Laws Question? Ask here!

daveharnett

castie wrote: »

I think the issue is.

Ball is kicked your offside.
If you make an approach for the ball your interfering with the game.


For example if a garryowen goes up.
Kicker chases and second row decides to head to where its going to land.

Kicker over takes second row but second row claims the ball.
Thats a penalty as he didnt retreat.

I would think its the same here.
Player that gathered was off side and instead of retreating to an on side position after the kick before going for the ball he just went straight for the ball which while offside would also of affected the other teams run so in my reading of it hes interfering with play while being offside.

But what about the specific issue where the ball is kicked straight up?
For the offside players, retreating in a straight line also means moving toward where the ball will be landing. While they are retreating, they should avoid the 10M radius circle centered on where the ball will land (until they are put onside)?

daveharnett

TimeToShine wrote: »

What happens if a player kicks the ball over the bar straight out of his hands?

As castie says, going over the bar makes no difference unless it's kicked from the ground.

castie wrote: »

Depends where he kicked it from and if it goes dead I think.

Goes Dead.
Inside the 22 its a 22 drop out to defending team and outside its a scrum back where he kicked it from. (Open to correction on the drop out or if its an option to the defenders)

It's an option - drop out, or scrum from where it was kicked. The drop out option usually arises for grubbers that beat the chasers to the dead ball line.

castie wrote: »

Not Dead.
If defender touches down (or makes it dead by eg. carrying/kicking in to touch-in-goal) 22 drop out. If not game carries on.

MyKeyG

castie wrote: »

I think the issue is.

Ball is kicked your offside.
If you make an approach for the ball your interfering with the game.


For example if a garryowen goes up.
Kicker chases and second row decides to head to where its going to land.

Kicker over takes second row but second row claims the ball.
Thats a penalty as he didnt retreat.

I would think its the same here.
Player that gathered was off side and instead of retreating to an on side position after the kick before going for the ball he just went straight for the ball which while offside would also of affected the other teams run so in my reading of it hes interfering with play while being offside.

That's what I figured. But retreat to where? If the kicker and the ball have advanced well ahead of the player in question. What puts him back onside? Where is the new offside line? I presume you mean he has to be seen retreat behind the imaginary line at the point from which the kicker made the kick and then advance?

castie

MyKeyG wrote: »

That's what I figured. But retreat to where? If the kicker and the ball have advanced well ahead of the player in question. What puts him back onside? Where is the new offside line? I presume you mean he has to be seen retreat behind the imaginary line at the point from which the kicker made the kick and then advance?

You can retreat until put onside. You dont need to return to where it was kicked.

Problem is if its gone behind the kicker hes not going to put you on side.

castie

daveharnett wrote: »

But what about the specific issue where the ball is kicked straight up?
For the offside players, retreating in a straight line also means moving toward where the ball will be landing. While they are retreating, they should avoid the 10M radius circle centered on where the ball will land (until they are put onside)?

Yes I would think its the offside players duty to show he is not interfering with the game. Lots of players do this by standing still with their hands in the air.
If you hare like a mad man to the area where the ball is dropping its my opinion your active while being off side.

MyKeyG

castie wrote: »

Problem is if its gone behind the kicker hes not going to put you on side.

So what does? I presume the kicker has to retreat behind the ball? Like I said it's an unusual situation he kicked it almost vertical yet ran a good ten metres ahead. The kicker in question seemed to have a 'how did I kick it behind me' look on his face.

castie

MyKeyG wrote: »

So what does? I presume the kicker has to retreat behind the ball? Like I said it's an unusual situation he kicked it almost vertical yet ran a good ten metres ahead. The kicker in question seemed to have a 'how did I kick it behind me' look on his face.

Kicker remains onside.
The ball doesnt do anything really here.
Anyone behind the kicker when its kicked is on side still.

My thinking would be he has to retreat to the point of where the ball was kicked or the kicker whichever is the closest to the opposition line.

daveharnett

MyKeyG wrote: »

That's what I figured. But retreat to where? If the kicker and the ball have advanced well ahead of the player in question. What puts him back onside? Where is the new offside line? I presume you mean he has to be seen retreat behind the imaginary line at the point from which the kicker made the kick and then advance?

When a player is ahead of his teammate who has just kicked the ball, there are a number of ways for him to become onside:

1. When the kicker (or another teammate who is onside) passes him.
2. When an opponent knocks, kicks or runs (5m) with the ball.

In general, players who are offside at a kick don't have to retreat - standing still and waiting to be put onside will do, unless they are within 10m of where the ball is landing.

MyKeyG wrote: »

So what does? I presume the kicker has to retreat behind the ball?

In open play, only the team in possession has an offside line - the ball/ball carrier. So when the ball goes loose and nobody is in possession, provided you were onside at the moment the ball went loose, you can go wherever you like.


I think the Hurley incident is confusing things unnecessarily. I'm pretty sure that the penalty which followed it had nothing to do with the kick, and related to an offside from a knock-on which followed.

MyKeyG

daveharnett wrote: »

unless they are within 10m of where the ball is landing.

Ah of course, that's exactly what happened.

Just to clarify. If I am within the 10m line once the receiver gathers the ball and he runs 5m then he's fair game?

Hypothetical situation. I charge down an opposing player. He gets his kick away before I tackle him. The ball goes straight to hand of one of my players who returns the kick. I'm bone idle lazy and was merely jogging back when they cleared it. Now the ball has been swiftly returned and their full back runs to gather. Two questions

1. Once I'm beyond the 10m imaginary line from where the ball is gathered I'm onside even though I'm well ahead of my kicker?
2. I can stay where I am but once I do nothing until he runs 5m I'm onside even though I'm well ahead of my kicker?

daveharnett

MyKeyG wrote: »

Ah of course, that's exactly what happened.

Just to clarify. If I am within the 10m line once the receiver gathers the ball and he runs 5m then he's fair game?

In theory I think so, but it's never going to happen. If, by the time the opponent has waited for the ball to arrive, caught it and run 5 meters, you're still not 10 meters back, the ref is almost certain to decide you weren't trying hard enough.

MyKeyG wrote: »

Hypothetical situation. I charge down an opposing player. He gets his kick away before I tackle him. The ball goes straight to hand of one of my players who returns the kick. I'm bone idle lazy and was merely jogging back when they cleared it. Now the ball has been swiftly returned and their full back runs to gather. Two questions

1. Once I'm beyond the 10m imaginary line from where the ball is gathered I'm onside even though I'm well ahead of my kicker?
2. I can stay where I am but once I do nothing until he runs 5m I'm onside even though I'm well ahead of my kicker?

1. No. Getting outside the 10M doesn't put you onside, it just means you won't automatically be pinged. The notion here is that offside players can't interfere with play. If you're within 10 meters, your very presence is considered an interference.

2. Yes. This is mostly to cover the scenario where the fullback is tackled as he kicks ahead - there is nobody to put the kicking team's players onside, and they have to be allowed to form a defense at some stage.

Some refs have started to reconsider this, and are now forcing the forwards to run shuttles whenever the backs decide to play ping-pong.

KERSPLAT!

Are there laws or guidelines as to what footwear is/isn't allowed? eg. Blades, stud type, stud size etc

I've worn blades for th last year at J3 and was never pulled up on it but was told by a few lads that I could be. Getting a new pair (proper boots) tomorrow but would like to know all the same, cheers

castie

IPAM wrote: »

Are there laws or guidelines as to what footwear is/isn't allowed? eg. Blades, stud type, stud size etc

I've worn blades for th last year at J3 and was never pulled up on it but was told by a few lads that I could be. Getting a new pair (proper boots) tomorrow but would like to know all the same, cheers

Its just common safety I think.

Ref checks boots so that you dont have any broken studs or that they are sharp. Ive wore blades for years so wouldnt take any notice.

daveharnett

IPAM wrote: »

Are there laws or guidelines as to what footwear is/isn't allowed? eg. Blades, stud type, stud size etc

I've worn blades for th last year at J3 and was never pulled up on it but was told by a few lads that I could be. Getting a new pair (proper boots) tomorrow but would like to know all the same, cheers

Maximum stud/blade length is 21mm, which happen to be the longest I've seen in a sports shop.

Regulation 12, which covers everything clothing-related (in all it's exhaustive detail) is here: http://www.irbplayerwelfare.com/pdfs/IRB_Regulation_12_EN.pdf

Cleats/blades aren't a problem. When refs do the inspection, they are looking for:
1. No single stud on the front of the boot (either by design or due to a missing stud).
2. No sharp edges (due to worn studs, breakages etc).


Since neither of these are likely with cleats/blades, they tend not to get a second glance.

Reloc8

daveharnett wrote: »

2. No sharp edges (due to worn studs, breakages etc).

Is it just me or are there more instances of dangerous studs out there ? Last few weeks I've generally had to get at least one player to change out plastic studs which have worn down to the inner metal and have that horrible 'mushroom' effect - which can be lethally sharp around the edges.

errlloyd

Do hookers have to take line out throws? I know this isn't a discussion thread, but surely longer arms and stuff would be better.

Losty Dublin

errlloyd wrote: »

Do hookers have to take line out throws? I know this isn't a discussion thread, but surely longer arms and stuff would be better.

No, any player can take it. Back in the old days, the blindside winger generally took it but as the game evolved it makes sense for a forward to do it sothe hooker got the gig, they generally being the smallest guy in the pack and less likely to be a jumper.

errlloyd

Thats interesting. Take a team with a jumping flanker and three lifting pods for some lineouts, would a beefy hooker not be a good lifter?

I imagine someone like SOB being an effective thrower then wrap around (like wood used to do in the days). Do you think teams test other players throwing ability, or just try to teach a hooker to throw? Are hookers basically the same as props just with throwing talent, is that what makes a hooker. I am so interest in this.

daniels.ducks

errlloyd wrote: »

Thats interesting. Take a team with a jumping flanker and three lifting pods for some lineouts, would a beefy hooker not be a good lifter?

I imagine someone like SOB being an effective thrower then wrap around (like wood used to do in the days). Do you think teams test other players throwing ability, or just try to teach a hooker to throw? Are hookers basically the same as props just with throwing talent, is that what makes a hooker. I am so interest in this.

Teams rarely do, the job is just given to the hooker. It's a skill that has to be developed. When a player is playing hooker from a young age and sees hookers on tv throwing the ball most of the time they try it themselves and so get better at it than other players. We had our 8 throwing the ball last year. Nothing changed as regards the line-out. Just the hooker was a better lifter than the 8.

Hookers differ greatly from props as does the job of the tight-head and loose-head. These are all specialist positions that youngsters gain experience from playing in these positions. Try and think of any players that move around the front row during the season? I can't anyway.

Maybe someone can explain the exact function of the hooker. I can't because all I ever played was second row.

errlloyd

daniels.ducks wrote: »

Teams rarely do, the job is just given to the hooker. It's a skill that has to be developed. When a player is playing hooker from a young age and sees hookers on tv throwing the ball most of the time they try it themselves and so get better at it than other players. We had our 8 throwing the ball last year. Nothing changed as regards the line-out. Just the hooker was a better lifter than the 8.

Hookers differ greatly from props as does the job of the tight-head and loose-head. These are all specialist positions that youngsters gain experience from playing in these positions. Try and think of any players that move around the front row during the season? I can't anyway.

Maybe someone can explain the exact function of the hooker. I can't because all I ever played was second row.

John Smit played both hooker and tighthead relatively frequently for South Africa I think.

I just think there were lots of hooker who were great scrummagers and great in the loose but couldn't throw for ****. Like presumably Kelly Brown has never really thrown into lineouts before this weekend, and he hit 2 out of 3 iirc.

The same thing came to mind recently with why do 10s kick? I get they have to be able to kick out of hand, but kickers are delicate people. Why not give the duties to someone playing a position that hasn't got them in the middle of the park? Sorry this is getting off topic. If a mod asks I may start a thread.

Samich

errlloyd wrote: »

John Smit played both hooker and tighthead relatively frequently for South Africa I think.

I just think there were lots of hooker who were great scrummagers and great in the loose but couldn't throw for ****. Like presumably Kelly Brown has never really thrown into lineouts before this weekend, and he hit 2 out of 3 iirc.

The same thing came to mind recently with why do 10s kick? I get they have to be able to kick out of hand, but kickers are delicate people. Why not give the duties to someone playing a position that hasn't got them in the middle of the park? Sorry this is getting off topic. If a mod asks I may start a thread.

Hookers job is to hook the ball in the scrum, and most hookers also throw in the line out.

The 10 is usually someone who can kick well out of hand and the likely hood of them being able to place kick well is strong. Our 12 takes alot of our kicks, because he has a big kick.

4PP

errlloyd wrote: »

Do hookers have to take line out throws? I know this isn't a discussion thread, but surely longer arms and stuff would be better.

Not too long ago in France and even in more recent days in the ProD2 the sh would throw. Idea being he would then rapidily advance/wrap 'round & take the ball from the "jumper". This left all the "gros" in position for a driving maul if need be or at worst ready in defense.

errlloyd

4PP wrote: »

Not too long ago in France and even in more recent days in the ProD2 the sh would throw. Idea being he would then rapidily advance/wrap 'round & take the ball from the "jumper". This left all the "gros" in position for a driving maul if need be or at worst ready in defense.

I like it. Do you think it works?

4PP

Even if I think so I have to bow to superior knowledge. ie top team coaches a la Noves or Schmidt.

Whatever my opinion I think if it had some relevance in the modern game I'm fairly sure the above two amongst others would have worked it out

c'est la vie

errlloyd

4PP wrote: »

Even if I think so I have to bow to superior knowledge. ie top team coaches a la Noves or Schmidt.

Whatever my opinion I think if it had some relevance in the modern game I'm fairly sure the above two amongst others would have worked it out

c'est la vie

How many years did it take for American football coaches to realise they should just throw the ball forward?

Losty Dublin

errlloyd wrote: »

Thats interesting. Take a team with a jumping flanker and three lifting pods for some lineouts, would a beefy hooker not be a good lifter?

I imagine someone like SOB being an effective thrower then wrap around (like wood used to do in the days). Do you think teams test other players throwing ability, or just try to teach a hooker to throw? Are hookers basically the same as props just with throwing talent, is that what makes a hooker. I am so interest in this.

Back until the late 80's, the line outs had no lifting as we know it today so all out accuracy wasn't essential as it is now so long as it was straight. The throw isn't too hard to learn so it's pretty much taught to those guys built to play in the front row. Every so often a Terry Kingson shows up who has perfect throwing but it's not enough to carry a player into his game.

4PP

Saw Swarfega of Paris about 6 years ago going through his paces on the throw.
Paris had a machine that he had to aim for & I'm sure all the teams have them now but at the time it was a big deal.

Imagine a hollow lollipop that would 'lep up at the last second. Similar diameter to Paulie's hands & he had to whistle the ball through there time after time.

Hookers may get a lot of knocks to the head but they must have a bit to spare to coordinate a linout throw.

irishbucsfan

The art of hooking in the scrum is completely irrelevant now so specialising a hooker as a thrower is just a good use of resources and time.

Likewise having to pull a scrum half away from practising his main job with the backs in order to work with the forwards is not a good use of resources and is detrimental to the team as a whole.

Reloc8

errlloyd wrote: »

I imagine someone like SOB being an effective thrower then wrap around (like wood used to do in the days).

He doesn't need to be in the throwing position to do that - he could come from anywhere towards the front of the lineout.

daveharnett

irishbucsfan wrote: »

The art of hooking in the scrum is completely irrelevant now so specialising a hooker as a thrower is just a good use of resources and time.

I think there's an argument to be made that the hooker is not an ideal shape for the throw-in. Wouldn't a throw from a taller player be harder for a jumper in front of the intended receiver to intercept?

TimeToShine

One more, what determines who gets the lineout when the ball is kicked out? Sometimes when a player kicks the ball out from a free kick his team will get the ball, and other times it'll be the other teams lineout. Same goes for kicking out from free play. Also, does the ball bouncing inside before going out make a difference?