Laws Question? Ask here!

Samich

Sorry, meant to say no yellow cards in u-16s :P

Also in u-13 and u-14 there's red cards but says replace if necessary, not sure if this just means make a change.

castie

Losty Dublin wrote: »

A few seasons ago in the day of no red cards at SCT cup, there was referee (who shalt remain nameless) who heard a player racially abuse an opposition player during a high profile schools game. He blew up, stopped the watch and called over the coach and captain to tell them that the game would not continue until the guilty party was substituted.

From the details it seems they were all at it though.

Shelflife

In the leinster mont game patterson twice told the mont scrum half to use the ball at the base of the scrum, mont were clearly on top in the scrum and wanted at least a reset or a pen (leinster standing up).

Why does he have to use the ball? its punishing a dominant scrum.

Losty Dublin

Shelflife wrote: »

In the leinster mont game patterson twice told the mont scrum half to use the ball at the base of the scrum, mont were clearly on top in the scrum and wanted at least a reset or a pen (leinster standing up).

Why does he have to use the ball? its punishing a dominant scrum.

If the ball doesn't emerge from the scrum when it stops moving, it's a reform. I guess he was of the opinion that it wasn't going to move forward any more.

Shelflife

Losty Dublin wrote: »

If the ball doesn't emerge from the scrum when it stops moving, it's a reform. I guess he was of the opinion that it wasn't going to move forward any more.

then reform the scrum, by telling them to move it he was putting them at a disadvantage surely ?

MyKeyG

Shelflife wrote: »

then reform the scrum, by telling them to move it he was putting them at a disadvantage surely ?

If Leinster weren't infringing I don't see how Montpellier deserved an advantage. Though they were pushing did the scrum stop making ground at any stage?

Shelflife

Leinster had stood up in the scrum (pen?) as a result the scrum had stopped moving forward and the ref then insisted that they play the ball.

Mont had a clearly dominant scrum (browne in the bin) and they were forced to play the ball away from their dominant area.

Its either a reset or a pen, but i dont think he can insist that they play the ball.

crisco10

Question inspired by Hines' penalty for holding Ferris yesterday.

The call was made by the touch judge and not spotted by the ref for awhile. What if, the referee didn't realise the touch judge was calling for an infringement and in the mean time awarded Clermont a try?

Can the referee "unaward" the try, if on consulting his touch judge, it is apparent Clermont infringed? and then go on to award Ulster the penalty or whatever?

I kind of think that even if the ref CAN do it, he would very rarely do it. But would be nice to know the law on it.

Losty Dublin

Shelflife wrote: »

then reform the scrum, by telling them to move it he was putting them at a disadvantage surely ?

Not really, he is just telling them to play it before he resets so if anything it's an advantage of sorts. I'd call it a smart call myself. Don't forget, a scrum is just a way to restart a game; any time spent on reforming and retting a scrum is playing time wasted for both teams.

Losty Dublin

crisco10 wrote: »

Question inspired by Hines' penalty for holding Ferris yesterday.

The call was made by the touch judge and not spotted by the ref for awhile. What if, the referee didn't realise the touch judge was calling for an infringement and in the mean time awarded Clermont a try?

Can the referee "unaward" the try, if on consulting his touch judge, it is apparent Clermont infringed? and then go on to award Ulster the penalty or whatever?

I kind of think that even if the ref CAN do it, he would very rarely do it. But would be nice to know the law on it.

An assistant referee will hold out his flag until such time as a referee sees it. Before a try is awarded, a referee usually glances at both assistants to ensure that a flag isn't up for any reason before awarding a try. If there is cause to bring up foul play then it's done here before proceeding And yes, it does and has happened in the past but it is rare.

Shelflife

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Not really, he is just telling them to play it before he resets so if anything it's an advantage of sorts. I'd call it a smart call myself. Don't forget, a scrum is just a way to restart a game; any time spent on reforming and retting a scrum is playing time wasted for both teams.

I dont know losty, to me a ref shouting to use it implies that you will lose it if you dont play it. if its just a reset the ref has no right to dictate that the ball must be played to the backs when the team has a clear advantage in the forwards.

to me its not a smart call, its a cop out by the ref, its either a reset or a pen for standing up, its not up to the ref to dictate tactics.

Losty Dublin

Shelflife wrote: »

I dont know losty, to me a ref shouting to use it implies that you will lose it if you dont play it. if its just a reset the ref has no right to dictate that the ball must be played to the backs when the team has a clear advantage in the forwards.

to me its not a smart call, its a cop out by the ref, its either a reset or a pen for standing up, its not up to the ref to dictate tactics.

The ref isn't dictating how you play it; he is just telling you to use it before a reset results. The laws request that a ball at the base is played ASAP, I'd consider it good management to talk players out of a stop start game. If it's a penalty then it will be called. Well, it ought to be, at least

CIARAN_BOYLE

Maybe the ref should have called out (scrum) advantage then use it and if the ball didn't come out gone back for the (reset) penaly

Losty Dublin

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

Maybe the ref should have called out (scrum) advantage then use it and if the ball didn't come out gone back for the (reset) penaly

No reason to call an advantage as there is no infringement here, Ciaran.

Shelflife

Losty im not aware of any rule that requires the ball to be played asap, if that was the case there would never be a push over try.

My point is by shouting USE IT when there is no obligation to do so is wrong.

Losty Dublin

Shelflife wrote: »

Losty im not aware of any rule that requires the ball to be played asap, if that was the case there would never be a push over try.

My point is by shouting USE IT when there is no obligation to do so is wrong.

The rule is there; it's 20.4.

Shelflife

Thank you losty but under the same rule

(g) If a scrum collapses or lifts up into the air without sanction a further scrum will be ordered and the team who originally threw in the ball will throw the ball in again.
If a scrum has to be reformed for any other reason not covered in this Law the team who originally threw in the ball will throw the ball in again

so in the instance that i spoke of the front rows had stood up without sanction so its a reset, calling on them to use it is still wrong.:)

It was in monts interests to have a reset , the ref telling them to do otherwise is not within his remit.

Losty Dublin

Shelflife wrote: »

Thank you losty but under the same rule

(g) If a scrum collapses or lifts up into the air without sanction a further scrum will be ordered and the team who originally threw in the ball will throw the ball in again.
If a scrum has to be reformed for any other reason not covered in this Law the team who originally threw in the ball will throw the ball in again

so in the instance that i spoke of the front rows had stood up without sanction so its a reset, calling on them to use it is still wrong.:)

It was in monts interests to have a reset , the ref telling them to do otherwise is not within his remit.

To be honest, I'd trust Neil Patterson's call on this one more than mine or yours If he didn't see cause to sanction either team or to call a reset then no penalty can be called and no team can gain an advantage from same.

Getting away from the specific incident, there is a big problem in the game today with scrums popping up and forming badly and it's something that the IRB need to address soon.

Shelflife

Fair enough losty , its a bit of a bugbear of mine.

Problem in the scrums is that the refs havent a clue whats going on, need a few more props going in to the refs ranks.

Losty Dublin

Shelflife wrote: »

Fair enough losty , its a bit of a bugbear of mine.

Problem in the scrums is that the refs havent a clue whats going on, need a few more props going in to the refs ranks.

Agreed.

90% of refs never played in the pack so they have no idea about scrumming.

The other 10% did and turn a blind eye to all the dirtbag tricks going on

FrPhelimYoung

We have a play off scrum time going right to left where we run our 12 short and direct off a pass from the base from 9. The 12, running hard, will hit the No. 8 coming off the scrum with a pivot pass.

To maximise effect the 12 does encroach inside our "5 metre offside area" off the scrum. Is this in effect an offside issue for attack off the scrum and therefore a penalty for the defensive team??? We've tried it a few times with no issue from refs but I'd like some opinions from the knowledge on here.

Losty Dublin

FrPhelimYoung wrote: »

We have a play off scrum time going right to left where we run our 12 short and direct off a pass from the base from 9. The 12, running hard, will hit the No. 8 coming off the scrum with a pivot pass.

To maximise effect the 12 does encroach inside our "5 metre offside area" off the scrum. Is this in effect an offside issue for attack off the scrum and therefore a penalty for the defensive team??? We've tried it a few times with no issue from refs but I'd like some opinions from the knowledge on here.

If a player is not 5 metres back from the offside line at scrum time then they are in an offside position and liable to be called. Nobody may encroach beyond the 5 until the scrum is over.

Reloc8

Bit like the attacking team off a lineout coming within 10 metres - almost never called and would probably have to be very blatant.

Chuck Stone

When we played Wales the last time I think we were beat by the quick anticipatory rush up by the Welsh team when our scrum half was clearing out from behind the scrum.

With the above in mind is the scrum half allowed to dummy throw then actually throw in an attempt to deliberately catch the other team offside and stop encroachment?

I understand that the Welsh probably won't employ this tactic again but was just wondering.

kensutz

Scrum half isn't allowed dummy a play from a ruck if that's what you're asking. Result is a free kick to the opposition.

castie

kensutz wrote: »

Scrum half isn't allowed dummy a play from a ruck if that's what you're asking. Result is a free kick to the opposition.

This isnt a ruck thought its a scrum.

Chuck Stone

castie wrote: »

This isnt a ruck thought its a scrum.

I meant ruck but is it the same for a scrum is another question (although if a scrum is making ground there's little reason to dummy the ball out to the backs).

kensutz

castie wrote: »

This isnt a ruck thought its a scrum.

Yeah sorry, didn't read it properly but same applies for scrum. He can't dummy a pass attempt from the base of a scrum.

castie

kensutz wrote: »

Yeah sorry, didn't read it properly but same applies for scrum. He can't dummy a pass attempt from the base of a scrum.

Not saying your wrong but is there a law for this?
Or does the same law as rucks apply?

Cant find the exact law at the moment.

kensutz

Yes there is a law.

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

I remember one of my first games I reffed, someone tried it and I pinged them for it. The scrum half was baffled and I told him he tried to get the opposition in an offside position from dummying a play and free kick was going against him.