet day, let alone snowy

A few years back there was the Adidas "yellow lemon" as Andrew Mehrtens so eloquently put it. Awful ball to kick with apparently. But as Losty said mostly white. I do have sentimental feelings for the old brown leather ball with black laces...even if it become like lead in wet conditions.

who_me

There are a couple of 'unusual tactics' that I've seen (or heard mentioned) and wondered if they're still legal, and how a ref would rule on them if they happened in a split second in front of him:

- The "quick ruck". The ballcarrier has made a linebreak, is about to be tackled with no support. Rather than be tackled and turned over, he stops, places the ball on the ground. When the 'tackler' makes latches onto him, a ruck is formed; thus the opposition cannot play the ball on the ground (hands in the ruck), any players supporting the tackler have to come around from behind the back foot, and all opposition players behind him are played offside and out of the game. Seems like a very effective tactic to buy some time or a penalty, though he still has to avoid being shoved off the ball, and the ref has to be aware of it.

- No rucking. This is something Wasps did a lot a few seasons back: commit no players (no as in zero) to the breakdown. Without any of your players on their feet over the ball, it's not a ruck; and thus there is no offside. There's nothing to prevent you loitering on the opposite side of the breakdown and jumping all over the 9 as soon as he picks up. You'd think this would be particularly effective in a last-minute scenario where the opposition just need to put the ball out - you can make it very difficult if you have everyone loitering on the far side of the breakdown waiting for him to pick up, and if anyone tries to clear you out they could concede a penalty for tackling a player off the ball.

Losty Dublin

who_me wrote: »

There are a couple of 'unusual tactics' that I've seen (or heard mentioned) and wondered if they're still legal, and how a ref would rule on them if they happened in a split second in front of him:

- The "quick ruck". The ballcarrier has made a linebreak, is about to be tackled with no support. Rather than be tackled and turned over, he stops, places the ball on the ground. When the 'tackler' makes latches onto him, a ruck is formed; thus the opposition cannot play the ball on the ground (hands in the ruck), any players supporting the tackler have to come around from behind the back foot, and all opposition players behind him are played offside and out of the game. Seems like a very effective tactic to buy some time or a penalty, though he still has to avoid being shoved off the ball, and the ref has to be aware of it.

- No rucking. This is something Wasps did a lot a few seasons back: commit no players (no as in zero) to the breakdown. Without any of your players on their feet over the ball, it's not a ruck; and thus there is no offside. There's nothing to prevent you loitering on the opposite side of the breakdown and jumping all over the 9 as soon as he picks up. You'd think this would be particularly effective in a last-minute scenario where the opposition just need to put the ball out - you can make it very difficult if you have everyone loitering on the far side of the breakdown waiting for him to pick up, and if anyone tries to clear you out they could concede a penalty for tackling a player off the ball.

Scenario 1; unless you are a large player and the challenging player is small or weaker there is no point in doing it as you are letting go of the ball and possession for the off change of winning or losing a penalty. Even so, if anything you risk being cleared out by the defending player with no Both sets of supporting players will be coming in from the hind foot so nobody is at any advantage in that regard. If you want to waste time, a maul is a better option.

Scenario 2; there is an offside line but it's that in open play as distinct to the back foot of the loose scrum. Committing no player at the breakdown leaves yourself very exposed to an oncoming clear out so you need to commit one or two men to address it. If you want slow ball you simply send in bodies and you pick up and peel.

castie

who_me wrote: »

There are a couple of 'unusual tactics' that I've seen (or heard mentioned) and wondered if they're still legal, and how a ref would rule on them if they happened in a split second in front of him:

- The "quick ruck". The ballcarrier has made a linebreak, is about to be tackled with no support. Rather than be tackled and turned over, he stops, places the ball on the ground. When the 'tackler' makes latches onto him, a ruck is formed; thus the opposition cannot play the ball on the ground (hands in the ruck), any players supporting the tackler have to come around from behind the back foot, and all opposition players behind him are played offside and out of the game. Seems like a very effective tactic to buy some time or a penalty, though he still has to avoid being shoved off the ball, and the ref has to be aware of it.

- No rucking. This is something Wasps did a lot a few seasons back: commit no players (no as in zero) to the breakdown. Without any of your players on their feet over the ball, it's not a ruck; and thus there is no offside. There's nothing to prevent you loitering on the opposite side of the breakdown and jumping all over the 9 as soon as he picks up. You'd think this would be particularly effective in a last-minute scenario where the opposition just need to put the ball out - you can make it very difficult if you have everyone loitering on the far side of the breakdown waiting for him to pick up, and if anyone tries to clear you out they could concede a penalty for tackling a player off the ball.

Scenario one is offside.
Once he puts the ball down Im assuming he moves past it to try form the ruck your talking about. Any interference from him in stopping a player going past him to claim the ball results in him interfering with play while in an offside position and hence penalty against him.

Scenario two

16.1 (b)
How can a ruck form. Players are on their feet. At least one player must be in physical contact with an opponent. The ball must be on the ground. If the ball is off the ground for any reason, the ruck is not formed.

So unless the tackler gets his ass out of there fast then the defenders will make contact with him and form the ruck.

Its a very dangerous tactic though as you need to be 100% on whether the ref is adjudging a ruck formed or not.

who_me

Cheers for the responses.

castie wrote: »

Scenario one is offside.
Once he puts the ball down Im assuming he moves past it to try form the ruck your talking about. Any interference from him in stopping a player going past him to claim the ball results in him interfering with play while in an offside position and hence penalty against him.

Not sure it would be offside, the player would check and set the ball at his feet. If he was adjudged to be offside/blocking, it would be a tough call considering some of the running-past-the-ruck clearing out that goes unpunished these days.

I've seen comments in another forum suggesting it was a common tactic years go, but I've never seen it in any footage; so was wondering if any element of it might be illegal (or just not worthwhile) under current rules.

castie wrote: »

Scenario two

16.1 (b)
How can a ruck form. Players are on their feet. At least one player must be in physical contact with an opponent. The ball must be on the ground. If the ball is off the ground for any reason, the ruck is not formed.

So unless the tackler gets his ass out of there fast then the defenders will make contact with him and form the ruck.

Its a very dangerous tactic though as you need to be 100% on whether the ref is adjudging a ruck formed or not.

I think the player in contact with the opponent has to be on his feet (as per the previous sentence above). So a ruck can't form without one player from either side being on their feet and in contact; tacklers don't count unless they get back up and contest the ball.

It would be risky, which is why the captain should try and have a quiet word with the ref in advance if possible. Wasps used it a lot when they were at their peak; I'm surprised teams don't try it in the scenario mentioned previously, where the opposing team just has to get the ball off the pitch.

castie

who_me wrote: »

Cheers for the responses.

Not sure it would be offside, the player would check and set the ball at his feet. If he was adjudged to be offside/blocking, it would be a tough call considering some of the running-past-the-ruck clearing out that goes unpunished these days.

Yes but its very deliberate if you are tackling a defender with the ball on the deck to be won versus hitting someone just past a pile of bodies.

who_me wrote: »

I think the player in contact with the opponent has to be on his feet(as per the previous sentence above). So a ruck can't form without one player from either side being on their feet and in contact; tacklers don't count unless they get back up and contest the ball.

It would be risky, which is why the captain should try and have a quiet word with the ref in advance if possible. Wasps used it a lot when they were at their peak; I'm surprised teams don't try it in the scenario mentioned previously, where the opposing team just has to get the ball off the pitch.

I quoted the IRB law does not say that a player from both sides needs to be on their feet just that players need to and then a subsequent clause is there must be contact. The full stop is there for a reason in my opinion but with most things referred to as law it could be interpreted both ways.

irishbucsfan

The second example is one thats been used by teams I've played on. It's been used by other teams for years and is perfectly legit.

Mostly it's effective in two areas:

1) The first breakdown after a set piece. Make the tackle, put a sweeper behind the tackle area, then send a back rower flying into their side of the breakdown! Very hard to get right.

2) Mauls. This is where its extremely useful and I brought it to England with me. After a lineout just back away from the opposition. They walk the maul forward while sending the ball to the back. When the ball is at the back somebody makes a call and two defenders run arround the maul and go straight for the ball. Or else the ref blows for accidental offside if you're lucky and he's particularly clued in.

Generally for these things to work you have to mention them to the ref before the game and go through the rules with him. Or else they get surprised and blow out of shock!

who_me

castie wrote: »

Yes but its very deliberate if you are tackling a defender with the ball on the deck to be won versus hitting someone just past a pile of bodies.

If the two players collide and neither have the ball, I'm not sure which one would/should be pinged.

To clarify, the 'ball carrier' wouldn't tackle the tackler in this situation, but place the ball at his own feet and brace for being hit. Given the stricter refereeing in modern times, you might be quite right, this might get pinged every time.

castie wrote: »

I quoted the IRB law does not say that a player from both sides needs to be on their feet just that players need to and then a subsequent clause is there must be contact. The full stop is there for a reason in my opinion but with most things referred to as law it could be interpreted both ways.

You may be right! I'm not sure - I thought the wording of the ruck definition used to be different, featuring "one player from either team on their feet bound over the ball" or words to that effect.

I think once a 3rd player joins the breakdown (after ballcarrier & tackler) a ref might instinctively assume a ruck, given that's the common pattern of play. (Tackle->Turnover attempt->Clearout->Ruck->Next phase)

Thud

in the first scenario, why wouldn't the opposition player dive on the ball? would think it would be far more likely than engaging in a wrestling match over a free ball and if you have made a line break why would you stop?

Stheno

Excuse my ignorance, what do IQ and NIQ mean?

Thanks

Deano7788

Stheno wrote: »

Excuse my ignorance, what do IQ and NIQ mean?

Thanks

Irish Qualified and Non-Irish Qualified.:)