Laws Question? Ask here!

sydthebeat

crisco10 wrote: »

Clancy pinged Tom Denton for this in the Connacht game and I was very confused. Thanks for clearing it up!

The big difference though between Clancy and Owens was Owens did not call ball out, Clancy did. And owens specifically referred to the law above when he gave the penalty. Clancy just pinged for diving in.

.ak

sydthebeat wrote: »

The big difference though between Clancy and Owens was Owens did not call ball out, Clancy did. And owens specifically referred to the law above when he gave the penalty. Clancy just pinged for diving in.

True, but the call was still technically correct, even if he didn't explain it properly. One of those 50/50 ones you won't lose sleep over. It's a tough one though as players won't be overly familiar with it. Once you hear the ref say out you generally just fall on the ball.

sydthebeat

.ak wrote: »

True, but the call was still technically correct, even if he didn't explain it properly. One of those 50/50 ones you won't lose sleep over. It's a tough one though as players won't be overly familiar with it. Once you hear the ref say out you generally just fall on the ball.

Agreed,

I suppose that shows the difference between a good ref and a great one.

If the communication is concise like Owens then we don't have the exasperation like we had on match thread.

awec

Ardillaun wrote: »

That makes sense alright but what options does a team have when a hooker's throws go off completely? We've seen this with Ireland. Imagine if one of the forwards was a good basketball player and had a real flair for it?

It's more the positioning of the thrower that occasionally annoys me. Shouldn't they be equidistant between the lines, and at least 0.5 m from their own?

There's no law to prevent anyone else doing it, though I would say throwing a dart in rugby is different to any basketball throw.

Also think about it in terms of the players available. You will always have 1 hooker on the pitch and 1 hooker on the bench. If you were training other players to throw you are going to have to ensure that your bench has at least 1 person who can throw a dart.

Like what happens if your throwers are your hooker and your replacement flanker? When your hooker goes off you will be forced to bring that flanker on at the same time.

Taco Corp

this doesn't necessarily fit this thread but not sure if worthy of its own. The "Yes nine" call is being ditched immediately in favour of a pre agreed signal.

http://www.planetrugby.com/story/0,25883,16024_9104571,00.html

who_me

Captain_Hindsight wrote: »

this doesn't necessarily fit this thread but not sure if worthy of its own. The "Yes nine" call is being ditched immediately in favour of a pre agreed signal.

http://www.planetrugby.com/story/0,25883,16024_9104571,00.html

Interesting! What's the reason behind that? Is it to stop front-rows treating the "Yes nine!" call as a starter's pistol to start shoving? Presumably if you're in the front row you won't be able to see the signal.

Taco Corp

who_me wrote: »

Interesting! What's the reason behind that? Is it to stop front-rows treating the "Yes nine!" call as a starter's pistol to start shoving? Presumably if you're in the front row you won't be able to see the signal.

I'd imagine that's it. but more so it removes the advantage from the defending scrum who know that the ball is on the way in and can take advantage of the balling having to be hooked (although not all side bother with that)

Losty Dublin

Captain_Hindsight wrote: »

this doesn't necessarily fit this thread but not sure if worthy of its own. The "Yes nine" call is being ditched immediately in favour of a pre agreed signal.

Gentlemen, until the IRB give word on this then the Law remains as it currently is.

Taco Corp

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Gentlemen, until the IRB give word on this then the Law remains as it currently is.

yeah, haven't seen it reported anywhere else yet

The Lost Sheep

Captain_Hindsight wrote: »

this doesn't necessarily fit this thread but not sure if worthy of its own. The "Yes nine" call is being ditched immediately in favour of a pre agreed signal.

http://www.planetrugby.com/story/0,25883,16024_9104571,00.html

Having just done the full ref course and refereed few games as associate ref I'd be quite disappointed with a change to this. Think Yes Nine worked in any game I've refereed this season.
"Yes 9" has meant scrums are more of a wrestle but scrums are working better in games than last season from the 35 or so games I've been to this season so far. I don't think what is discussed in article as the non verbal signals would work in games and would be worse than what currently exists. It'll work at the top level but not sure it would be needed down through all amateur levels

tolosenc

crisco10 wrote: »

Clancy pinged Tom Denton for this in the Connacht game and I was very confused. Thanks for clearing it up!

Clancy said that the penalty was for Denton being off his feet at the ruck, though. It was the worst call of a poorly adjudicated match by far.

Steve Perchance

Captain_Hindsight wrote: »

I'd imagine that's it. but more so it removes the advantage from the defending scrum who know that the ball is on the way in and can take advantage of the balling having to be hooked (although not all side bother with that)

Theres nothing to stop the opposing scrumhalf giving a shout when he sees the ref give the signal, so it doesn't really change much.

If true, its fiddling with a non existent problem, when they should be focused on making sure refs stop early pushes and teams still trying to make a 'hit' when the intention is to eliminate it.

armchaircoach

awec wrote: »

There's no law to prevent anyone else doing it, though I would say throwing a dart in rugby is different to any basketball throw.

Also think about it in terms of the players available. You will always have 1 hooker on the pitch and 1 hooker on the bench. If you were training other players to throw you are going to have to ensure that your bench has at least 1 person who can throw a dart.

Like what happens if your throwers are your hooker and your replacement flanker? When your hooker goes off you will be forced to bring that flanker on at the same time.

I don't think the idea is to have another player always replace your hooker as thrower, but the question is why don't teams have several of the team who can throw. This would allow 2 options:

1) allow someone already on the pitch to take over without the need of a substitution, if for example your hooker is playing well but throwing badly.

2) allow a more diverse range of moves off shortened lineouts. For example it would be useful for a team like leinster to have a speedy powerful guy like cronin set up elsewhere on the pitch, rather than always be stuck throwing in.

phog

Captain_Hindsight wrote: »

yeah, haven't seen it reported anywhere else yet

apparently, a comms was released to refs on this, I'm not 100% sure of this but I saw mention of it on twitter.

.ak

Indo reporting it as well.

Losty Dublin

phog wrote: »

apparently, a comms was released to refs on this, I'm not 100% sure of this but I saw mention of it on twitter.

The ARLB hasn't sent out anything about this and they are quick on the draw for notifying us members about issues of law and procedure. Till then, the Law's and applications remain as is.

phog

Losty Dublin wrote: »

The ARLB hasn't sent out anything about this and they are quick on the draw for notifying us members about issues of law and procedure. Till then, the Law's and applications remain as is.

Obviously the law can't/won't change until refs/coaches have got a briefing, my post was in reply to what I assumed was someone thought it was only from one source.

LeinsterDub

Steve Perchance wrote: »

Theres nothing to stop the opposing scrumhalf giving a shout when he sees the ref give the signal, so it doesn't really change much.

Ungentlemanly behaviour?

Losty Dublin

phog wrote: »

Obviously the law can't/won't change until refs/coaches have got a briefing, my post was in reply to what I assumed was someone thought it was only from one source.

Which is fair enough and thanks for that, Phog. The worry is is that some players line out at the weekend and expect things to be changed based on a media report.

Mind you, most of them don't know the laws to begin with but that's another story

.ak

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Which is fair enough and thanks for that, Phog. The worry is is that some players line out at the weekend and expect things to be changed based on a media report.

Mind you, most of them don't know the laws to begin with but that's another story

I get the ball and run with it. What more is there to know? :cool:

ssaye2

http://www.irb.com/newsmedia/mediazone/pressrelease/newsid=2069952.html#irb+further+empowers+referees+scrums

Confirmed

who_me

tolosenc wrote: »

Clancy said that the penalty was for Denton being off his feet at the ruck, though. It was the worst call of a poorly adjudicated match by far.

It was a correct call; just perhaps poorly communicated. He was pinged for diving on the ball as it popped out, which is "going off his feet at/near the ruck" - refs don't explain their decisions with verbatim quotes of the relevant law.

who_me

.ak wrote: »

I get the ball and run with it. What more is there to know? :cool:

That's going to be one weird-ass scrum. I think you've misunderstood the new law...

Losty Dublin

ssaye2 wrote: »

http://www.irb.com/newsmedia/mediazone/pressrelease/newsid=2069952.html#irb+further+empowers+referees+scrums

Confirmed

Active players and coaches should take note that this won't apply to domestic club rugby until such time as the individual unions make a call on same.

In a minor revision to the current protocol surrounding the ongoing scrum engagement global trial, the International Rugby Board has confirmed that referees will use non-verbal communication to indicate to the scrum-half when the ball can be thrown into the scrum.

Up to now as part of the scrum trial, the referee has told the scrum-half that the scrum is ready for the put-in by the use of the phrase “yes nine”. But following an initial review, including consultation with national coaches and referee managers, it has been decided that referees will adopt a non-verbal communication to scrum-halves for the introduction of the ball.

This is in accordance with the relevant law (20.5 Throwing the Ball Into the Scrum).

The change is effective immediately and will include this week’s Heineken Cup and Amlin Challenge Cup matches in the northern hemisphere (January 9-12). It will also include the next rounds of other elite competitions, including the Top 14 in France (January 24), Aviva Premiership in England (February 7-9) and the Rabo Direct Pro 12 in other parts of Europe (February 7-9).

As with the original protocol, it is up to individual Unions to decide whether this change will be adopted at levels below elite Rugby.

redmca2

I would welcome comments on 2 rules in relation to knock-ons:

First is the automatic penalty if a player in front of the person who knocks on attempts to play the ball. In a lot of cases this can simply be a knee-jerk/stupid reaction and yes the original knock-on offence must be pinged resulting in a scrum, but why a penalty? Also a knock-on while most times obvious to all players is only a knock-on if the ref makes that call. All in all a penalty in such circumstances seems OTT.

Second is the so-called deliberate knock on. In viewing matches where this has been adjudged I honestly believe in the vast majority of cases that the defender is trying to catch/play the ball not bat it down but more often than I believe is reasonable the ref gives a penalty.

While I am at it there is an archaic rule that passing the ball into touch is a penalty offense. You can run it or kick it off the pitch but not pass it. Can anyone explain the merit of such a rule? It was used devistatingly against Tommy Bowe in the AB match in Croke Park some years ago. Bowe palmed the ball off the pitch close to the corner flag as (if i recall) McCaw bore down on him. Bowe got a yellow card and the ref awarded a penalty try.

Losty Dublin

redmca2 wrote: »

I would welcome comments on rules in relation to knock-ons:

First is the automatic penalty if a player in front of the person who knocks on attempts to play the ball. In a lot of cases this can simply be a knee-jerk/stupid reaction and yes the original knock-on offence must be pinged resulting in a scrum, but why a penalty? Also a knock-on while most times obvious to all players is only a knock-on if the ref makes that call. All in all a penalty in such circumstances seems OTT.

Second is the so-called deliberate knock on. In viewing matches where this has been adjudged I honestly believe in the vast majority of cases that the defender is trying to catch/play the ball not bat it down but more often than I believe is reasonable the ref gives a penalty.

While I am at it there is an archaic rule that passing the ball into touch is a penalty offense. You can run it or kick it off the pitch but not pass it. Can anyone explain the merit of such a rule? It was used devistatingly against Tommy Bowe in the AB match in Croke Park some years ago. Bowe palmed the ball off the pitch close to the corner flag as (if i recall) McCaw bore down on him. Bowe got a yellow card and the ref awarded a penalty try.

I don't know where you got the first one from as being a distinct penalty; certainly I have not heard of it as an offence nor is it in the Law Book. If you accidentally knocked on and happen to somehow regain the ball then it's a scrum, not a penalty. A deliberate knock or throw forward is a penalty offence as it goes against the ethos and principles of the game and is considered unfair play. Deliberately throwing the ball out of play is a penalty as it too is considered unfair for the same reasons.

redmca2

Losty Dublin wrote: »

I don't know where you got the first one from as being a distinct penalty; certainly I have not heard of it as an offence nor is it in the Law Book. If you accidentally knocked on and happen to somehow regain the ball then it's a scrum, not a penalty.

Maybe I haven't expressed it well but you see it regularly where a player perhaps competing for a high ball knocks it forward and a team mate in front of the knock on plays the ball. That's a penalty offense, isn't it ???

Also "Deliberately throwing the ball out of play is a penalty as it too is considered unfair for the same reasons." So kicking or running the ball off the pitch is not unfair but passing is !!! Perfectly logical ... NOT

My point is that I know what the rules say and I am questioning if they are fair and reasonable. In some instances they are not.

Losty Dublin

redmca2 wrote: »

Maybe I haven't expressed it well but you see it regularly where a player perhaps competing for a high ball knocks it forward and a team mate in front of the knock on plays the ball. That's a penalty offense, isn't it ???

It may be penalty for an offside offence but not for playing a knocked on ball, no it isn't.

redmca2 wrote: »

Also "Deliberately throwing the ball out of play is a penalty as it too is considered unfair for the same reasons." So kicking or running the ball off the pitch is not unfair but passing is !!! Perfectly logical ... NOT

My point is that I know what the rules say and I am questioning if they are fair and reasonable. In some instances they are not.

Kicking or running a ball has tactical merit and risk going for it as a team loses ground, possession and control over play. Deliberately throwing the ball out of play is unfair, it prevents from open play and it goes against the whole principle of a running and kicking game, as the game is intended to be.

Steve Perchance

redmca2 wrote: »

I would welcome comments on 2 rules in relation to knock-ons:

First is the automatic penalty if a player in front of the person who knocks on attempts to play the ball. In a lot of cases this can simply be a knee-jerk/stupid reaction and yes the original knock-on offence must be pinged resulting in a scrum, but why a penalty? Also a knock-on while most times obvious to all players is only a knock-on if the ref makes that call. All in all a penalty in such circumstances seems OTT.

Second is the so-called deliberate knock on. In viewing matches where this has been adjudged I honestly believe in the vast majority of cases that the defender is trying to catch/play the ball not bat it down but more often than I believe is reasonable the ref gives a penalty.

While I am at it there is an archaic rule that passing the ball into touch is a penalty offense. You can run it or kick it off the pitch but not pass it. Can anyone explain the merit of such a rule? It was used devistatingly against Tommy Bowe in the AB match in Croke Park some years ago. Bowe palmed the ball off the pitch close to the corner flag as (if i recall) McCaw bore down on him. Bowe got a yellow card and the ref awarded a penalty try.

The first instance is a penalty for offside, and usually only gets applied if by playing the ball from an offside position, you kill the advantage that would have been there for the other team. If there's no opposition players around you or advancing, referees will (usually) just give the scrum.

The deliberate knock on rule is to prevent cynical play - if there was no consequence, you'd see diving blocks etc become a regular feature, which isn't what's wanted. Usually the rule of thumb is ball goes up, regular knock on, ball goes down, deliberate. Circumstances of the offence matter too - if it's in your own 22 the penalty is far more likely.

Passing the ball into touch isn't allowed because it's too easy. Players don't need a lot of room or space to throw the ball out, whereas kicking or running require a bit more room/control. Consider a scrum half at a contested ruck - you could never stop him throwing it out, but you could possibly catch him if he's to pick it up and kick it.

redmca2

Kicking or running a ball has tactical merit and risk going for it as a team loses ground, possession and control over play. Deliberately throwing the ball out of play is unfair, it prevents from open play and it goes against the whole principle of a running and kicking game, as the game is intended to be.[/QUOTE]

I assume you mean running and passing and kicking game .....