Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Laws Question? Ask here!

Options
1…4647495152…92

Comments

  • Options
    #1442
    total former
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,784 ✭✭✭total former


    The Lost Sheep wrote: »
    The Laws state the ball is in touch when a player carrying it and the ball carrier or the ball touches the touchline or the ground beyond the touchline. Billy didn't touch the ground therefore try give. That's the definition of touch under Law 19 so try awarded

    But is the point not that the Italian 9 also had his hands on the ball and he was in touch before it was grounded?


  • Options
    #1443
    cython
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,870 ✭✭✭cython


    dcrosskid wrote: »
    I came across the video earlier where Leinster had a penalty against Connacht and the ball went through the post and the wind blew it back. It's probably been asked or clarified a few times here before but was it the right call to allow the 3 points or should it have been play on?

    If I kicked a ball over the line and it blew back in before it hit the ground it would be play on so why was this given?
    There is an explicit law or laws stating that the ball is dead once it is kicked between the uprights, regardless of whether it might return to the field of play - that seemingly unlikely scenario with Leinster was either actually envisioned when the laws were written, or once upon a time the same thing happened and a resulting discussion resulted in the laws being updated
    pickarooney wrote: »
    That seems like a blatant contradiction. Blood subs can take kicks but not concussion subs and this is to prevent a repeat of bloodgate? Why just kicking? Should a concussion sub be allowed to scrum or contest a lineout? Besides if sexton was not given a concussion test last week after that collision there something amiss.
    phog wrote: »
    But there was obvious blood.

    As the man says, blood injuries are more difficult to fake than head injuries - short of asking the TMO to potentially review the circumstances in the run up to every concussion bin to be certain they incurred a knock to the head, this would be even more open to Bloodgate-style abuse than the blood substitution. Blood bin trickery can be uncovered much more easily through vigilance/thoroughness alone


  • Options
    #1444
    The Lost Sheep
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,967 ✭✭✭✭The Lost Sheep


    total former wrote: »
    But is the point not that the Italian 9 also had his hands on the ball and he was in touch before it was grounded?
    He may have but he wasn't the ball carrier


  • Options
    #1445
    Maia Flabby Gumdrop
    Posts: 24,798 ✭✭✭✭ Maia Flabby Gumdrop


    The Lost Sheep wrote: »
    He may have but he wasn't the ball carrier

    Can the ball carrier stand on anything outside of the field of play so long as he doesn't make contact with the grass or pitchmarkings?

    (Deliberately ridiculous ideal)


  • Options
    #1446
    The Lost Sheep
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,967 ✭✭✭✭The Lost Sheep


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Can the ball carrier stand on anything outside of the field of play so long as he doesn't make contact with the grass or pitchmarkings?

    (Deliberately ridiculous ideal)
    His feet would be outside the plane of touch so no. The object is off the field of play therefore he is in touch


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1447
    Maia Flabby Gumdrop
    Posts: 24,798 ✭✭✭✭ Maia Flabby Gumdrop


    The Lost Sheep wrote: »
    His feet would be outside the plane of touch so no. The object is off the field of play therefore he is in touch

    Vunipola's weight at 31 seconds in the video above is being borne by an object outside the plane of touch (an Italian man in this case). Why is that different?


  • Options
    #1448
    accidentprone1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 541 ✭✭✭accidentprone1


    The Lost Sheep wrote: »
    His feet would be outside the plane of touch so no. The object is off the field of play therefore he is in touch

    What about a carpet of people, so, as Emmet said?

    Edit: Ignore this, Maia Flabby Gumdrop is along the same lines


  • Options
    #1449
    The Lost Sheep
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,967 ✭✭✭✭The Lost Sheep


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Vunipola's weight at 31 seconds in the video above is being borne by an object outside the plane of touch (an Italian man in this case). Why is that different?
    I don't know. I'll bring it up at the next ref association workshop I go to.


  • Options
    #1450
    Maia Flabby Gumdrop
    Posts: 24,798 ✭✭✭✭ Maia Flabby Gumdrop


    The Lost Sheep wrote: »
    I don't know. I'll bring it up at the next ref association workshop I go to.

    Cheers, I just can't figure out why it's allowed. It's almost as if I'm hoping for there to be some ridiculously specific interpretation that allows for this, just because if we take it to be 'allowed' we can find so many farcical eventualities that are too stupid to be allowed.


  • Options
    #1451
    phog
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 27,581 ✭✭✭✭phog


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Vunipola's weight at 31 seconds in the video above is being borne by an object outside the plane of touch (an Italian man in this case). Why is that different?

    Is that no it similar to Bowe (?) lifting the legs of Earls (?) over the touchline in a tackle to try and prevent him scoring a try in Thomond Park a few years ago, I think it was a HC QF. Bowe was in touch and Earls legs were over the touchline but in the air and try was allowed.

    Also, at ruck time, you'd often have one or more players in touch but the ball coulkd still be deemed in play.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1452
    phog
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 27,581 ✭✭✭✭phog


    total former wrote: »
    But is the point not that the Italian 9 also had his hands on the ball and he was in touch before it was grounded?

    If that ruled it out then you'd have defenders ensuring they're in touch and touch the ball too rather than keeping the ball held up beyond the try line.


  • Options
    #1453
    entangled
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32 ✭entangled


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Cheers, I just can't figure out why it's allowed. It's almost as if I'm hoping for there to be some ridiculously specific interpretation that allows for this, just because if we take it to be 'allowed' we can find so many farcical eventualities that are too stupid to be allowed.

    Walking up the touchline over a carpet of your own players is fairly ridiculous, but even if it was technically allowed, it wouldn't give you an advantage would it? Presumably if you're not in touch then someone can just tackle you and push you in to touch anyway.


  • Options
    #1454
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers, Paid Member Posts: 45,488 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    entangled wrote: »
    Walking up the touchline over a carpet of your own players is fairly ridiculous, but even if it was technically allowed, it wouldn't give you an advantage would it? Presumably if you're not in touch then someone can just tackle you and push you in to touch anyway.

    Yeah but you could be lifted and pushed back in field by your own player as you were being tackled off the pitch


  • Options
    #1455
    Losty Dublin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,322 ✭✭✭✭Losty Dublin


    The Lost Sheep wrote: »
    I don't know. I'll bring it up at the next ref association workshop I go to.

    It still rests on whether the player in possession is or isn't in touch. This still applies at the maul and tackle so you can only say play on.


  • Options
    #1456
    Losty Dublin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,322 ✭✭✭✭Losty Dublin


    pickarooney wrote: »
    That seems like a blatant contradiction. Blood subs can take kicks but not concussion subs and this is to prevent a repeat of bloodgate? Why just kicking? Should a concussion sub be allowed to scrum or contest a lineout? Besides if sexton was not given a concussion test last week after that collision there something amiss.

    I did say that I gathered that the potential for a similar situation led to this clause; ie I am not 100% sure ;)

    PS Late with the reply, sorry.


  • Options
    #1457
    Maia Flabby Gumdrop
    Posts: 24,798 ✭✭✭✭ Maia Flabby Gumdrop


    RE: Players and kicking routines.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    One for the laws thread perhaps so, but if Ireland were 1 point down with 90seconds remaining on the playing clock and won a penalty directly in front of the posts, what prevents our tee-bringer-on-er taking his sweet ass time so that when Sexton receives the tee there's only 50s left on the clock, meaning that he can take his time and there wont be time left for the restart?

    I was under the impression (seemingly wrongly) that the referee marks the intention to kick (by pointing at the posts) which then means that the team are committed to taking a kick at goal and can no longer take a tap penalty / kick for touch.


  • Options
    #1458
    aimee1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,290 ✭✭✭aimee1


    Losty Dublin wrote: »
    I did say that I gathered that the potential for a similar situation led to this clause; ie I am not 100% sure ;)

    PS Late with the reply, sorry.

    the blood sub is clear cut. There is blood visible and a player has to go off. Concussion tests are for an issue that isnt visible


  • Options
    #1459
    LeinsterDub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭LeinsterDub


    Any see the chase down in the Glasgow game? What's the law?


  • Options
    #1460
    Cassius Hot Boardroom
    Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭ Cassius Hot Boardroom


    LeinsterDub wrote: »
    Any see the chase down in the Glasgow game? What's the law?

    I didn't, could you describe what happened?


  • Options
    #1461
    LeinsterDub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭LeinsterDub


    Penalty for sprays. Glasgow player retreats 10, sprays player kicking moves (I think) Glasgow player chases him down and tackles him. Scrum Glasgow for the ospreys not using the ball.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1462
    The Lost Sheep
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,967 ✭✭✭✭The Lost Sheep


    LeinsterDub wrote: »
    Any see the chase down in the Glasgow game? What's the law?
    Could you post a clip of incident? Might be easier to give an answer if can see exactly what happened


  • Options
    #1463
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,687 ✭✭✭Karl Stein


    When I was watching the Munster v Scarlets game on Saturday afternoon I couldn't help but think the Scarlets quick anticipatory rush up could be easily exploited by a dummy-pass by the scrum-half quickly followed by a genuine pass to get penalties for offside.

    Is there some sort of rule that prevents this play?


  • Options
    #1464
    The Lost Sheep
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,967 ✭✭✭✭The Lost Sheep


    Karl Stein wrote: »
    When I was watching the Munster v Scarlets game on Saturday afternoon I couldn't help but think the Scarlets quick anticipatory rush up could be easily exploited by a dummy-pass by the scrum-half quickly followed by a genuine pass to get penalties for offside.

    Is there some sort of rule that prevents this play?
    A player must not act in a way to make the opposition think that the ball is out of the ruck while it is still in the ruck. Its penalised by a free kick


  • Options
    #1465
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,687 ✭✭✭Karl Stein


    The Lost Sheep wrote: »
    A player must not act in a way to make the opposition think that the ball is out of the ruck while it is still in the ruck. Its penalised by a free kick

    But what if it is taken out of the ruck and the player feigns a throw then immediately throws for real after the opposing team has stepped offside?

    It appeared to me like the quick rush-up defence was easily exploitable for offside.


  • Options
    #1466
    locum-motion
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,144 ✭✭✭locum-motion


    Karl Stein wrote: »
    But what if it is taken out of the ruck and the player feigns a throw then immediately throws for real after the opposing team has stepped offside?

    It appeared to me like the quick rush-up defence was easily exploitable for offside.


    If the ball has been taken out of the ruck, then it is in open play.
    There is no offside in open play.


  • Options
    #1467
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,687 ✭✭✭Karl Stein


    locum-motion wrote: »
    There is no offside in open play.

    So if a player on the opposing team is 4/5 meters in front of where the ball has been thrown/passed from and they intercept it they're not offside?
    Offside rules in rugby union are complex. However the basic principle is simple: a player may not derive any advantage from being in front of the ball.

    wikipedia.org


  • Options
    #1468
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    Karl Stein wrote: »
    So if a player on the opposing team is 4/5 meters in front of where the ball has been thrown/passed from and they intercept it they're not offside?

    No, that would be perfectly legal. There's no offside in open play.


  • Options
    #1469
    LeinsterDub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭LeinsterDub


    The Lost Sheep wrote: »
    Could you post a clip of incident? Might be easier to give an answer if can see exactly what happened

    Can't seem to find it


  • Options
    #1470
    awec
    Administrators Posts: 56,600 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    Karl Stein wrote: »
    But what if it is taken out of the ruck and the player feigns a throw then immediately throws for real after the opposing team has stepped offside?

    It appeared to me like the quick rush-up defence was easily exploitable for offside.

    A quick rush defence is exploitable for a chip over the top. Once the ball is out of the ruck then it's fair game, otherwise interceptions would be essentially impossible in that scenario.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1471
    padser
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,375 ✭✭✭padser


    Karl Stein wrote: »
    So if a player on the opposing team is 4/5 meters in front of where the ball has been thrown/passed from and they intercept it they're not offside?

    Yeah I've seen that Wikipedia quote before and have had friends with little rugby knowledge also be confused by it.

    It's such an oversimplification that it's basically worthless.

    You must add to it "when an offside line is created" and specify that "offside lines are created when a tackle is made or a kick is taken".

    Then you have a reasonably simple rule that explains lots of scenarios in rugby (albeit not all).

    However, the fact remains that in open play you could technically have players spread out like those on a soccer or GAA team. In practice it makes sense to keep to a defensive line most of the time, but that's tactics rather than by law.


Advertisement
Advertisement