Rugby 101 - Know your rucks from your mauls!

Quin_Dub · 26-02-2020 9:51am

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

its not 2/3 of time. Its 70 minutes in an 80minute game, 62 minutes of a 70 minute game and 53 minutes in a 60 minute game ie about 7/8 of the time meant to be played.
I've also been involved in a few games where result stood because game was called up early. None as ref but had a few when playing and was deteriorating pitch conditions s.

Thanks for the clarification on the time limit...

Ardillaun · 02-11-2020 7:28am

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Ah come on phog surely you can come up with better than that? What is clearly crooked? Obviously crooked?

Do you have visual examples to help us here of what ‘looks’ crooked but isn’t considered to be so by refs? My impression from casual viewing on TV is that over the years scrum halves have been allowed to change the direction they put the ball in to scrums, i.e. much more to their side of the scrum.

The other thing that mystifies me is offside. For all its other failings, soccer takes a strict approach to such infractions and shows us the visual evidence as well. Has anybody gone through footage of rugby games with similar electronic tools to determine the average number of offside incidents that are not penalized per game? I suspect it’s a significant tally.

Quin_Dub · 02-11-2020 10:00am

Ardillaun wrote: »

Do you have visual examples to help us here of what ‘looks’ crooked but isn’t considered to be so by refs? My impression from casual viewing on TV is that over the years scrum halves have been allowed to change the direction they put the ball in to scrums, i.e. much more to their side of the scrum.

The law changed about 2 seasons ago where the "centre-line" has moved - whereas previously the ball had to go straight down the centre , the new law has it that the s/h left shoulder must be level with the centre-line , meaning that the ball is actually now put in about a foot nearer to the receiving side.

Technically the ball is still supposed to be put in straight along that line but that's not policed 100%

Ardillaun wrote: »

The other thing that mystifies me is offside. For all its other failings, soccer takes a strict approach to such infractions and shows us the visual evidence as well. Has anybody gone through footage of rugby games with similar electronic tools to determine the average number of offside incidents that are not penalized per game? I suspect it’s a significant tally.

I'm not 100% on the laws in Soccer , but the offside law in Rugby takes into account "materiality" - So for example a blind-side winger being offside when the play is 50M away on the other side of the field simply doesn't count as they don't/can't effect play.

That can apply much closer to the ball as well of course. The referee (and AR's if present) make that call on materiality as they go.

Just being in an offside position isn't necessarily an offence , a player being there and impacting the game is where the offence occurs.

The Lost Sheep · 02-11-2020 11:31am

Ardillaun wrote: »

Do you have visual examples to help us here of what ‘looks’ crooked but isn’t considered to be so by refs? My impression from casual viewing on TV is that over the years scrum halves have been allowed to change the direction they put the ball in to scrums, i.e. much more to their side of the scrum.

The other thing that mystifies me is offside. For all its other failings, soccer takes a strict approach to such infractions and shows us the visual evidence as well. Has anybody gone through footage of rugby games with similar electronic tools to determine the average number of offside incidents that are not penalized per game? I suspect it’s a significant tally.

The scrum halfs have been allowed to put ball in more to their side. The law directly allows them now.

Offside in soccer is that bit easier. It most likely is significant number if you just see how many players may be offside at times but how many of those players will have been directly causing issues with play ie being material?
Often not many. Look at the law book. The offside law is one of the shortest laws in the book yet causes many issues and as quin_dub says officials have a lot of input into how offside is governed as its to their discretion. Some officials may want to call every offside but thats just not feasible.

Ardillaun · 02-11-2020 6:08pm

Quin_Dub wrote: »

The law changed about 2 seasons ago where the "centre-line" has moved - whereas previously the ball had to go straight down the centre , the new law has it that the s/h left shoulder must be level with the centre-line , meaning that the ball is actually now put in about a foot nearer to the receiving side.

Technically the ball is still supposed to be put in straight along that line but that's not policed 100%

Thanks - didn’t know that. I think I’ve noticed scrum halves doing this for more than a decade.

I'm not 100% on the laws in Soccer , but the offside law in Rugby takes into account "materiality" - So for example a blind-side winger being offside when the play is 50M away on the other side of the field simply doesn't count as they don't/can't effect play.

That can apply much closer to the ball as well of course. The referee (and AR's if present) make that call on materiality as they go.

Just being in an offside position isn't necessarily an offence , a player being there and impacting the game is where the offence occurs.

My eyes may be tricking me here but at rucks I frequently see defenders moving forward before the ball is out in a way that gives the attacking line less time to play and must be material.

theintern · 02-11-2020 6:28pm

Ardillaun wrote: »

My eyes may be tricking me here but at rucks I frequently see defenders moving forward before the ball is out in a way that gives the attacking line less time to play and must be material.

If you go back on videos of games, and pause it at the exact moment the scrum half takes the ball out of the ruck, you'd be surprised at how many 'clearly offside' players are actually just timing their run really well.

I referee and have seen this in reviewing my own games a lot. There are yells of "offside ref!" from the sideline that are often wrong, and that's at amateur level. The pros are incredible at this.

Not to say there aren't offsides that are missed, but you'd be surprised at how often they're actually on.

EDIT - The same actually goes for scrum penalties too when you look closely, but I won't open that particular can of worms!

Ardillaun · 02-11-2020 8:10pm

theintern wrote: »

If you go back on videos of games, and pause it at the exact moment the scrum half takes the ball out of the ruck, you'd be surprised at how many 'clearly offside' players are actually just timing their run really well.

I referee and have seen this in reviewing my own games a lot. There are yells of "offside ref!" from the sideline that are often wrong, and that's at amateur level. The pros are incredible at this.

Not to say there aren't offsides that are missed, but you'd be surprised at how often they're actually on.

I’m just a casual TV rugby watcher and I’d willingly concede that opposing teams’ offsides are lot easier for me to spot than Irish ones but I’m still suspicious about this as a general problem and I’m not the only one:

https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/matt-williams-time-to-outlaw-the-cheats-and-save-our-game-1.3849858

Wouldn’t it be better to have video evidence of this at the elite pro level rather than having to rely on fallible perceptions, i.e. a freeze-framed soccer-style image with the line added showing unequivocally if players are across the line? In sports as diverse as tennis and baseball we now accept that machines are better at spotting some marginal calls than we are. If teams are right on the edge of being offside all the time, they’re probably frequently over that edge.

Again what I’d like to see is many games reviewed from one end to the other to look for offside infractions, even tiny ones, to give refs a better idea of how often this occurs. I suspect that if more of these offences were detected and penalized, extra space would be created for attacking rugby.

The Lost Sheep · 02-11-2020 8:13pm

Ardillaun wrote: »

Wouldn’t it be better to have video evidence of this rather than having to rely on our own fallible perceptions, i.e. a freeze-framed soccer-style image with the line added showing unequivocally if players are across the line? In sports as diverse as tennis and baseball we now accept that machines are better at spotting marginal calls than we are.

But how many of these marginal calls do we need video freeze frame etc to be used. You could realistically have to have a penalty at every tackle/ruck if you were to do that and is that really what the sport needs?
In tennis the freeze frame image over line is used for deciding points essentially and its not practical to be used all this time in every rugby game.

Ardillaun · 02-11-2020 10:32pm

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

But how many of these marginal calls do we need video freeze frame etc to be used. You could realistically have to have a penalty at every tackle/ruck if you were to do that and is that really what the sport needs?
In tennis the freeze frame image over line is used for deciding points essentially and its not practical to be used all this time in every rugby game.

It could be very disruptive at first. If this hasn’t been done already, one would have to ascertain the scale of the problem (if significant at all - I may well be hallucinating here) by a detailed analysis of a large sample of rugby matches. In the event of many incidents currently being missed, the TMO could watch for this (with or without some AI image analysis support) and call the ref with it. If there is a problem, calling it more strlctly would reduce its freqency fairly rapidly.

The Lost Sheep · 02-11-2020 10:52pm

Ardillaun wrote: »

It could be very disruptive. If this hasn’t been done already, the first thing would be to ascertain the scale of the problem (if significant at all - I may well be hallucinating here) by a detailed analysis of a large sample of rugby matches. In the event of many incidents currently being missed, the TMO could watch for this (with or without some image analysis support) and call the ref with it.

But how much of this is really worth doing?
We have assistants and the ref to determine whether players are 1. offside 2. if the offside is material to the play at the time.
By all means if there is foul play, issues with a score get the TMO involved but i dont see it being necessary.

theintern · 03-11-2020 2:27am

I think you've the nail on the head there. There are people who work for world rugby who constantly review the laws and modify them. I can't actually remember the last season there wasn't some change to the laws.

Most _material_ offsides are spotted, or the level is high enough that adversely impacting the game to such a large degree isn't worth it. For now.

That said, sometimes refs will just have a nightmare of a day, not set their standard well early, and teams will live offside all game. Rest assured, that ref will know all about it. Referee assessments at the top level are extremely detailed and will painstakingly, frame by frame, point out everything the ref got wrong so they can improve the next day.

My opinion is generally the refs and the assistants get offside right enough of the time that I'd be against pulling in constant video review. Maybe an automated system and a beep in the ear would be good, then the ref could exercise their judgement, but I don't think the tech is there yet to do that automatically quick enough.

Ardillaun · 03-11-2020 5:05am

theintern wrote: »

My opinion is generally the refs and the assistants get offside right enough of the time that I'd be against pulling in constant video review. Maybe an automated system and a beep in the ear would be good, then the ref could exercise their judgement, but I don't think the tech is there yet to do that automatically quick enough.

Thank you for your patience here. I am obviously clueless regarding the practical issues involved. What I would really like to see is more deterrence against offside, for it to be constantly in the minds of defenders as they rush up. The beep in the ear might just trigger a warning from the ref when play stops again. Maybe three beeps would merit a penalty?

theintern · 03-11-2020 11:50am

I sometimes think the the assistants can be too hesitant to call offsides. The offside line is one of the hardest things to referee. You have to keep an eye on the ruck in case there are infringements there, so you're limited to doing occasional 'scans' of the offside line when you have a chance, because the line of players are often behind you.

From a referee perspective, it's a much higher priority to catch a knock on at the ruck, hands in the ruck, not rolling away etc, so your attention is often completely focused on the ruck. If you have a chance to scan, if the ruck is quiet you do, but you often don't.

I definitely agree that offside is a huge issue when it does occur, because you need space to play the game, but barring mandating an extra metre, or a TMO working overtime to try ID offsides, I'm not sure how we'd improve it past where it is today.

sydthebeat · 03-11-2020 11:57am

mandating an extra meter wouldnt work due to pillar defenses .... a constant pick and go would mean that a defense would never be allowed to tackle...

Ardillaun · 03-11-2020 4:03pm

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

But how many of these marginal calls do we need video freeze frame etc to be used. You could realistically have to have a penalty at every tackle/ruck if you were to do that and is that really what the sport needs?
In tennis the freeze frame image over line is used for deciding points essentially and its not practical to be used all this time in every rugby game.

There are questions of whether and how. I would argue that rugby should be more like, say, tennis and anything over the line (that could have affected play), no matter how minor, should be called. As to how to fight this problem, one would look at ways that would interrupt the flow of the game as little as possible. I think the number of offences would rapidly decline as players got used to the new level of enforcement.

The Lost Sheep · 03-11-2020 4:31pm

theintern wrote: »

I think you've the nail on the head there. There are people who work for world rugby who constantly review the laws and modify them. I can't actually remember the last season there wasn't some change to the laws.

Most _material_ offsides are spotted, or the level is high enough that adversely impacting the game to such a large degree isn't worth it. For now.

That said, sometimes refs will just have a nightmare of a day, not set their standard well early, and teams will live offside all game. Rest assured, that ref will know all about it. Referee assessments at the top level are extremely detailed and will painstakingly, frame by frame, point out everything the ref got wrong so they can improve the next day.

My opinion is generally the refs and the assistants get offside right enough of the time that I'd be against pulling in constant video review. Maybe an automated system and a beep in the ear would be good, then the ref could exercise their judgement, but I don't think the tech is there yet to do that automatically quick enough.

I know all well about assessments of officials. Considering how assessments go at the highest level but an automated system doesnt take into account materiality to play.....

Ardillaun wrote: »

Thank you for your patience here. I am obviously clueless regarding the practical issues involved. What I would really like to see is more deterrence against offside, for it to be constantly in the minds of defenders as they rush up. The beep in the ear might just trigger a warning from the ref when play stops again. Maybe three beeps would merit a penalty?

But thats what ARs are doing.. A beep in ear isnt worth it. Not all offsides are equal or near the same.

Ardillaun wrote: »

There are questions of whether and how. I would argue that rugby should be more like, say, tennis and anything over the line (that could have affected play), no matter how minor, should be called. As to how to fight this problem, one would look at ways that would interrupt the flow of the game as little as possible. I think the number of offences would rapidly decline as players got used to the new level of enforcement.

Tennis is completely different. In/out of lines of the pitch are difference between point or not every single time.
This is completely unrealistic in practice.

Water John · 03-11-2020 7:47pm

Team captains have a significant role in rugby. If a team is regularly infringing on the offside line esp across the backs outside No 10 then the captain will bring it to the ref's attention and will keep doing that.

Losty Dublin · 03-11-2020 7:59pm

Water John wrote: »

Team captains have a significant role in rugby. If a team is regularly infringing on the offside line esp across the backs outside No 10 then the captain will bring it to the ref's attention and will keep doing that.

But of course; a referee only realises that the other lads are offside after the opposition captain points it out to him during the game

Ardillaun · 06-11-2020 6:05am

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

But thats what ARs are doing.. A beep in ear isnt worth it. Not all offsides are equal or near the same.
.

I don’t think the AR’s are catching anywhere near all the premature moves by defences. At the moment, there’s an incentive to game the system and stifle the attacking side. However, with additional, perhaps automated, reviews, defenders would have to think twice about moving too soon.

The Lost Sheep · 06-11-2020 1:07pm

Ardillaun wrote: »

I don’t think the AR’s are catching anywhere near all the premature moves by defences. At the moment, there’s an incentive to game the system and stifle the attacking side. However, with additional, perhaps automated, reviews, defenders would have to think twice about moving too soon.

Because it isnt needed to pull them. As ive said already you have to take into account the material effect of infringements.
This isnt a major issue and certainly not to add in technology.

Akrasia · 19-11-2020 12:29am

In the NZL v Pumas game, the last try at the death was from a Quick tap penalty by NZL. The thing is that the penalty was around the 10 meter line, but the NZL player had the ball from beyond the 22 and took the quick tap at full pace from somewhere resembling the mark and Argentina were immediately penalized for not being back 10 meters

I’ve seen NZL do this a few times, having a running start at a quick tap. Is this legal? Should the penalty not be taken from where the infringement took place?

Water John · 19-11-2020 12:39am

Akrasia wrote: »

In the NZL v Pumas game, the last try at the death was from a Quick tap penalty by NZL. The thing is that the penalty was around the 10 meter line, but the NZL player had the ball from beyond the 22 and took the quick tap at full pace from somewhere resembling the mark and Argentina were immediately penalized for not being back 10 meters

I’ve seen NZL do this a few times, having a running start at a quick tap. Is this legal? Should the penalty not be taken from where the infringement took place?

Wouldn't know the rules, but on a broader level rugby usually allows the attacking team to restart the game anywhere behind the point. For example a quick lineout.
Sounds a bit like the Anthony Nash (Cork) saga of taking penalties on the run in hurling.

The Lost Sheep · 19-11-2020 12:42am

Akrasia wrote: »

In the NZL v Pumas game, the last try at the death was from a Quick tap penalty by NZL. The thing is that the penalty was around the 10 meter line, but the NZL player had the ball from beyond the 22 and took the quick tap at full pace from somewhere resembling the mark and Argentina were immediately penalized for not being back 10 meters

I’ve seen NZL do this a few times, having a running start at a quick tap. Is this legal? Should the penalty not be taken from where the infringement took place?

the penalty doesnt have to be taken from the mark where the infringement happened. It can be taken anywhere behind the mark same parallel line to the touchline.

Akrasia · 19-11-2020 1:14am

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

the penalty doesnt have to be taken from the mark where the infringement happened. It can be taken anywhere behind the mark same parallel line to the touchline.

Thanks for the clarification, so it’s a judgement call from the ref if the tap was taken in line with the offense? But then where do the defenders have to be? 10 meters back from the tap or 10 meters back from the original penalty?

Just wondering how much of a risk the All Blacks are taking that the ref will call them back
(Probably no risk in that they will just be asked to take it again so nothing to lose in trying)

The Lost Sheep · 19-11-2020 1:37am

Akrasia wrote: »

Thanks for the clarification, so it’s a judgement call from the ref if the tap was taken in line with the offense? But then where do the defenders have to be? 10 meters back from the tap or 10 meters back from the original penalty?

Just wondering how much of a risk the All Blacks are taking that the ref will call them back
(Probably no risk in that they will just be asked to take it again so nothing to lose in trying)

Yes. defenders have to be 10m back from the mark. Ref could call them back and a lot of refs will call players back at a penalty that close to the try line to stop a quick tap to prevent not being in view if potential score happens, reduces chance of flashpoint occuring etc.

Water John · 19-11-2020 6:05pm

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

the penalty doesnt have to be taken from the mark where the infringement happened. It can be taken anywhere behind the mark same parallel line to the touchline.

I always hought similar should apply in other sports. In soccer if a player is fouled on the edge of the penalty box, it would be more beneficial to the attacking team to move back. This would allow the free taker to gat the ball up and down over the wall or around it. Also in GAA, don't know the rules enough but if a player is fouled near the end line, it's a 14 metre free I think. If out by the sideline, that's a tight angle.

locum-motion · 19-11-2020 8:58pm

As already posted, the quick tap of the ball would have to be in line with the mark and the opponents would have to be 10m back from the mark.
However, once tapped, the ball is live, so anyone who was already back 10 or more can immediately start moving forward. Anyone in no-mans-land (or not yet back the 10) would have to continue retreating, until:
a) they reach the imaginary line across the pitch 10m from the mark, or
b) one of their teammates (who had been behind that line) passes them, or
c) the player who took the quick tap has run 5m with the ball or has passed it.

Any one of those things puts any player (who was offside) onside.

Even a player offside shouldn’t be pinged for it if he’s retreating and not materially affecting play. However, if he stops retreating, he should be pinged immediately.

Sattwa06 · 20-11-2020 5:23pm

a) and b) I agree with, not sure that c) applies at a penalty.
My understanding is that the 5m and/or pass law applies if players are offside in open play.

locum-motion · 20-11-2020 10:03pm

Sattwa06 wrote: »

a) and b) I agree with, not sure that c) applies at a penalty.
My understanding is that the 5m and/or pass law applies if players are offside in open play.

AFAIK, it applies in any offside situation. But given that I neither play nor ref any more, my knowledge might be shaky these days!

locum-motion · 20-11-2020 10:29pm

Law 20.13 and 20.14

You were dead right. Sorry.

Rugby 101 - Know your rucks from your mauls!

Comments