Laws Question? Ask here!

.ak wrote: »

I'm talking about where the kicker stands, not the ball. The OP asked if a player could step out of touch when taking a conversion; and they regularly do, that's the point I was making.

More specifically, if at the moment of contact, he has a foot in touch. During the run up is grand, obviously.

Chucky the tree wrote: »

If you have a penalty opt to take a kick at goal can you just hit it straight into touch? When England got the penalty at the end I thought the best option was to ask for the kick at goal, take the minute or so and then just turn and kick it into touch.

If the kicker and/or captain has indicated their intention to kick at goal, then they...

Podge_irl wrote: »

...have to make a reasonable attempt to kick for the posts.

FYP, Podge.

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Were a team to kick for touch from a place kick, the opposing team would get a scrum from the mark so if anything it would be tantamount to handing possession over.

Actually it would be a penalty, not a scrum.

Losty Dublin wrote: »

No, it's a scrum. There is no penalty specified for kicking from the ground to touch so it defaults back to a scrum on the mark. Unless there is a IRB clarification that you could direct us to, that is

It's a penalty

10.4 (m) Acts contrary to good sportsmanship. A player must not do anything that is against the spirit of good sportsmanship in the playing enclosure.

Losty is correct , it's a scrum. However if time is up you can't take the scrum, so I would be inclined to go with a pen in this particular instance as otherwise the team who kicked directly into touch would gain an advantage for their actions.

Normally a scrum though .

It's deemed to be an act of unsportsmanlike conduct and is a penalty. Even though it is foul play category we have been told it's a penalty against the team who tried to take the laws into their own hands.

Another (if somewhat unrealistic scenario) where this may apply:

Team A 2 points up, 80 mins is up (i.e. next stoppage finishes game) but Team B have the ball. Team A's physio "gets in the way" of play. Would the usual decision be scrum to Team B? (thus finishing the game) but given the circumstances, it gets upgraded to a penalty?

Losty Dublin wrote: »

If a player is injured and the referee stops the game without the ball being made dead, 6.A.8 applies and a scrum is called to the team in possession. The manner of the physio interfering may result in a penalty if it's malicious.

I assume that scrum ends the game then tho?

locum-motion wrote: »

...Actually it would be a penalty, not a scrum.

Losty Dublin wrote: »

No, it's a scrum. There is no penalty specified for kicking from the ground to touch so it defaults back to a scrum on the mark. Unless there is a IRB clarification that you could direct us to, that is

kensutz wrote: »

It's a penalty

10.4 (m) Acts contrary to good sportsmanship. A player must not do anything that is against the spirit of good sportsmanship in the playing enclosure.

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Law 10 covers foul play, not how to take penalty kicks. There is cover under 10.3 to deal with repeated infringements of law but this will come in only when one is repeatedly breaking laws; taking a kick incorrectly isn't going to come into play here. Likewise, 10.4 hasn't any bearing on this as no law has been broken with a penalty to apply unless again, it is repeatedly done by a player. Effective player management would address something minor like this should the need arise

Shelflife wrote: »

Losty is correct , it's a scrum. However if time is up you can't take the scrum, so I would be inclined to go with a pen in this particular instance as otherwise the team who kicked directly into touch would gain an advantage for their actions.

Normally a scrum though .

Podge_irl wrote: »

Surely a ref can essentially decide for himself whenever law 10.4 (m) applies?

kensutz wrote: »

It's deemed to be an act of unsportsmanlike conduct and is a penalty. Even though it is foul play category we have been told it's a penalty against the team who tried to take the laws into their own hands.

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Of course s/he can but he can't use it for situations otherwise covered in Law.

Actually it is a scrum; I was wrong.

Law 21.5 Scoring a goal from a penalty kick
...
(b) If the kicker indicates to the referee the intention to kick at goal, the kicker must kick at goal. Once the kicker has made the intention clear, there can be no change of the intention. The referee may enquire of the kicker as to the intention.
...
Sanction: Unless otherwise stated in law any infringement by the kicker's team results in a scrum at the mark. The opposing team throws in the ball.

Dagg incident:
He was brought to ground and held (Blues player never let go of him)
He must pass, release or place the ball on the ground. That is all. He may not attempt to get back on his feet if he hasn't first done one of those three things.
Now, your question might have been more valid if the Blues player had let go.
A tackling player, once they have regained their feet AND released the tackled player, may then attempt to compete for the ball. In this example, had the Blues guy attempted to grab the ball, he would have been penalised cos he didn't let go first.

In cases where the tackler is trying to let go and get back up as quickly as possible, there may possibly be some confusion as to whether the tackled player was 'held' or not, but in this case there is no confusion. Dagg was indubitably held, and therefore wasn't allowed get back up.

Swiwi wrote: »

Any rugby fan worth his salt "thinks" he knows all the rules and is an expert...but humility is the beginning of wisdom

I know ALL the rules of course, just wanted to test everyone else's knowledge...

What rules? All I know are laws

ahhh but the pendant is Technically Correct, The best type of correct !!

Before posting earlier today I watched the first video. Then I got interrupted and I'm only getting back to it now. I've just watched the second video, and I'm listening to the radio interview.

In the second video, the TMO said that Halal committed a foul act. That much is clear, and fair enough. He then says "take him out of the equation, therfore yellow... gold would have scored a try".

So, what he is saying is that Savea would have scored if he had been the only player there. This is true. However, I don't think it's fair to remove the player entirely from the equation. Had Halal been present, but not committed a foul act (ie if he had attempted to legally ground the ball himself), then it is unlikely that Savea would have scored. As Deaker says, "surely common sense would suggest, you remove the action made by a player, not the player, out of the equation"

Lyndon Bray's answer doesn't really answer the question directly, but what I think he's saying is that he'd interpret it that way as well (as in, the same way as Deaker does). Bray talks about the other example, of a player comitting a high tackle, and he mentions that you've to consider the possibility that the player might have made a legal tackle. Therefore, the SANZAR referees' manager thinks that the TMO's decision was wrong.

So, MY answers to your 2 questions are:
The decision in the Dagg example was correct.
The decision in the Savea example was incorrect.

Swiwi wrote: »

Any refs out there, I would be interested to know your professional views on 2 controversial TMO decisions in the SXV to date

1) Dagg is tackled by Ranger, but gets up again and crosses the chalk. TMO rules he didn't release the ball when first tackled, and try is disallowed. I do know that knee on the ground = tackled, but how long does it take before you are considered "held in the tackle", and therefore obliged to release the ball, rather than get up and continue running? (Blues v Crusaders)

2) Halal & Savea chase grubber kick into in-goal. Halal bats the ball into touch, TMO rules deliberate, penalty try is given, and Halal gets a YC. I wasn't at all sure that it was deliberate (Savea has his arm on Halal's), and even if it was deliberate, I'm not sure Savea would have definitely scored a try anyway. (Blues v Canes)

Footage here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ghEQ5iJt3A&list=UUpqdSLHXz6u9QPWflAbhyPw&index=5 (from 8:52)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEmuRcZiUbg (from 5:25)

Swiwi wrote: »

Thanks to Radio Sport NZ for answering my Q...are there no refs out there on boards?

http://radiosport.co.nz/player/ondemand/1425119180-lyndon-bray-on-referees

Sundy wrote: »

Well then you should get to know the laws a bit better. The IRB regulating make rulings on laws.

This thing about calling them laws is a bit silly The words "law and "rule" are used inter changeably like fly out / out half and ten.