Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Laws Question? Ask here!

1…103104106108109…115

Comments

  • #3152
    Captain_Crash
    Registered Users Posts: 2,636 ✭✭✭Captain_Crash


    BoardsMember wrote: »
    Just watching re-run of the Dragons v Scarlets game in Rainbow Cup. Scarlets first try, turnover the commentators are calling a rip in the tackle. But the tackled player was on the ground, on his back. They don't show the angle that clearly shows this in this clip: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4iea_mfip2k

    But a fella running back from the Dragons side of the ball rips the ball from the player on that ground. Presume that should be a penalty?

    I’m happy to be corrected, but I think so long as the ripper is on his feet and a ruck hasn’t been called*, it’s fair game! But if the ripping player was on the ground too then it’s a pen

    *if a ruck had been called it would have been side entry anyway so the rip wouldn’t have been relevant


  • #3153
    connemara man
    Moderators, Sports Moderators, Regional West Moderators Posts: 6,773 Mod ✭✭✭✭connemara man


    BoardsMember wrote: »
    Just watching re-run of the Dragons v Scarlets game in Rainbow Cup. Scarlets first try, turnover the commentators are calling a rip in the tackle. But the tackled player was on the ground, on his back. They don't show the angle that clearly shows this in this clip: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4iea_mfip2k

    But a fella running back from the Dragons side of the ball rips the ball from the player on that ground. Presume that should be a penalty?

    That should be a pen Dragons can't rip the ball like that. The player ripping was part of the tackle and never released


  • #3154
    Captain_Crash
    Registered Users Posts: 2,636 ✭✭✭Captain_Crash


    connemara man wrote: »
    That should be a pen Dragons can't rip the ball like that. The player ripping was part of the tackle and never released

    Ripping in the tackle is fine. The ref even noted it at the time by saying “it was ripped in the tackle” as the ball popped out.

    However, having just checked the law, I have to correct my last reply because once the tackled player is on the ground yes the tackler has to release and the opportunity to rip is gone, but as we know from his mic, the ref was happy that the rip happened before hand. The footage isn’t clear but it looks to me like it was just in time!


  • #3155
    BoardsMember
    Registered Users Posts: 4,421 ✭✭✭BoardsMember


    Captain_Crash wrote: »
    Ripping in the tackle is fine. The ref even noted it at the time by saying “it was ripped in the tackle” as the ball popped out.

    However, having just checked the law, I have to correct my last reply because once the tackled player is on the ground yes the tackler has to release and the opportunity to rip is gone, but as we know from his mic, the ref was happy that the rip happened before hand. The footage isn’t clear but it looks to me like it was just in time!

    The footage was perfect in the match itself on one of the replays, just not the highlights. The player was flat on his back about to place the ball when it was ripped. But it wasn't by the tackler, but by a player running back. Ruck wasn't called that I heard.


  • #3156
    Shelflife
    Registered Users Posts: 3,073 ✭✭✭Shelflife


    BoardsMember wrote: »
    The footage was perfect in the match itself on one of the replays, just not the highlights. The player was flat on his back about to place the ball when it was ripped. But it wasn't by the tackler, but by a player running back. Ruck wasn't called that I heard.

    The ball was ripped backwards by the tackle assist. The tackle was completed as the player was on the ground. The ripper should have made a clear release and then gone back in to rip the ball.

    It should have been a pen.


  • Advertisement
  • #3157
    Captain_Crash
    Registered Users Posts: 2,636 ✭✭✭Captain_Crash


    Shelflife wrote: »
    The ball was ripped backwards by the tackle assist. The tackle was completed as the player was on the ground. The ripper should have made a clear release and then gone back in to rip the ball.

    It should have been a pen.

    Yeah watched it on a bigger screen this morning, same as the pen Ulster gave away against Connaught that ended up costing them the game. Looks to clearly be involved in the tackle and rips when the player is on the ground!


  • #3158
    BoardsMember
    Registered Users Posts: 4,421 ✭✭✭BoardsMember


    What i thought too. Weird neither of the commentators questioned it, Dragons didn't seem to complain. Seemed pretty back and white to me first time I saw it, perfect for a captain's challenge, especially when u compare it to the failed challenge later on.


  • #3159
    Shelflife
    Registered Users Posts: 3,073 ✭✭✭Shelflife


    BoardsMember wrote: »
    What i thought too. Weird neither of the commentators questioned it, Dragons didn't seem to complain. Seemed pretty back and white to me first time I saw it, perfect for a captain's challenge, especially when u compare it to the failed challenge later on.

    Commentators law knowledge is poor at best, they even talk over the referees when they’re explaining what the offence was ! Many of them don’t even know what the referee signals are !


  • #3160
    locum-motion
    Registered Users Posts: 5,143 ✭✭✭locum-motion


    Captain_Crash wrote: »
    Yeah watched it on a bigger screen this morning, same as the pen Ulster gave away against Connaught that ended up costing them the game. Looks to clearly be involved in the tackle and rips when the player is on the ground!

    Where is this “Connaught” of which you speak?


  • #3161
    Captain_Crash
    Registered Users Posts: 2,636 ✭✭✭Captain_Crash


    locum-motion wrote: »
    Where is this “Connaught” of which you speak?

    184 nautical miles west of Narnia in a land not known for its rugby prowess haha!

    Yeah obvs a typo lol


  • Advertisement
  • #3162
    MaybeMaybe
    Registered Users Posts: 1,294 ✭✭✭MaybeMaybe


    has the been a law change that has encouraged teams to go for the tap penalty this season?


  • #3163
    Sattwa06
    Registered Users Posts: 32 ✭Sattwa06


    MaybeMaybe wrote: »
    has the been a law change that has encouraged teams to go for the tap penalty this season?

    No, probably just a coaching intervention or perhaps you are just more aware?

    Tapping penalties almost disappeared at senior level with teams usually opting for a lineout (sometimes even a scrum) where they could use a practised move.


  • #3164
    realhorrorshow
    Registered Users Posts: 1,854 ✭✭✭realhorrorshow


    Not a laws question as such but not sure where else to put this.

    Would it be possible to challenge a try on the basis of off feet/sealing at the breakdown? Think I heard a ref say at the weekend that you can't challenge non-decisions but not 100% sure. Sam Simmonds' second try from the Irish game is a good example, pretty blatant sealing off at the previous ruck (around 2:10 here https://youtu.be/CSN5bcItAbY).


  • #3165
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 40,953 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    in order to 'seal off' you need to be stopping a genuine attempt for the ball by the defending team

    in your example theres two things.
    number 6 (Ewers) could be argued to have rucked the defender (Rona) out, and simply went lower and won the ruck.
    also, there was no attempt by any defender to jackal for the ball so it can be argued there was no sealing off.

    often for a "sealing off" pen youll see a defender slap down with both hands over the sealer to try to get to the ball


  • #3166
    randomname2005
    Registered Users Posts: 1,931 ✭✭✭randomname2005


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    in order to 'seal off' you need to be stopping a genuine attempt for the ball by the defending team

    in your example theres two things.
    number 6 (Ewers) could be argued to have rucked the defender (Rona) out, and simply went lower and won the ruck.
    also, there was no attempt by any defender to jackal for the ball so it can be argued there was no sealing off.

    often for a "sealing off" pen youll see a defender slap down with both hands over the sealer to try to get to the ball

    In the above scenario I agree with realhorrorshow - #6 should be penalised for falling on a player. Himself and another player have gone straight to ground/on top of a player on the ground. (at about 2.14 in the clip)

    Law 13, 4, Players on their feet and without the ball must not fall on or over players on the ground who have the ball or who are near it. Sanction: Penalty.

    I think the only successful outcome from that challenge would be a penalty to the defending team. Whereas this would have been ignored previously, by the letter of the law, they have infringed.


  • #3167
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 40,953 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    the ship sailed on that law years when they started allowing the jackal and subsequent cleaners to go off their feet at ruck time.
    players land on players on the ground all the time. The only time youll see that as a penalty is when a defender falls onto a prone ball carrier.

    it can be easily argued in the situation above that both exeter players were rucking irish players off the ball, and naturally landed off their feet onto the ball carrier. Ewers rucks Rona off and kirsten (exeter 4) rucks out the tackler with the head band.

    interestly, not one player binds onto another at ruck time... so theres penalties all round in these situations


  • #3168
    randomname2005
    Registered Users Posts: 1,931 ✭✭✭randomname2005


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    the ship sailed on that law years when they started allowing the jackal and subsequent cleaners to go off their feet at ruck time.
    players land on players on the ground all the time. The only time youll see that as a penalty is when a defender falls onto a prone ball carrier.

    it can be easily argued in the situation above that both exeter players were rucking irish players off the ball, and naturally landed off their feet onto the ball carrier. Ewers rucks Rona off and kirsten (exeter 4) rucks out the tackler with the head band.

    interestly, not one player binds onto another at ruck time... so theres penalties all round in these situations

    I agree that there are many things going on. Maybe I didn't watch enough angles but I saw some Irish players involved in the tackle but nobody to be cleared out of a ruck.
    My point in contributing to this is wondering if we will see decisions seeing the try line bring more pedantically analysed


  • #3169
    theVersatile
    Registered Users Posts: 1,904 ✭✭✭theVersatile


    https://twitter.com/WorldRugby/status/1398640268971331587?s=19


  • #3170
    Lost Ormond
    Registered Users Posts: 3,737 ✭✭✭Lost Ormond


    So looks like world rugby are going to approve the 50-22 kick and goal line dropout in Test rugby and all competitions around the world from August 1 for a years trial

    thoughts?
    https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/all-blacks/300339879/world-rugby-set-to-approve-nrl-inspired-rule-changes-in-all-competitions?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter


  • #3171
    Podge_irl
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 25,207 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    I do not care for the goal-line dropout at all but I also don't think its a particularly huge deal. I think the 50-22 is well worth trying out on a longer term basis. I'm just happy to see the ridiculous 20 min red card rule has been dropped.


  • Advertisement
  • #3172
    Captain_Crash
    Registered Users Posts: 2,636 ✭✭✭Captain_Crash


    Lost Ormond wrote: »
    So looks like world rugby are going to approve the 50-22 kick and goal line dropout in Test rugby and all competitions around the world from August 1 for a years trial

    thoughts?
    https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/all-blacks/300339879/world-rugby-set-to-approve-nrl-inspired-rule-changes-in-all-competitions?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

    No fan of the drop out rule! Always loved the tension of driving over and being held up and the pressure the attacking team can have a defence under! I think it takes the sting out of that part of the game a bit

    As for the 50-22?? as a former full back, this is one I love and wish I got to play with.


  • #3173
    Shelflife
    Registered Users Posts: 3,073 ✭✭✭Shelflife


    50:22 will be very hard to police at amateur level. Grand in the pro game where you will have 2 decent ARs and a TMO keeping an eye out but on a cold wet Sunday afternoon on your own …..


  • #3174
    Jump_In_Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 3,587 ✭✭✭Jump_In_Jack


    realhorrorshow wrote: »
    Not a laws question as such but not sure where else to put this.

    Would it be possible to challenge a try on the basis of off feet/sealing at the breakdown? Think I heard a ref say at the weekend that you can't challenge non-decisions but not 100% sure. Sam Simmonds' second try from the Irish game is a good example, pretty blatant sealing off at the previous ruck (around 2:10 here https://youtu.be/CSN5bcItAbY).

    At the end of the Munster match in round 1 of the Rainbow Cup, Munster players pleaded with the ref to review an incident when the ref blew it up for full time and the ref said the captain's challenge can only review a decision made by the ref.
    It couldn't be used to go back and check for a knock-on.
    I don't know if a yellow card incident or something like that was missed would it be different.


  • #3175
    blackwhite
    Registered Users Posts: 8,450 ✭✭✭blackwhite


    Haven't seen enough of the trial games to have taken note - but on the 50/22, is there any "brought back" rule similar to kicking for touch from inside the 22?


  • #3176
    Captain_Crash
    Registered Users Posts: 2,636 ✭✭✭Captain_Crash


    blackwhite wrote: »
    Haven't seen enough of the trial games to have taken note - but on the 50/22, is there any "brought back" rule similar to kicking for touch from inside the 22?

    No, it’s just a kick from your own half that bounces in the opposition 22 before going into touch is your ball, if it doesn’t bounce it’s an opposition LO from where the ball went dead!


  • #3177
    Serbian
    Registered Users Posts: 2,154 ✭✭✭Serbian


    blackwhite wrote: »
    Haven't seen enough of the trial games to have taken note - but on the 50/22, is there any "brought back" rule similar to kicking for touch from inside the 22?

    Don't believe so — as long as you are inside your own half and the ball bounces into touch inside the opposition 22, then you're good.

    The "brought back" rule is around being able to kick it directly into touch — the mechanism for finding touch doesn't change for 50/22 (i.e. the ball needs to bounce on the field first), so you don't need a law around bringing it back into your own half.


  • #3178
    blackwhite
    Registered Users Posts: 8,450 ✭✭✭blackwhite


    Captain_Crash wrote: »
    No, it’s just a kick from your own half that bounces in the opposition 22 before going into touch is your ball, if it doesn’t bounce it’s an opposition LO from where the ball went dead!

    So you could have a ruck on the opponents 10m line, pass back to out-half who is standing 1m inside his own half and he can hit an O'Gara-esque kick towards the corner to win an attacking lineout?

    For some reason I'd assumed that there would be some sort of rule around not carrying it back into your own half before kicking for touch


  • #3179
    Captain_Crash
    Registered Users Posts: 2,636 ✭✭✭Captain_Crash


    blackwhite wrote: »
    So you could have a ruck on the opponents 10m line, pass back to out-half who is standing 1m inside his own half and he can hit an O'Gara-esque kick towards the corner to win an attacking lineout?

    For some reason I'd assumed that there would be some sort of rule around not carrying it back into your own half before kicking for touch

    What Serbian said lol

    And to add, you can pass it back into your own half and kick to touch and still avail of the law.

    It’s easy to think this will be done all the time but the reality is given time and space it’s a really difficult kick to get right. We won’t see any teams use it as a tactic, it’ll just be an option


  • #3180
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 40,953 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    blackwhite wrote: »
    So you could have a ruck on the opponents 10m line, pass back to out-half who is standing 1m inside his own half and he can hit an O'Gara-esque kick towards the corner to win an attacking lineout?

    For some reason I'd assumed that there would be some sort of rule around not carrying it back into your own half before kicking for touch

    thats very difficult to do, especially if, as per the reason for the law change, the defence hold their outside backs deep to prevent this occurring.

    also, this as well affects kicks from your own 22 that bounce into touch in your opponents half before going out


  • Advertisement
  • #3181
    TRC10
    Registered Users Posts: 3,888 ✭✭✭TRC10


    I personally like the goal line drop out.

    I don't think having to defend a 5 yard scrum is good enough reward for holding a man up over the try line.

    It also discourages the constant pick and jam employed by Leinster and Exeter, as there's more risk of being held up from a pick and jam than there is by running it in.


Advertisement