Laws Question? Ask here!

mikeunt

Shelflife wrote: »

We had it clarified at a recent meeting.

where a player is tackled and brought to ground then he is deemed to be tackled and must release the ball.

even if it appears that the tackler has never held him on the ground but has brought him to ground then he is deemed to be held and must release the ball.

a foot tap does not constitute being held and the player may get up and play on.

Re. the bit in bold. That is fine in open play if an opponent is trying to rob the ball, but I have yet to see a player who is tackled short of the line, brought to ground, not held, gets on his feet again and scores a try being penalised.

JustinDee

Shelflife wrote: »

We had it clarified at a recent meeting.

where a player is tackled and brought to ground then he is deemed to be tackled and must release the ball.

even if it appears that the tackler has never held him on the ground but has brought him to ground then he is deemed to be held and must release the ball.

a foot tap does not constitute being held and the player may get up and play on.

Can I ask which meeting this was? Who gave it?
If you're not held, you're not held and can play ball.

daveharnett

JustinDee wrote: »

Can I ask which meeting this was? Who gave it?
If you're not held, you're not held and can play ball.

Tackle = Held, brought to ground. Not brought to ground, held.

The ball carrier is 'brought to ground' the instant any part of his body other than his feet touch the ground. If at that instant he is being held by an opponent, he is tackled.

Given that we are insisting that the tackler then releases immediately, I think we must give him the benefit of any doubt. The ref calling 'That's a tackle' whenever players might be in doubt can help prevent unnecessary penalties.

castie

Okay going to start by saying not very proud of this but a red mist fell over me and I can not stand an opposition player who goads an injured player as he leaves the field.

So was protecting close into a ruck today but was not joined on.
One of the opposition hits the ruck and stops. He then starts to drive again but away from the ruck itself and drives his head into my nose right beside the ref.

Nose started squirting blood so I went off for a blood sub.
Before I could leave the field he ran up to me and said "Have some of that".
So I have no doubt it was intentional.

Asked the ref on returning his thoughts on the head charge.
He replied with "thats perfectly fine".

Now there I think he is wrong. Surely its dangerous play at least?

So at this point im fuming.
Next ruck see the same guy guarding their ball.
Steam in head first catch him on the chin with top of my head and down he goes.

Taken off pitch and to hospital I heard.

Ref had a word with me to be a bit more careful and I reminded him of our previous conversation and he let it at that.

In my opinion here both deserved yellows. (Possibly red for mine but I dont think you can take into account an injury done really its the same offense)

Thoughts?

daveharnett

castie wrote: »

Okay going to start by saying not very proud of this but a red mist fell over me and I can not stand an opposition player who goads an injured player as he leaves the field.

So was protecting close into a ruck today but was not joined on.
One of the opposition hits the ruck and stops. He then starts to drive again but away from the ruck itself and drives his head into my nose right beside the ref.

Nose started squirting blood so I went off for a blood sub.
Before I could leave the field he ran up to me and said "Have some of that".
So I have no doubt it was intentional.

Asked the ref on returning his thoughts on the head charge.
He replied with "thats perfectly fine".

Now there I think he is wrong. Surely its dangerous play at least?

So at this point im fuming.
Next ruck see the same guy guarding their ball.
Steam in head first catch him on the chin with top of my head and down he goes.

Taken off pitch and to hospital I heard.

Ref had a word with me to be a bit more careful and I reminded him of our previous conversation and he let it at that.

In my opinion here both deserved yellows. (Possibly red for mine but I dont think you can take into account an injury done really its the same offense)

Thoughts?

IRB sent a letter at the start of the season advising refs to clamp down on charging into the ruck - if there's no attempt to bind, PK. Pillars standing offside are fair game for a shove in my book, but that doesn't excuse charging.

Leading with the head is dangerous play, and IMO is well worth a YC if it's deliberate or reckless (ie anything other than a freak accident).

As for the bit in bold, I have no patience for that kind of ****e either. That's at least a PK if I hear it, and pats on the head for players who give away penalties = penalty reversed.

daveharnett

An incident in the Munster match tonight struck me as a little odd. Murphy marked a ball (mark was awarded), then stepped forward, leaving his 22 and kicked the free directly into touch. The lineout was taken opposite the kick a meter outside the 22.

While I can appreciate that it's his own fault for stealing ground, since the free kick was evidently not taken from the mark, shouldn't it be re-taken?

FrPhelimYoung

Penalty kick at posts. Ball goes over the post. Is that 3 points???

Or is it ball over crossbar and BETWEEN posts???

daveharnett

FrPhelimYoung wrote: »

Penalty kick at posts. Ball goes over the post. Is that 3 points???

Or is it ball over crossbar and BETWEEN posts???

High winds or crooked posts? I'm not sure that it's explicitly covered by law, but my understanding that it has to be between the posts.

What happens when the ball goes above crooked posts is up for debate though - would be a good idea to ask the ref how he'd handle it before kickoff.

FrPhelimYoung

Not really concerned with high winds or crooked posts scenarios.

Simply is it strictly between the posts or if a ball goes over the top of the post as adjudicated by a touch judge are the 3 points awarded. My opinion would be the former. Any refs out there who can clear this up or does anyone know if this is dealt with in the laws of the game???

daveharnett

FrPhelimYoung wrote: »

Not really concerned with high winds or crooked posts scenarios.

Simply is it strictly between the posts or if a ball goes over the top of the post as adjudicated by a touch judge are the 3 points awarded. My opinion would be the former. Any refs out there who can clear this up or does anyone know if this is dealt with in the laws of the game???

Sure. Imagine that the posts stretch all the way up to space. If the ball would have gone between them, goal awarded. If it would have hit one of the posts (ie it goes above the top of a post), no goal.

FrPhelimYoung

daveharnett wrote: »

Sure. Imagine that the posts stretch all the way up to space. If the ball would have gone between them, goal awarded. If it would have hit one of the posts (ie it goes above the top of a post), no goal.

True!!! If only it were that simple. Some other lad might say it could have hit off the all the way to space posts and deflected in over!!! ;~)

A recent example is here on RugbyDump.
http://www.rugbydump.com/2011/11/2236/ryan-lamb-calls-for-tmo-after-high-flying-penalty


I assume this has been interpreted somewhere. It doesn't seem to be clear in the laws.

JustinDee

daveharnett wrote: »

The ball carrier is 'brought to ground' the instant any part of his body other than his feet touch the ground. If at that instant he is being held by an opponent, he is tackled

Thats what I said. 'Held' is 'held'.
If tackler has no grip on any part of the tackled player when they go to ground, they can play the ball and should not be penalised.

durkadurka

Here's one.

As far as I know the scrum half isn't allowed to fake or dummy pulling the ball out of the ruck.

It looked like the Northampton scrum half was kind of at it on Saturday. He has a good look around then bends down really swiftly as if he was about to fling it out.
There's one example at around 31.01 .

Is that legal?

Tigerandahalf

It was legal one time but not anymore. Gone since the early pro days I think.
Question for ye...something that kind of puzzles me...
I've often seen in a game, e.g. ball goes up in air after bouncing on ground, players compete, player taps it back to his team but low and behold a fellow from the opposition is standing in an apparent offside position, yet is able to take the ball. How is this allowed?

castie

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

It was legal one time but not anymore. Gone since the early pro days I think.
Question for ye...something that kind of puzzles me...
I've often seen in a game, e.g. ball goes up in air after bouncing on ground, players compete, player taps it back to his team but low and behold a fellow from the opposition is standing in an apparent offside position, yet is able to take the ball. How is this allowed?

There is no offside in open play once you begin from an onside position or are put onside in certain conditions like the chaser of a kick.

daveharnett

durkadurka wrote: »

Here's one.

As far as I know the scrum half isn't allowed to fake or dummy pulling the ball out of the ruck.

It looked like the Northampton scrum half was kind of at it on Saturday. He has a good look around then bends down really swiftly as if he was about to fling it out.
There's one example at around 31.01 .

Is that legal?

To my mind, no.

16.4 (f) A player must not take any action to make the opposing team think that the ball is out of the ruck while it is still in the ruck.
Sanction: Free Kick

A scrum half might try to quibble that he is just giving the impression that the ball is about to come out.

This is one that can be managed without the whistle most of the time imo. If nobody is unduly disadvantaged the first time it happens, let it go and make sure it doesn't happen again.

durkadurka

Thanks, did you get to see the clip to see what I was on about?

Shelflife

Durka, i know the movement that you are on about, he doesnt make any passing movement or running movement so he is prob allright, he is flying close to the wind however and it could backfire big time on him.

ref should have a little word with him

rje66

just catching up on a few posts back.

Pillars standing offside are fair game for a shove in my book

:eek::eek: no no.... allowing this creates flash points in the game, resulting in handbags

If attacking team pillars are in front of back foot and have a material effect on play then quick peep and penalty to opp, offside.

if they dont have a material effect, then play on and manage it at next break in play, ie word with capt. to remind his players where the off side line is.

For minor enough stuff youd generally, 'Ask, Tell, Penalise'

castie

Something I have seen a bit and curious as to how the two situations differ in peoples mind.

Scenario 1

Team A knock on.
While under advantage Team B infringe at the ruck with a penalty the proper outcome.

Ref then comea back for Scrum to B.

Scenario 2

Team A knock on.
While under advantage Team also knock the ball on.
Player from Team A gathers and is taken high around the neck.

Ref gives Team A a penalty for the high tackle.


I have seen both these things happen and I wonder what people think.
To me a penalty is a penalty and Scenario 2 should go back for the scrum also.

Downtime

castie wrote: »

Something I have seen a bit and curious as to how the two situations differ in peoples mind.

Scenario 1

Team A knock on.
While under advantage Team B infringe at the ruck with a penalty the proper outcome.

Ref then comea back for Scrum to B.

Scenario 2

Team A knock on.
While under advantage Team also knock the ball on.
Player from Team A gathers and is taken high around the neck.

Ref gives Team A a penalty for the high tackle.


I have seen both these things happen and I wonder what people think.
To me a penalty is a penalty and Scenario 2 should go back for the scrum also.

If advantage is being played for Team A that would result in a scrum being awarded and a more serious infringement occurs that would result in Team A getting a penalty during advantage then the more serious infringement is penalised.

If advantage is being played for Team A that would result in a scrum or penalty being awarded and Team A infringe in any way then it reverts to the previous restart i.e. the scrum or penalty being awarded.

Reloc8

castie wrote: »

Something I have seen a bit and curious as to how the two situations differ in peoples mind.

Scenario 1

Team A knock on.
While under advantage Team B infringe at the ruck with a penalty the proper outcome.

Ref then comea back for Scrum to B.

That's straightforward - Team B have advantage and to return for their scrum is correct.

castie wrote: »

Scenario 2

Team A knock on.
While under advantage B Team also knock the ball on.
Player from Team A gathers and is taken high around the neck.

Ref gives Team A a penalty for the high tackle.


I have seen both these things happen and I wonder what people think.
To me a penalty is a penalty and Scenario 2 should go back for the scrum also.

I presume you meant to refer to Team B as the second team knocking on, and the team which commit the high tackle.

The high tackle is an act of foul play committed with the ball in play. Law 10.5(a) any player infringing any part of the foul play law must be admonished, or cautioned and temporarily suspended for a period of ten minutes, or sent off.

Law 8 advantage applies to infringement by the same team to allow fresh advantage for the second offence, and whee the advantage is played for the second offence, and not taken, the referee applies the sanction for that second offence (Law 8.5(a)). Law 8.5(a) also states that where either sanction (first or second offence) is for foul play, the referee applies the appropriate sanction for the foul play, returning to the appropriate mark where the foul play occurred.

Law 8.5(b) states that where advantage is being played following an infringement by one team and the other team commits an infringement, the referee applies the sanctions associated with the first infringement.

That means that in the second example the Referee should consider whether the high tackle by Team B warrants a yellow card/sending off. If not he must admonish the offender in accordance with Law 10. If a yellow card/sending off is warranted he shows the offender a the card. In either event Law 8 seems to require him to return to the first knock on by Team A for a scrum to Team B.

This may seem a bit anomalous as the intent of the laws is to prioritise the sanction for foul play as seen in law 8.5(a), where two offences are committed by the same time but there is a consistent reading which I will try to set out.

As a ref I would rule as follows :-

Knock on team A : 'advantage'

Knock on Team B : 'advantage over' and I blow quickly, priority to blow as opposed to making the verbal call. Ball is now dead.

High Tackle by Team B on Team A gathering the ball.

Law 10 (n) covers misconduct when the ball is out of play. It states that the same sanction as generally applies will apply, but the penalty will be at the point where play would have restarted without the foul play. The classi example is the kick through and late tackle. In your example, play would restart with a scrum to Team B at the first knock on.

In your example I would therefore restart play with a penalty to Team A at that location, and this accords with Law 8 and Law 10.

The key point is that when the second knock on happens, there is no longer advantage being played to Team B and the ball is dead (instantaneously with the knock on).

If advantage was over from the first knock on, and Team B then knock on, then it is 'advantage' to team A, followed by high tackle Team B in which case law Law 8.5(a) will apply to rule that the sanction should be for the act of foul play (2 offences committed by the same team during advantage).

castie

Reloc8 wrote: »

That's straightforward - Team B have advantage and to return for their scrum is correct.


I presume you meant to refer to Team B as the second team knocking on, and the team which commit the high tackle.

The high tackle is an act of foul play committed with the ball in play. Law 10.5(a) any player infringing any part of the foul play law must be admonished, or cautioned and temporarily suspended for a period of ten minutes, or sent off.

Law 8 advantage applies to infringement by the same team to allow fresh advantage for the second offence, and whee the advantage is played for the second offence, and not taken, the referee applies the sanction for that second offence (Law 8.5(a)). Law 8.5(a) also states that where either sanction (first or second offence) is for foul play, the referee applies the appropriate sanction for the foul play, returning to the appropriate mark where the foul play occurred.

Law 8.5(b) states that where advantage is being played following an infringement by one team and the other team commits an infringement, the referee applies the sanctions associated with the first infringement.

That means that in the second example the Referee should consider whether the high tackle by Team B warrants a yellow card/sending off. If not he must admonish the offender in accordance with Law 10. If a yellow card/sending off is warranted he shows the offender a the card. In either event Law 8 seems to require him to return to the first knock on by Team A for a scrum to Team B.

This may seem a bit anomalous as the intent of the laws is to prioritise the sanction for foul play as seen in law 8.5(a), where two offences are committed by the same time but there is a consistent reading which I will try to set out.

As a ref I would rule as follows :-

Knock on team A : 'advantage'

Knock on Team B : 'advantage over' and I blow quickly, priority to blow as opposed to making the verbal call. Ball is now dead.

High Tackle by Team B on Team A gathering the ball.

Law 10 (n) covers misconduct when the ball is out of play. It states that the same sanction as generally applies will apply, but the penalty will be at the point where play would have restarted without the foul play. The classi example is the kick through and late tackle. In your example, play would restart with a scrum to Team B at the first knock on.

In your example I would therefore restart play with a penalty to Team A at that location, and this accords with Law 8 and Law 10.

The key point is that when the second knock on happens, there is no longer advantage being played to Team B and the ball is dead (instantaneously with the knock on).

If advantage was over from the first knock on, and Team B then knock on, then it is 'advantage' to team A, followed by high tackle Team B in which case law Law 8.5(a) will apply to rule that the sanction should be for the act of foul play (2 offences committed by the same team during advantage).

Just to clear up Advantage is still with B when a player from B commits a high tackle.
I have only seen this once but was surprised at the penalty to A rather than going back for the scrum to B.

daveharnett

castie wrote: »

Something I have seen a bit and curious as to how the two situations differ in peoples mind.

Scenario 1

Team A knock on.
While under advantage Team B infringe at the ruck with a penalty the proper outcome.

Ref then comea back for Scrum to B.

Scenario 2

Team A knock on.
While under advantage Team also knock the ball on.
Player from Team A gathers and is taken high around the neck.

Ref gives Team A a penalty for the high tackle.


I have seen both these things happen and I wonder what people think.
To me a penalty is a penalty and Scenario 2 should go back for the scrum also.

It's an interesting question. The only real difference is that Scenario 2 involves dangerous play.

Even if the incident didn't require a card, I don't think I'm comfortable with any kind of dangerous play going completely unpunished.

rje66

Team A knock on.
While under advantage Team also knock the ball on.
Player from Team A gathers and is taken high around the neck.

Ref gives Team A a penalty for the high tackle.

dangerous play trumps a scrum

Reloc8

castie wrote: »

Just to clear up Advantage is still with B when a player from B commits a high tackle.
I have only seen this once but was surprised at the penalty to A rather than going back for the scrum to B.

But it can't be - on the knock on from B the ball is dead (we are now going back the scrum to B at initial knock on) when it is regathered by team A and the high tackle occurs.

Losty Dublin

Reloc8 wrote: »

But it can't be - on the knock on from B the ball is dead (we are now going back the scrum to B at initial knock on) when it is regathered by team A and the high tackle occurs.

The ball is only dead when the referee blows his whistle to that effect and makes a call on same

A penalty offence can be committed by a player at any time of the game regardless of the ball being dead or in play. If it is caught by the referee it will override any knock on advantage decision or even other penalty calls under certain circumstances. Examples would be if players players are fighting after a dead ball or something signaled by the assistant referee.

Reloc8

The instant team b knock on the ref will blow - or should do - because team b can no longer have advantage if they knock on. Of course a penalty can be committed at any time. But the ref shouldn't be standing looking at the second knock on to see what will happen next. It's a matter of good game management for him to blow promptly.

If the ball is dead law 10(n) applies.

Losty Dublin

Reloc8 wrote: »

But the ref shouldn't be standing looking at the second knock on to see what will happen next. It's a matter of good game management for him to blow promptly.

If the ball is dead law 10(n) applies.

Not quite but I take your point and agree with it's essence. We won't be playing on for an additional advantage for a knock on and we should blow up for the scrum straight away but we will still, well should, be watching what goes on at that breakdown immediately after a break of play otherwise we may miss some jiggerypokery as McClaren used to call it; we have to referee what you lads are/are not doing all of the time

Reloc8

I'm a gamekeeper not a poacher

It can go beyond academic interest - being that we are 100% in agreement that the high tackle should not go unpunished - it is one of those slightly curious situations where the correct location of the penalty can in fact be important.

e.g if the first knock on by A is middle of the pitch and within range of the posts the second knock on during advantage to B is in the tramlines and the high tackle by B occurs close by. The correct location of the penalty is back in the middle of the pitch.

Or, outside of the advantage law, say Team B fullback catches a kick in play, steps into touch and is late/foul tackled - penalty to Team B is where the lineout to Team would have been - so near where he caught the ball. Say if Team B catches a kick which is 'straight out' so no gain in ground and is late/foul tackled, the ball being dead. Penalty will be back where Team A kicked from, law 10(n) applying.

You could get yourself in a bit of bother post-match with a coach/player that knows the rules if his team loses to a penalty kick given from an incorrect mark, or indeed with a team who should have had a penalty in an easier position to kick, or indeed just the potential to have a penalty kick from a mark deep in the opposition half versus within their own 22.