Laws Question? Ask here!

sydthebeat

errlloyd wrote: »

This might seem incredibly stupid, but what parts of the body are considered on a knock on if the ball hits off them and goes forward.

I was playing tag rugby the other day (which might be different?) and some ref properly called "Off his stomach play on" when the ball came off a players stomach.

I replicated this in another game and the ref called it as a knock on.

There also seems to be a decent chunk of ambiguity when it comes off the leg, is there a difference between below the knee and above the knee?

http://www.irblaws.com/index.php?law=12

A knock-on occurs when a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward, or when a player hits the ball forward with the hand or arm, or when the ball hits the hand or arm and goes forward, and the ball touches the ground or another player before the original player can catch it.‘Forward’ means towards the opposing team’s dead ball line.

This is a slightly ambiguous on because the first part simply refers to a player loosing possession forward, which could indicate any part of teh body. However as a 'kick' is allowed forward, its generally accepted that any knock forward below the hips could be defined as a 'kick' so they are not considered knock-ons.

Sometimes if a ball comes off a players face etc, i have seen a ref let it go, i assume because the ref doesnt consider the player to be 'in possession'??

Losty Dublin

sydthebeat wrote: »

http://www.irblaws.com/index.php?law=12



This is a slightly ambiguous on because the first part simply refers to a player loosing possession forward, which could indicate any part of teh body. However as a 'kick' is allowed forward, its generally accepted that any knock forward below the hips could be defined as a 'kick' so they are not considered knock-ons.

Sometimes if a ball comes off a players face etc, i have seen a ref let it go, i assume because the ref doesnt consider the player to be 'in possession'??

Effectively you need to have played or made an effort to play the ball to result in it being a knock on. A ball which has accidentally hit a player from a non forward throw and then goes forward has an exception in Law allowing play on. A block down of a kick is also an exception in law to the knock on rule allowing the ball to go forward and play to carry on.

For the record a lawful kick is made by any part of the leg below the knee, apart from the heel. Should you drop or lose the ball from hand, this isn't a kick and a knock on may be called if the ball went forward.

Errlloyd, with the best intention in the world but bear with some of the calls made by tag referees as they don't all have the expertise or knowledge of those who work at the 15 a side game.

locum-motion

Dave_The_Sheep wrote: »

A situation arose there in the Leinster game. A player was tackled near the touchline and was going into touch. He offloaded inside and was then tackled into touch. The tackler and the offloader landed on the line and tumbled over. The player who was offloaded to was also then tackled ... I'd normally say 'into touch' but both the 2nd tackler and the tackled player landed on top of the first two players. The player in possession of the ball was clearly over the line, as was the ball, but neither the ball nor the player in possession actually touched the ground outside the field of play.

Is the ball dead?

Similarly to if a player has their feet inside the pitch boundaries, but they catch a ball over the line, the ball isn't dead... is it that your feet have to be on the ground or how is it decided/is there a rule here?

If the ball, or a player holding/carrying it, touches anything or anybody that is touching the ground on or outside the line, then the ball is "in touch".

If there's a big crane on a building site next to the pitch, and it's lifting a load of bricks that pass over the pitch during a game, and a kicked ball hits the load of bricks, then it's "in touch", even if it was above the centre of the pitch. (Admittedly an unlikely scenario, not least because I'm sure most crane operators would have enough cop on not to hoist a load of bricks across a pitch during a match)

If a player is free and clear and running down the wing to score a try, and one of the subs (off the pitch) holds up a hand for a running high 5 as he goes by, then the player is "in touch" if he takes the high 5, even if neither the player's nor the sub's feet come within 2 feet of the line.

Robbo

I've seen it raised elsewhere, but is a scrumhalf allowed to join the back of a scrum? Granted the Connacht scrum was beaten into a penalty try before the SH joined, but it seemed odd to me. About 3:00 mins into this vid...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvivOJCwLss

davidpfitz

Robbo wrote: »

I've seen it raised elsewhere, but is a scrumhalf allowed to join the back of a scrum? Granted the Connacht scrum was beaten into a penalty try before the SH joined, but it seemed odd to me. About 3:00 mins into this vid...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvivOJCwLss

20.1(e) says:

Number of players: eight. A scrum must have eight players from each team. All eight players must stay bound to the scrum until it ends. Each front row must have three players in it, no more and no less. Two locks must form the second row.
Sanction: Penalty kick


Looks to me like one team had 9 people in the scrum for a period, and ought to have been a penalty kick. Odd one, though.

rje66

locum-motion wrote: »

If a player is free and clear and running down the wing to score a try, and one of the subs (off the pitch) holds up a hand for a running high 5 as he goes by, then the player is "in touch" if he takes the high 5, even if neither the player's nor the sub's feet come within 2 feet of the line.

?????? can you give a law reference for this.
so
Red player is on the 15m line and there is are 8 defenders touching each other along the half way from touch line to 15m line. last defender has foot in touch and first defender tacles red ball carries, you say he is in touch:eek::eek:
dont think so.

Dave_The_Sheep

locum-motion wrote: »

If the ball, or a player holding/carrying it, touches anything or anybody that is touching the ground on or outside the line, then the ball is "in touch".

I know all but one of the the instances you mention, and agree, other than "If the ball, or a player holding/carrying it, touches anything or anybody that is touching the ground on or outside the line, then the ball is "in touch".".

So to take the relevant parts out of the sentence so as not to confuse it:

If a player holding/carrying the ball touches anybody that is touching the ground on or outside the line, then the ball is in touch.

That's not right. If a tackler hits a lad and the tackler goes in touch (and the ball isn't touching him) but the player carrying the ball isn't touching the ground on/outside the line... that's not in touch. How many times are tackler is in touch, but the tacklee isn't? Loads. Eg, Shane Horgan vs England in 2006.

Or have I misinterpreted what you mean?

locum-motion

rje66 wrote: »

?????? can you give a law reference for this.
so
Red player is on the 15m line and there is are 8 defenders touching each other along the half way from touch line to 15m line. last defender has foot in touch and first defender tacles red ball carries, you say he is in touch:eek::eek:
dont think so.

Where did I say anything about the player carrying the ball touching a man who's touching a man who's....touching a man who's...touching a man who's in touch?

What I said was that if the ball carrier touches a man who's off the pitch, then the ball is in touch.

I said nothing about the scenario you describe.

HOWEVER, I've just found out that I was wrong! (But not for the reason you suggested)
What I hadn't realised was that the law actually defines touch differently depending on whether the ball is being carried or not.

From Law 19:

- The ball is in touch when it is not being carried by a player and it touches the touchline or anything or anyone on or beyond the touchline.

- The ball is in touch when a player is carrying it and the ball carrier (or the ball) touches the touchline or the ground beyond the touchline.

So, my example of the ball hitting a crane still stands. However, in my example of the player running down the wing, he's not 'in touch' unless he touches the ground on or outside the line.

locum-motion

Dave_The_Sheep wrote: »

...
Or have I misinterpreted what you mean?

No, you haven't misinterpreted me. You understood what I was trying to say, but (as I just posted; we must have been typing at the same time) I was wrong.

locum-motion

rje66 wrote: »

?????? can you give a law reference for this.
so
Red player is on the 15m line and there is are 8 defenders touching each other along the half way from touch line to 15m line. last defender has foot in touch and first defender tacles red ball carries, you say he is in touch:eek::eek:
dont think so.

Also from Law 19:

The ball is in touch if a player catches the ball and that player has a foot on the touchline or the ground beyond the touchline. If a player has one foot in the field of play and one foot in touch and holds the ball, the ball is in touch.

Taking the above definition and going by your interpretation of what I said earlier, then if there was a chain of eight guys holding hands, and one of them had a foot in touch, and the guy at the other end caught the ball about 15 metres away, then the ball is in touch. It should be bloody obvious that THAT'S NOT WHAT I SAID!!

locum-motion

davidpfitz wrote: »

20.1(e) says:

Number of players: eight. A scrum must have eight players from each team. All eight players must stay bound to the scrum until it ends. Each front row must have three players in it, no more and no less. Two locks must form the second row.
Sanction: Penalty kick


Looks to me like one team had 9 people in the scrum for a period, and ought to have been a penalty kick. Odd one, though.

The SH certainly touched the scrum, but did he join it?

Law 20 also defines a bind:

When a player binds on a team-mate that player must use the whole arm from hand to shoulder to grasp the team-mate’s body at or below the level of the armpit. Placing only a hand on another player is not satisfactory binding.

The SH placed a hand (or two) on another player, but by definition, this IS NOT binding to that player. Therefore he wasn't part of the scrum.

JustinDee

Any team I've been coaching before, we've told a ref beforehand that if the opposition nr8 went from shoulder-bind to just holding on to locks with hands in scrum, our halfback was going to pounce as player was technically not bound. Its picky but its bang on and if your opposition don't get it, then that's their own fault.

rje66

locum-motion wrote: »

Also from Law 19:




Taking the above definition and going by your interpretation of what I said earlier, then if there was a chain of eight guys holding hands, and one of them had a foot in touch, and the guy at the other end caught the ball about 15 metres away, then the ball is in touch. It should be bloody obvious that THAT'S NOT WHAT I SAID!!

was just creating a senario.
Why is the high fiver standing in touch any different to the last defender on chain of 8 with one foot in touch?.

crane senario not correct either. how can the ball be in touch if it hasnt crosses the plane of touch.

Remember a player standing in touch can kick or knock the ball, but may not hold it,provided it has not crossed the plane of touch.
Sounds wrong, looks wrong but it law 19 definition.

locum-motion

rje66 wrote: »

was just creating a senario.
Why is the high fiver standing in touch any different to the last defender on chain of 8 with one foot in touch?.

Because the high fiver* is in touch. The innermost guy of your chain of 8 isn't.

- The ball is in touch when it is not being carried by a player and it touches the touchline or anything or anyone on or beyond the touchline.

rje66 wrote: »

crane senario not correct either. how can the ball be in touch if it hasnt crosses the plane of touch.

In this scenario the ball has touched a thing that is beyond the touchline.

- The ball is in touch when it is not being carried by a player and it touches the touchline or anything or anyone on or beyond the touchline.

* I've already conceded that I was wrong on my original "high 5" scenario, so that scenario is irrelevant. Therefore at the moment I'm assuming you are asking me about the scenario of a substitute (or any other non-player) who's not on the pitch sticking an arm out and touching a ball in flight that hasn't crossed the plane of touch.

Lyaiera

JustinDee wrote: »

Any team I've been coaching before, we've told a ref beforehand that if the opposition nr8 went from shoulder-bind to just holding on to locks with hands in scrum, our halfback was going to pounce as player was technically not bound. Its picky but its bang on and if your opposition don't get it, then that's their own fault.

Pounce on what, the ball? Either way the laws don't automatically go in your favour. Just because someone isn't bound properly doesn't mean they're not in the scrum. It's up to the ref to award a penalty for breaking a bind. Similarly a number eight doesn't have to bind with both arms and they can change their bind as they see fit once one arm remains bound. It's only flankers who have rules about changing angles of binds. If I was a ref and you "told" me that beforehand I'd be watching your scrum half like a hawk.

JustinDee

Lyaiera wrote: »

Pounce on what, the ball? Either way the laws don't automatically go in your favour. Just because someone isn't bound properly doesn't mean they're not in the scrum. It's up to the ref to award a penalty for breaking a bind. Similarly a number eight doesn't have to bind with both arms and they can change their bind as they see fit once one arm remains bound. It's only flankers who have rules about changing angles of binds. If I was a ref and you "told" me that beforehand I'd be watching your scrum half like a hawk.

Holding on with hands to a lock is not being bound. If not bound, ball is available.
If you were my ref, your assessor best be hugely impressed with rest of your game if you pinged players for contesting available ball.

Lyaiera

JustinDee wrote: »

Holding on with hands to a lock is not being bound. If not bound, ball is available.
If you were my ref, your assessor best be hugely impressed with rest of your game if you pinged players for contesting available ball.

Not quite.

20.10 Ending the scrum
...
(c)
Hindmost player unbinds. The hindmost player in a scrum is the player whose feet are nearest the team’s own goal line. If the hindmost player unbinds from the scrum with the ball at that player’s feet and picks up the ball, the scrum ends.

If the hindmost player is in the process of picking up the ball the scrum is still formed. It's only once the hindmost player has picked it up that the scrum ends. If the scrum half goes for it before then there's a raft of penalties that can be awarded against him depending on what he does.


And as I said before. I'd be watching like a hawk for any other infringement prior to that. The number eight might have changed his bind, he might only be bound with one arm, and all that is fine. If your scrum half got it wrong the penalty would go against him.

JustinDee

Lyaiera wrote: »

Not quite.



If the hindmost player is in the process of picking up the ball the scrum is still formed. It's only once the hindmost player has picked it up that the scrum ends. If the scrum half goes for it before then there's a raft of penalties that can be awarded against him depending on what he does.


And as I said before. I'd be watching like a hawk for any other infringement prior to that. The number eight might have changed his bind, he might only be bound with one arm, and all that is fine. If your scrum half got it wrong the penalty would go against him.

Wrong interpretation. It really is this simple. Not bound, ball is available. Hands do not bind. Ask a senior ref if you get the chance.

Shelflife

JustinDee wrote: »

Wrong interpretation. It really is this simple. Not bound, ball is available. Hands do not bind. Ask a senior ref if you get the chance.

Correct, it's the same in a maul, players must be bound along the whole of one of their arms otherwise they are not part of the maul.
In the same way if the ball is at the feet of the no 8 and he is no longer bound correctly then the ball is out as he is no longer part of the scrum.

paulski999

Hi,

New to rugby, query I have re. neutral ref for an Youth Final. Was at a final (my son was playing) and it turns out the opposition not only had home advantage (fair enough) but also had their own club referee (their referee co-ordinator) reffing the game. Surely in the interest of fair play the organisers should have appointed a neutral ref? To say he was biased was an understatement, was not until the second half when his club team were two scores ahead and in control, did we get any decisions, to such an extent that our supporters starting cheering when he gave us a decision. Shameless really...

So what's the regulations with appointing ref's? Am I naive to think a neutral ref should be appointed.

Losty Dublin

paulski999 wrote: »

Hi,

New to rugby, query I have re. neutral ref for an Youth Final. Was at a final (my son was playing) and it turns out the opposition not only had home advantage (fair enough) but also had their own club referee (their referee co-ordinator) reffing the game. Surely in the interest of fair play the organisers should have appointed a neutral ref? To say he was biased was an understatement, was not until the second half when his club team were two scores ahead and in control, did we get any decisions, to such an extent that our supporters starting cheering when he gave us a decision. Shameless really...

So what's the regulations with appointing ref's? Am I naive to think a neutral ref should be appointed.

Law 6 covers this. It tells us that the match organiser sees to it that referees are appointed for games, usually from a body such as the www.arlb.ie. If they don't do this it is between the two teams to appoint a referee. If both teams can't agree to a referee then the home team shall appoint one. There can be eventualities whereby a referee is not able to make a game (We are all volunteers) so a sub might have to be found at late notice; generally this will be a home club referee.

Tim Robbins

paulski999 wrote: »

Hi,

New to rugby, query I have re. neutral ref for an Youth Final. Was at a final (my son was playing) and it turns out the opposition not only had home advantage (fair enough) but also had their own club referee (their referee co-ordinator) reffing the game. Surely in the interest of fair play the organisers should have appointed a neutral ref? To say he was biased was an understatement, was not until the second half when his club team were two scores ahead and in control, did we get any decisions, to such an extent that our supporters starting cheering when he gave us a decision. Shameless really...

So what's the regulations with appointing ref's? Am I naive to think a neutral ref should be appointed.

Yeah but be careful. Usually when a supporter's team loses they blame the ref and then they blame the manager. There are usually other reasons why teams lose:
1. Not quick enough to the break down.
2. Set piece not functioning
3. Slow backs
...
Blaming the ref is usually a cop out. Are you saying your team had the upper hand in every facet and the ref just pulled a fast one?

Rugby refs (unlike Soccer and GAA refs) don't get paid and usually Refs that are at branch level are a pretty decent standard because they are assessed by X - Refs.

At grassroots the branch don't always appoint refs as there is not enough and a club member or teacher does it. If you think you can do a better job by all means do a few courses and stick your hand up. Or tell those idiots jeering the ref to do it.

Sorry, but usually when a fan blames a ref for loosing they are nearly always wrong. There was a ref who was blatantly biased in WWF called Danny Davis and it was a story line for a while. He was biased. But I have never come across a Rugby ref that is.

paulski999

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Law 6 covers this. It tells us that the match organiser sees to it that referees are appointed for games, usually from a body such as the www.arlb.ie. If they don't do this it is between the two teams to appoint a referee. If both teams can't agree to a referee then the home team shall appoint one. There can be eventualities whereby a referee is not able to make a game (We are all volunteers) so a sub might have to be found at late notice; generally this will be a home club referee.

Thanks for update, leaves it open to cries of bias, the ref to my mind should be neutral, simple fair play rules should apply, be seen to be above reproach. Leaving my "bias" out of the equation, all the home team has to do is to disagree with visiting team ref selection and they can appoint their own ref?

paulski999

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Yeah but be careful. Usually when a supporter's team loses they blame the ref and then they blame the manager. There are usually other reasons why teams lose:
1. Not quick enough to the break down.
2. Set piece not functioning
3. Slow backs
...
Blaming the ref is usually a cop out. Are you saying your team had the upper hand in every facet and the ref just pulled a fast one?

Rugby refs (unlike Soccer and GAA refs) don't get paid and usually Refs that are at branch level are a pretty decent standard because they are assessed by X - Refs.

At grassroots the branch don't always appoint refs as there is not enough and a club member or teacher does it. If you think you can do a better job by all means do a few courses and stick your hand up. Or tell those idiots jeering the ref to do it.

Sorry, but usually when a fan blames a ref for loosing they are nearly always wrong. There was a ref who was blatantly biased in WWF called Danny Davis and it was a story line for a while. He was biased. But I have never come across a Rugby ref that is.

Thanks for update, leaves it open to cries of bias, the ref to my mind should be neutral, simple fair play rules should apply, be seen to be above reproach. Leaving my "bias" out of the equation, all the home team has to do is to disagree with visiting team ref selection and they can appoint their own ref?

Home venue plus your own ref, who knows the kids (surely he has a bias towards kids he knows?)

Losty Dublin

paulski999 wrote: »

Thanks for update, leaves it open to cries of bias, the ref to my mind should be neutral, simple fair play rules should apply, be seen to be above reproach. Leaving my "bias" out of the equation, all the home team has to do is to disagree with visiting team ref selection and they can appoint their own ref?

The referee should be a neutral person but a Branch referee may not have been available on the day. Competent referees are hard to come by and especially for youths games so a home team would rarely ever be in a position to veto one if offered, regardless of their club affiliation.

I'd agree with Tim; the winners love the referee while the losing team will think he's the worst ever

Tim Robbins

paulski999 wrote: »

Thanks for update, leaves it open to cries of bias, the ref to my mind should be neutral, simple fair play rules should apply, be seen to be above reproach. Leaving my "bias" out of the equation, all the home team has to do is to disagree with visiting team ref selection and they can appoint their own ref?

Home venue plus your own ref, who knows the kids (surely he has a bias towards kids he knows?)

Ah come on. Surely there are other factors. Don't get hung up on ref.

It gives a bad impression to younger people. I am sure there are some technical pointers that could actually help the lads. Where they in position in defense? How good was their rucking? What was the set piece like?

Try to develop an appreciation of the game and give the ref a break ffs.

It's not all about winning at that level it's about skills development. Your moaning does nothing to improve skills.

If you want to help that's the way to think.

JustinDee

paulski999 wrote: »

Hi,

New to rugby, query I have re. neutral ref for an Youth Final. Was at a final (my son was playing) and it turns out the opposition not only had home advantage (fair enough) but also had their own club referee (their referee co-ordinator) reffing the game. Surely in the interest of fair play the organisers should have appointed a neutral ref? To say he was biased was an understatement, was not until the second half when his club team were two scores ahead and in control, did we get any decisions, to such an extent that our supporters starting cheering when he gave us a decision. Shameless really...

So what's the regulations with appointing ref's? Am I naive to think a neutral ref should be appointed.

Accusing a ref, someone who volunteers their own time to officiate an amateur game, of bias is quite a claim. You'd have to prove with actual instances rather than generic statements.
Especially if we're talking about kids' rugby, the touchline should relax. What age grade was game?

BigHeel

paulski999 wrote: »

Thanks for update, leaves it open to cries of bias, the ref to my mind should be neutral, simple fair play rules should apply, be seen to be above reproach. Leaving my "bias" out of the equation, all the home team has to do is to disagree with visiting team ref selection and they can appoint their own ref?

Home venue plus your own ref, who knows the kids (surely he has a bias towards kids he knows?)

Blaming a loss on a Ref does nothing for the lads on your team. What age are the team? Which Branch organised the competition?

Taco Corp

if a scrum half has hands on the ball while it's still technically in the ruck, can the scrum half be tackled?

locum-motion

AFAIK, hands on means ruck over, so Yes.