Laws Question? Ask here!

rje66

agreed, now we are dealing with the facts
eg a player wastes time, it happened so sanction accordingly
eg a player infringes , it happened so sanction accordingly
no mind reading necessary

intention is placed in the laws to cover a situations eg a knock on, which can be accidental or an act of foul play,throwing ball into touch etc

For Paws

rje66 wrote: »

agree.

also remember there will be other situations in a game where team mates of ball carrier are in front of him, eg full back returns kick , are you saying his team mates should be treated the same as dummy runners,

That law is there to cover obvious obstruction, if none takes place then play on

Not entirely true.

In the case of Law 11.4(a) players in front of their kicking team-mate must retreat or be considered offside.
In the case of 'dummy runners' players intentionally move to what would otherwise be considered an offside position in order to gain an advantage,
but this is considered ok ??

rje66

can you describe the advantage they get? just because they do it dosent mean they gain an advantage.

Also not every law is applied to the letter.

forpaws , do you play rugby just out of curosity?

Reloc8

The advantage is in acting as a decoy. However the laws require a penalty only if they interfere with play by playing the ball or obstructing an opponent.

For Paws wrote: »

Not entirely true.

In the case of Law 11.4(a) players in front of their kicking team-mate must retreat or be considered offside.
In the case of 'dummy runners' players intentionally move to what would otherwise be considered an offside position in order to gain an advantage,
but this is considered ok ??

Yes.

Law 11.1 Offside in general play states

(a) a player who is in an offside position is liable to sanction only if the player does one of these things :-

- interferes with play, or
- moves forward towards the ball, or
fails to comply with the ten-metre law (11.4).

Law 11(a)(b) defines what 'interfering with play' means :-

'A player who is offside must not take park in the game. This means the player must not play the ball or obstruct an opponent'

As correctly interpreted, the laws don't consider a decoy to be an obstruction of an opponent. There has to be something in the nature of a block/physical impediment to the opponent by the offside position taken up. The laws don't say that the player interferes with play if he or she or his or her side gains an advantage. The obstruction for the purposes of law 11 has to be more than psychological/visual.

daveharnett

For Paws wrote: »

Not entirely true.

In the case of Law 11.4(a) players in front of their kicking team-mate must retreat or be considered offside.
In the case of 'dummy runners' players intentionally move to what would otherwise be considered an offside position in order to gain an advantage,
but this is considered ok ??

There is a question of timing here. Let's say the outhalf is running diagonally across the pitch. He's got two loose forwards outside him running flat lines for a crash ball. He's also got the centres available in a deeper position.

Right now, since the flat players are behind the ball carrier, so they are onside and free to run their lines. Only when they overrun the outhalf (or the outhalf completes his pass to a deeper player) do they become offside. At that point, they are expected to avoid interfering with play.

It can take great awareness and timing to fix a defender without touching the ball, and it's entirely right that law should support it. On the other hand:

I will agree that a problem has arisen over the last couple of seasons. At HC level, we see teams who regularly deploy a screen of 2/3 loose forwards in front of the backline. They never look for or receive a pass, and the defense never worries about them. Their only purpose is to obstruct, whether actively or simply by their presence. It should be managed out of the game (and in fairness I think this is already happening at international level).

CIARAN_BOYLE

Lets say a player gets binned on the 39th minute. Does he come back on on the 49th minute in the second half?

Even if the ball remains in play till 47th minute in the first half does that time count against the time in a sin bin meaning he would come back on in the 42nd minute in the second half or would he remain in the bin till till the 49th minute, meaning that he would have spend 17 minutes in the bin rather than 10.

MyKeyG

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

Lets say a player gets binned on the 39th minute. Does he come back on on the 49th minute in the second half?

Even if the ball remains in play till 47th minute in the first half does that time count against the time in a sin bin meaning he would come back on in the 42nd minute in the second half or would he remain in the bin till till the 49th minute, meaning that he would have spend 17 minutes in the bin rather than 10.

I presume you're talking about the o'driscoll incident. I was under the impression that the sin bin operated with the match clock regardless of whether it goes overtime. It would seem that's not the case

Downtime

MyKeyG wrote: »

I presume you're talking about the o'driscoll incident. I was under the impression that the sin bin operated with the match clock regardless of whether it goes overtime. It would seem that's not the case

Sin bin is playing time. If player is binned after 35 minutes and there are 6 minutes injury time in the first half then they return a minute before half time.

Losty Dublin

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

Lets say a player gets binned on the 39th minute. Does he come back on on the 49th minute in the second half?

Even if the ball remains in play till 47th minute in the first half does that time count against the time in a sin bin meaning he would come back on in the 42nd minute in the second half or would he remain in the bin till till the 49th minute, meaning that he would have spend 17 minutes in the bin rather than 10.

Sin bin time is measured against playing time. Once you see out the 10 minutes time played out after the yellow card (7 at youths) then you may return at the next break of play at the referee's behest.

MyKeyG

Sin bin time is measured against playing time. Once you see out the 10 minutes time played out after the yellow card (7 at youths) then you may return at the next break of play at the referee's behest.

Ok the only reason I thought otherwise is because when o'driscoll was sin binned in injury time the rte commentator said he'd be off the field for the rest of the first half and ten minutes of the second.

CatFromHue

In the Ulster Cardiff game on Friday night Ulster where penalised in the scrum when Afoa dropped to his knees. As far as I know he got back up again pretty quick. Some of the commentators were saying this might not have been a penalty offence. Does anyone know for sure?

phog

CatFromHue wrote: »

In the Ulster Cardiff game on Friday night Ulster where penalised in the scrum when Afoa dropped to his knees. As far as I know he got back up again pretty quick. Some of the commentators were saying this might not have been a penalty offence. Does anyone know for sure?

It depends on how the ref sees it, did he slip or did he intentionally drop to relieve pressure.

There was a case recently against Munster (can't remember the exact details) where the ref penalised Munster but still said that the player had slipped, figure that out.

Losty Dublin

MyKeyG wrote: »

Ok the only reason I thought otherwise is because when o'driscoll was sin binned in injury time the rte commentator said he'd be off the field for the rest of the first half and ten minutes of the second.

I can't speak for what the commentator said but a player sent off temporarily by way of a yellow card misses 10 minutes of play; certainly it isn't the first time that a TV commentator has gotten the laws of the game wrong

rje66

It depends on how the ref sees it, did he slip or did he intentionally drop to relieve pressure.

There was a case recently against Munster (can't remember the exact details) where the ref penalised Munster but still said that the player had slipped, figure that out.

A player throws a forward pass, its not intentional, but still a forward pass, scrum to opp.
Prop slips , not intentionally, but he has still collapsed the scrum.
But I know where you are coming from in that some refs will allow a reset some will penalise. I suppose they will look at the bigger picture and will decide was it a bit of gamesmanship or not.

castie

Question on something (admittedly a little silly) I did at the weekend.

Opposition centre kicked ahead.
I found myself over towards the wing (Im a prop)
Their winger(11) got screamed at by ref to stop as he was ahead of the kicker.
He kept going.

I turned to face my posts and as he went past me I hit him with a shoulder.
He barreled to the floor and to be honest I was expecting at least a penalty against me.

Ref says he was offside and told retreat, therefore he shouldnt of been in the position and hence was interferring with me anyway.

Awards us the penalty.

The other team and me as well were rather shocked.

Opinions?

Losty Dublin

castie wrote: »

Question on something (admittedly a little silly) I did at the weekend.

Opposition centre kicked ahead.
I found myself over towards the wing (Im a prop)
Their winger(11) got screamed at by ref to stop as he was ahead of the kicker.
He kept going.

I turned to face my posts and as he went past me I hit him with a shoulder.
He barreled to the floor and to be honest I was expecting at least a penalty against me.

Ref says he was offside and told retreat, therefore he shouldnt of been in the position and hence was interferring with me anyway.

Awards us the penalty.

The other team and me as well were rather shocked.

Opinions?

That's one way of looking at it by the referee

By the sounds of it, he clobbered into you as opposed to you clobbering him so a far call all told. Next time use less elbow

Shelflife

Good call by the ref.

But wtf were you doing on the wing???

ffs go in and inspect some rucks !

props on the defensive wing will only end in tears.

castie

Losty Dublin wrote: »

That's one way of looking at it by the referee

By the sounds of it, he clobbered into you as opposed to you clobbering him so a far call all told. Next time use less elbow

Well to be fair there was a wide veer towards him and alot of aim from me.

He learned a lesson, if your going to round a prop give a wide berth!

Reloc8

castie wrote: »

Opinions?

The first offence was him not complying with the requirement to retreat so he's liable to penalty for that - the ref was obviously happy that it was material.

Whether he should have reversed that penalty for your shoulder comes down to how he viewed what you did.

In fairness if it amounted to foul play, he should have reversed and penalised you.

If it was not foul play (but I infer from your description that you eh wouldn't sue for slander if someone said you nailed him off the ball) then no need to reverse the penalty.

castie

Shelflife wrote: »

Good call by the ref.

But wtf were you doing on the wing???

ffs go in and inspect some rucks !

props on the defensive wing will only end in tears.

They flung it from right to left had a ruck on opposite side of pitch and then went to fling it back. 1/4 of the way across I realised it was coming back and fancied me some 11 stone winger for dinner.

phog

rje66 wrote: »

A player throws a forward pass, its not intentional, but still a forward pass, scrum to opp.
Prop slips , not intentionally, but he has still collapsed the scrum.
But I know where you are coming from in that some refs will allow a reset some will penalise. I suppose they will look at the bigger picture and will decide was it a bit of gamesmanship or not.

Trying to compare a forward pass to slipping in a scrum is a very simplistic view on applying the laws. All forward passses seen by the officials are penalised but not all scrum collapses are.

If the ref thinks a player has intentioanlly slipped to pull down the scrum he should penalise it and indicate it when awarding the penalty. On the other hand if he just says that Player A slipped then I think he has to give the benefit of the doubt and reset the scrum.

rje66

perhaps not the best example, but the point i was trying to get across was that things happen that are accidental but still need to be sanctioned.
in your description different scenarios could have happened
- munster going backwards in scrum, prop 'slips' results in collapsed scrum.penalty
-front rows engage on call, then prop slips. penalty -prob a bit harsh,reset
-prop 'slips ' on the 4th reset after warnings. penalty
- it was very wet and the first scrum prop slips. penalty- prob a bit harsh,reset
-etc

got any more details?

rje66

castie wrote: »

Question on something (admittedly a little silly) I did at the weekend.

Opposition centre kicked ahead.
I found myself over towards the wing (Im a prop)
Their winger(11) got screamed at by ref to stop as he was ahead of the kicker.
He kept going.

I turned to face my posts and as he went past me I hit him with a shoulder.
He barreled to the floor and to be honest I was expecting at least a penalty against me.

Ref says he was offside and told retreat, therefore he shouldnt of been in the position and hence was interferring with me anyway.

Awards us the penalty.

The other team and me as well were rather shocked.

Opinions?

foul play trumps offside. penalty against you,ref making a rod for himself by not

daveharnett

castie wrote: »

Question on something (admittedly a little silly) I did at the weekend.

Opposition centre kicked ahead.
I found myself over towards the wing (Im a prop)
Their winger(11) got screamed at by ref to stop as he was ahead of the kicker.
He kept going.

I turned to face my posts and as he went past me I hit him with a shoulder.
He barreled to the floor and to be honest I was expecting at least a penalty against me.

Ref says he was offside and told retreat, therefore he shouldnt of been in the position and hence was interferring with me anyway.

Awards us the penalty.

The other team and me as well were rather shocked.

Opinions?

rje66 wrote: »

foul play trumps offside. penalty against you,ref making a rod for himself by not

Castie, you weren't chasing back for the ball when you shouldered him, were you? If so, then you could have been 100% legal - opponents in a footrace for a loose ball are allowed to shoulder.

If not, then I'm with rje66. While 'play on' might be the more equitable call (depending on the nature of Castie's challenge), it's not the best precedent to set in players' minds.

castie

daveharnett wrote: »

Castie, you weren't chasing back for the ball when you shouldered him, were you? If so, then you could have been 100% legal - opponents in a footrace for a loose ball are allowed to shoulder.

If not, then I'm with rje66. While 'play on' might be the more equitable call (depending on the nature of Castie's challenge), it's not the best precedent to set in players' minds.

If I was the ref it would of been a penalty against me.

Now I didn run right at him.
I saw him turned my back and drifted to where he was going to pass and shouldered him. He went to deck. (as you do with 18 stone hits you)

But the ball was no where near where I shouldered him.

chris85

castie wrote: »

If I was the ref it would of been a penalty against me.

Now I didn run right at him.
I saw him turned my back and drifted to where he was going to pass and shouldered him. He went to deck. (as you do with 18 stone hits you)

But the ball was no where near where I shouldered him.

I would be of the opinion penalty to your team as the winger had first penalty offence by being ahead of the kicker and warned by the ref on this. Did the ref call a penalty advantage for this?

rje66

lads, regardless of weather the winger was off side or not being taken out off the ball as described is an instant penalty and poss. a YC. By allowing an obvious act of foul play to go unpunished sets a very bad precedent for the players, as players will get the mind set that 'if the ref isnt going to sort it out then we will' which can escalate to uglier scenes later in match.
Poor game management and if he was being assessed, assessor would have the big red pen out :eek::eek:.

what was level of match?

castie

rje66 wrote: »

lads, regardless of weather the winger was off side or not being taken out off the ball as described is an instant penalty and poss. a YC. By allowing an obvious act of foul play to go unpunished sets a very bad precedent for the players, as players will get the mind set that 'if the ref isnt going to sort it out then we will' which can escalate to uglier scenes later in match.
Poor game management and if he was being assessed, assessor would have the big red pen out :eek::eek:.

what was level of match?

Hong Kong Championship A.

Shelflife

Well i suppose if you want to be exact about it, after warning the winger to halt and then he kept going the ref should have blown up instantly.

For those who say he should have played advantage, the only advantage would be to the first aid crew to practice their cpr on the 18st prop who tried to run the length of the pitch and collapsed on the 10metre line clutching his left arm

daveharnett

chris85 wrote: »

I would be of the opinion penalty to your team as the winger had first penalty offence by being ahead of the kicker and warned by the ref on this. Did the ref call a penalty advantage for this?

Normally yes, when both teams infringe then the first offense that takes precedence. Foul play takes priority though - for example, you can't get away with decapitating an opponent just because he's knocked on the ball and you are playing advantage