Laws Question? Ask here!

Losty Dublin

redmca2 wrote: »

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.

I assume you mean running and passing and kicking game ..... [/QUOTE]

No, I don't as the game is based on making progress by kicking and running the ball.

Besides, nothing in the games Laws obliges you to pass the ball

redmca2

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Besides, nothing in the games Laws obliges you to pass the ball

Or to kick it (kick offs excepted), look at mini-rugby

Let's agree to disagree

Losty Dublin

redmca2 wrote: »

Or to kick it (kick offs excepted), look at mini-rugby

It would make taking free and penalty kicks, drop outs and conversions rather hard if we weren't allowed kick the ball, wouldn't it?:)

redmca2

Let me re-phrase "kicking" to punting the ball. Regardless of co-called principles of the game, punting or passing the ball off the pitch or carrying it off the pitch are all effectively the same thing, i.e the same result. For 1 to be a penalty and the others to be perfectly legal is a huge gap.
I still feel passing the ball out of play should have no sanction, unless it's forward of course, or if purists want to retain the rule them a scrum would seem sufficient sanction. Don't tell me that isn't reasonable.

Steve Perchance

redmca2 wrote: »

Let me re-phrase "kicking" to punting the ball. Regardless of co-called principles of the game, punting or passing the ball off the pitch or carrying it off the pitch are all effectively the same thing, i.e the same result. For 1 to be a penalty and the others to be perfectly legal is a huge gap.
I still feel passing the ball out of play should have no sanction, unless it's forward of course, or if purists want to retain the rule them a scrum would seem sufficient sanction. Don't tell me that isn't reasonable.

Of course it should. If you're deliberately throwing the ball out of play, you're not 'passing' to anyone. It's far too easy to do, and would ruin a variety of aspects of the game. All forms of pressure following kick ahead with a chase would be made trivially easy to avoid - you can just throw it away. If you have loads of time, there's no reason you can't kick it or run out.

sydthebeat

redmca2 wrote: »

Let me re-phrase "kicking" to punting the ball. Regardless of co-called principles of the game, punting or passing the ball off the pitch or carrying it off the pitch are all effectively the same thing, i.e the same result. For 1 to be a penalty and the others to be perfectly legal is a huge gap.
I still feel passing the ball out of play should have no sanction, unless it's forward of course, or if purists want to retain the rule them a scrum would seem sufficient sanction. Don't tell me that isn't reasonable.

It has to be a deliberate action, and in most cases ive seen it tends to be a player running back towards or over his own line and under pressure to make the ball dead....

as rugbys core principle is to create a fair contest for the ball, a deliberate action to put the ball dead by hands is an unfair action, it doesnt allow a contest where skill and strength win out.

the only incidents i can really recall is a bouncing ball in the try area being deliberately knock out.

Losty Dublin

ssaye2 wrote: »

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

Confirmed

As per the below e mail which came from HQ, the new SH arrangement is now to be implemented at all level of domestic rugby.

"Dear All,

Please note that “yes 9” to the scrum half, to throw the ball in, will no longer be verbalised.

When the scrum is square and steady, the referee will now signal or tap the scrum half to indicate that the ball must be fed. (Obviously signal/ tap will depend on the position of the referee.)

Please see attached example, of how the referee will now indicate. This is effective immediately.

Clips-please download from this link


http://we.tl/sJOLHDaTyJ"

sydthebeat

Can anyone clarify the "failure to grasp" penalty jp doyle called today in the Toulon versus warriors game against suta?

Taco Corp

sydthebeat wrote: »

Can anyone clarify the "failure to grasp" penalty jp doyle called today in the Toulon versus warriors game against suta?

I believe it was because the tackler didn't fully wrap his arms, unusual way to call it

sydthebeat

regarding the 'knock on'

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.

i was at a game yesterday where the weather was brutal and wind blowing all over the place.... a low head height kick is put in by team A and a player on team B, probably full back runs onto it but as he gets to it its obvious hes not going to catch it so he lets it hit him in the chest and the ball runs down onto his thigh and then foot where he kicks forward and chases...
Now the ref gives a knock on, the opposition supporters behind me say 'what was he doing thats an obvious knock on'... but in my eyes the player didnt try to gain possession by use of arms, the ball doesnt hit hand or arm.....


so is it a given if the ball goes forward off any part of the body but the legs its a default knock on?
and in the incident above is there any ambiguity?

jacothelad

sydthebeat wrote: »

regarding the 'knock on'



i was at a game yesterday where the weather was brutal and wind blowing all over the place.... a low head height kick is put in by team A and a player on team B, probably full back runs onto it but as he gets to it its obvious hes not going to catch it so he lets it hit him in the chest and the ball runs down onto his thigh and then foot where he kicks forward and chases...
Now the ref gives a knock on, the opposition supporters behind me say 'what was he doing thats an obvious knock on'... but in my eyes the player didnt try to gain possession by use of arms, the ball doesnt hit hand or arm.....


so is it a given if the ball goes forward off any part of the body but the legs its a default knock on?
and in the incident above is there any ambiguity?

Ref was wrong.

who_me

Possibly more of a refereeing question than a law question.. but anyway:

It seems to me that the refereeing of "a maul resulting from a choke tackle" is very different from "a maul resulting from a lineout". Unlike a normal maul, there seems to be very little attention paid to defending players being on (or joining) the wrong side of the choke-maul. Little or no attention paid to players bringing it down. While players are upright, the ref doesn't give warnings to the team in possession to use it but blows up for the turnover. And once it goes to ground the refs blow up almost instantly.

Has this been explicitly stated anywhere in the laws or refereeing directives? Or is it just how the referees happen to interpret the maul law?

It seems to be it's giving undue benefit to the defending side, while punishing the side attempting to play expansive rugby - without any real basis in the rugby laws. Much as it benefits the Irish sides, I'm not a fan of the interpretation.

former legend

IRB clarification on the forward pass rule:

"Match officials must first observe the trajectory of the ball as it leaves the player's hands. If this trajectory is not clear and evident, the direction of the hands could help the decision."

So this notion on boards.ie that the direction of the ball doesn't matter, only the movement of the hands, is hopefully finished.

Sangre

former legend wrote: »

IRB clarification on the forward pass rule:

"Match officials must first observe the trajectory of the ball as it leaves the player's hands. If this trajectory is not clear and evident, the direction of the hands could help the decision."

So this notion on boards.ie that the direction of the ball doesn't matter, only the movement of the hands, is hopefully finished.

Trajectory as it leaves the players hands - as in, was the ball thrown towards the player's own try line. The ball can still travel forward significantly due to momentum. The player's hands will indicate the trajectory.

former legend

Sangre wrote: »

Trajectory as it leaves the players hands - as in, was the ball thrown towards the player's own try line. The ball can still travel forward significantly due to momentum. The player's hands will indicate the trajectory.

Yes, definitely, but there have been cases recently (e.g. the Munster v Perpignan game) where the ball has clearly gone forward out of a player's hands and posters here have been saying "it doesn't matter, his hands went backwards".

The key point here is that trajectory of the ball relative to the passing player is the main focus, not the direction of his hands.

locum-motion

former legend wrote: »

Yes, definitely, but there have been cases recently (e.g. the Munster v Perpignan game) where the ball has clearly gone forward out of a player's hands and posters here have been saying "it doesn't matter, his hands went backwards".

The key point here is that trajectory of the ball relative to the passing player is the main focus, not the direction of his hands.

In response to this, I'm going to repost a post I posted in another thread which explains my understanding of why a pass that ends up closer to the oppositions try-line can actually be backwards. I'm including also the post to which i was replying at the time I posted it.

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Actually, the way forward passes are reffed is that if the players hands are moving in a backward direction (i.e. they are moving to throw the ball backwards) it is not a forward pass even if the ball goes forward. A ball slightly going forward could be due to a hand-slip, wind, the way the ball spins, any number of things.

locum-motion wrote: »

For a bit of surprising info as to what constitutes a forward pass, and what doesn't, watch this vid:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=box08lq9ylg

Or, to put it another way, in mathematical terms:
(anyone who has a grasp of vectors, speed and velocity will get what I'm on about here)

Assume the ball is travelling (in a player's hands) towards the opposition line at a velocity of x m/s (metres per second).
The player then passes the ball to a teammate who is running parallel and a couple of metres behind. While in the air, lets say that the ball is travelling at y m/s, but in a different direction.
Treat the velocity of the ball during the pass as a vector, and resolve it into two components, one perpendicular to the touchline, and one parallel to the touchline. Call the parallel component z.

Now, some people seem to think that z has to be negative for a pass to be backward. It doesn't. As long as z < x, the pass is backward.
If the ball is moving towards the opposing line at 10 m/s in the player's hands, and is moving towards the opposing line at 5 m/s during the pass, then that's a backward pass.

Podge_irl

former legend wrote: »

Yes, definitely, but there have been cases recently (e.g. the Munster v Perpignan game) where the ball has clearly gone forward out of a player's hands and posters here have been saying "it doesn't matter, his hands went backwards".

The key point here is that trajectory of the ball relative to the passing player is the main focus, not the direction of his hands.

Yes, but generally speaking if the players hands are going backwards the trajectory of the ball relative to the player will be backwards.

former legend

Podge_irl wrote: »

Yes, but generally speaking if the players hands are going backwards the trajectory of the ball relative to the player will be backwards.

Generally speaking yes. But that's the point of this clarification, that trajectory of the ball is key and direction of the hands is only to help the ref decide which way the ball went.

locum-motion

former legend wrote: »

Generally speaking yes. But that's the point of this clarification, that relative trajectories of the ball before and after it leaves the passer's hands is key and direction of the hands is only to help the ref decide which way the ball went.

FYP!

.ak

For me the easiest way to ref it is - did the receiver catch the ball infront of the passer?

former legend

locum-motion wrote: »

FYP!

It didn't need to be fixed, see post #1816.

Shelflife

Its simple lads, the ball can go forward from a pass as in momentum can carry it forward, but it cant be passed forward.:D

Orlaw3136

.ak wrote: »

For me the easiest way to ref it is - did the receiver catch the ball infront of the passer?

I get what you're saying but...if wind blows ball forward :pac:

On a serious note the point is that if the passer is stopped immediately on passing the pass can look very obviously forward relative to the two players because the receiver will indeed catch it ahead of the passer, whereas if the passer ran on it wouldn't look problematic at all. Assuming the ball was passed backwards from the passer's perspective neither would be a forward pass.

I think Shelflife has it bang on.

locum-motion

.ak wrote: »

For me the easiest way to ref it is - did the receiver catch the ball infront of the passer?

Except that - with respect - you would be incorrect to use that criterion. Watch the IRB's own explanatory video that I posted a couple of posts back. It shows quite clearly that a player running at speed can catch a backward pass in front of the player that passed it, if the passer has stopped or been stopped after passing.

karma_

Perhaps this is not the right place to ask but although I enjoy Rugby and watch the six nations every year theres some questions I have about the game and perhaps someone can answer them for me.

Why are drop goals considered cheap?

How come sometimes when a player close to the touchline going for a try wont run closer to the posts for the easier kick when that appears to be on?

Why when a kick is blocked by hands is it not considered a knock on?

rje66

karma_ wrote: »

Perhaps this is not the right place to ask but although I enjoy Rugby and watch the six nations every year theres some questions I have about the game and perhaps someone can answer them for me.

Why are drop goals considered cheap?▶they aren't, who said so????◀

How come sometimes when a player
close to the touchline going for a try wont run closer to the posts for the easier kick when that appears to be on?
▶in most cases he will if he can◀

Why when a kick is blocked by hands is it not considered a knock on?

no, he made no attempt to catch the ball. Attempt is the important word. Its covered in law.

locum-motion

karma_ wrote: »

...Why when a kick is blocked by hands is it not considered a knock on?

Quite simple really: because the Laws of the game say so. It's right there in Law 12:

Charge down. If a player charges down the ball as an opponent kicks it, or immediately after the kick, it is not a knock-on even though the ball may travel forward.

Doc

Couple of times when playing I have knocked on a ball and managed to get a boot to it just as / after it bounces efectivly making it a brop kick. Ive never gotten away with it mind you with the ref calling it back for a knock on. Was wondering if by the letter of the law this should have been a drop kick?

Doc

karma_ wrote: »

Perhaps this is not the right place to ask but although I enjoy Rugby and watch the six nations every year theres some questions I have about the game and perhaps someone can answer them for me.

Why are drop goals considered cheap?

How come sometimes when a player close to the touchline going for a try wont run closer to the posts for the easier kick when that appears to be on?

Why when a kick is blocked by hands is it not considered a knock on?

Drop goals are considered cheap by some because if you are in a position where you have a chance to take a drop at goal you more than likely are in a position where you could have had a chance to score a try in the next couple of phases of play. By taking the kick you are choosing to give up any possibility of scoring 7 points for the chance of 3. Drop kicks are also not the easiest of kicks to make so your chances of even getting 3 points are not the best. Generally you would only go for a drop kick if you have a referee playing advantage for a penalty because if you miss you will still get the ball back. The only other time its generally acceptable to most is if the team with the ball is down by less than 3 points and normal time is up. If the opportunity comes then it may be worth the chance as the next stoppage would end the game. A drop kick when it is done for neither of these reasons is basically saying we can’t get through your defense.

When a player crosses the try line he often won’t run under the posts because although he is over the line he could still be tackled by the other them. If they manage to hold the ball up or if he was to knock on the ball he would not get the try so it’s not worth the risk for a better angle.

pickarooney

Why do players always wait until the last second to touch down the ball for a 22 drop out? I always think it looks a bit childish when they wait for the opposition player to be nearly on them before putting it down. Try scorers in sevens often do the same thing.