Laws Question? Ask here!

castie · 19-05-2010 4:34pm

My impression of the TMO was always that the ref could only check grounding of the ball. i.e cant check for a forward pass in the move. So I would have considered a high tackle in the same category as the forward pass and since healy came no where near grounding the ball then the TMO wouldnt be called.

In fairness to owens though, with jennings and the crowd on his back and maybe catching the replay on the screens he was in a tough position and made a very ballsy call.

And as ever great respect for the man to come out and admit when he thinks he got things wrong.

randomname2005 · 20-05-2010 1:11am

Risteard wrote: »

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.)

They can also check for going into touch on their way to the line - there are a few things that they can check. Healy was within the 5m line, one-on-one, so I figure it could be included in the 'act of scoring'. I think he made his decision and shouldn't have gone to the TMO after he said scrum.

castie · 22-05-2010 12:49pm

An interesting question regarding the TMO's power though.
Should they be able to make decisions regarding Penalty tries?

daveharnett · 27-05-2010 2:57pm

castie wrote: »

An interesting question regarding the TMO's power though.
Should they be able to make decisions regarding Penalty tries?

I think no.
- A penalty try is the biggest intervention a ref can make in a game (you could argue the red card, but the following applies to that too). If the try is not so obviously on that the ref (or any other neutral watching) has to think twice, consult, or see it again, then it's not a penalty try.

- As to whether the act preventing the probable try constituted foul play, there are already three referees on the park empowered to identify it (the two assistant refs have little else to do).

tolosenc · 06-06-2010 12:12am

Has there been some sort of new IRB directive whereby the "Crouch Touch Pause Engage" has been elongated? The Ireland BaaBaas game yesterday as well as the Wales Boks and the Ireland France U20 matches today all seem to have suffered due to a slower than usual cadence from the refs...

Risteard · 06-06-2010 10:45am

tolosenc wrote: »

Has there been some sort of new IRB directive whereby the "Crouch Touch Pause Engage" has been elongated? The Ireland BaaBaas game yesterday as well as the Wales Boks and the Ireland France U20 matches today all seem to have suffered due to a slower than usual cadence from the refs...

I thought I hear one of the commentators in the U20 match say something about it. It's ridiculous IMO.

castie · 08-06-2010 11:35pm

Not really when it had turned into who got a the jump first after the ref said Pause.

Risteard · 09-06-2010 3:14pm

castie wrote: »

Not really when it had turned into who got a the jump first after the ref said Pause.

Yeah but now where in a situation where none of the props know when the 'engage' call is going to be made. It's the most annoying thing in the front row when you're set ready to engage and the ref delays the call.

They should just take the hit out of it and make sure everyone is binding correctly before the ball is put in and that it goes in straight.

JustinDee · 09-06-2010 8:12pm

It is intended to cut down on endless and boring scrum resets.
Out of three games that I've watched this tournament, I counted 7 resets in total.
Personally I'd see that as a massive improvement.

tolosenc · 10-06-2010 12:41pm

Risteard wrote: »

it goes in straight.

CAN WE PLEASE GET THIS SORTED!!!

So annoying, Irish teams rarely scrummage well, but when we do and we could have won the scrum in a fair fight it's really annoying. I'm sure we're not averse to it ourselves either...

daveharnett · 13-06-2010 3:18am

Risteard wrote: »

Yeah but now where in a situation where none of the props know when the 'engage' call is going to be made. It's the most annoying thing in the front row when you're set ready to engage and the ref delays the call.

That's more or less an admission that you are looking to 'beat' the other team to the engage. Which the law would suggest you shouldn't be. The pause was introduced to improve player safety, but it actually makes the engage more dangerous for everybody unless it is obeyed.

Top level referees had been shortening the pause (to avoid the perception of 'fussiness'), to the point where it was becoming "touchpauseengage". I have no problem with the IRB reminding the ref's of the pause's importance.

Risteard wrote: »

They should just take the hit out of it and make sure everyone is binding correctly before the ball is put in and that it goes in straight.

I think most referees, physios, and front rows over thirty would agree with you. The thing is, the engage makes for good tv, which seems to be a higher priority.

Taco Corp · 19-06-2010 9:50am

When a team has a 22 drop out, you would often see teams passing ball around in the 22 and pretty much messing around. If the spill the ball over the 22, is it back in play? Or does the ball have to be a drop kicked back into play?

davidpfitz · 21-06-2010 9:30am

Surley wrote: »

When a team has a 22 drop out, you would often see teams passing ball around in the 22 and pretty much messing around. If the spill the ball over the 22, is it back in play? Or does the ball have to be a drop kicked back into play?

It must be drop kicked ; there's a number of laws governing this area, but if the kicking team is taking the mick and throwing the ball around too much, they can get pinged:

Law 13.11: The drop-out must be taken without delay.
Penalty: Free Kick on the 22-metre line

Law 13.12 DROP-OUT INCORRECTLY TAKEN
If the ball is kicked with the wrong type of kick, or from the wrong place, the opposing team has two choices:
To have another drop-out, or to have a scrum at the centre of the 22-metre line and they throw in the ball.

castie · 21-06-2010 12:36pm

davidpfitz wrote: »

It must be drop kicked ; there's a number of laws governing this area, but if the kicking team is taking the mick and throwing the ball around too much, they can get pinged:

Law 13.11: The drop-out must be taken without delay.
Penalty: Free Kick on the 22-metre line

Law 13.12 DROP-OUT INCORRECTLY TAKEN
If the ball is kicked with the wrong type of kick, or from the wrong place, the opposing team has two choices:
To have another drop-out, or to have a scrum at the centre of the 22-metre line and they throw in the ball.

Quite often you hear ref's saying "Next one" meaning next guy you pass to has to kick it.

locum-motion · 01-07-2010 3:45pm

There is no time limit. It can go on until the team with the advantage gains a 'tactical or territorial' advantage. Andre Watson said at a meeting he addressed that I attended that it could in theory last for 40 minutes, but that a) for a scrum advantage: he considers it 'advantage over' if the team holding the advantage gets a clean ball out of a ruck or maul in the same or similar part of the pitch to where the scrum would have been, and b) for a penalty advantage inside the opponents 22, it's not 'advantage over' unless they get points on the board.

shawpower wrote: »

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.

davidpfitz · 05-07-2010 4:47pm

locum-motion wrote: »

There is no time limit. It can go on until the team with the advantage gains a 'tactical or territorial' advantage. Andre Watson said at a meeting he addressed that I attended that it could in theory last for 40 minutes, but that a) for a scrum advantage: he considers it 'advantage over' if the team holding the advantage gets a clean ball out of a ruck or maul in the same or similar part of the pitch to where the scrum would have been, and b) for a penalty advantage inside the opponents 22, it's not 'advantage over' unless they get points on the board.

I've often thought that on penalty advantage if a try isn't clearly "on", the attacking team should put up a garryowen into the in-goal area. Reasonable chance of a try coming off, but if not - come back for the penalty.

locum-motion · 05-07-2010 6:29pm

davidpfitz wrote: »

I've often thought that on penalty advantage if a try isn't clearly "on", the attacking team should put up a garryowen into the in-goal area. Reasonable chance of a try coming off, but if not - come back for the penalty.

Or go for a DG. If you miss, you get the pen.
Say you go for the garryowen try, and the winger or whoever touches/half catches the ball but fails to control it. The ref (if it's not Andre Watson!) might adjudicate that the advantage was over the moment the winger touched the ball, and that the subsequent knock on is a mistake in a separate phase of play. => 22 drop out.

Dr Nic · 18-08-2010 12:50pm

Hi Guys,
First year training with the firsts this year and i've seen some fairly brutal hand-offs in training.
And i want to do it too

But im wondering about the rules.
One of the Tongans playing with us literally smashes guys with the heel of his palm right into the 1st rib/throat/chin area. Its as close to a punch as you can get. With devastating consequences usually.

Is this legal?
Can you hand off to the face?
And if so, would this semi-punch be legal?
I doubt it, and i dont intend on busting anyone in the face. But i would smash them in the chest if i thought i could and it wasnt a peno.

What do you think?
Thanks!

Downtime · 18-08-2010 1:26pm

Dr Nic wrote: »

Hi Guys,
First year training with the firsts this year and i've seen some fairly brutal hand-offs in training.
And i want to do it too

But im wondering about the rules.
One of the Tongans playing with us literally smashes guys with the heel of his palm right into the 1st rib/throat/chin area. Its as close to a punch as you can get. With devastating consequences usually.

Is this legal?
Can you hand off to the face?
And if so, would this semi-punch be legal?
I doubt it, and i dont intend on busting anyone in the face. But i would smash them in the chest if i thought i could and it wasnt a peno.

What do you think?
Thanks!

A player in possession of the ball can hand off another player anywhere. There is no specific law to this. A player my not however strike and opponent with hand, arm, elbow etc. In my own view if a hand off is delivered at pace to the face using a semi closed fist I would look at it carefully and most likely penalize it.

randomname2005 · 19-08-2010 3:33am

davidpfitz wrote: »

It must be drop kicked ; there's a number of laws governing this area, but if the kicking team is taking the mick and throwing the ball around too much, they can get pinged:

Law 13.11: The drop-out must be taken without delay.
Penalty: Free Kick on the 22-metre line

Law 13.12 DROP-OUT INCORRECTLY TAKEN
If the ball is kicked with the wrong type of kick, or from the wrong place, the opposing team has two choices:
To have another drop-out, or to have a scrum at the centre of the 22-metre line and they throw in the ball.

There is also precedent for a penalty kick being given in front of the posts for delaying the drop out.

Downtime · 19-08-2010 12:07pm

randomname2005 wrote: »

There is also precedent for a penalty kick being given in front of the posts for delaying the drop out.

It would want to be an extreme case for this.

randomname2005 · 20-08-2010 1:39am

Downtime wrote: »

It would want to be an extreme case for this.

Im sure some of the Connaught supporters here will remember the time they were passing the ball around for a bit and a penalty was awarded against them, in the last minute of an away magners league match they were winning.

Downtime · 20-08-2010 7:51am

randomname2005 wrote: »

Im sure some of the Connaught supporters here will remember the time they were passing the ball around for a bit and a penalty was awarded against them, in the last minute of an away magners league match they were winning.

Thats an extreme case - they were winning, last minute, and they were messing about and were told to use the ball.

randomname2005 · 20-08-2010 8:11am

Downtime wrote: »

Thats an extreme case - they were winning, last minute, and they were messing about and were told to use the ball.

I suppose extreme is subjective! Wanting to see the Irish team win, I didn't think it was an extreme case, but I do understand why it was seen as such by the ref.

For any players who might want to use similar tactics in the closing stages of a game, that is an option that the referee has.

davidpfitz · 20-08-2010 9:56am

Dr Nic wrote: »

Hi Guys,
First year training with the firsts this year and i've seen some fairly brutal hand-offs in training.
And i want to do it too

But im wondering about the rules.
One of the Tongans playing with us literally smashes guys with the heel of his palm right into the 1st rib/throat/chin area. Its as close to a punch as you can get. With devastating consequences usually.

Is this legal?
Can you hand off to the face?
And if so, would this semi-punch be legal?
I doubt it, and i dont intend on busting anyone in the face. But i would smash them in the chest if i thought i could and it wasnt a peno.

What do you think?
Thanks!

My understanding has always been that a hand-off can be as brutal as you like (to the face is fine), but the key thing was that it must be done with a straight elbow. i.e. you can't 'spring' your hand into the opponents face. You must strike with a locked elbow. This way, there is limited force behind the hand-off - but it can still hurt a hell of a lot!

Clenched fist is obviously a no-no, so it has to be an open palm.

daveharnett · 06-09-2010 3:50pm

Risteard wrote: »

Yeah but now where in a situation where none of the props know when the 'engage' call is going to be made. It's the most annoying thing in the front row when you're set ready to engage and the ref delays the call.

They should just take the hit out of it and make sure everyone is binding correctly before the ball is put in and that it goes in straight.

The instructions from the IRB is to slow the sequence even further this year.

Their latest dvd also includes a reminder about getting the ball in straight. So, you might see the odd fk for it when the assessors are about

Daragh86 · 07-09-2010 11:13am

daveharnett wrote: »

The instructions from the IRB is to slow the sequence even further this year.

Their latest dvd also includes a reminder about getting the ball in straight. So, you might see the odd fk for it when the assessors are about

I've had three games so far this season at loosehead and haven't had a problem at all with the slowed down scrum sequence. In fact I might even prefere it as it gives you an extra couple of seconds to get your footing perfect. Everything is the same as before but a small bit slower. I think it's good news that refs are being educated on the scrum a bit more, I've been pulled up on a couple things I probably would have got away with last season.

Also before each game this season the refs have explained in detail and gone through the new sequence with the front rows so no one was left guessing. The engage call is a constant, just delayed more so than last season.

Daragh86 · 07-09-2010 11:30am

Risteard wrote: »

They should just take the hit out of it and make sure everyone is binding correctly before the ball is put in and that it goes in straight.

Why take the hit out? Who can scrummage without making a good hit? The hit is the most important part of the scrum and without it you may as well call it a very organised maul, you'd certainly cheer up the aussies with that thought.

daveharnett · 07-09-2010 3:27pm

Daragh86 wrote: »

I've had three games so far this season at loosehead and haven't had a problem at all with the slowed down scrum sequence. In fact I might even prefere it as it gives you an extra couple of seconds to get your footing perfect.

Delighted to hear it. I think it should make life easier for everybody - front rows can get a proper touch and get themselves set before the engage, and refs have a little more time to make sure everything is kosher.

Risteard · 07-09-2010 3:32pm

Daragh86 wrote: »

Why take the hit out? Who can scrummage without making a good hit? The hit is the most important part of the scrum and without it you may as well call it a very organised maul, you'd certainly cheer up the aussies with that thought.

Well the scrum has to be stationary before the ball goes in anyway it just means that the players won't be flying into each other and makes it easier for everybody to get a proper bind and for the ref to ensure proper binding.

Anyway I don't think the slower sequence is much of an issue now as it's been gotten used to.

Also Australia with their first choice front row actually have a decent scrum. I'm not sure why everyone keeps saying they have a **** scrum.

Daragh86 · 07-09-2010 4:06pm

Risteard wrote: »

Well the scrum has to be stationary before the ball goes in anyway it just means that the players won't be flying into each other and makes it easier for everybody to get a proper bind and for the ref to ensure proper binding.

Anyway I don't think the slower sequence is much of an issue now as it's been gotten used to.

Also Australia with their first choice front row actually have a decent scrum. I'm not sure why everyone keeps saying they have a **** scrum.

In the rule book it says the scrum has to be stationary but that doesn't mean that no one is putting pressure on. The hit in the scrum sets you up for the rest. On the hit you shouldn't ease off on any pressure at all, maintain the pressure then when the ball comes in let loose! (or if you want to chance your arm get the jump on just before the ball) I couldn't imagine a scrum that leans together then suddenly push when the ball comes in, it would be a dreadful mess! It'd be more like a league scrum then. If you take away the hit in the scrum your one step closer to the dreaded rugby league :eek:

Aus actually do have a very decent front row at the moment but in the past when things weren't good for them up front they had a good whinge and moan about the scrum. No doubt in years to come if they go downhill again they'll have another moan. :rolleyes:

Risteard · 07-09-2010 9:06pm

Daragh86 wrote: »

In the rule book it says the scrum has to be stationary but that doesn't mean that no one is putting pressure on. The hit in the scrum sets you up for the rest. On the hit you shouldn't ease off on any pressure at all, maintain the pressure then when the ball comes in let loose! (or if you want to chance your arm get the jump on just before the ball) I couldn't imagine a scrum that leans together then suddenly push when the ball comes in, it would be a dreadful mess! It'd be more like a league scrum then. If you take away the hit in the scrum your one step closer to the dreaded rugby league :eek:

I suppose. I was just saying in my view that most scrum collapse come from the hit and that might have something to do with it. Though that was a few months ago, I've noticed that there seems to be some reduction in collapses though.

Aus actually do have a very decent front row at the moment but in the past when things weren't good for them up front they had a good whinge and moan about the scrum. No doubt in years to come if they go downhill again they'll have another moan. :rolleyes:

True. I wouldn't put it past them. They're looking **** hot in most facets of play now though (except defence)

davidpfitz · 10-09-2010 1:27pm

Daragh86 wrote: »

Why take the hit out?

Because (a) over time, it can cause serious injuries to players, and (b) that's the origination point for most failed scrums and slows down the game.

Watch this video. You'll notice there's no 'hit', per-se. The packs bind, and scrum. It's done quickly, and with power. Scrums in those days were not diminished by the lack of a hit... but it did mean the game got restarted faster and more reliably. In this case, from the point that the referee signaled 'scrum', right through to when the ball came out of the scrum is 13 seconds. You wouldn't see that today - they'd faff around for a couple of minutes, and re-set a few times.

Edit: It was a cracker of a try, too!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vbMena5qy4

Daragh86 · 10-09-2010 2:04pm

davidpfitz wrote: »

Because (a) over time, it can cause serious injuries to players, and (b) that's the origination point for most failed scrums and slows down the game.

Watch this video. You'll notice there's no 'hit', per-se. The packs bind, and scrum. It's done quickly, and with power. Scrums in those days were not diminished by the lack of a hit... but it did mean the game got restarted faster and more reliably. In this case, from the point that the referee signaled 'scrum', right through to when the ball came out of the scrum is 13 seconds. You wouldn't see that today - they'd faff around for a couple of minutes, and re-set a few times.

In fairness I don't think any part of rugby now and 84 can be compared, it is a totally different game.

If I was as unfit as some of those front rowers playing I wouldn't want to make a hit either!

In general I find all comments such as this come from (no offence intended) people who are uneducated on the scrum. I can understand the frustration it must cause for the backs standing around in the rain.

A scrum without a hit just won't work these days and rugby union without a scrum just isn't rugby and not worth playing. In the SA coach's words, why don't we all go down to the dance shop and get tutus. :rolleyes:

davidpfitz · 10-09-2010 3:01pm

Daragh86 wrote: »

In fairness I don't think any part of rugby now and 84 can be compared, it is a totally different game.

Sure, you're right - it's just not always different for the better.

If I was as unfit as some of those front rowers playing I wouldn't want to make a hit either!

You could argue that modern players have much more rest time while the scrum is going on. All that waiting around allows you to catch your breath!

Daragh86 · 10-09-2010 3:07pm

davidpfitz wrote: »

You could argue that modern players have much more rest time while the scrum is going on. All that waiting around allows you to catch your breath!

Try play front row, you don't get a rest at scrum time. Believe me we don't want the scrums to collapse either, it's incredibly tiring hitting scrum after scrum. And we don't get a break at the lineout either!

You backs with your colourful boots and hair gel have it all too easy!

daveharnett · 25-09-2010 5:31pm

22.12 BALL OR PLAYER TOUCHING A FLAG OR FLAG (CORNER) POST
If the ball or a player carrying the ball touches a flag or a flag (corner) post at the intersection of the touch-in-goal lines and the goal lines or at the intersection of the touch-in-goal lines and the dead ball lines without otherwise being in touch or touch-in-goal the ball is not out of play unless it is first grounded against a flag post.

So that's the law. Now what does it mean in the scenario where a ball is kicked and touches the corner flag?

My reading is that the flag (and the 'post' that supports it) is considered a non-entity, and play continues - provided the ball bounces back into the field of play/goal area. Can anybody confirm?

Now, for the harder parts.

The base of the corner flag is touch-in-goal. A ball which is kicked dead directly over the flag is also considered to be kicked into touch-in-goal?
An attacking ball is kicked along the ground, bounces against the flag, and lands in touch. Lineout 5m or 22 drop-out? (ie is it in touch, or touch-in-goal?)
A ball is kicked against the flag on the full, and then lands in touch. Does gain-in-ground apply (ie has it bounced in the field of play)?

JustinDee · 26-09-2010 7:21pm

daveharnett wrote: »

Now, for the harder parts.
The base of the corner flag is touch-in-goal. A ball which is kicked dead directly over the flag is also considered to be kicked into touch-in-goal?

Yes

daveharnett wrote: »

An attacking ball is kicked along the ground, bounces against the flag, and lands in touch. Lineout 5m or 22 drop-out? (ie is it in touch, or touch-in-goal?)

Lineout on the 5

daveharnett wrote: »

A ball is kicked against the flag on the full, and then lands in touch. Does gain-in-ground apply (ie has it bounced in the field of play)?

No. Its out on the full.

There my answers anyway.
Do I win a prize?

daveharnett · 27-09-2010 5:55pm

JustinDee wrote: »

Do I win a prize?

You get to TJ my U15 game in Kilfeakle on Sunday morning

Downtime · 29-09-2010 10:43am

daveharnett wrote: »

You get to TJ my U15 game in Kilfeakle on Sunday morning

Booby prize

Podge_irl · 12-10-2010 4:10pm

Not sure where to put this, so this seems as good a place as any.

Are there 22 or 23 man squads for the AIs?

JustinDee · 12-10-2010 4:16pm

Fairly sure its 22.
Can double-check in morning.

daveharnett · 14-10-2010 2:02am

Tricky one for ye:
Blue player fields the ball outside his 22. He is driven back and brought to ground by red such that his upper body (and the ball) land outside the 22, but his legs are in the 22. Blue then posts the ball behind the 22, and an arriving blue player (who is in the 22) kicks the ball directly into touch (no ruck had formed).

Does gain-in-ground apply?

JustinDee · 14-10-2010 7:58am

daveharnett wrote: »

Tricky one for ye:
Blue player fields the ball outside his 22. He is driven back and brought to ground by red such that his upper body (and the ball) land outside the 22, but his legs are in the 22. Blue then posts the ball behind the 22, and an arriving blue player (who is in the 22) kicks the ball directly into touch (no ruck had formed).

Does gain-in-ground apply?

No.

karlitob · 17-10-2010 1:05pm

irishbucsfan · 29-10-2010 7:56pm

If a player intentionally knocks the ball down (backwards) it is a penalty, correct?

Just couldn't find the ruling in the laws.

karlitob · 29-10-2010 8:53pm

irishbucsfan wrote: »

If a player intentionally knocks the ball down (backwards) it is a penalty, correct?

Just couldn't find the ruling in the laws.

Law 12.1 (e)

- it can't be a knock on if the ball goes backward therefore you can't have a penalty against it. The penalty is only when you knock the ball on intentionally forward.

Hope that helps

durkadurka · 29-10-2010 9:26pm

how is a chargedown distinguished from a knock on?

karlitob · 29-10-2010 9:30pm

durkadurka wrote: »

how is a chargedown distinguished from a knock on?

Law 12 www.irb.com

A chargedown is when a players kick is blocked by another player. The ball comes forward as you block a kick. A knock on is when the player who has the ball or receiving the ball is not in control of the ball and it knocks forward from their hand/s or upper arm.

durkadurka · 29-10-2010 9:47pm

Ok but a fumbled catch of a high ball willl be a knock on though, obviously.is it something to do with the ball still going upwards?

Laws Question? Ask here!

Comments