Laws Question? Ask here!

The Lost Sheep · 19-03-2015 05:14PM

padser wrote: »

I think I'm going to try and re state my position a little rather than answer each individual point if you don't mind.

I believe we are starting from fundamentally different positions. I believe that the referee who is on the pitch should be as close as possible to irrelevant. So I should be able to substitute Poite for Barnes for Owens 5 minutes before the kick off of a game, and it makes no difference to the way the game is officiated or played. I suspect you like these differences and regard them as part of the game (an understandable position, just not one I share).

Today, the tactics a coach employs may be dictated by whether the ref is one who likes to facilitate a contest at the breakdown or one who will blow up anytime someone ends up on the wrong side of a ruck, almost irrespective of how we got there.

The only way to get to consistency is to give much more detailed rules to referees, and to remove discretion from them. Discretion, in theory, allows a referee to be "more equitable" in applying the rules but, in reality, leads to lack of consistency between referees.

You asked where I see inconsistency today. Among others, the breakdown, the offside line, the maul, the scrum and the advantage rule. (I appreciate that's most of the game).

I mentioned the advantage rule as an example, and you asked me how I would define the advantage rule. That's really not something I want to do in order to make this argument. It will lead to is getting sidetracked but for the sake of argument, I'll create an example of how it might work.

One rule you could give a referee. "On a penalty advantage, if the team with the advantage is 15 metres forward of the advantage spot, and has the ball, in all cases the advantage is over". Now this might lead to unfairness, a team can gain an easy average 30 metres by kicking to touch if the advantage is 20 metres in from the sideline and maybe the player 15 metres on with the ball is about to get smashed and turnover possession. But what you gain is certainty for each team, once I go 15 metres, I lose the right to come back for a penalty.

I can see where you are coming from but I asked you for your definition of the advantage law as that's a key part of your argument and by not giving an opinion on what you think it is when you see referees not having the same opinion on the advantage law doesn't help your argument IMO.
Rugby has so many varied and in comparison to some other sports complicated scenario's. There can be 4/5 potential infringements at every breakdown and I don't see how you give "more detailed rules to refs" without fundamentally changing the whole sport.
15 metres gain in ground will be advantage over in some cases but not in others. It all depends on context of where the penalty infringement was on the field, what the offence was and the context of the offence(1st offence, 2nd etc)

20-03-2015 12:05PM

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

This was missed previously. Anyone able to clarify? What happens if the tee-carrier takes an age (intentionally or otherwise -> recall Italy's Kicking Tee remote control car breaking down :pac:) and in doing so runs down the clock?

Or even just gives his kicker additional time to steady himself?

Losty Dublin · 20-03-2015 12:26PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

This was missed previously. Anyone able to clarify? What happens if the tee-carrier takes an age (intentionally or otherwise -> recall Italy's Kicking Tee remote control car breaking down :pac:) and in doing so runs down the clock?

Or even just gives his kicker additional time to steady himself?

The intention to kick at goal is signalled either by the kicker telling the referee, his making a mark in the frohnd or by the arrival of the tee or sand. Once any of these are called, your minute starts. If the kick hasn't been taken, a scrum is formed with the penalised team defending same.

Most referees will ask you to hurry if you are dawdling, especially when it's obvious.

20-03-2015 12:35PM

Losty Dublin wrote: »

The intention to kick at goal is signalled either by the kicker telling the referee, his making a mark in the frohnd or by the arrival of the tee or sand. Once any of these are called, your minute starts. If the kick hasn't been taken, a scrum is formed with the penalised team defending same.

Most referees will ask you to hurry if you are dawdling, especially when it's obvious.

This is what I assumed, but was told otherwise. That it's the making a mark or the arrival of the tee that starts the 60 second countdown.

Losty Dublin · 20-03-2015 12:44PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

This is what I assumed, but was told otherwise. That it's the making a mark or the arrival of the tee that starts the 60 second countdown.

Understandable. I had a player once tell me it was a minute from when he placed the ball; others feel it's from the offence itself.

One quick quirk; a ref may also ask a player of his intentions. Once answered then that's the minute begun and thats without the other 29 bodies being any the wiser. In reality no ref will cut you off after the 60 seconds but they will call you up if you are taking the piss.

20-03-2015 01:31PM

thinker

21.4 Penalty and free kick options and requirements wrote:

(c)No delay.

If a kicker indicates to the referee the intention to kick a penalty kick at goal, the kick must be taken within one minute from the time the player indicates the intention to kick at goal. The intention to kick is signalled by the arrival of the kicking tee or sand, or when the player makes a mark on the ground. The player must complete the kick within one minute even if the ball rolls over and has to be placed again. If the one minute is exceeded, the kick is disallowed, a scrum is ordered at the place of the mark and the opponents throw in the ball. For any other type of kick, the kick must be taken without undue delay.

The opening two sentences are almost out of sync with each other.

You could read the first sentence and say "As soon as a player tells the referee he's kicking, the clock starts".
And then read the second and say "The clock only starts when a mark is made/tee presented".

Losty Dublin · 20-03-2015 01:50PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

thinker

The opening two sentences are almost out of sync with each other.

You could read the first sentence and say "As soon as a player tells the referee he's kicking, the clock starts".
And then read the second and say "The clock only starts when a mark is made/tee presented".

You could but you don't as they are critical to each other

20-03-2015 01:53PM

Losty Dublin wrote: »

You could but you don't as they are critical to each other

So if the intention is signalled only when the tee arrives, we're back to my initial problem?

Quin_Dub · 20-03-2015 02:02PM

Deleted User wrote: »

So if the intention is signalled only when the tee arrives, we're back to my initial problem?

Think it comes back to Referee discretion - Just as they don't watch the clock slavishly for the 60 seconds but will pull you up if you are obviously taking the piss.. The same could apply in terms of the Tee-boy - If it is taking longer than is reasonable the referee can stop the clock to ensure no unfair advantage is gained

locum-motion · 20-03-2015 09:10PM

Deleted User wrote: »

"...If a kicker indicates to the referee the intention to kick a penalty kick at goal, the kick must be taken within one minute from the time the player indicates the intention to kick at goal. The intention to kick is signalled by the arrival of the kicking tee or sand, or when the player makes a mark on the ground..."

The opening two sentences are almost out of sync with each other.

You could read the first sentence and say "As soon as a player tells the referee he's kicking, the clock starts".
And then read the second and say "The clock only starts when a mark is made/tee presented".

I would read the first sentence as exactly what it says. It's quite clear.

I would read the second sentence as "If the player hasn't already indicated it to the referee in any other way, then the arrival of tee/sand or the making of a mark shall be considered as such an indication."

sydthebeat · 23-03-2015 01:57PM

I was at a game yesterday when a curious incident happened.

Team A pass the ball off a scrum back into their try area for the 10 to kick it. The kick is partially blocked down, but still moves forward. ... and the ball hits the ref.

What would the decision be?

Losty Dublin · 23-03-2015 02:52PM

sydthebeat wrote: »

I was at a game yesterday when a curious incident happened.

Team A pass the ball off a scrum back into their try area for the 10 to kick it. The kick is partially blocked down, but still moves forward. ... and the ball hits the ref.

What would the decision be?

If the ball hits the referee and in doing so it interferes with the game in favour of one team over another, the call is for play to stop and to restart with a scrum with the the team last in possession putting in. If no advantage materialises for either team then it's play on.

In this case the kicker is the last person in possession and thus that team puts in. A block down is not considered as possession.

Quin_Dub · 23-03-2015 02:56PM

sydthebeat wrote: »

I was at a game yesterday when a curious incident happened.

Team A pass the ball off a scrum back into their try area for the 10 to kick it. The kick is partially blocked down, but still moves forward. ... and the ball hits the ref.

What would the decision be?

My 1st reaction would be that it would be a scrum to the kicking team where it hit the ref..

Don't think a partial block down could be counted as "being in possession" so it should go back to Scrum ball for the kicking team...

The Lost Sheep · 23-03-2015 03:41PM

sydthebeat wrote: »

I was at a game yesterday when a curious incident happened.

Team A pass the ball off a scrum back into their try area for the 10 to kick it. The kick is partially blocked down, but still moves forward. ... and the ball hits the ref.

What would the decision be?

Scrum to team who kicked the ball where ball hits ref

sydthebeat · 23-03-2015 03:52PM

that was the decision that was eventually arrived at.

The referee first indicated a scrum to team B, but when challanged and deliberated with Team A's captain, he changed his decision to indicate scrum to team A

locum-motion · 23-03-2015 03:53PM

sydthebeat wrote: »

I was at a game yesterday when a curious incident happened.

Team A pass the ball off a scrum back into their try area for the 10 to kick it. The kick is partially blocked down, but still moves forward. ... and the ball hits the ref.

What would the decision be?

Ah, here...

(Unless the same thing happened in two matches yesterday, which I doubt...)

The losing team lost that game 46-3.

They were totally outclassed.

Despite the very vocal (and very misinformed) shouting from a certain contingent among their supporters, the referee was neither blind nor bribed nor biased, and bleating about the ball hitting the ref (or any other decision) is not going to change the result!

It was the first time I have ever seen a player in a match turn to the sideline and tell his own supporters to Shut Up!

sydthebeat · 23-03-2015 04:08PM

locum-motion wrote: »

Ah, here...

(Unless the same thing happened in two matches yesterday, which I doubt...)

The losing team lost that game 46-3.

They were totally outclassed.

Despite the very vocal (and very misinformed) shouting from their supporters, the referee was neither blind nor bribed nor biased, and bleating about the ball hitting the ref (or any other decision) is not going to change the result!

It was the first time I have ever seen a player in a match turn to the sideline and tell his own supporters to Shut Up!

ah here yourself.....

all i was doing here was asking the question to see if there was some thought process that lead to the refs original decision, i was genuinely interested because it was a bit of an unusual situation. i was wondering if there was some scenario in which bringing the ball over the try line would mean loosing the possession.

i made no comment about the ref in that game, he made absolutely no difference to the result.

rrpc · 23-03-2015 04:16PM

locum-motion wrote: »

I would read the first sentence as exactly what it says. It's quite clear.

I would read the second sentence as "If the player hasn't already indicated it to the referee in any other way, then the arrival of tee/sand or the making of a mark shall be considered as such an indication."

I wouldn't read an 'if' there. The time starts when the indication to kick is made. It then defines how you decide when that indication is made.

So the first part defines what the time period is and the second part defines when the clock starts and what starts it.

locum-motion · 23-03-2015 05:03PM

sydthebeat wrote: »

ah here yourself.....

all i was doing here was asking the question to see if there was some thought process that lead to the refs original decision, i was genuinely interested because it was a bit of an unusual situation. i was wondering if there was some scenario in which bringing the ball over the try line would mean loosing the possession.

i made no comment about the ref in that game, he made absolutely no difference to the result.

Sorry, Syd, I may have been slagging you off unnecessarily - I have amended my post to point out that it was actually only a certain contingent among the support. No disrespect intended to you personally. :P

sydthebeat · 23-03-2015 05:10PM

locum-motion wrote: »

Sorry, Syd, I may have been slagging you off unnecessarily - I have amended my post to point out that it was actually only a certain contingent among the support. No disrespect intended to you personally. :P

no problem

Losty Dublin · 23-03-2015 11:43PM

locum-motion wrote: »

It was the first time I have ever seen a player in a match turn to the sideline and tell his own supporters to Shut Up!

Obviously you have never been to a game in CYM

24-03-2015 09:35AM

locum-motion wrote: »

I would read the first sentence as exactly what it says. It's quite clear.

I would read the second sentence as "If the player hasn't already indicated it to the referee in any other way, then the arrival of tee/sand or the making of a mark shall be considered as such an indication."

That's basically exactly how I read it, however in the example given, the referee was informed of the intention to kick, he signalled at the posts that a kick was to be taken. 'Some time' later the tee arrived. Shortly before 60s from the 'tee arrival', the kick was taken.

That 'some time' changes fairly from kick-to-kick for a load of factors (other side of the field for example), but could a litigious referee penalise a dawdling tee-bringer-on-er?

Shelflife · 24-03-2015 09:54AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That's basically exactly how I read it, however in the example given, the referee was informed of the intention to kick, he signalled at the posts that a kick was to be taken. 'Some time' later the tee arrived. Shortly before 60s from the 'tee arrival', the kick was taken.

That 'some time' changes fairly from kick-to-kick for a load of factors (other side of the field for example), but could a litigious referee penalise a dawdling tee-bringer-on-er?

If you felt that a team were time wasting you have a number of options, time off and a stern word with the capt, or you just tell the kicker to proceed without a tee as the clock has started.
You could also penalise them for time wasting - free kick or unsportsmanlike conduct - pen.
You would try to manage it first, then penalise it.

Iompair · 25-03-2015 12:50AM

What are the rules regarding quick line outs? During the England France game a French player toe poked the ball out after a break and then kicked it again after it had crossed the line. England took a quick line out and scored.

I understood (probably mistakenly) that if somebody other then the player who takes the throw in touches the ball after it crosses the line the quick throw in can no longer be taken.

wp_rathead · 25-03-2015 01:24AM

Iompair wrote: »

What are the rules regarding quick line outs? During the England France game a French player toe poked the ball out after a break and then kicked it again after it had crossed the line. England took a quick line out and scored.

I understood (probably mistakenly) that if somebody other then the player who takes the throw in touches the ball after it crosses the line the quick throw in can no longer be taken.

afaik as long as it is the same ball, and doesn't touch an obstacle (eg. advertising board, crowd, ball boy, coaches etc) it can be used, even if passed from one player to another
open to correction though

Quin_Dub · 25-03-2015 08:53AM

wprathead wrote: »

afaik as long as it is the same ball, and doesn't touch an obstacle (eg. advertising board, crowd, ball boy, coaches etc) it can be used, even if passed from one player to another
open to correction though

Think you are correct..

It can be touched by players on the field (from either team) and still be viable for a quick throw. Anyone or anything not on the field of play cancels it out though...

Shelflife · 25-03-2015 09:37AM

For a quick throw-in, the player must use the ball that went into touch. A quick throw-in is not permitted if another person has touched the ball apart from the player throwing it in and an opponent who carried it into touch.

Common misconception is that the ball can't touch advertising hoardings or fences etc. it can.

total former · 25-03-2015 09:41AM

shuffol wrote: »

It seems like the issue isn't with the action of the tackle which was 100% legal but more so because it was Lawes and the intensity with which he tackles, I'm not sure how you could legislate against that type of thing without it being a case of one rule for Courtney Lawes and another for everyone else. Perhaps if he ends up seriously injuring somebody it will be looked at but I think right now the onus needs to be on players when they're playing against him to be conscious of putting themselves into a position where they will be clobbered.

I don't agree it was 100% legal but it's already been discussed.

The second part is my major objection, the onus is on the tackled player not to get hit? That's the complete opposite of the interpretation of every other rule. Why?

fitz · 25-03-2015 09:46AM

I think there's enough in the laws to cater for it already...it's a dangerous tackle. While he did wrap, he also lead with his left shoulder. He knew what he was doing.

He's going to end someone's career with one of these late-but-not-late tackles...probably a serious knee injury when he hits a kicker just after the kick with their standing leg firmly planted, as he's done numerous times before.

If he started getting penalised for it as dangerous, he'd be less likely to try it.

desertcircus · 25-03-2015 09:48AM

Landing a player on his head from a high ball is a card regardless of intent. Landing a player on his head from a tackle is a card regardless of intent. Landing a player on his head from a late tackle is...apparently completely okay. The onus is on the tackler to make sure the opponent doesn't go beyond the horizontal, and I don't see what's different about Lawes' case.

Laws Question? Ask here!

Comments