nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Laws Question? Ask here!

Alan_007_

Just wondering.If the ball is on the ground and you kick it over do you get the 3 points or is it play on?

Find more posts tagged with

rugby

conversion

charge

kick

chargedown

Quick Links

Comments

pickarooney

The Welsh premiership is trialling 6 point tries, two point penalties and 8 point penalty tries this season I read.

Not sure if that eight points includes an automatic conversion or if it's just to dissuade defenders giving away cheap penalties.

phog

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

World Rugby today announced the proposed changes to laws that will be looked at over the next few seasons. Any thoughts?

http://pulse-static-files.s3.amazonaws.com/test/worldrugby/document/2015/09/05/0b9c59b0-bd64-449d-94be-6d6ef938f7f2/150906_Law_Trials.pdf

I like the idea of the 8 man scrum.

I'm not sure about downgrading the pen to two points, cynical play by the defence in their red zone might be rewarded. A strong ref might award a penalty try or issue a card but we've seen weak refs chicken out of using these punishments.

The Lost Sheep

World Rugby today announced the proposed changes to laws that will be looked at over the next few seasons. Any thoughts?

http://pulse-static-files.s3.amazonaws.com/test/worldrugby/document/2015/09/05/0b9c59b0-bd64-449d-94be-6d6ef938f7f2/150906_Law_Trials.pdf

The Lost Sheep

Clearlier wrote: »

I could have written that better. I'm glad that the emphasis on the outcome is shifting a little - a bit too utilitarian for me!

On the second point in the end it's all up to referees judgement - I just think that it would have been helpful to clarify what should happen when a player on the ground hits a player in the air where there's no obvious intention to hit the player. IMO, the player on the ground owes the rest of the players on the pitch a duty of care to either be sure that he won't be taking someone out or to get into the air to catch the ball. There are others who would disagree with me though.

Is it not clarified there... That would be a penalty only as its a fair challenge with wrong timing...

.ak

It doesn't mention anything about being in the air though. So, like the Payne incident, he's in a realistic position to catch the ball but was sent off because he wasn't in the air also. So what does this mean for similar situations?

EDIT: Duh, seen Clearlier's has already asked that!

Clearlier

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

We, referees, were doing that as they were the guidelines passed down. We were being advised at referee meetings etc(that's all referees from junior level to pro)

Perhaps they should have clarified your second point but again it really should be up to referees discretion in those cases.

I could have written that better. I'm glad that the emphasis on the outcome is shifting a little - a bit too utilitarian for me!

On the second point in the end it's all up to referees judgement - I just think that it would have been helpful to clarify what should happen when a player on the ground hits a player in the air where there's no obvious intention to hit the player. IMO, the player on the ground owes the rest of the players on the pitch a duty of care to either be sure that he won't be taking someone out or to get into the air to catch the ball. There are others who would disagree with me though.

total former

I'm glad they've reminded refs that players cannot join an attacking maul ahead of the ball carrier, it's the least-enforced rule in rugby.

The Lost Sheep

Clearlier wrote: »

I had a similar thought when I saw that. Referees have been too quick to evaluate the outcome without paying attention to the preceding action. There was a real danger that contests for high balls were going to be driven out of the game.

I think that they could have gone a little further though. I would have liked an explicit clarification of what happens to someone who tries to catch the ball but fails to get off the ground and takes out a player who is jumping for the ball. For my money it's not a fair contest and a yellow/red card but as the Finn Russell case showed there's not a lot of clarity within the general public about it.

We, referees, were doing that as they were the guidelines passed down. We were being advised at referee meetings etc(that's all referees from junior level to pro)

Perhaps they should have clarified your second point but again it really should be up to referees discretion in those cases.

Clearlier

Deleted User wrote: »

Finally

I had a similar thought when I saw that. Referees have been too quick to evaluate the outcome without paying attention to the preceding action. There was a real danger that contests for high balls were going to be driven out of the game.

I think that they could have gone a little further though. I would have liked an explicit clarification of what happens to someone who tries to catch the ball but fails to get off the ground and takes out a player who is jumping for the ball. For my money it's not a fair contest and a yellow/red card but as the Finn Russell case showed there's not a lot of clarity within the general public about it.

[Deleted User]

Challenging players in the air - Law 10.4(i)

Play on – Fair challenge with both players in a realistic position to catch the ball. Even if the player(s) land(s) dangerously, play on
Penalty only – Fair challenge with wrong timing - No pulling down
Yellow card – Not a fair challenge, there is no contest and the player is pulled down landing on his back or side
Red card – Not a fair challenge, there is no contest and the player lands on his head, neck or shoulder

Finally

The Lost Sheep

These were discussed elsewhere but thought we could see better discussion here..

World Rugby Laws Representation Group (LRG) considered a number of areas of the game where it had been agreed that law amendments were not required but that current law was to be enforced more stringently by referees, assistant referees and television match officials.

http://www.irishrugby.ie/news/34817.php#.VYG-bE3bLcs

http://laws.worldrugby.org/index.php?domain=9&language=EN

FrPhelimYoung

This the definition of a knock on from the IRB Laws app

"A knock-on occurs when a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward, or when a player hits the ball forward with the hand or arm, or when the ball hits the hand or arm and goes forward, and the ball touches the ground or another player before the original player can catch it.
‘Forward’ means towards the opposing team’s dead ball line."

Clear sequence for a knock on is ball going forward from a player's hand / arm and THEN touching the ground or an oppo player before a re-gather.

Not your ref's sequence of the ball being dropped backwards from hand/arm, hitting the ground and then going forward. He's got it arseways.

pickarooney

The ref gave a scrum against us twice last night for the same thing - a player fumbled a pass backwards but the ball, on hitting the ground, bounced forwards (though not forwards of where the original contact with the player's hand took place). I didn't think the movement of the ball after the bounce could really be considered the responsibility of the player but I can't find anything to confirm or deny this.

BoardsMember

Most refs will ping the player if they go before they call that the ball is out, that's what I thought happened, even though the ball was clearly out.

.ak

Yeah, the offside point is a good one, but I don't think that's what Owen's signalled.

Owens doesn't like pedantic laws though, like the ball being past the foot. I've seen him pinging guys for doing that before.

total former

Owens made the "in from the side" gesture alright. It was marginal either way.

BoardsMember

I thought ref said he'd come in from the side, must have misheard.

Quin_Dub

dregin wrote: »

After 3:30 in Leinster V Glasgow on Saturday, Jordi was pinged for going in from the side even though the ball was well behind the hindmost foot. Does that not count, if the carrier still has his hand on the ball?

BoardsMember wrote: »

Yeah the ball looked like it was in open play there

He was pinged for being offside..

He was ahead of the back-foot, so the ball being out didn't matter , he was already offside.

BoardsMember

dregin wrote: »

After 3:30 in Leinster V Glasgow on Saturday, Jordi was pinged for going in from the side even though the ball was well behind the hindmost foot. Does that not count, if the carrier still has his hand on the ball?

Yeah the ball looked like it was in open play there

dregin

After 3:30 in Leinster V Glasgow on Saturday, Jordi was pinged for going in from the side even though the ball was well behind the hindmost foot. Does that not count, if the carrier still has his hand on the ball?

BoardsMember

Clearlier wrote: »

This one (also on Carter) although no yellow is at least as bad a decision:

It was a shoulder charge not a tackle, it's a penalty alright.

molloyjh

Yeah_Right wrote: »

It was Eden Park 2013 and Poite was the ref. Have a look. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IxIQ2JxiX0

Ah holy Jesus, the reverse angle makes it perfectly clear he wrapped his arms there. Nothing wrong with that. Crazy decision.

Yeah_Right

molloyjh wrote: »

I'd need to see a longer clip of it as that one is just too short, but it did look (when I started looking for an offence) like it could well have been a no arm tackle.

It was Eden Park 2013 and Poite was the ref. Have a look. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IxIQ2JxiX0

sydthebeat

molloyjh wrote: »

I just think that Lawes could put in a big hit without it leading to that.

i dont think Lawes could (note i didnt say should

) change the way he tackles based on the player and position hes tackling

sydthebeat

Yeah_Right wrote: »

I can't remember whether the ref said high or no arms. Pretty sure it was Poite or Garces. Either way it was BS. Perfectly good hard tackle.
What made it worse was later in the match Du Plesis fended Messam with an elbow to the throat, second yellow = red.

from what i recall, bismark was yellow carded for no arms wrapping... which wouldnt have been the common view on that tackle

molloyjh

sydthebeat wrote: »

i agree completely in principle with what your saying, i dont agree with the practicality.

10's are already warned to be careful of rampaging back rows, thats part of the game... ever flanker foams at the mouth to get a big hit into a 10, thats one core facet of their duty.

should 10's be somewhat more protected than other players? definitely not.
I believe the current laws afford them sufficient protection currently against cheap shots

Well it wouldn't be limited to just the 10s. I just think that Lawes could put in a big hit without it leading to that.

Yeah_Right wrote: »

I can't remember whether the ref said high or no arms. Pretty sure it was Poite or Garces. Either way it was BS. Perfectly good hard tackle.
What made it worse was later in the match Du Plesis fended Messam with an elbow to the throat, second yellow = red.

I'd need to see a longer clip of it as that one is just too short, but it did look (when I started looking for an offence) like it could well have been a no arm tackle.

Clearlier

Yeah_Right wrote: »

I can't remember whether the ref said high or no arms. Pretty sure it was Poite or Garces. Either way it was BS. Perfectly good hard tackle.
What made it worse was later in the match Du Plesis fended Messam with an elbow to the throat, second yellow = red.

This one (also on Carter) although no yellow is at least as bad a decision:

Yeah_Right

molloyjh wrote: »

What was the card for in that case? You could argue maybe that there was no wrap in the tackle. It's a very quick clip with no repay so it is hard to tell, but at a guess I'd say that's what it was for.....

I can't remember whether the ref said high or no arms. Pretty sure it was Poite or Garces. Either way it was BS. Perfectly good hard tackle.
What made it worse was later in the match Du Plesis fended Messam with an elbow to the throat, second yellow = red.

sydthebeat

molloyjh wrote: »

If ball carriers are to be told that they need to be careful in case someone comes at them like a train as Lawes did there we're going to see even less attacking rugby as fly-halves decide the don't want to risk opening themselves up to dangerous tackles while defenders reckon it's totally ok to go at the 10s like that.

i agree completely in principle with what your saying, i dont agree with the practicality.

10's are already warned to be careful of rampaging back rows, thats part of the game... ever flanker foams at the mouth to get a big hit into a 10, thats one core facet of their duty.

should 10's be somewhat more protected than other players? definitely not.
I believe the current laws afford them sufficient protection currently against cheap shots

molloyjh

sydthebeat wrote: »

of course the tackled player has a responsibility to take actions to lessen the risk of injury.

we are all taught at a young age the proper way to fall, the proper way to turn after a pass, the proper way to catch a high ball, how to present the ball properly, what to do at the bottom of a ruck etc.... all with the focus on doing the right things to reduce risk of injury to ourselves.

Its completely different to being tackled in the air catching a high ball because theres very little you can do if someone takes your legs from under you, youre bound to pivot.

again, im not condoning lawes here, because he has form for this... but im arguing that this kind of heavy hit shouldnt automatically be sanctioned with a yellow or red card. If he had done this tackle straight into a players back then fine, but plisson wasnt blind sided as much as others will argue, they were face on until plisson turned to pass.

I don't think a heavy hit should automatically be a sanction either. But in this case Plisson could have done very little to prevent what happened to him given the force and the speed at which it happened.

I think it more beneficial for the game all-round to ensure that if Lawes is going to throw himself at smaller guys like that then he is told he is responsible for the welfare of the tackled player. I don't think that takes away from the game. It might lessen the impact, but that doesn't mean the tackle should not be made or would be less effective. If ball carriers are to be told that they need to be careful in case someone comes at them like a train as Lawes did there we're going to see even less attacking rugby as fly-halves decide the don't want to risk opening themselves up to dangerous tackles while defenders reckon it's totally ok to go at the 10s like that.