Laws Question? Ask here!

Steve Perchance · 01-10-2013 09:08AM

who_me wrote: »

That law doesn't seem to directly address what I was talking about, since that's discussing the playing of the ball after a ruck, whereas I was saying the defending team deliberately doesn't form a ruck to avoid creating an offside line.

That's true, but if the scenario is that no-one decides to form a ruck then the ball is free to be played by coming through the gate or by the tackler getting up and playing it. There's no advantage to be gained by doing otherwise as you would get a less favourable result

Losty Dublin · 01-10-2013 10:19AM

who_me wrote: »

That law doesn't seem to directly address what I was talking about, since that's discussing the playing of the ball after a ruck, whereas I was saying the defending team deliberately doesn't form a ruck to avoid creating an offside line.

Apologies for that, I misread it as being that the attacking team hold back from a ruck in order to use up time.

Reading your post again, either the ruck either is formed or it isn't formed. Should it be formed then the ruck exists until the either ball leaves or the ball becomes unplayable in the ruck; simply withdrawing defending players doesn't render it over but players may leave it if sthey wish. Pulling players back has the effect of making the ball available quicker for the team in possession as there is less competition going on.

As regards offside lines, these are still there so players must hold to them under pains of conceding a penalty. Bear in mind that the 5 second call puts pressure on the team in possession to play the ball. This gives a defending team a chance to pressurise in defensive situations; this happens all the time in the modern game where player fan back to try coax the ball into open play.

who_me · 03-10-2013 07:56PM

Steve Perchance wrote: »

That's true, but if the scenario is that no-one decides to form a ruck then the ball is free to be played by coming through the gate or by the tackler getting up and playing it. There's no advantage to be gained by doing otherwise as you would get a less favourable result

Not necessarily - consider this situation: an attacking player is tackled and brought down. A team mate of the attacking player is the first to reach the breakdown, and braces for an opponent to contest possession.

In that situation, it's very difficult to contest the ball, since the instant any defender makes contact with the player on his feet, it's a ruck and so defending players may be cleared out and offside rules apply. If you try and get at the ball without making contact with the player on his feet, you'll probably be done for not joining through the ate.

It's easier to leave the player on his feet, run around to the attackers' side of the breakdown, and wait for the opposing 9 to pick up and immediately tackle him before he has a chance to kick the ball dead (or, wait for one of the attacking side to get confused, clear you out off-the-ball and concede a penalty).

Losty Dublin · 03-10-2013 08:35PM

who_me wrote: »

Not necessarily - consider this situation: an attacking player is tackled and brought down. A team mate of the attacking player is the first to reach the breakdown, and braces for an opponent to contest possession.

In that situation, it's very difficult to contest the ball, since the instant any defender makes contact with the player on his feet, it's a ruck and so defending players may be cleared out and offside rules apply. If you try and get at the ball without making contact with the player on his feet, you'll probably be done for not joining through the ate.

It's easier to leave the player on his feet, run around to the attackers' side of the breakdown, and wait for the opposing 9 to pick up and immediately tackle him before he has a chance to kick the ball dead (or, wait for one of the attacking side to get confused, clear you out off-the-ball and concede a penalty).

I've read this three times now and while I understand the act of what you are saying I fail to see any tactical merit or sense in doing it as you described. It's assuming too little defence from the opposition and lightening quick reaction from your supporting player.

Regardless of that, it's only going to work if they have no supporting player to protect the scrum half, yours are very quick and nimble and provided that they don't contravene Law 15.6.

Steve Perchance · 03-10-2013 11:09PM

who_me wrote: »

Not necessarily - consider this situation: an attacking player is tackled and brought down. A team mate of the attacking player is the first to reach the breakdown, and braces for an opponent to contest possession.

In that situation, it's very difficult to contest the ball, since the instant any defender makes contact with the player on his feet, it's a ruck and so defending players may be cleared out and offside rules apply. If you try and get at the ball without making contact with the player on his feet, you'll probably be done for not joining through the ate.

It's easier to leave the player on his feet, run around to the attackers' side of the breakdown, and wait for the opposing 9 to pick up and immediately tackle him before he has a chance to kick the ball dead (or, wait for one of the attacking side to get confused, clear you out off-the-ball and concede a penalty).

In theory it might be easier, but you're reducing the scenario to two men (three with the tackler) where that will not happen in a real game with 30 on the pitch, particularly in the scenario where a team is trying to run down the clock.

In real life, if you were to attempt what you propose, you would either be pinged for not coming through the gate (perhaps technically incorrect, but to a referee it may look like that's your intention) or, you will be blasted out of it by an arriving opposition forward and that's all you'll get. The game is quicker than your scenario requires it to be.

Your other option is to ruck aggressively (ideally with the tackler or another player) and take advantage of the fact that there's only one player defending it on their side, which is the better percentage play in real life.

who_me · 04-10-2013 03:57PM

Hah. Maybe the "no clear advantage to doing this" bit explains why no one does this.

It doesn't have to be just one attacking player on his feet, it could be 2, 3...14. The point I'm making is that in a scenario where one team is running down the clock by playing pick-and-gos it's almost impossible to get a turnover because the attacking side are virtually binding onto the ballcarrier before he's tackled. So if/when the defenders try to contest the breakdown it's an instant ruck, and "no hands" and offside rules apply. Thus, there's only a minuscule chance of a turnover (bar a mistake, attackers "sealing off", or winning a choke-tackle turnover which still ends the game if time's up).

The alternative is to not contest the breakdown, letting you stand on the "wrong" side and giving the attacking 9 no time to play the ball. There's nothing the attackers can legally do to clear you out, you're not offside and you're not the ball-carrier so if they interfere it's a penalty to you - exactly what you want.

It does rely on the referee being quick-witted enough to notice it's a breakdown/tackle and not a ruck; so I do think a lot of referees would (wrongly) award an offside penalty to the attacking side, almost out of habit. Hence, it might be worth the captain having a quick word in advance, pointing out the strict definition of a ruck and that there's no offside at the breakdown.. Referees - just like players - are accustomed to certain patterns of play (tackle -> breakdown -> ruck -> next phase -> tackle ...) and that's partly why this ploy could work: the attacking side aren't accustomed to the non-contest at the breakdown and don't immediately know how to react.

Losty Dublin · 04-10-2013 05:26PM

who_me wrote: »

Hah. Maybe the "no clear advantage to doing this" bit explains why no one does this.

It doesn't have to be just one attacking player on his feet, it could be 2, 3...14. The point I'm making is that in a scenario where one team is running down the clock by playing pick-and-gos it's almost impossible to get a turnover because the attacking side are virtually binding onto the ballcarrier before he's tackled. So if/when the defenders try to contest the breakdown it's an instant ruck, and "no hands" and offside rules apply. Thus, there's only a minuscule chance of a turnover (bar a mistake, attackers "sealing off", or winning a choke-tackle turnover which still ends the game if time's up).

The alternative is to not contest the breakdown, letting you stand on the "wrong" side and giving the attacking 9 no time to play the ball. There's nothing the attackers can legally do to clear you out, you're not offside and you're not the ball-carrier so if they interfere it's a penalty to you - exactly what you want.

It does rely on the referee being quick-witted enough to notice it's a breakdown/tackle and not a ruck; so I do think a lot of referees would (wrongly) award an offside penalty to the attacking side, almost out of habit. Hence, it might be worth the captain having a quick word in advance, pointing out the strict definition of a ruck and that there's no offside at the breakdown.. Referees - just like players - are accustomed to certain patterns of play (tackle -> breakdown -> ruck -> next phase -> tackle ...) and that's partly why this ploy could work: the attacking side aren't accustomed to the non-contest at the breakdown and don't immediately know how to react.

Odd question; what position do you play?

sydthebeat · 04-10-2013 06:45PM

I can't see why in this situation forwards wouldn't just keep picking and going. ... they'd win yardage ever time.

Steve Perchance · 04-10-2013 07:11PM

sydthebeat wrote: »

I can't see why in this situation forwards wouldn't just keep picking and going. ... they'd win yardage ever time.

They would. And if it came time to kick the ball out, you can be sure they'll either clear or obstruct anyone trying to prey on the scrumhalf as described.

Its one of those scenarios that may sound good on paper, but makes you look silly if you try it on a pitch.

Dave_The_Sheep · 05-10-2013 11:48PM

What's the difference between wheeling a scrum and ... I dunno, turning?

What I mean is, sometimes a scrum turns 90 degrees and after that it seems a lottery. 50% of the time, the defensive side are said to have wheeled it, the other 50% it's an attacking penalty for whatever reason (it's turned?). Huh?

What's the reason behind the differences in which way the penalty goes?

Losty Dublin · 06-10-2013 12:44PM

Dave_The_Sheep wrote: »

What's the difference between wheeling a scrum and ... I dunno, turning?

What I mean is, sometimes a scrum turns 90 degrees and after that it seems a lottery. 50% of the time, the defensive side are said to have wheeled it, the other 50% it's an attacking penalty for whatever reason (it's turned?). Huh?

What's the reason behind the differences in which way the penalty goes?

There isn't a difference between a wheel and a turn. Some may say a wheel is quicker than a turn or that a turn has some drive behind it; it's not worth arguing about to be honest as they are treated the same. Once the scrum wheels 90 the referee must call for a reset. The non putting in team at the previous scrum puts in at a reset scrum so there are benefits in a team getting a scrum wheeled, especially if it is close to a try line.

A deliberately wheeled scrum is illegal in under the U 19 scrum variations. As well, a scrum can only wheel 45 before a reset is called; the putting in team will have possession. These laws will apply to most of us who play rugby at club or school level so there are worth mentioning here.

Dave_The_Sheep · 06-10-2013 04:25PM

Ah, so you're not acually allowed deliberately wheel a scrum? I thought you were... and it was up to the other team to stop you.

Losty Dublin · 06-10-2013 11:41PM

Dave_The_Sheep wrote: »

Ah, so you're not acually allowed deliberately wheel a scrum? I thought you were... and it was up to the other team to stop you.

Your best rule of thumb is that in the club, school and youths game a wheel is illegal while at the pro level (U 20, AIL and upwards) a wheel is is legal.

sydthebeat · 07-10-2013 01:23AM

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Your best rule of thumb is that in the club, school and youths game a wheel is illegal while at the pro level (U 20, AIL and upwards) a wheel is is legal.

ok im confused as feck now,,

so if a professional team wheels a scrum its legal, and its up to the other team to prevent it, possession or not ?

irishbucsfan · 07-10-2013 01:40AM

sydthebeat wrote: »

ok im confused as feck now,,

so if a professional team wheels a scrum its legal, and its up to the other team to prevent it, possession or not ?

There are legal ways of wheeling the scrum and illegal ways of wheeling the scrum. The props have to drive straight regardless. They can't "walk it round"

errlloyd · 07-10-2013 03:02AM

Just curious, if you're taking a penalty to touch. Is there anything stopping you having a guy waiting in the area you're going to kick to, and you kick it it to him and he takes a quick line out. (so does he have to be onside, or does that requirement go away the second the ball goes out of play)

Losty Dublin · 07-10-2013 09:23AM

sydthebeat wrote: »

ok im confused as feck now,,

so if a professional team wheels a scrum its legal, and its up to the other team to prevent it, possession or not ?

Under 19 variations is the key here, and they apply to most rugby games so in a way, yeah. But you don't have to wheel it

Losty Dublin · 07-10-2013 09:28AM

errlloyd wrote: »

Just curious, if you're taking a penalty to touch. Is there anything stopping you having a guy waiting in the area you're going to kick to, and you kick it it to him and he takes a quick line out. (so does he have to be onside, or does that requirement go away the second the ball goes out of play)

If he is ahead of the ball before or as it is kicked then he is in an offside position. In the same vein, a player can't leave the field and then rejoin at the point where the ball went out to take a quick line out.

sydthebeat · 12-10-2013 03:47PM

Just watching John lacey today in quins v Scarlets.

How can you call early push agAinst the team in possession after you call in nine?

Shelflife · 12-10-2013 04:44PM

You can't push until the ball comes in, so ref calls yes 9 , team push before/as ball goes in = free kick.

Robbo · 29-10-2013 02:11PM

Inspired by one of Reddan's whoopsies on Saturday...

A scrumhalf is about to put the ball in and signals in the usual way by tapping the ball off the head of one of his tight five. His players have particularly bouffant hair and the ball bounces forward off this head a nestles into the space between the heads of his LH and the opposition hooker. The referee, fixated on the bindings of the props doesn't notice this and the SH reclaims the ball and puts it in as usual.

Has a knock on occurred? Should the touch judge mention it?

Losty Dublin · 29-10-2013 02:23PM

Robbo wrote: »

Inspired by one of Reddan's whoopsies on Saturday...

A scrumhalf is about to put the ball in and signals in the usual way by tapping the ball off the head of one of his tight five. His players have particularly bouffant hair and the ball bounces forward off this head a nestles into the space between the heads of his LH and the opposition hooker. The referee, fixated on the bindings of the props doesn't notice this and the SH reclaims the ball and puts it in as usual.

Has a knock on occurred? Should the touch judge mention it?

You sure as hell have a vivid imagination today

A scrum is a method of restarting the game. To restart the game, the ball is fed in by a scrum half into the tunnel under the front row of the scrum. As the ball has not yet been fed into the scrum, the game hasn't restarted so as such no knock on can have taken place in play.

As an aside, an appointed touch judge can't make a call on infringements in play (their remit is mainly limited to foul play and issues relating to players in touch and grounding of the ball) but an appointed assistant referee may do so. Domestically, the IRFU doesn't run any competition that requires assistant referees so their roles won't come into play here.

Fergus_Nash · 24-11-2013 12:54AM

In the first half of the Scotland-Australia match today, Quade Cooper kicked the ball and it was caught by Sean Maitland. Maitland kicked the ball back and Cooper tackled him late with his follow through trying to block the kick. The touch judge flagged for a foul but the referee let the play continue, which resulted in some aerial ping pong and a bad clearance to touch by Maitland.

The referee consulted the touch judge and went back for the Scotland penalty. My question is what would have happened if Australia had scored a try during the intervening play? Would the referee have gone back for the penalty?

awec · 24-11-2013 01:16AM

Sounds like it.

But it seems weird that the referee allowed aerial ping pong after a perceived foul. I guess there was no advantage called?

DDC1990 · 24-11-2013 10:19AM

Referee didn't see it, TJ flagged it then put the flag down. Ref was having problems with his mic and headset so possibly couldn't get the communication from the TJ to know there was foul play.

As soon as there was a stoppage the TJ let him know and he gave the penalty.

I'd imagine the play would be called back for the penalty even if Australia scored, as it would have been deemed foul play in the lead up to scoring a try, regardless of how many phases went between the plays.

Losty Dublin · 24-11-2013 08:47PM

DDC1990 wrote: »

I'd imagine the play would be called back for the penalty even if Australia scored, as it would have been deemed foul play in the lead up to scoring a try, regardless of how many phases went between the plays.

This is correct. That said, it is subject to the referee and assistant referee agreeing that the foul play warrants it being dealt with. That is to say, the flagged offence may well be against the defending team and the referee decides that a word in the ear will suffice.

daveharnett · 28-11-2013 03:31PM

errlloyd wrote: »

Just curious, if you're taking a penalty to touch. Is there anything stopping you having a guy waiting in the area you're going to kick to, and you kick it it to him and he takes a quick line out. (so does he have to be onside, or does that requirement go away the second the ball goes out of play)

The receiver falls foul of the 10m offside law while the ball is in flight (there's no offside before or after since the ball is dead. Doubt you'd get away with it, it's pretty obviously against the intent of the law.

Losty Dublin · 04-12-2013 04:34PM

daveharnett wrote: »

The receiver falls foul of the 10m offside law while the ball is in flight (there's no offside before or after since the ball is dead. Doubt you'd get away with it, it's pretty obviously against the intent of the law.

A player cannot leave the field of play during a game without the permission of the referee. This prevents a player from loitering off the field and entering to take a quick throw. Equally, a player in a game with a rolling sub arrangement can't take a line out in such a circumstance as he needs a referee's permission to join the game. As a non player, he'd also render the ball unplayable for a quick line out.

In both circumstances, I can see a yellow mist emerging if it is tried.

Edit; I am assuming that the player is off the field. Davehartnett has addressed a player who is on the field of play.

armchaircoach · 04-12-2013 05:36PM

Having watched end on Rugby in the rds for a few years its not at all uncommon to see wingers loitering on or over the touchline when a set piece/penalty is being readied. Standing off the pitch, pretending to tie shoelaces, trying not to be noticed while waiting for a crossfield kick. Are these guys in beach of the laws if they step off the pitch?

.ak · 04-12-2013 05:37PM

armchaircoach wrote: »

Having watched end on Rugby in the rds for a few years its not at all uncommon to see wingers loitering on or over the touchline when a set piece/penalty is being readied. Standing off the pitch, pretending to tie shoelaces, trying not to be noticed while waiting for a crossfield kick. Are these guys in beach of the laws if they step off the pitch?

Nope, so long as they don't effect play from an offside position I think they're fine.

Laws Question? Ask here!

Comments