Laws Question? Ask here!

who_me · 21-01-2019 9:01pm

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

would need to see clip. so it was a choke tackle and ref called release as ball carrier got a knee/knees to ground and therefore not maul?
If he wasnt held on ground and ref deemed it fine then play on?
Dont necessarily see this as a problem but do you have a clip or at least idea of time in game it happened?

Video contained here (might want to turn sound down before watching, music is loud). Edit - I should add this is in the phase before the try is scored; but it is the crucial line-break that sets it up.

The Lost Sheep · 21-01-2019 9:08pm

who_me wrote: »

Video contained here (might want to turn sound down before watching, music is loud). Edit - I should add this is in the phase before the try is scored; but it is the crucial line-break that sets it up.

nothing wrong with anything for scores there like you suggested

sydthebeat · 21-01-2019 9:14pm

who_me wrote: »

Video contained here (might want to turn sound down before watching, music is loud). Edit - I should add this is in the phase before the try is scored; but it is the crucial line-break that sets it up.

There's no maul there.

Theres just a tackle which wasn't completed

Iompair · 21-01-2019 9:48pm

I see what he's saying the 6 has his knees on the ground and isn't held. He then rolls/spins away and gets back to his feet. Couldn't hear if the ref called release indicating a complete tackle.

sydthebeat · 21-01-2019 11:23pm

Iompair wrote: »

I see what he's saying the 6 has his knees on the ground and isn't held. He then rolls/spins away and gets back to his feet. Couldn't hear if the ref called release indicating a complete tackle.

i think the referee just calls the wrong word....

he wants to let the tackler assist know its not a maul, its a tackle, and to release.... but instead of shouting 'tackle', he shouts 'release'

who_me · 22-01-2019 12:28am

Iompair wrote: »

I see what he's saying the 6 has his knees on the ground and isn't held. He then rolls/spins away and gets back to his feet. Couldn't hear if the ref called release indicating a complete tackle.

Exactly - without the sound, this probably looks ok.

But the referee does call "release" and the Scarlets players - whether complying with the referee's instruction, or just falling off the tackle - release him; only for him to scamper on, resulting in a try one phase later.

Someone suggests above that the ref might just have used the wrong word; but I'm not sure that's the case. As defences try the choke tackle more, refs seem to be quicker to call release if the player is only being held up off the ground by the tackler. Once the call is made, surely the tackled player has to release the ball too. It's not Schroedinger's tackle... it's complete or it isn't! :P

sydthebeat · 22-01-2019 1:36pm

who_me wrote: »

Someone suggests above that the ref might just have used the wrong word; but I'm not sure that's the case. As defences try the choke tackle more, refs seem to be quicker to call release if the player is only being held up off the ground by the tackler. Once the call is made, surely the tackled player has to release the ball too. It's not Schroedinger's tackle... it's complete or it isn't! :P

yeah thats a fair point, its hard to see anything here other than a ref mistake.

The Lost Sheep · 24-01-2019 11:11pm

The RFU has ended its armpit-level tackle height trial in the Championship Cup. Preliminary study found rate of concussions to be higher under the trial laws.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/2019/01/24/rfu-halt-tackle-height-trial-rise-concussion-rate-championship/

Will be interesting to see what happens next about tackle height and concussion now

Hands Like Flippers · 11-02-2019 7:34pm

How far away is a 9 allowed to stand from a scrum whilst level with the back foot?

Cheers

sydthebeat · 11-02-2019 8:00pm

Hands Like Flippers wrote: »

How far away is a 9 allowed to stand from a scrum whilst level with the back foot?

Cheers

As far as they want... That's his off side line.

Hands Like Flippers · 11-02-2019 9:25pm

sydthebeat wrote: »

As far as they want... That's his off side line.

Thought so. Ref wouldn't allow it on Sat. Made him. Stay beside scrum. Cheers

Yeah_Right · 11-02-2019 9:50pm

sydthebeat wrote: »

As far as they want... That's his off side line.

Are you sure? I thought if they across the field away from the scrum by more than 5 metres, they also had to move back in line with the other backs.

Tomtom364 · 11-02-2019 10:06pm

Yeah_Right wrote: »

Are you sure? I thought if they across the field away from the scrum by more than 5 metres, they also had to move back in line with the other backs.

Behind the line of the ball, 1m from the scrum,

In line with the back foot of his 8 anywhere he likes across the pitch

Or 5m back aka the regular offside line.

He is not allowed to venture between the line of the hindmost foot and the line 5m back. If he does then he must retreat to the 5m back offside line and remain there.

The Lost Sheep · 17-02-2019 12:42pm

So double movement or try?
Nothing making me think its double movement.
https://v.redd.it/g9bsle7dd0h21/DASH_240

Losty Dublin · 17-02-2019 1:06pm

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

So double movement or try?
Nothing making me think its double movement.
https://v.redd.it/g9bsle7dd0h21/DASH_240

First look and yeah it seems fine but a second play makes for a different story. Ball carrier does push himself up with his hand having been grounded in the tackle. Luckily for him the tackler let him go momentarily and let him away with it. Definitely one for the club house assessor committee.

The Lost Sheep · 23-02-2019 5:37pm

bilston wrote: »

Point of law question.

Belleau kicks the penalty to touch right at the end. Adam Hastings catches the ball. Now it looked to me as though Hastings caught the ball in play and then stepped into touch. That being the case the game should have ended there?

Hastings was in touch, feet just touching the line, so lineout call was correct.

Shelflife · 24-02-2019 2:49am

It’s an interesting call. Personally I thought he caught it in the field of play and then put his foot on the line so it should have been game over.

If we take the view that his feet were on the line when he caught it and the ball hasn’t crossed the plane of touch then he has effectively made the ball dead. So therefore it hasn’t gone directly into touch and it’s game over.

Quintis · 02-03-2019 4:42pm

If a player collects the ball on the ground, does the opposition player have to let me get back to his feet before playing the ball? Also, can you be pinged for holding on/not releasing if not tackled?

sydthebeat · 02-03-2019 4:47pm

Quintis wrote: »

If a player collects the ball on the ground, does the opposition player have to let me get back to his feet before playing the ball? Also, can you be pinged for holding on/not releasing if not tackled?

No you don't have to let him up, you're just not allowed to flop down on him, or tackle him on the ground.

If your talking about the TOH one today, TOH was right to stand over him and go for the back. Giles was on the floor and has to release, regardless of being tackled or not (you can't play the ball if your not on your feet in rugby)

The Lost Sheep · 21-03-2019 7:46pm

Any thoughts on these trials?

https://www.the42.ie/world-rugby-law-trials-player-welfare-4551248-Mar2019/

Squidgy Black · 21-03-2019 8:26pm

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Any thoughts on these trials?

https://www.the42.ie/world-rugby-law-trials-player-welfare-4551248-Mar2019/

The kick rule is an interesting one, looking forward to seeing how it plays out. Will put a big importance on fullback positioning and allow more attacking from deep with more players in the backfield, and leave more space out wide in the defensive line if your wingers aren't rushing up because they'll be covering the backfield also.

Yellow card upgrade is one that's a no-brainer to me. Having an additional person reviewing incidents that a ref may not see in real time or in context can't hurt. Will definitely lead to some controversy in terms of backlash from fans though.

sydthebeat · 21-03-2019 8:31pm

Ironic that they used a picture of sio tomkinson getting a red card for a high tackle..... And that red card being dismissed

But on the 50/22.... One unforeseen result could be that teams become less off load orientated..... As quick turn over ball in the opposition half would probably mean you end up having to defend a line out in your own 22.... So will attacking teams actually deliberately leave two players back as well as the defense??? And we end up with rugby League with goalkeepers

crisco10 · 05-04-2019 8:43am

Just re-watching Leinster game, and in particular Stockdale's non-try.

Why did Leinster not get the 22 drop out (as Ross Byrne seemed to ask for) ? is the "advantage" from the knock-on not the 22 that would have come from the ball going dead in-goal? (the ball went over the touchline in goal after he knocked it on)

Losty Dublin · 05-04-2019 9:45am

crisco10 wrote: »

Just re-watching Leinster game, and in particular Stockdale's non-try.

Why did Leinster not get the 22 drop out (as Ross Byrne seemed to ask for) ? is the "advantage" from the knock-on not the 22 that would have come from the ball going dead in-goal? (the ball went over the touchline in goal after he knocked it on)

Advantage is either a possessional, terrortorial or positional benefit on a field of play in lieu of an instant restart to the game. For this a team generally needs to be in possession of the ball. A ball being made dead doesn’t offer up any of the above as Leinster didn’t get a chance to try and make good of their possession; therefore the game restarts with a scrum.

As an aside, a gain of 25-30 metres and an unrestricted restart kick would be a lot of advantage to gain off what should have been a try against.

crisco10 · 05-04-2019 10:34am

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Advantage is either a possessional, terrortorial or positional benefit on a field of play in lieu of an instant restart to the game. For this a team generally needs to be in possession of the ball. A ball being made dead doesn’t offer up any of the above as Leinster didn’t get a chance to try and make good of their possession; therefore the game restarts with a scrum.

As an aside, a gain of 25-30 metres and an unrestricted restart kick would be a lot of advantage to gain off what should have been a try against.

Thanks, it would be a lot of advantage, as a Leinster fan I would have wanted it!

But consider if the ball had rolled out over the touchline in the field of play, you frequently see the ref giving the team the "option" of scrum or lineout in that situation. In this situation the advantage can be taken as the lineout.

So it seems slightly inconsistent that the law changes once you cross the tryline. (Granted I know that lots of other Laws change in the ingoal area too, eg offside)

Losty Dublin · 05-04-2019 11:50am

crisco10 wrote: »

Thanks, it would be a lot of advantage, as a Leinster fan I would have wanted it!

But consider if the ball had rolled out over the touchline in the field of play, you frequently see the ref giving the team the "option" of scrum or lineout in that situation. In this situation the advantage can be taken as the lineout.

So it seems slightly inconsistent that the law changes once you cross the tryline. (Granted I know that lots of other Laws change in the ingoal area too, eg offside)

Totally different situation there. When the ball leaves the field during open plan no law has been infringed. As such there isn’t an advantage being played so there isn’t an advantage to offer a team. The scrum or line out option in an instance of ball going dead is simply a means of restarting the game; it isn’t an advantage to anybody.

blackwhite · 05-04-2019 11:54am

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Totally different situation there. When the ball leaves the field during open plan no law has been infringed. As such there isn’t an advantage being played so there isn’t an advantage to offer a team. The scrum or line out option in an instance of ball going dead is simply a means of restarting the game; it isn’t an advantage to anybody.

I think he's referencing an instance where the ball is knocked on into touch, as opposed to a kick-off going straight out.

In that instance, the scrum advantage for the knock-on is given as an option, rather than taking the line-out, which is the restart from ball going out of play.

crisco10 · 05-04-2019 12:06pm

blackwhite wrote: »

I think he's referencing an instance where the ball is knocked on into touch, as opposed to a kick-off going straight out.

In that instance, the scrum advantage for the knock-on is given as an option, rather than taking the line-out, which is the restart from ball going out of play.

yup, that was what i meant. a ball knocked on into touch, probably could have been clearer! and the offended against team can either take the scrum for the knock-on or the lineout for the ball crossing the touchline.

sydthebeat · 05-04-2019 12:24pm

crisco10 wrote: »

Just re-watching Leinster game, and in particular Stockdale's non-try.

Why did Leinster not get the 22 drop out (as Ross Byrne seemed to ask for) ? is the "advantage" from the knock-on not the 22 that would have come from the ball going dead in-goal? (the ball went over the touchline in goal after he knocked it on)

i was at the game so im not sure of the communications with the TMO.. but im going to assume the on field decision was a try, and the TMo was to check if there was anything wrong with that decision.

Therefore the knock over-ruled the on field decision.

No advantage can occur in that situation because 'advantage' is used to keep the game going. the game has stopped in that situation.

in the example above (knock on into touch) this isnt an "advantage" play.

its an 'option' that the non offending team has, as two infringements have occurred.

pickarooney · 05-05-2019 10:47pm

Pro D2 game this afternoon in high winds. White have a penalty 15m out and to the right. Black retreat, expecting the kick at goal. 10 white shapes as though he's going to take the place kick (no tees, players were hiding the ball in place) then spots his left winger unmarked and instead kicks the ball over towards him from his hands. The ball sailed past the winger and bounced twice into touch.

Which team should have the throw in here?

The Lost Sheep · 05-05-2019 10:56pm

pickarooney wrote: »

Pro D2 game this afternoon in high winds. White have a penalty 15m out and to the right. Black retreat, expecting the kick at goal. 10 white shapes as though he's going to take the place kick (no tees, players were hiding the ball in place) then spots his left winger unmarked and instead kicks the ball over towards him from his hands. The ball sailed past the winger and bounced twice into touch.

Which team should have the throw in here?

once Penalty Kick has been indicated you must kick at posts and not deliberately elsewhere. Correct decision is to award scrum at place of kick to non-kicking team.

Bazzo · 05-05-2019 11:09pm

pickarooney wrote: »

Pro D2 game this afternoon in high winds. White have a penalty 15m out and to the right. Black retreat, expecting the kick at goal. 10 white shapes as though he's going to take the place kick (no tees, players were hiding the ball in place) then spots his left winger unmarked and instead kicks the ball over towards him from his hands. The ball sailed past the winger and bounced twice into touch.

Which team should have the throw in here?

Well I thought it was against the laws to indicate you wanted to take a kick at goal without then making a genuine attempt for it but can't find it in the current laws, somebody more knowledgeable may be able to enlighten us. So that would be sanctionable anyway.

But assuming he hadn't actually indicated he wanted to take a shot and kicked cross field I believe as long as nobody else touched the ball before it went into touch it would be a white lineout.

Edit: here it is

If the team indicates to the referee the intention to kick at goal, they must kick at goal.
The intention to kick can be communicated to the referee or signalled by the arrival of
the kicking tee or sand, or when the player makes a mark on the ground.

blindsider · 05-05-2019 11:25pm

If he hadn't told the ref that he was kicking at goal, AND the tee was not on the pitch, the player can choose what to do i.e. the crossfield kick.

Hiding the ball etc might be considered to be in contravention of Law 9.27, but I haven't seen the incident.

sydthebeat · 06-05-2019 1:26am

yeah, id be of the opinion that if no shot at goal is indicated, hen its open play from a kick.

however im confused as to the question as i cannot see any case in which its a white throw.

sydthebeat · 06-05-2019 1:27am

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

once Penalty Kick has been indicated you must kick at posts and not deliberately elsewhere. Correct decision is to award scrum at place of kick to non-kicking team.

where do the laws allow for a scrum down after such an incident?

pickarooney · 06-05-2019 6:01am

sydthebeat wrote: »

yeah, id be of the opinion that if no shot at goal is indicated, hen its open play from a kick.

however im confused as to the question as i cannot see any case in which its a white throw.

I couldn't hear any communication between the kicker and the ref and there was no fee brought on. As far as I know he just looked at the posts and held the ball under his arm as though sizing up the kick. I wasn't sure if you needed to actually indicate that you were kicking to touch, if you had to kick it straight in and if what was obviously a kick to open play could then be given as a lineout if it failed to reach its target. White lineout was given so seems like the right decision.

The kicking from hand was hilariously bad all game. I had never seen 5 restarts kicked dead over the end line in a game before. Wonder if it's a record.

Bazzo · 06-05-2019 9:03am

sydthebeat wrote: »

yeah, id be of the opinion that if no shot at goal is indicated, hen its open play from a kick.

however im confused as to the question as i cannot see any case in which its a white throw.

Why wouldn't it be a white throw? Ball doesn't need to go directly into touch from a penalty for the kicking team to be awarded the throw.

18.8 c

A player kicks the ball into
touch (either directly or first
bouncing in the field of play
or hitting a player or the
referee).
(Location of mark)Where the ball reaches the
touchline.
(Who throws in)The kicking team.

sydthebeat wrote: »

where do the laws allow for a scrum down after such an incident?

Scrum is the accepted sanction for "faking" a kick at goal afaik

The Lost Sheep · 06-05-2019 1:23pm

sydthebeat wrote: »

where do the laws allow for a scrum down after such an incident?

Its same as sanction for not kicking within time allowed. What do you see happening if above happened in a game?

sydthebeat · 06-05-2019 1:34pm

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Its same as sanction for not kicking within time allowed. What do you see happening if above happened in a game?

I didn't know what the resultant was as the laws didn't specifically say what it was, that's why I asked.

sydthebeat · 06-05-2019 1:36pm

Bazzo wrote: »

Why wouldn't it be a white throw? Ball doesn't need to go directly into touch from a penalty for the kicking team to be awarded the throw.

Yeah fair point, for some reason I was picturing it as becoming open play... But if its directly from the hand from the mark then its just a pen for the line

The Lost Sheep · 15-07-2019 6:19pm

https://www.the42.ie/world-rugby-scrum-law-axial-4725329-Jul2019/
Thoughts on this?

Squidgy Black · 15-07-2019 6:32pm

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

https://www.the42.ie/world-rugby-scrum-law-axial-4725329-Jul2019/
Thoughts on this?

Commented on it earlier in the General thread, but I agree with it and think it's a good move. Takes away the potential strain on a hookers neck and limits the compression to the head on a dodgy set.

Will also be easier to spot the premature push too I think for the refs.

There'll be a contingent who'll say it's ridiculous, similar to the ones who gave out about removing the hit.

randomname2005 · 27-10-2019 11:54pm

A few questions from decisions Ben Whitehouse made in the connacht cheetahs game. At one point a mail collapsed and he called tackle or ruck, can't remember which, but I was under the impression that a collapsed maul never became either. Did I miss something?
Also, there was a tackle in the air towards the end of the second half, and he said the connacht player jumped across and was tackled in the air so only a penalty. Is this a new directive to stop people doing 'superman' type jumps and getting penalties?

The Lost Sheep · 28-10-2019 12:17am

randomname2005 wrote: »

A few questions from decisions Ben Whitehouse made in the connacht cheetahs game. At one point a mail collapsed and he called tackle or ruck, can't remember which, but I was under the impression that a collapsed maul never became either. Did I miss something?
Also, there was a tackle in the air towards the end of the second half, and he said the connacht player jumped across and was tackled in the air so only a penalty. Is this a new directive to stop people doing 'superman' type jumps and getting penalties?

the tackle in air was sport on. How you land has an impact on sanction and player landed on back/side so Penalty only.

A maul can become a ruck. Ball must be available immediately. A maul ends when the ball is on the ground as written in the laws. So yes a maul can become a ruck

Bazzo · 28-10-2019 12:44am

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

the tackle in air was sport on. How you land has an impact on sanction and player landed on back/side so Penalty only.

A maul can become a ruck. Ball must be available immediately. A maul ends when the ball is on the ground as written in the laws. So yes a maul can become a ruck

I was under the impression that penalty only for taking someone in the air was reserved for mistimed jumps where the player has a realistic chance of contesting for the ball, if the tackler had no realistic chance of catching the ball then I thought yellow card was the agreed sanction. Didn't have any audio so had no info on what the officials' thought process was but thought Cheetahs player was lucky to get off with a pen as he lined up and smashed a player in the air from what I remember.

ClanofLams · 28-10-2019 12:58am

Bazzo wrote: »

I was under the impression that penalty only for taking someone in the air was reserved for mistimed jumps where the player has a realistic chance of contesting for the ball, if the tackler had no realistic chance of catching the ball then I thought yellow card was the agreed sanction. Didn't have any audio so had no info on what the officials' thought process was but thought Cheetahs player was lucky to get off with a pen as he lined up and smashed a player in the air from what I remember.

Thought this also. I thought they had done away with how you land being a factor? Could well be mistaken on that though.

Watched it back, whitehouse said what was mentioned above, there was mitigation because porch jumped across. Seemed strange reasoning, he was coming in off his wing so he did jump at an angle but cheetahs guy was never even close to contesting for ball and made contact with player in air, seemed very fortunate not to get yellow.

Quintis · 28-10-2019 1:10am

randomname2005 wrote: »

A few questions from decisions Ben Whitehouse made in the connacht cheetahs game. At one point a mail collapsed and he called tackle or ruck, can't remember which, but I was under the impression that a collapsed maul never became either. Did I miss something?
Also, there was a tackle in the air towards the end of the second half, and he said the connacht player jumped across and was tackled in the air so only a penalty. Is this a new directive to stop people doing 'superman' type jumps and getting penalties?

What do people think of the offside call in the second half, I thought both Connacht defenders were on the line as the ball was picked from the ruck? Would need to see the clip again but wasn't sure where the back foot of the ruck was for Connacht, didn't think it was actually on the line

The Rape of Lucretia · 28-10-2019 1:15am

Prompted by some incident in SA-Wal :
guessing it isnt the case, but should it be that where one player dangerously hits a team mate in the air jumping for a high ball (through bad calling or whatever), should it be a penalty to the opposition? The same as if it were one of the opposition who played dangerously. In the interest of protecting players.

randomname2005 · 28-10-2019 7:16am

Quintis wrote: »

What do people think of the offside call in the second half, I thought both Connacht defenders were on the line as the ball was picked from the ruck? Would need to see the clip again but wasn't sure where the back foot of the ruck was for Connacht, didn't think it was actually on the line

I think it was said during commentary that anywhere else on the pitch they get away with it. Thought it was harsh, and the guy who was offside looked to have no impact on the game.

Edit, the offside line can't be behind the try line

Sattwa06 · 28-10-2019 9:16am

A maul cannot become a ruck within the same action / phase of play. If a maul goes to ground, it is a *collapsed maul* and not a ruck (ie.defending players involved are not obliged to roll away as they would if it was a ruck). If the ball does not appear, the outcome is a scrum to the defence —> turnover ball (ball taken into a maul and not used).

Laws Question? Ask here!

Comments