Swiwi. wrote: » We'll have to agree to disagree. The only option is to move away (we agree on this), but once an onside player catches up the player running back is onside and doesn't need to keep running the full 10m (we disagree on this).
Quin_Dub wrote: » Indeed - the offside player has to move though if within 10m , that's the key.. They cannot but put onside by the actions of others alone, whereas outside 10m you can stand still/do nothing and get put back onside.. Think we can call us in agreement at that :-)
Dave_The_Sheep wrote: » This was one I didn't know about. I thought that once the kicker passed you, you were onside. Never knew you had to retreat 10m as well.
padser wrote: » I didn't know that either. Is it definitely true?
Law 11.4 Offside under the 10-metre law ... (b): While moving away, the offside player cannot be put onside by any action of the opposing team. However, before the player has moved the full 10 metres, the player can be put onside by any onside team-mate who runs in front of the player.
.ak wrote: » Interesting try here.https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1061571343856711 So, you can be out of touch if you're grounding a loose ball in the in goal area.
Losty Dublin wrote: » Yep, once you aren't carrying the ball and go into touch when in in-goal.
.ak wrote: » That's crazy, I never knew that. So, when the ball is kicked into the in goal area, you often see players trying their best to make sure their feet aren't in-touch whilst grounding the ball the just caught... when infact they don't need to? So for example Henshaw's feet/body could've been in-touch when grounding that ball in the England game and the try would've stuck?
rudiger2.0 wrote: » I would say no because he caught the ball. It seems this law only applies to when the ball is already on the ground and you are touching it down.
sydthebeat wrote: » another one which think might have been dealt with recently.... Luke Fitz caught a ball with one foot in touch and one foot on the pitch... he immediately threw it as a quick line out in the same stance. Both assistant referee and referee had a clear unobstructed view of this and allowed play on, so the question is, is this legal?
accidentprone1 wrote: » Quick question on restarts: you often see the kicker dropping the ball a little in front of the halfway line to kick it. Is there a strict limit to how far ahead of the line you can be when you kick it, or is just a case of not taking the piss?
.ak wrote: » I think if he throws it with the same movement, i.e his feet didn't move, then it's allowed. You're not supposed to take it into touch, and then step back into play and throw it.
.ak wrote: » I've seen some refs call it. Pure pedantic if they do. They get no advantage from half a step either way.
Fireball07 wrote: » I saw someone mention this somewhere else, and just wondering about the legality of it. Attempting a drop goal that goes dead results in a 22. If you're in your own half, a 22 may be preferable than attempting a box kick or kicking for the corner. Not that easy to execute but could gain you territory?
locum-motion wrote: » If he caught a kick when he had one foot in touch, then the ball is in touch/out of play. Assuming the ball was kicked by a member of the opposition, then it is a lineout for LF's team. He is perfectly entitled to take it as a quick throw in. The fact that he is able to do so that quickly is just a bonus for his team.
sydthebeat wrote: » No my question is. ... When he catches the ball he had one foot in touch and one foot in play. But then he takes a quick throw with that stance ie one foot in touch and one foot in play. Is that legal?
Quin_Dub wrote: » Back in the day, before they changed the law virtually every kick-off was smashed over the dead-ball to force a 22 drop-out. There were hardly any contested kick-offs.. I seem to recall there being something about kicks at goal having to be "reasonable attempts" or you could be penalised - Although it may only apply to Penalty kicks and not DG's Basically to stop a team in the lead with 60 seconds left pointing at the posts from their own 22 to eat up the clock for example...
padser wrote: » This actually seems like a good tactic so there must be a law against it given that it isn't used. For example, someone with a big boot like Rob could probably get a drop kick from about his own 10 to have a good chance of going dead (assuming one covering full back). If it doesn't go dead you have pushed the opposition way back as they are in possession close to their goal line and if if goes dead it's a 22. There must be a law against it???
padser wrote: » It's funny, that seems to be the common sentiment here but I find it surprising. In Rugby (to a much much greater extent than any other sport I can think of, save perhaps judges in boxing) the referee has a monumental influence (both the way the game is played on the field, and the final scoreline) on the game and that's largely down to interpretation. I'm talking about systematically different decisions from one ref vs another (not a referee missing an incident or viewing a single incident on the margins differently, which happens in every sport) One implication of this is that some refs interpretation suits certain teams. Another implication is that a huge part of a teams preparation is on dealing with this referees quirks / nuances. To be fair, the article is absolutely useless as if doesn't really do any serious analysis of the differences between the referees etc. But the notion that some referee choices favour certain teams in certain games is undoubtably correct in my view and I don't see it as embarrassing to point that out. For me, it's equivalent to pointing out that a dry day suits the team who excels at running the ball.
padser wrote: » This in itself is a major issue though. The fact that there is such disparities between referring styles and interpretations that a referee meets with teams before a game to tell them which of the myriad of rule he plans to enforce today. There should be consistency across referees rather than meetings before the games telling players what he is going to "focus on"
padser wrote: » Just to be clear, my viewpoint here is not to do with an individual game or outcome. Specifically if anyone thinks it's to do with last Saturday, IMO Wales deserved to win the game irrespective of the decision of the referee at the death. But, I dislike additional elements of randomness added into a game that can't be controlled by players. I get the point above that if referees enforced every law them the game would be unwatchable (and IBF point that it's difficult to see how you implement a system that is unbiased). But surely it's possible for us to design rules for the game of rugby, as it's currently played, such that we can greatly reduce the arbitrary impact referees have on the game. Simple example. Playing advantage. At the moment each referee interprets advantage differently. Let's stop that from happening. Decide precisely what constitutes an advantage, put a small set of concise rules in place describing them. Get referees to enforce them. Will there still he some inconsistency in interpretation? Yes. Will there be some instances which fall outside these rules and result in something unfair? Yes (because discretion will be removed from referee). However, will there be greater consistency and hence less impact on the game from the referee? I personally this it's something worth striving for and I don't know why rugby continually allows referrers such level of discretion in interpretation. Just tighten up guidelines.
padser wrote: » It doesn't really matter to the argument exactly what I define advantage to be. My point is that the fact it's not clearly and tightly defined leads to referees needing to make case by case decisions. This leads to an element of randomness. I'd rather remove that element of randomness and introduce more certainty by defining (for example) what an advantage is. I think this would make things easier rather than harder for players (for example, an outhalf might know "if I Dink this ball behind the defense it's advantage over even if we don't retrieve the ball"). We would remove the situation where when a whistle blows, you have to immediately look at the referee to see which arm he had up, as you genuinely don't know which way he is going to go. But I take the point, we are getting a little OT on this thread
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/dd23f423fe14831a2a84d9f17c825ecc.svg)
