Laws Question? Ask here!

Downtime · 11-02-2010 9:03am

shaunhulme wrote: »

Is the ball out of the scrum once the scrum-half places his hands on the ball or is it when he plays the ball. Can he put his hands on and wait until he is ready to pass?

He must be in control of it and it must be past the hind most foot of the scrum. Having hands on it doesn't mean that it is out. He can put his hands on it but should be told to play it.

shaunhulme · 11-02-2010 11:59pm

In a game tonight at the scrum the opposing fly half fed from the right then moved around the no8 away from me to play the ball. I couldnt follow as i would have to pass the hind most foot and go offside. I think this is an illegal move? Is it?

Downtime · 12-02-2010 9:13am

shaunhulme wrote: »

In a game tonight at the scrum the opposing fly half fed from the right then moved around the no8 away from me to play the ball. I couldnt follow as i would have to pass the hind most foot and go offside. I think this is an illegal move? Is it?

For you to go past the ball yes. He was Ok.

shaunhulme · 12-02-2010 8:29pm

I take it for me to go past the ball is a no go but for him its fine.... How do i counter this problem?

daveharnett · 02-03-2010 8:20pm

shaunhulme wrote: »

I take it for me to go past the ball is a no go but for him its fine.... How do i counter this problem?

You can't. if they have good control at the scrum, and the no8 keeps his shape, there's not a lot you can do to upset the scrumhalf.
If you like, you can go around to the open side to help your backline defend, but you must go around the long way (ie stay behind the ball), and you must stay behind the back foot (ie your number 8) when you're on the 'wrong' side.

daveharnett · 02-03-2010 8:21pm

shaunhulme wrote: »

I take it for me to go past the ball is a no go but for him its fine.... How do i counter this problem?

He can't go past the ball either - he must stay on 'his' side of it

Tim Robbins · 19-03-2010 6:07pm

shaunhulme wrote: »

I take it for me to go past the ball is a no go but for him its fine.... How do i counter this problem?

You have to keep both feet behind the ball. Put you don't have to keep your arms behind the ball.

Watch Stringer for tips on what to do.

castie · 20-03-2010 4:52pm

Defending Blue Scrum 5m out.
Blue Scrum Half passing to OH who is behind the try line.
kick gets charged down by Red and ball goes dead from the Red charge down.

Whats the decision here?

Blue 22? Red scrum 5?

Saw this today and Red was awarded a scrum 5. i was pretty baffled myself.

GSOIRL · 21-03-2010 9:44pm

If the kicker takes longer than 60seconds to take a penatly kick and the Ref blows for it what happens? Scrum, Penalty, Free Kick????

I'd like to state that this has nothing to do with Ireland game.

21-03-2010 10:00pm

castie wrote: »

Defending Blue Scrum 5m out.
Blue Scrum Half passing to OH who is behind the try line.
kick gets charged down by Red and ball goes dead from the Red charge down.

Whats the decision here?

Blue 22? Red scrum 5?

Saw this today and Red was awarded a scrum 5. i was pretty baffled myself.

Yep, red scrum 5 is the right decision. It was carried over the try line by blue, and went dead. How or why it went dead doesn't really matter in this case.

daveharnett · 25-03-2010 4:45am

castie wrote: »

Defending Blue Scrum 5m out.
Blue Scrum Half passing to OH who is behind the try line.
kick gets charged down by Red and ball goes dead from the Red charge down.

Whats the decision here?

Blue 22? Red scrum 5?

Saw this today and Red was awarded a scrum 5. i was pretty baffled myself.

^^^what he said

daveharnett · 25-03-2010 4:47am

GSOIRL wrote: »

If the kicker takes longer than 60seconds to take a penatly kick and the Ref blows for it what happens? Scrum, Penalty, Free Kick????

I'd like to state that this has nothing to do with Ireland game.

Scrum to the non-kicking team.

GSOIRL · 25-03-2010 10:53am

Cheers

Gargled · 26-03-2010 5:22pm

07734 wrote: »

Yep, red scrum 5 is the right decision. It was carried over the try line by blue, and went dead. How or why it went dead doesn't really matter in this case.

Depends on where it was charged down.

If the charger was in goal- scrum 5

If outside- 22 drop out

crisco10 · 27-03-2010 7:25pm

Happened today in the Connacht game. Scrum to Leinster, 15 men on the pitch for both sides. Johnny O'Conner didn't pack down in the scrum at all, he just joined the backline. Thus leaving Connacht with only a 7 man scrum and a 8 man backline. Legal/Ilegal?

Risteard · 27-03-2010 7:53pm

crisco10 wrote: »

Happened today in the Connacht game. Scrum to Leinster, 15 men on the pitch for both sides. Johnny O'Conner didn't pack down in the scrum at all, he just joined the backline. Thus leaving Connacht with only a 7 man scrum and a 8 man backline. Legal/Ilegal?

Illegal. But I've never seen a team not have 8 when they're not a man down and even if they are a man down they'll normally stick a back in. I suppose it was missed because it rarely, if ever happens.

Dave_The_Sheep · 29-03-2010 9:02am

Two similar scenarios.

1. Say a ruck forms, outside the 22. Obviously the ball can't be kicked out on the full. So the number 7 picks and goes, but gets driven back into his own 22, and another ruck forms. From this ruck, can the ball be kicked out on the full?

2. Say a ruck forms, outside the 22. Obviously the ball can't be kicked out on the full. So the scrum half passes it back to his number 10, who gives it to the 12, who is tackled inside his own 22. A ruck forms, the side inside their own 22 retain possession. Can this ball be kicked out on the full?

Downtime · 29-03-2010 10:21am

1. If he is driven back into the 22 and a ruck forms as the result of this the ball cannot be kicked out as it is part of the same movement that brought the ball into the 22

2. Yes

davidpfitz · 29-03-2010 10:33am

crisco10 wrote: »

Happened today in the Connacht game. Scrum to Leinster, 15 men on the pitch for both sides. Johnny O'Conner didn't pack down in the scrum at all, he just joined the backline. Thus leaving Connacht with only a 7 man scrum and a 8 man backline. Legal/Ilegal?

Usually not legal. Was O'Conner in the back line when one of the backs was off the pitch? If so, then it would be legal. See below:

Law 20.1

Number of players: eight. A scrum must have eight players from each team. All eight players must stay bound to the scrum until it ends. Each front row must have three players in it, no more and no less. Two locks must form the second row.
Penalty: Penalty Kick

Exception: When a team is reduced to fewer than fifteen for any reason, then the number of players of each team in the scrum may be similarly reduced. Where a permitted reduction is made by one team, there is no requirement for the other team to make a similar reduction. However, a team must not have fewer than five players in the scrum.
Penalty: Penalty Kick

irishbucsfan · 30-03-2010 12:59am

I'm starting to think I'm going mad so I think I'll post this up and see what you all say...

What's the official ruling on playing the ball in a ruck with your feet when you're onside, through the gate, on your feet?

daveharnett · 30-03-2010 1:12am

irishbucsfan wrote: »

What's the official ruling on playing the ball in a ruck with your feet when you're onside, through the gate, on your feet?

That is almost word for word the definition of a ruck. Couldn't be more legal.

Law 16 Ruck : Definitions
Players are rucking when they are in a ruck and using their feet to try to win or
keep possession of the ball, without being guilty of foul play.

daveharnett · 30-03-2010 1:24am

Law 19.8 (j) Player between touch and 5 metres.
The team not throwing in must have a player standing between the touchline and the 5-metre line on that team’s side of the line of touch when the lineout is formed. That player must stand 2 metres from the line of touch and 2 metres from the 5-metre line. Sanction: Free Kick on the 15-metre line

For those of you who don't speak IRB, that means the defending team at the lineout must put a player in the 5m channel. This is usually the defender's hooker or scrum half.

It's useful to have a player there to defend a peel/short throw in, but I don't see any reason to require a player to be there. Does anybody know why this law exists?

crisco10 · 30-03-2010 1:28am

davidpfitz wrote: »

Usually not legal. Was O'Conner in the back line when one of the backs was off the pitch? If so, then it would be legal. See below:

Law 20.1

Number of players: eight. A scrum must have eight players from each team. All eight players must stay bound to the scrum until it ends. Each front row must have three players in it, no more and no less. Two locks must form the second row.
Penalty: Penalty Kick

Exception: When a team is reduced to fewer than fifteen for any reason, then the number of players of each team in the scrum may be similarly reduced. Where a permitted reduction is made by one team, there is no requirement for the other team to make a similar reduction. However, a team must not have fewer than five players in the scrum.
Penalty: Penalty Kick

Thanks for that. In answer to your question, Connacht had 15 players on the pitch at the time. But in JOC's defence, Duffy was in the sin bin and had come back on about 2 mins before hand so I suspect he didn't know that Duffy was back on.

irishbucsfan · 30-03-2010 1:45pm

daveharnett wrote: »

That is almost word for word the definition of a ruck. Couldn't be more legal.

Yeah exactly what I thought. I was pulled up for kicking the ball out of the ruck (penalty offense supposedly), and I asked the referee what the infringement was and he couldn't answer. Happened twice in quick succession as well.

Maybe I'm not going mad then.

irishbucsfan · 30-03-2010 1:49pm

daveharnett wrote: »

For those of you who don't speak IRB, that means the defending team at the lineout must put a player in the 5m channel. This is usually the defender's hooker or scrum half.

It's useful to have a player there to defend a peel/short throw in, but I don't see any reason to require a player to be there. Does anybody know why this law exists?

I think it's a balancing thing. The team with possession have to have a player throwing the ball in so making the defensive team keep a player in the channel evens up the numbers in the defensive line, making more space.

Don't see any other reason the law would be there.

davidpfitz · 30-03-2010 4:59pm

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Yeah exactly what I thought. I was pulled up for kicking the ball out of the ruck (penalty offense supposedly), and I asked the referee what the infringement was and he couldn't answer. Happened twice in quick succession as well.

Maybe I'm not going mad then.

DEFINITION
A ruck is a phase of play where one or more players from each team, who are on their feet, in physical contact, close around the ball on the ground. Open play has ended.

Rucking. Players are rucking when they are in a ruck and using their feet to try to win or keep possession of the ball, without being guilty of foul play.

16.1(b)
How can a ruck form.
Players are on their feet. At least one player must be in physical contact with an opponent. The ball is on the ground.

16.2(b) A player joining a ruck must bind onto the ruck with at least one arm around the body of a team-mate, using the whole arm.

My Guess?
There's nothing wrong with kicking the ball out of a ruck as long as you are legally bound to the ruck. So, is it possible you were pinged for not being correctly bound to the ruck? Basically, if you are standing around near the ruck, and put boot to ball it's a penalty.

It's mighty hard to kick the ball out of a ruck legally given the amount of bodies obstructing your swinging leg and also the ball's exit path, but it can be done.

dub_skav · 31-03-2010 10:57am

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Yeah exactly what I thought. I was pulled up for kicking the ball out of the ruck (penalty offense supposedly), and I asked the referee what the infringement was and he couldn't answer. Happened twice in quick succession as well.

Maybe I'm not going mad then.

i've been penalised for the same thing. By the looks of the law written here the problem is that you were not trying to keep or win possession, you were trying to kick the ball away

tolosenc · 05-05-2010 10:41pm

After a line out, refs raise an arm. What's that about, I've never quite got it, and once or twice thought we had a penalty coming...

Gargled · 05-05-2010 10:52pm

Toulousain wrote: »

After a line out, refs raise an arm. What's that about, I've never quite got it, and once or twice thought we had a penalty coming...

The ref keeps his arm up as long as the lineout is still "on" ie not over. The backs must stay the 10m back. Usually when a maul forms from the lineout.

It's over when it moves out of the 15, in the 5 or when the hindmost foot crosses the line of touch

daveharnett · 09-05-2010 6:34pm

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I think it's a balancing thing. The team with possession have to have a player throwing the ball in so making the defensive team keep a player in the channel evens up the numbers in the defensive line, making more space.

Don't see any other reason the law would be there.

Other refs i've put this to have had the same thought. Do you actually think that teams would move that man if they were allowed to? It would make the 5m channel awfully tempting to attackers.

I think most teams would still prefer to drop a backrow from the tail of the lineout into 9/10 or 10/12 channel.

daveharnett · 09-05-2010 6:42pm

Toulousain wrote: »

After a line out, refs raise an arm. What's that about, I've never quite got it, and once or twice thought we had a penalty coming...

We really ought to agree on a different signal. It's not law, just something that evolved to make managing the lineout easier.

A 'stop' signal is an awful lot clearer, and can be useful at scrum time too.

randomname2005 · 14-05-2010 3:53am

The signal for advantage is an arm outstretched, waist high, towards non-offending team, for a period of approximately five seconds. This is very different to the line out not over signals that the refs use.

shawpower · 14-05-2010 10:01am

What's the actual rule with regards to the timing of an advantage? I've seen refs say advantage over after 20-30 seconds despite the attacking team not getting over the gainline, and I've seen other refs come back after 7-8-9-10 phases of play (Fitzgibbon - Leinster v Edinburgh in the 1st half for us).

If someone kicks ahead, normally it ends straight away regardless of whether any advantage is earned or not. On the flip side you can "kick ahead" by going for a drop goal, but that doesn't affect the advantage unless you score.

Very strange and arbitary. Is there actually any rules or guidelines involved? Don't get me wrong, I think the advantage law is a good one, but I'm just not clear on the exact rules of it.

JustinDee · 14-05-2010 10:38am

shawpower wrote: »

(Fitzgobsh1te - Leinster v Edinburgh in the 1st half for us

Whoa there! Out of order there, fella.

shawpower · 14-05-2010 10:53am

Removed. Although he did have a terrible game.

Any thoughts on the actual question?

Risteard · 14-05-2010 11:57am

shawpower wrote: »

Removed. Although he did have a terrible game.

Any thoughts on the actual question?

It's something that annoys me too. But it would be hard to make a set time limit. It's up to the referee's discretion and as long as the referee is consistent in applying it then I don't have a problem.

But IMO for a scrum advantage if you get a pass away to put a man in space, then it should be over. For a penalty advantage if they make a clean linebreak or get a good bit over the gainline then it should be called over.

Of course this is just one of the many areas in rugby that are wide open to interpretation from a referee so there will always be someone who disagrees with decisions like this.

shawpower · 14-05-2010 12:08pm

Yeah, didn't expect there to be a time limit, but is the guideline say, up to 5 phases of play, or ten, before bringing it back to the original infringement?

In relation to the kicking of the ball when holding a penalty advantage, how is it fair that you can kick a garryowen, end advantage and then lose the ball, yet you can kick a dropgoal, miss and still get the penalty? Surely it'd make more sense that either you don't get a free drop goal attempt, or that you lose the advantage after you catch your kick ahead, to balance the two out...

Also agree that once the ref is consistent, then it's not a big deal, but it can vary so much between matches.

Downtime · 14-05-2010 12:22pm

shawpower wrote: »

Yeah, didn't expect there to be a time limit, but is the guideline say, up to 5 phases of play, or ten, before bringing it back to the original infringement?

In relation to the kicking of the ball when holding a penalty advantage, how is it fair that you can kick a garryowen, end advantage and then lose the ball, yet you can kick a dropgoal, miss and still get the penalty? Surely it'd make more sense that either you don't get a free drop goal attempt, or that you lose the advantage after you catch your kick ahead, to balance the two out...

Also agree that once the ref is consistent, then it's not a big deal, but it can vary so much between matches.

Because advantage is territorial or tactical, kicking to the corner would lead to advantage being over as you are kicking for territory. A drop goal is often just a snap chance with little time for the kicker to line it up etc so you come back for the penalty.

shawpower · 14-05-2010 12:25pm

Downtime wrote: »

Because advantage is territorial or tactical, kicking to the corner would lead to advantage being over as you are kicking for territory. A drop goal is often just a snap chance with little time for the kicker to line it up etc so you come back for the penalty.

Wasn't really talking about a long kick to the corner. More a 20 yard garryowen. If you don't get the catch, you don't really have any subsequent advantage, but the ref will never bring it back.

However, thinking about it, I do accept that it's easier to say "once you kick forward that the advantage is over". Otherwise it's far harder to referee with way more interpretation involved.

daveharnett · 15-05-2010 10:03pm

shawpower wrote: »

What's the actual rule with regards to the timing of an advantage?

IRB wrote:

8.1 ADVANTAGE IN PRACTICE
(a) The referee is sole judge of whether or not a team has gained an advantage. The referee has wide discretion when making decisions.
(b) Advantage can be either territorial or tactical.
(c) Territorial advantage means a gain in ground.
(d) Tactical advantage means freedom for the non-offending team to play the ball as they wish.

Part (d) covers the team kicking the ball away.

ScrubsfanChris · 15-05-2010 10:14pm

During the Leinster/Munster game there, Warrick called for a mark inside the in-goal area.
I didn't know you could do that, thought your options were touch it down/kick it out/ or run.

daveharnett · 15-05-2010 10:28pm

ScrubsfanChris wrote: »

During the Leinster/Munster game there, Warrick called for a mark inside the in-goal area.
I didn't know you could do that, thought your options were touch it down/kick it out/ or run.

Marks in in-goal are fine. They are rare, players generally prefer to make it dead for the dropout.

ScrubsfanChris · 15-05-2010 11:03pm

daveharnett wrote: »

Marks in in-goal are fine. They are rare, players generally prefer to make it dead for the dropout.

Cheers daveharnett

daveharnett · 15-05-2010 11:55pm

Downtime wrote: »

Because advantage is territorial or tactical, kicking to the corner would lead to advantage being over as you are kicking for territory.

I'd argue that a lot of the time, refs get this wrong. When a team with penalty advantage kick to touch, (unless it's a brilliant kick, or their hooker is rubbish) they would usually be better off coming back to the mark, kicking again and getting the put-in.

Different for scrum advantage though, where getting possession and enough time on the ball to kick it is usually advantage enough.

crisco10 · 16-05-2010 11:21am

shawpower wrote: »

Also agree that once the ref is consistent, then it's not a big deal, but it can vary so much between matches.

By far and away the most important thing.

In last nights game, Owens called scrum advantage over after 1 breakdown everytime. You coulda actually set your clock to it. Not hard to do but great refereeing

JustinDee · 16-05-2010 11:23am

crisco10 wrote: »

By far and away the most important thing.

In last nights game, Owens called scrum advantage over after 1 breakdown everytime. You coulda actually set your clock to it. Not hard to do but great refereeing

Yep, I'd agree. Warn the teams to engage properly and refuse to be dragged into endless resets. Penalise the offender if they don't get it right. The hard part is spotting who is cheating the bind.

castie · 18-05-2010 12:00pm

I think he meant advantage that would award a scrum and not something happening at scrum time there.

shawpower · 19-05-2010 10:40am

First up, lets not let any Munster v Leinster debate cloud this question please.

I'm wondering whether Owens was within the rules when he went to the TMO after the TOL v Healy high tackle.

For those that didn't see it, or want to refresh their memory of it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a57MjiKM8r0

Owens is clearly heard to say afterwards, "lost forward, tackle was fair".

Then one of two things happened imho. He saw the replays on large stadium screen and realised his mistake. Or you can hear Jennings query with him vociferously, and with that and the fact that Healy was still out for the count, Owens realised that Jenno might be right and it wasn't a legit tackle. Either way, he took a while to think about it, and then phrased his question to the TMO in such a way as to allow a reversal of his original decision.

So whether or not it was a fair tackle, or should have been a yellow card and/or a peno try, was Owens actually within the rules to do what he did? I presume the ref isn't allowed to use the screens to make a decision, but it looks to me that he used the screens to change his mind and then asked a very particular question to the TMO to allow him to correct his initial call.

Risteard · 19-05-2010 1:45pm

shawpower wrote: »

First up, lets not let any Munster v Leinster debate cloud this question please.

I'm wondering whether Owens was within the rules when he went to the TMO after the TOL v Healy high tackle.

For those that didn't see it, or want to refresh their memory of it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a57MjiKM8r0

Owens is clearly heard to say afterwards, "lost forward, tackle was fair".

Then one of two things happened imho. He saw the replays on large stadium screen and realised his mistake. Or you can hear Jennings query with him vociferously, and with that and the fact that Healy was still out for the count, Owens realised that Jenno might be right and it wasn't a legit tackle. Either way, he took a while to think about it, and then phrased his question to the TMO in such a way as to allow a reversal of his original decision.

So whether or not it was a fair tackle, or should have been a yellow card and/or a peno try, was Owens actually within the rules to do what he did? I presume the ref isn't allowed to use the screens to make a decision, but it looks to me that he used the screens to change his mind and then asked a very particular question to the TMO to allow him to correct his initial call.

Not sure, but Owens says on his FB page that he made a mistake going to the TMO and should have stuck with his original decision. Also added that he was thankful it didn't affect the outcome of the match.

My opinion is that he shouldn't have gone to the TMO as it's only in the act of scoring that it supposed to be used . He didn't cross the line so he wasn't in the act of scoring. TMO isn't used to check knock-ons or other penalty offences where a player might have scored or did score, only if they actually grounded the ball and were in the field of pay when doing so.(I think.)

shawpower · 19-05-2010 2:04pm

Risteard wrote: »

Not sure, but Owens says on his FB page that he made a mistake going to the TMO and should have stuck with his original decision. Also added that he was thankful it didn't affect the outcome of the match.

My opinion is that he shouldn't have gone to the TMO as it's only in the act of scoring that it supposed to be used . He didn't cross the line so he wasn't in the act of scoring. TMO isn't used to check knock-ons or other penalty offences where a player might have scored or did score, only if they actually grounded the ball and were in the field of pay when doing so.(I think.)

I wonder does he mean that his mistake was that he didn't have a legit reason for going to the TMO, or that looking back he now feels it was simply a knock-on and the mistake was giving the peno.

Yeah, in asking the question, I was thinking that he didn't have a legit reason to.

Laws Question? Ask here!

Comments