Laws Question? Ask here!

pickarooney · 12-09-2015 08:45PM

Release what?
The ball? For what reason?
The player? He's not holding him...

The Lost Sheep · 12-09-2015 10:42PM

crc wrote: »

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.

They are more clarifications than changes... I didn't have any issue with defenders catching kicks by having one foot out. What was your issue with this?
On b. That wasn't always the case and existing rule and if deemed over plane of touch. An AR/TJ could flag for ball being in touch and game would restart with Lineout

pickarooney wrote: »

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.

He has competed for ball and in majority of cases will have aided ball carrier to go to ground. Majority of refs/cases will call him tackler assist and then player 2 must release.

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.

By wrap player up you mean???

crc · 12-09-2015 11:21PM

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

I didn't have any issue with defenders catching kicks by having one foot out. What was your issue with this?

So, I come at this as someone who (briefly) played out-half at school. Say the 10 kicks for the corner and it lands within 1 metre of the touch line, bounces, and then goes into touch. In my view the 10 has executed a perfect kick. Too long and it goes out on the full; too short and it stays in play. I think that if the defender is going to interfere with this kick he either has to keep the ball in play and run with it, or concede the line-out. I suppose you could say that the kicker shouldn't have kicked it so close to a defending player, and there's some merit to that, but I really enjoy an inch perfect kick that lands just inside touch and bounces out.

sydthebeat · 13-09-2015 01:43AM

If the ball bounces in play it's in play?
Where is the question?

crc · 13-09-2015 09:27AM

sydthebeat wrote: »

If the ball bounces in play it's in play?
Where is the question?

See the kick at 0:35 for an example of what I mean; the catch is at 0:38.
https://youtu.be/k53uEY2eiQY?t=27s

pickarooney · 13-09-2015 12:24PM

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

They are more clarifications than changes... I didn't have any issue with defenders catching kicks by having one foot out. What was your issue with this?
On b. That wasn't always the case and existing rule and if deemed over plane of touch. An AR/TJ could flag for ball being in touch and game would restart with Lineout

He has competed for ball and in majority of cases will have aided ball carrier to go to ground. Majority of refs/cases will call him tackler assist and then player 2 must release.

By wrap player up you mean???

Wrapping his arms around the player to tackle. There can be two consequences - either the player is accompanied to the ground and it's a tackle or the defender holds him up and it's a contest for the ball, generally resulting in a rip, maul or unplayable ball situation.

Again, I'm assuming no wrap and just two players grappling on the ball, so no tackle and the player voluntarily going to ground will have to let go or be penalised.

Maybe we need a diagram from the question's poster.

The Lost Sheep · 14-09-2015 04:56PM

crc wrote: »

So, I come at this as someone who (briefly) played out-half at school. Say the 10 kicks for the corner and it lands within 1 metre of the touch line, bounces, and then goes into touch. In my view the 10 has executed a perfect kick. Too long and it goes out on the full; too short and it stays in play. I think that if the defender is going to interfere with this kick he either has to keep the ball in play and run with it, or concede the line-out. I suppose you could say that the kicker shouldn't have kicked it so close to a defending player, and there's some merit to that, but I really enjoy an inch perfect kick that lands just inside touch and bounces out.

I really don't see any issue with having one foot in and one out to catch a kick if done right. Defender isn't interfering with the kick. The kicker wont always have kicked close to a defender as often defender will move into position from afar to give lineout

What do people make of this law clarification around an opponent kicking the ball out of the hands of a player who has picked up the ball.
http://www.arlb.ie/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/150911-CL-Law-Clarification-7-2015.pdf

accidentprone1 · 14-09-2015 05:02PM

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

I really don't see any issue with having one foot in and one out to catch a kick if done right. Defender isn't interfering with the kick. The kicker wont always have kicked close to a defender as often defender will move into position from afar to give lineout

What do people make of this law clarification around an opponent kicking the ball out of the hands of a player who has picked up the ball.
http://www.arlb.ie/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/150911-CL-Law-Clarification-7-2015.pdf

I think it's a perfectly sensible clarification. The potential for injury is there, and massive damage could be done to a hand if someone actually lashed out with proper force.

sydthebeat · 14-09-2015 08:39PM

crc wrote: »

So, I come at this as someone who (briefly) played out-half at school. Say the 10 kicks for the corner and it lands within 1 metre of the touch line, bounces, and then goes into touch. In my view the 10 has executed a perfect kick. Too long and it goes out on the full; too short and it stays in play. I think that if the defender is going to interfere with this kick he either has to keep the ball in play and run with it, or concede the line-out. I suppose you could say that the kicker shouldn't have kicked it so close to a defending player, and there's some merit to that, but I really enjoy an inch perfect kick that lands just inside touch and bounces out.

anything that makes the 10's life a bit harder is ok in my book.

a good wing or FB can cover the area where a 10 might land a full strength kick , thus the 10 either has to kick in field, or kick for less yardage.

if the wing or FB is already in that position to catch, the 10 shouldnt target him.

its good defending that rewarded, not a punishment on the 10.
in your video example its bad kick thats offered. theres no reason the kick couldnt have been targeted to land outside the 5m and still be contestable.

sydthebeat · 14-09-2015 08:58PM

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

What do people make of this law clarification around an opponent kicking the ball out of the hands of a player who has picked up the ball.
http://www.arlb.ie/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/150911-CL-Law-Clarification-7-2015.pdf

i agree with this

We do not consider that this action is either:
(i) A fair contest for the ball.
or
(ii) Can be considered a legal means of dis-possessing a player.

The Lost Sheep · 18-09-2015 03:12PM

Nigel Owens explaining the different signals a referee will use in the game.
Havent heard the audio as he explains each but should be pretty good for people unsure of what exactly a referee is signalling
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/r...arebar_twitter

The Lost Sheep · 27-09-2015 12:16AM

Didnt see much rugby today. Scanning through threads seemed to be a few complaints about different refereeing decisions from today
Any issues to bring up here???

27-09-2015 01:35AM

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Didnt see much rugby today. Scanning through threads seemed to be a few complaints about different refereeing decisions from today
Any issues to bring up here???

I think its more of a consistency issue to be fair

sydthebeat · 27-09-2015 08:42AM

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Didnt see much rugby today. Scanning through threads seemed to be a few complaints about different refereeing decisions from today
Any issues to bring up here???

Nah. Nothing major.

The refeering in the tournament so far has been very good, apart from one or two less than convincing (joubert and peyper). I have been impressed by our Irish guys Clancy and lacey (and doyle who I'll claim as well) but my ref of the tournament so far has been barnes who had been excellent in both decision making and communication. He's up there with owens currently.

The Lost Sheep · 27-09-2015 09:54AM

connemara man wrote: »

I think its more of a consistency issue to be fair

Ah right...

sydthebeat wrote: »

Nah. Nothing major.

The refeering in the tournament so far has been very good, apart from one or two less than convincing (joubert and peyper). I have been impressed by our Irish guys Clancy and lacey (and doyle who I'll claim as well) but my ref of the tournament so far has been barnes who had been excellent in both decision making and communication. He's up there with owens currently.

From what ive seen it has been good. Havent had too many issues

rrpc · 27-09-2015 10:15AM

connemara man wrote: »

I think its more of a consistency issue to be fair

Is that consistency between refs or consistency of a particular ref in a particular game?

The former is always true each ref has his own interpretation of how a game should be played. The latter is not as acceptable (genuine mistakes aside).

Yeah_Right · 27-09-2015 10:56AM

My issue with the refereeing this tournament has been George Ayoub. It seems like every time he is the TMO, he has to get involved and look at every cell phone in the crowd to see if something happened.

27-09-2015 11:05AM

rrpc wrote: »

Is that consistency between refs or consistency of a particular ref in a particular game?

The former is always true each ref has his own interpretation of how a game should be played. The latter is not as acceptable (genuine mistakes aside).

Just to point out I have had no major issues with the reffing

Yea the consistency due to different interpretations are being highlighted more due to the sheer numbers of games we are being exposed to really.

Yeah and short of a few calls (which will happen) I agree the general reffing has been fine but those calls seem like more of a big deal because of the fact it's the world cup.

We want to see the highest quality games played, reffed perfectly which is practically impossible

pickarooney · 27-09-2015 11:17AM

The balance between getting the right decision and not disrupting the game if the only major issue for me.

wp_rathead · 27-09-2015 12:16PM

Rather silly question but just to satisfy my own curiosity, is there anything to stop a player from opposing team going over and easedropping on forwards huddle when they deciding what to do at a lineout

Guessing it comes under:
Law 10.4
(m) Acts contrary to good sportsmanship.
A player must not do anything that is against the spirit of good sportsmanship in the playing enclosure.
Sanction: Penalty kick
Or
(n) Misconduct while the ball is out of play.
A player, must not, while the ball is out of play, commit any misconduct, or obstruct or in any way interfere with an opponent.
Sanction: Penalty kick

irishbucsfan · 27-09-2015 12:18PM

Those will both cover it but also once the mark is made at the lineout you're really supposed to stay on your side of it, not sure of the exact laws around that one.

The Lost Sheep · 27-09-2015 05:20PM

wp_rathead wrote: »

Rather silly question but just to satisfy my own curiosity, is there anything to stop a player from opposing team going over and easedropping on forwards huddle when they deciding what to do at a lineout

Guessing it comes under:
Law 10.4
(m) Acts contrary to good sportsmanship.
A player must not do anything that is against the spirit of good sportsmanship in the playing enclosure.
Sanction: Penalty kick
Or
(n) Misconduct while the ball is out of play.
A player, must not, while the ball is out of play, commit any misconduct, or obstruct or in any way interfere with an opponent.
Sanction: Penalty kick

You could do either but just simply shouting at them to go away will work....

AbusesToilets · 27-09-2015 05:25PM

Posted in the other thread, not sure which is the better one so I'll slap it in here too.

At the suggestion of others in the match thread, here's my suggestion for law adjustment. Since it has been pointed out how task saturated most refs are nowadays, they should put some more refs on the field, similar to the NFL. You would have the main ref who makes the final decision on the pitch. Then you could have on field assistants who are tasked with watching different areas. So the head ref keeps track of the immediate action, say ruck, maul etc. The assistants monitor the offside line, watch the defense etc. At scrum time, this could allow for proper scrutiny of the action, with specific areas for each ref to watch.

I would also put a review booth on the sideline for the ref to watch tmo replays in, rather than the big screen in the stadium. This would allow him to see with better fidelity what is being reviewed.

locum-motion · 27-09-2015 05:37PM

wp_rathead wrote: »

Rather silly question but just to satisfy my own curiosity, is there anything to stop a player from opposing team going over and easedropping on forwards huddle when they deciding what to do at a lineout
...

Absolutely nothing to stop you eavesdropping, but:
A: there's no need. The line out calls are usually made loud enough that you'd be able to hear them perfectly without having to approach the huddle. However:
B: it's unlikely to do you much good - the calls are encoded, so unless you're good at cryptography, they'll mean nothing to you.

stadedublinois · 27-09-2015 05:38PM

That's more or less what happens now though. The officials are in constant contact.

Not sure the comparison with American football works that well. From my limited knowledge, are most decisions not decided after the end of the play? How do you apply it to continous play?

Are there two referees on the pitch in the NRL? If so, anybody know how it works?

AbusesToilets · 27-09-2015 05:40PM

Question in relation to rucks. At what point does a clear out become sealing off? Many times you see an attacking drive through with a good clear out and end up with players on the deck, essentially sealing, which isn't called. Yet at other rucks you'll see a player clear out past the ball and fall on the deck to be called up for sealing. Is there any law that states the difference or is it simply ref discretion?

awec · 27-09-2015 05:42PM

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Question in relation to rucks. At what point does a clear out become sealing off? Many times you see an attacking drive through with a good clear out and end up with players on the deck, essentially sealing, which isn't called. Yet at other rucks you'll see a player clear out past the ball and fall on the deck to be called up for sealing. Is there any law that states the difference or is it simply ref discretion?

If a player goes off his feet deliberately (i.e. flops on top of the breakdown) to prevent the opposition getting near the ball it'll be called sealing off.

AbusesToilets · 27-09-2015 05:42PM

stadedublinois wrote: »

That's more or less what happens now though. The officials are in constant contact.

Not sure the comparison with American football works that well. From my limited knowledge, are most decisions not decided after the end of the play? How do you apply it to continous play?

Are there two referees on the pitch in the NRL? If so, anybody know how it works?

I would think that it would work similarly to how it is now with the Assistant refs on the sideline, just with refs closer to the action who can watch for specific things like offsides, while the Head ref focuses on the main action. Assistants can signal transgressions to the head ref, for him to decide on.

AbusesToilets · 27-09-2015 05:43PM

awec wrote: »

If a player goes off his feet (i.e. flops on top of the breakdown) to prevent the opposition getting near the ball it'll be called sealing off.

That was my understanding of it, seems inconsistent at times (isn't everything).

The Lost Sheep · 27-09-2015 05:51PM

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Question in relation to rucks. At what point does a clear out become sealing off? Many times you see an attacking drive through with a good clear out and end up with players on the deck, essentially sealing, which isn't called. Yet at other rucks you'll see a player clear out past the ball and fall on the deck to be called up for sealing. Is there any law that states the difference or is it simply ref discretion?

It will vary on the situation and its hard to define exactly when it is sealing off

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I would think that it would work similarly to how it is now with the Assistant refs on the sideline, just with refs closer to the action who can watch for specific things like offsides, while the Head ref focuses on the main action. Assistants can signal transgressions to the head ref, for him to decide on.

That occurs already

Laws Question? Ask here!

Comments