Laws Question? Ask here!

sydthebeat · 14-11-2012 1:54pm

i think i know what you are trying to link to, a ref signalling the award of a penalty for "not rolling away"...number 11 on those ref signals.
I know what the signal is, what im saying is that ive never seen a tackled player penalised for not rolling away, its always the tackler.

as an addition to this, ive often seen a case where the first defender into the ruck "locks onto" the tackled player, and that defender is subsequently pushed back by attackers contesting the ruck. Having 'locked on' the defender moves backwards, pulling the grounded tackled player backwards and in turn maintaining the ball on the defending side... by the law above this is illegal as the tackled player hasnt "moved away"

Reloc8 · 14-11-2012 2:32pm

sydthebeat wrote: »

Just as an aside to my post above i see that law 15.5 (b) states that
"A tackled player must immediately pass the ball or release it. That player must also get up or move away from it at once."

My own view -

There's a large degree of materiality/practicality required in applying Law 15.5. In open play i.e. where a ruck does not form/begin to form it would probably be reasonable to penalise a tackled player who infringes 15.5(b) in a way that prejudices the other side from gaining possession.

Most frequently however where a tackle takes place and there is no off-load you will almost instantly have defenders contesting for the ball, or a ruck will form.

If the former, (no ruck) and the tackled player has complied with his requirement to release, play will continue with a turnover of possession or there will be a penalty for not releasing.

There would be a low incidence of occurences where you have tackled player prone on the ground with ball beside him/her and no other activity takes place which moves play on.

Where a ruck is forming you don't really want/couldn't safely expect the tackled player to be trying to regain his feet in the circumstances and as regards moving away, presumably by rolling/crawling as long as there is a clear release/placement of the ball so that the proximity of tackled player to the ball does not interfere with the contest for possession then I say play on.

I take 15.5(a) as informing the fundamental active obligations of the tackled player :-

15.5(a) says "A tackled player must not lie on, over, or near the ball to prevent opponents from gaining possession of it, and must try to make the ball available immediately so that play can continue."

I accept that 15.5(b) says "A tackled player must immediately pass the ball or release it. That player must also get up or move away from it at once." but the question is again the extent to which the player must move away. If not interfering with the contest for possession during the ruck then that is satisfactory compliance/materiality applies so play on.

sydthebeat wrote: »

as an addition to this, ive often seen a case where the first defender into the ruck "locks onto" the tackled player, and that defender is subsequently pushed back by attackers contesting the ruck. Having 'locked on' the defender moves backwards, pulling the grounded tackled player backwards and in turn maintaining the ball on the defending side... by the law above this is illegal as the tackled player hasnt "moved away"

More frequently the ball is placed on the side of the team in possession as opposed to the side defending (i.e. side not in possession).

Where the opponent locks onto the tackled player in a ruck so that the tackled player is pulled along as the opponent is driven backwards the tackled player can't really move away. He must however have released the ball on being tackled or is liable to penalty. If he continues to hold onto the ball while being shifted by the players involved in the ruck he hasn't complied with law 15.

If the opponent is locked onto the ball and the same occurs, this will be a penalty for not releasing presuming the opponent is compliant with law.

sydthebeat · 14-11-2012 3:01pm

Reloc8 wrote: »

My own view -

There's a large degree of materiality/practicality required in applying Law 15.5. In open play i.e. where a ruck does not form/begin to form it would probably be reasonable to penalise a tackled player who infringes 15.5(b) in a way that prejudices the other side from gaining possession.

Most frequently however where a tackle takes place and there is no off-load you will almost instantly have defenders contesting for the ball, or a ruck will form.

If the former, (no ruck) and the tackled player has complied with his requirement to release, play will continue with a turnover of possession or there will be a penalty for not releasing.

There would be a low incidence of occurences where you have tackled player prone on the ground with ball beside him/her and no other activity takes place which moves play on.

Where a ruck is forming you don't really want/couldn't safely expect the tackled player to be trying to regain his feet in the circumstances and as regards moving away, presumably by rolling/crawling as long as there is a clear release/placement of the ball so that the proximity of tackled player to the ball does not interfere with the contest for possession then I say play on.

agreed, its the almost "anomaly" factor of it that make sit interesting for me.

Reloc8 wrote: »

More frequently the ball is placed on the side of the team in possession as opposed to the side defending (i.e. side not in possession).

Where the opponent locks onto the tackled player in a ruck so that the tackled player is pulled along as the opponent is driven backwards the tackled player can't really move away. He must however have released the ball on being tackled or is liable to penalty. If he continues to hold onto the ball while being shifted by the players involved in the ruck he hasn't complied with law 15.

If the opponent is locked onto the ball and the same occurs, this will be a penalty for not releasing presuming the opponent is compliant with law.

on this, my bad, when i was referring to "defender" i was talking about those defending the ball, or more appropriately the "team in possession".

Its just on of those things that a method of rucking, which is widely coached, could be considered to be illegal if the law is interpreted in a certain manner.

ThirdMan · 14-11-2012 4:26pm

sydthebeat wrote: »

see here for correct descriptions

Thanks!

daveharnett · 14-11-2012 5:05pm

sydthebeat wrote: »

ive seen plenty penalised for holding onto the ball after being tackled.

ive never seen a tackled player penalised for not rolling away after a tackle.

I've pinged for it a few times; where a player isn't exactly lying on the ball, but has arranged his body in such a way as to prevent competition for the ball.

Losty Dublin · 14-11-2012 6:28pm

daveharnett wrote: »

I've pinged for it a few times; where a player isn't exactly lying on the ball, but has arranged his body in such a way as to prevent competition for the ball.

Same here. The rule of thumb I was told by a wise man pretending to be an assessor

was that you penalise them only if they stop the incoming players from getting to their rightful ball; they are fine once they let them get on with things. There's little point in pinging players who aren't interfering with the challenge for the ball so you let them be.

jacothelad · 14-11-2012 6:33pm

daveharnett wrote: »

I've pinged for it a few times; where a player isn't exactly lying on the ball, but has arranged his body in such a way as to prevent competition for the ball.

Yes. That's illegal - unless you use the Ritchie McCaw exemption.

Teferi · 19-11-2012 5:18pm

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 · 19-11-2012 5:20pm

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 · 20-11-2012 1:26am

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 · 20-11-2012 9:17pm

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 · 21-11-2012 1:08am

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 · 23-11-2012 10:29pm

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 · 28-11-2012 12:47pm

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 · 28-11-2012 1:16pm

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 · 28-11-2012 4:35pm

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 · 14-12-2012 3:05pm

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 · 14-12-2012 3:25pm

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 · 14-12-2012 9:11pm

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 · 14-12-2012 10:02pm

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 · 30-12-2012 6:33pm

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 · 30-12-2012 7:56pm

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 · 11-01-2013 10:26pm

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 · 11-01-2013 10:43pm

Lineout at point where ball first crosses touch line.

ArmaniJeanss · 20-01-2013 2:17pm

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

Losty Dublin · 20-01-2013 8:00pm

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 · 21-01-2013 12:31am

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 · 21-01-2013 5:31pm

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 · 21-01-2013 9:37pm

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 · 22-01-2013 9:30am

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.

Laws Question? Ask here!

Comments