Laws Question? Ask here!

DerTierarzt

karlitob wrote: »

No, I answered it. Post 462. Phog also answered it.

I gave my opinion of my interpretation of the laws. Thats why you posted on the forum - to have questions answered, we did.

Again, thank you for taking the time to give an opinion, but unlike others you didn't back it up with either reference to any specific law, or show a precedent. Merely answering my question with "Why would you do that?", is not really an answer per se...

karlitob

DerTierarzt wrote: »

Again, thank you for taking the time to give an opinion, but unlike others you didn't back it up with either reference to any specific law, or show a precedent. Merely answering my question with "Why would you do that?", is not really an answer per se...

Your question was as follows:

DerTierarzt wrote: »

What if you were clean through, heading for the posts. On the run you execute a nice high lobbed drop kick that bisects the posts, but you catch it on the other side before it hits the ground, ground the ball for a try, run back around to front of the posts and do a quick drop goal conversion.

Would you get 10 points for your team?

Law9.A.2 (b) If a ball has crossed the crossbar a goal is scored...
- so if a player 'executes a nice high lobbed drop kick that bisects the posts' then a goal is scored.

Law 13.2 (c) After a score the opponents of the team who scored restart play...with a restart kick
- so if someone, who has by definition scored a goal, and the opposing, by definition must restart with a kick from the half way line...it begs my very valid question as to "why would you do that".

So yes your question has been answered. If you can show a precedent of the idiot who attempted your scenario I would be very interested in viewing it.

Keep the silly questions coming!!

daveharnett

karlitob wrote: »

So yes your question has been answered. If you can show a precedent of the idiot who attempted your scenario I would be very interested in viewing it.

Keep the silly questions coming!!

I can certainly see a scenario where this might come up. Say a scrumhalf tries a snap dropgoal from the 22/15M cross. He gets under it too much and it goes high. It still hits the target though, but with one of the attacking centers collecting it and grounding for what would have been a try.

Sure it's unlikely to happen in any given game, but hardly beyond the realms of possibility.

davidpfitz

daveharnett wrote: »

I can certainly see a scenario where this might come up. Say a scrumhalf tries a snap dropgoal from the 22/15M cross. He gets under it too much and it goes high. It still hits the target though, but with one of the attacking centers collecting it and grounding for what would have been a try.

Sure it's unlikely to happen in any given game, but hardly beyond the realms of possibility.

It's 3 points. In the same way that after you touch the ball down for a try, you can't pass it to a team-mate to score another!

karlitob

daveharnett wrote: »

I can certainly see a scenario where this might come up. Say a scrumhalf tries a snap dropgoal from the 22/15M cross. He gets under it too much and it goes high. It still hits the target though, but with one of the attacking centers collecting it and grounding for what would have been a try.

Sure it's unlikely to happen in any given game, but hardly beyond the realms of possibility.

I dont understand, I'm afraid.

All drop kicks and penalty's should be followed up in case they are missed and if the bounce of the ball from the upright is kind or if its mis hit and drops shy then the opportunity to score a try is there. Thats why no one follows up a conversion.

You say 'still hits the target' - does that mean he scores the goal or its dropping short. So if he scores the goal - 3 points, if it drops short/hits upright and collected by attacking team scoring a try then 5 points.

But you can't score a goal, collect the kick, score a try and then kick a conversion.

So again, I ask, who would attempt that scenario. No you can't do as DerT asked and really, this is getting silly.

daveharnett

karlitob wrote: »

I dont understand, I'm afraid.
....
But you can't score a goal, collect the kick, score a try and then kick a conversion.

So again, I ask, who would attempt that scenario. No you can't do as DerT asked and really, this is getting silly.

Nobody is disagreeing with you - the ball becomes dead when a goal is scored. I was objecting to your assertions that

• it would never arise in a game
• the question was silly

I cited a scenario where it does arise. The only reason it's never an 'issue' is because the common wisdom says that goal=dead ball.

It's a perfectly reasonable question if you don't already know the answer. TheVet wanted to know if the common wisdom was correct, and now he knows.

daveharnett

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

What about a driven penalty that just about clears the crossbar? It will still be on its way up or at the very least level as it goes over.

I'm not sure you'll get a definitive answer on this one. The IRB directive was written to stop teams building human pyramids in front of the goal. If you can stop the shot without doing that, then it's play on in my book

Interfering with/climbing the posts seems to be taboo by consensus. Not aware of any law on the subject, but I think most refs would penalize/manage it and cite safety/sportsmanship/Law 6 A4(a) "Sole judge of fact and law/Because I say so".

Also there's usually a bloke with a pike nearby who wouldn't take kindly to players messing with his posts

karlitob

daveharnett wrote: »

Nobody is disagreeing with you - the ball becomes dead when a goal is scored. I was objecting to your assertions that

• it would never arise in a game
• the question was silly

I cited a scenario where it does arise. The only reason it's never an 'issue' is because the common wisdom says that goal=dead ball.

It's a perfectly reasonable question if you don't already know the answer. TheVet wanted to know if the common wisdom was correct, and now he knows.

I'll type slower for you....

There is NO scenario where it arises. If you score a goal its three points. If you chase and collect and score a try its five points. You CANNOT kick a goal, collect behind the posts, score a try and then convert.

I never said the question was silly - the point of the forum is to ask questions. The drawn out commentary on this scenario is silly.

Shelflife

karlitob wrote: »

I'll type slower for you....

There is NO scenario where it arises. If you score a goal its three points. If you chase and collect and score a try its five points. You CANNOT kick a goal, collect behind the posts, score a try and then convert.

I never said the question was silly - the point of the forum is to ask questions. The drawn out commentary on this scenario is silly.

Karlitob people are entitled to tweeze out senarios as they so wish, just because you have an opinion on a situation doesnt make it gospel. telling someone that you will type slower is condesending in the extreme and downright rude.

I really hope that you dont ref your matches in the same manner as i believe that you would ruin the game by sticking to your godlike knowledge of the laws.

karlitob

Shelflife wrote: »

Karlitob people are entitled to tweeze out senarios as they so wish, just because you have an opinion on a situation doesnt make it gospel. telling someone that you will type slower is condesending in the extreme and downright rude.

I really hope that you dont ref your matches in the same manner as i believe that you would ruin the game by sticking to your godlike knowledge of the laws.

Exodus. 3:14

RuggieBear

karitob, do not post on this thread again. you have refused to moderate your posting style and have continued to be rude and unhelpful.

karlitob

RuggieBear wrote: »

karitob, do not post on this thread again. you have refused to moderate your posting style and have continued to be rude and unhelpful.

Or else what?

RuggieBear

karlitob banned

mrboswell

Couple of things related to the ruck.

Have been reading through the thread and there are a few things that seem a bit contradictory

With regard to this post:

davidpfitz wrote: »

Nope. You can't play the ball with your hands in a ruck, even when on your feet. The scrum-half is given special dispensation... Technically, they're breaking the law of the game, but it's allowed as it'd be stupid otherwise!

I regularly see players in or at the back of the ruck using their hands to present the ball back to the player acting as scrum half. Why is this not penalised by referees?


Also where do the laws stand with players that clean out a ruck effectively drive players out of the game temporarily by drivng the defending players way past the ruck and even hold on to them. All teams do it but some more than others.

I suppose an example of this was when Nyanga held Sean O'Brien.
I can't understand why do refs not penalise it?

Cheers

Shelflife

I think that the ref is distinguishing between winning the ball at the ruck by using your hands and placing the ball back to the scrum half when the ball is won. Id allow that anyway.

playing a man beyond the ruck is obstuction and should be penalised.

mrboswell

Shelflife wrote: »

I think that the ref is distinguishing between winning the ball at the ruck by using your hands and placing the ball back to the scrum half when the ball is won. Id allow that anyway.

Ok, assume that the ruck is over and the person at the back of the ruck holds the ball for the scrumhalf - then surely the players in front of the scrumhalf are offside and opposition can come around and play the ball?

It just seems contradictory to me

daveharnett

davidpfitz wrote: »

You can't play the ball with your hands in a ruck, even when on your feet. The scrum-half is given special dispensation... Technically, they're breaking the law of the game, but it's allowed as it'd be stupid otherwise!

I'm not so sure about that...

Law 16.4(b) wrote: »

Players must not handle the ball in a ruck...
Sanction: Penalty kick

I reckon that this can be read as "players [in a ruck] must not handle the ball...". So if a player (who is onside) can winkle the ball out without himself becoming part of the ruck, happy days.

mrboswell wrote: »

I regularly see players in or at the back of the ruck using their hands to present the ball back to the player acting as scrum half. Why is this not penalised by referees?

In short, because the alternative is a string of unplayable rucks complete with stamps, shoulder charges and fights.

Slow rucks are nothing but trouble, so provided everything is fair, we won't look too closely at how the ball gets to the back.

mrboswell wrote: »

Also where do the laws stand with players that clean out a ruck effectively drive players out of the game temporarily by driving the defending players way past the ruck and even hold on to them. All teams do it but some more than others.
I can't understand why do refs not penalise it?

Law has nothing to say on this. To take a more philosophical approach, if a player can clean his opponent right out of the way at the ruck, then hats off to him! He's staying on his feet, and helping to produce quick ball - two of any referees' very favouritest things. We've got no interest at all in penalizing him/making him release before the ball comes out.

mrboswell wrote: »

I suppose an example of this was when Nyanga held Sean O'Brien.

It was a scrum rather than a ruck, so Nyanga had no business binding on/obstructing O'Brien.

mrboswell

daveharnett wrote: »

Law has nothing to say on this. To take a more philosophical approach, if a player can clean his opponent right out of the way at the ruck, then hats off to him! He's staying on his feet, and helping to produce quick ball - two of any referees' very favouritest things. We've got no interest at all in penalizing him/making him release before the ball comes out.


It was a scrum rather than a ruck, so Nyanga had no business binding on/obstructing O'Brien.

But does it matter if it was a scrum or a ruck? Its still taking a player out of the defensive line?

(just to clarify - I mean driving a player 5m past a ruck when its is clearly well beyond the ruck)

Also I've noticed for a while that rather then clearing through a ruck players are now twisting opposition off their feet - rolling them out the side of a ruck. Is that allowed as "clearing" the ruck?

Cheers

daveharnett

mrboswell wrote: »

But does it matter if it was a scrum or a ruck? Its still taking a player out of the defensive line?

(just to clarify - I mean driving a player 5m past a ruck when its is clearly well beyond the ruck)

I get you. I'd say that a player is well entitled to ruck a player a few meters beyond the tackle (2/3 meters), then keep him there until the ruck is over. 5m taking the mick a little alright. Taking them out of the ruck is fine, but they shouldn't be taking them out of the next phase.

I say that a scrum is different in as much as opposing back rows shouldn't have any cause to go near each other off the ball, whereas that's fine in a ruck.

mrboswell wrote: »

Also I've noticed for a while that rather then clearing through a ruck players are now twisting opposition off their feet - rolling them out the side of a ruck. Is that allowed as "clearing" the ruck?

Again, it's a grey point in law. You can't deliberately go off your feet in a ruck, but what if you collapse 'out' of the ruck? Some refs are ok with it and some aren't, but almost all allow it - it's difficult to penalize anything that makes for tidier rucks.

Given the popularity of this technique, I think the IRB may need to make a call on this. Particularly since some people say that these 'tackles' are particularly dangerous (twisting forces on necks and backs).

CiaranMT

Just after posting Connacht maul in the 106 words thread, which reminded me of a game (can't remember who were playing, could have possibly been Munster) where the players were lined up to go for this but the referee prevented it.

Basically, I'm wondering if it is illegal to form a 15-man maul? If so, why, and if not, why the hell isn't it used more?

phog

I've never seen a 15 man maul but I'd guess it could be dangerous if the ball was ripped out or knocked on it could leave you very exposed defensively.

On the Connacht maul, not sure what you have in mind but I've seen them successfully step out of the maul or not getting involved in the maul at all thus causing the opposition (Munster on the occasions) to be offside as they had players ahead of the ball carrier and were blocking the ball carrier. On both occasions the ref didnt pick it up, in fact in the game in showgrounds he as good as told them to get involved in the maul. The 2nd occasion was last week in TP.

Downtime

CiaranMT wrote: »

Just after posting Connacht maul in the 106 words thread, which reminded me of a game (can't remember who were playing, could have possibly been Munster) where the players were lined up to go for this but the referee prevented it.

Basically, I'm wondering if it is illegal to form a 15-man maul? If so, why, and if not, why the hell isn't it used more?

In the Eddie O'Sullivan era Connacht used to do a 14 man lineout close to the oppositions line. Most of the players would join in the subsequent maul. There is no maxiumum number of players for a maul or lineout (well 15 is the max). Cant remember the instance you refer to.

CiaranMT

I'm referring to the 15 man maul as the Connacht maul, I thought that was its name?

The incident I'm thinking of is when team has a penalty 5/10m out, and the team comes around the ball carrier and forms a maul. What's to prevent that from happening?

Downtime

CiaranMT wrote: »

I'm referring to the 15 man maul as the Connacht maul, I thought that was its name?

The incident I'm thinking of is when team has a penalty 5/10m out, and the team comes around the ball carrier and forms a maul. What's to prevent that from happening?

Law 10.4 (p) Flying Wedge and Cavalry Charge. A team must not use the ‘Flying Wedge’ or the ‘Cavalry Charge’.

Sanction: Penalty kick at the place of the original infringement.

‘Flying Wedge’. The type of attack known as a ‘Flying Wedge’ usually happens near the goal line, when the attacking team is awarded a penalty kick or free kick.

The kicker tap-kicks the ball and starts the attack, either by driving towards the goal line or by passing to a team-mate who drives forward. Immediately, team mates bind on each side of the ball carrier in a wedge formation. Often one or more of these team mates is in front of the ball carrier. A ‘Flying Wedge’ is illegal.

Sanction: Penalty kick at the place of the original infringement.

‘Cavalry Charge’. The type of attack known as as a 'Cavalry Charge' usually happens near the goal line, when the attacking team is awarded a penalty kick or free kick. Either a single player stands some distance behind the kicker, or attacking players form a line across the field some distance behind the kicker.

These attacking players are usually a metre or two apart. At a signal from the kicker, they charge forward. When they get near, the kicker tap-kicks the ball and passes to a player who had started some distance behind the kicker.

Sanction: Penalty kick at the place of infringement

CiaranMT

Cheers! Something I always enjoy about rugby is the terminology.

mrboswell

Downtime wrote: »

Law 10.4 (p) Flying Wedge and Cavalry Charge. A team must not use the ‘Flying Wedge’ or the ‘Cavalry Charge’.


‘Cavalry Charge’. The type of attack known as as a 'Cavalry Charge' usually happens near the goal line, when the attacking team is awarded a penalty kick or free kick. Either a single player stands some distance behind the kicker, or attacking players form a line across the field some distance behind the kicker.

These attacking players are usually a metre or two apart. At a signal from the kicker, they charge forward. When they get near, the kicker tap-kicks the ball and passes to a player who had started some distance behind the kicker.

Sanction: Penalty kick at the place of infringement

Bring it back I say!

phog

Last night in the Munster V Ospreys game, Bowe was running down the sideline, ROG tackled him, Bowe seemed to jump out of the tackle, then stumbled the ball was released and ROG played the ball while on the ground.

Q1. Should it have been a penalty for Munster for Tommy jumping the tackle or can he jump once tackled and try to avoid being held?

Q2. Should ROG not have got back on his feet to drive on the ball to reclaim the ball for Munster?

Shelflife

Phog i dont think bowe jumped into the tackle, i think that ogara bounced off him but held on to foot which caused him to stumble.

my first thoughts when i saw ogara play the ball on the ground was that it was a pen.

wonton

so what's the story with that heaslip block?

It's described on the rte site as legal but hook was hammering on that he deserved a yellow.

Gelio

wonton wrote: »

so what's the story with that heaslip block?

It's described on the rte site as legal but hook was hammering on that he deserved a yellow.

Hook :rolleyes:

It was completely legal. He kept running his line and although he dipped the shoulder a bit that was more to stop himself getting hurt. He knew what he was doing but he was clever about it.