Laws Question? Ask here!

BoardsMember · 30-03-2015 10:30AM

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

total former · 30-03-2015 10:32AM

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

.ak · 30-03-2015 10:33AM

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.

BoardsMember · 30-03-2015 10:49AM

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.

pickarooney · 09-04-2015 08:47PM

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.

FrPhelimYoung · 10-04-2015 12:16PM

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.

The Lost Sheep · 17-06-2015 07:41PM

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

18-06-2015 07:38AM

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

Clearlier · 18-06-2015 09:05AM

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.

The Lost Sheep · 18-06-2015 11:37AM

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.

total former · 18-06-2015 12:00PM

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.

Clearlier · 18-06-2015 12:03PM

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.

.ak · 18-06-2015 12:42PM

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!

The Lost Sheep · 18-06-2015 11:34PM

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...

The Lost Sheep · 10-09-2015 07:49PM

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

phog · 10-09-2015 08:00PM

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.

pickarooney · 10-09-2015 08:22PM

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.

The Lost Sheep · 10-09-2015 08:24PM

pickarooney wrote: »

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.

The 8 points includes an automatic conversion...
Many of these trials are being looked at in Wales this season

phog · 10-09-2015 08:25PM

pickarooney wrote: »

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.

I think it's an automatic conversion.

phog · 10-09-2015 10:34PM

I hadn't scrolled down far enough to see the law changes for Law 22

Good idea to allow the defending team who would previously have been awarded a 5m scrum to restart the game can now oot for a 5m drop out.

I think that has the potential to speed up the game.

shaungil · 10-09-2015 11:01PM

Player 1 brings the ball into contact and player 2 tackles on the ball, just 2 players involved. Player 1 fights to try and get the ball to deck and his body to the ground. Player 2 stys on his feet and stays attached to the ball leaning over player 1. Is player 2 entitled to fight for bal or must he release allowing player1 to place the ball back?

awec · 10-09-2015 11:04PM

Tackler has to release before competing for the ball.

A lot of the time rather than just letting to you'll see players throw their arms over their head really quickly to make it really obvious to the referee that they've released.

The Lost Sheep · 11-09-2015 09:59AM

shaungil wrote: »

Player 1 brings the ball into contact and player 2 tackles on the ball, just 2 players involved. Player 1 fights to try and get the ball to deck and his body to the ground. Player 2 stys on his feet and stays attached to the ball leaning over player 1. Is player 2 entitled to fight for bal or must he release allowing player1 to place the ball back?

Player two must release to compete for the ball.

sydthebeat · 11-09-2015 10:14AM

shaungil wrote: »

Player 1 brings the ball into contact and player 2 tackles on the ball, just 2 players involved. Player 1 fights to try and get the ball to deck and his body to the ground. Player 2 stys on his feet and stays attached to the ball leaning over player 1. Is player 2 entitled to fight for bal or must he release allowing player1 to place the ball back?

the tackle is complete once player 1 gets to ground, therefore player 2 must release before fighting for the ball

crc · 12-09-2015 05:21PM

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 change 19d (Touch): "Change the law so that a player who is in touch who catches or picks up a ball that has not reached the plane of touch is deemed to have taken the ball into touch."
I never liked the ability for a defender to cause an otherwise perfect kick to the corner to be ruled as going out on the full just by having one foot over the touchline.

I also like 19b "Permit a player to jump from the playing area and return a ball to play that has reached the plane of touch provided the player does so before he or she lands in touch."
...but to be honest I thought that this was the existing ruling.

pickarooney · 12-09-2015 07:27PM

sydthebeat wrote: »

the tackle is complete once player 1 gets to ground, therefore player 2 must release before fighting for the ball

As I understand the question player 2 has not tackled player 1 but just latched on to the ball. Player 1 has gone off his feet and so must release the ball. Player two can simply play on.

irishbucsfan · 12-09-2015 07:31PM

Player 2 has to clearly release. Player 1 is the tackled player and player 2 is the tackler. Player 1 took the ball into contact according to the question.

pickarooney · 12-09-2015 08:03PM

Just because player 1 chooses to go into contact doesn't automatically make player 2 a tackler. If he doesn't wrap the player up and just tries to rip the ball then he's fine, IMO.

irishbucsfan · 12-09-2015 08:10PM

pickarooney wrote: »

Just because player 1 chooses to go into contact doesn't automatically make player 2 a tackler. If he doesn't wrap the player up and just tries to rip the ball then he's fine, IMO.

I don't know the exact letter of the law but even if you can find a way to contest the ball without holding a part of the ball carrier (even wrapping your arms through theirs) then I'd be very surprised. In reality in that situation you will have brought the ball carrier to ground and you'll be a tackler. It would be impossible for referees to distinguish anyway, they'll enforce the release.

Either way it's not only a tackler who was to release. Assistant tackler rules cover anyone in contact with the ball carrier who also have to release, and that's been enforced properly and consistently since the ELVs.

sydthebeat · 12-09-2015 08:11PM

pickarooney wrote: »

Just because player 1 chooses to go into contact doesn't automatically make player 2 a tackler. If he doesn't wrap the player up and just tries to rip the ball then he's fine, IMO.

If player 2 stops the progress of player 1 by targeting the ball, he's still a tackler and must release when 1 goes to ground. What your describing is typical 'tackle assist' play and this player must still release.

Laws Question? Ask here!

Comments