Laws Question? Ask here!

Sundy

pickarooney wrote: »

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.

To wind down the clock and to force the opposition to close them down really.

The only time not to delay is if a restart goes in goal. If the defender delays it is considered to be playing on and therefore loses the right to a scrum back.

Scartbeg

Orlaw3136 wrote: »

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 can see this being hard to justify if it happened on the try line. Imagine the uproar from the crowd as the TMO shows the try scorer receiving the ball over the try line, after the passer is tackled before the line. Is the TMO going to award the try? I suspect not.

cython

Sundy wrote: »

To wind down the clock and to force the opposition to close them down really.

The only time not to delay is if a restart goes in goal. If the defender delays it is considered to be playing on and therefore loses the right to a scrum back.

In some cases there can potentially be a hope of catching a few players offside if they then take the drop out quickly too. I'm almost certain I've seen it done once or twice whereby the ball is passed forward (between plays) immediately after being touched down to a player who then takes it quickly, at which point the chasing players (unless they are very quick to retreat) can't put in a tackle immediately.

Orlaw3136

Scartbeg wrote: »

I can see this being hard to justify if it happened on the try line. Imagine the uproar from the crowd as the TMO shows the try scorer receiving the ball over the try line, after the passer is tackled before the line. Is the TMO going to award the try? I suspect not.

Good point regarding the uproar - actually I'd be confident it would be allowed in any game at a level where there was a TMO operating.

Orlaw3136

pickarooney wrote: »

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.

It's often to pull in a couple of defenders, then touch down and fire the ball out to the 22 where the kick can be taken immediately. There should be slightly better options for the drop out, especially if the defender(s) are wide players.

Orlaw3136

Doc wrote: »

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?

No. Law 12 states that :-

"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."


In your example, you've 'lost possession' and it has gone forward, then touched the ground (or you've ''hit the ball forward with hand or arm' or the ball has 'hit your hand or arm and gone forward') so that's a knock on.


In the 'Definitions' the law defines a Drop Kick as being when the ball is dropped from the hand or hands to the ground and kicked as it rises from its first bounce. Correctly interpreted, the dropping of the ball to the ground has to be considered intentional to avoid a knock on.

Scartbeg

Scartbeg wrote: »

I can see this being hard to justify if it happened on the try line. Imagine the uproar from the crowd as the TMO shows the try scorer receiving the ball over the try line, after the passer is tackled before the line. Is the TMO going to award the try? I suspect not.

Can the TMO rule on forward passes?

Orlaw3136

Deleted User wrote: »

Can the TMO rule on forward passes?

Pretty sure they can review going back two phases from the grounding, or for foul play.

In the top tier they'll stick it up on the big screen for the ref to make his own mind up.

cython

Deleted User wrote: »

Can the TMO rule on forward passes?

They can now, but couldn't before. There was a bit of a clamp down over what the TMO was actually allowed to rule on when NZ fell foul of one overstepping his bounds (Paddy O'Brien was suddenly very vocal on matter the following week!), but recently the TMO has been given powers to go back a phase or two in the lead up, depending on the question asked by the referee.

rje66

Scartbeg wrote: »

I can see this being hard to justify if it happened on the try line. Imagine the uproar from the crowd as the TMO shows the try scorer receiving the ball over the try line, after the passer is tackled before the line. Is the TMO going to award the try? I suspect not.

sometimes forward is not forward!!!, see clip below
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=box08lq9ylg

also a discussion for you to digest:D:D:D

http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?17266-forward-passes

enjoy

sydthebeat

rje66 wrote: »

sometimes forward is not forward!!!, see clip below
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=box08lq9ylg

also a discussion for you to digest:D:D:D

http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?17266-forward-passes

enjoy

are you the 'richie' rje66???

what chance of us mere mortals understating the guidance if the imposers of said guidance have such differing opinions

matthew8

What's the rule about referees asking the tmo? Are they allowed ask them because they saw something on the big screen? Reason I ask is because last night in the Bath-Sarries game the referee seemed to stand around for a minute before asking about a Jacques Burger tackle and again in Bordeaux today there was a bit of a delay for a late hit.

The Lost Sheep

matthew8 wrote: »

What's the rule about referees asking the tmo? Are they allowed ask them because they saw something on the big screen? Reason I ask is because last night in the Bath-Sarries game the referee seemed to stand around for a minute before asking about a Jacques Burger tackle and again in Bordeaux today there was a bit of a delay for a late hit.

The referee can use the big screen to aid themselves in their decision.
They can check back to previous stoppage in play.

matthew8

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

The referee can use the big screen to aid themselves in their decision.
They can check back to previous stoppage in play.

But what if they weren't going to check it in the first place then happened to see it on the screen? (sorry if you mean that they can do that with your post)

Oregano_State

Does anyone else think that the clock should be stopped for penalty attempts at goal and conversions?

Up to two minutes can be lost per kick.

sydthebeat

Oregano_State wrote: »

Does anyone else think that the clock should be stopped for penalty attempts at goal and conversions?

Up to two minutes can be lost per kick.

1:30 seconds is allowed for the kick.

Podge_irl

Oregano_State wrote: »

Does anyone else think that the clock should be stopped for penalty attempts at goal and conversions?

Up to two minutes can be lost per kick.

Technically they only have a minute from when the decision to kick at goal is made.

I'd like to see that enforced more.

locum-motion

Oregano_State wrote: »

Does anyone else think that the clock should be stopped for penalty attempts at goal and conversions?

Up to two minutes can be lost per kick.

No. Not me anyway.

Are you trying to turn it into American Football?

Oregano_State

locum-motion wrote: »

No. Not me anyway.

Are you trying to turn it into American Football?

No need for the smart arse comment.

More time with ball in play would be the result, I don't see the negatives.

Obviously it's not going to happen any time soon.

sydthebeat

Oregano_State wrote: »

No need for the smart arse comment.

More time with ball in play would be the result, I don't see the negatives.

Obviously it's not going to happen any time soon.

It would punish the non offending team.

If you're leading and the other side give away penalties, you'll take as long as youre allowed.
If youre losing you will speed it up.

locum-motion

Oregano_State wrote: »

No need for the smart arse comment...

It was not in the slightest bit "smart arse".

It reflects my opinion of what your idea would lead to.

If you ask for opinions, you have to be prepared for the fact that some people will have different opinions than yours. Sometimes radically different. That does not mean that all those who differ are smartarses.

Now, grow up.

Oregano_State

sydthebeat wrote: »

It would punish the non offending team.

If you're leading and the other side give away penalties, you'll take as long as youre allowed.
If youre losing you will speed it up.

That argument makes a million times more sense when the clock is running, and those situations happen in most games at the moment. Unless you're talking about breaking momentum, but it's still a pretty weak argument. If the same amount of time was allowed, only with the clock off, then that would not be an issue.

I definitely think the current time allowance needs to be enforced.

sydthebeat

Oregano_State wrote: »

That argument makes a million times more sense when the clock is running, and those situations happen in most games at the moment. Unless you're talking about breaking momentum, but it's still a pretty weak argument. If the same amount of time was allowed, only with the clock off, then that would not be an issue.

I definitely think the current time allowance needs to be enforced.

It is enforced.

Id challenge you to Find one kick in this 6n round that is illegal on time use.

Stopping the clock suits the offending team of they are losing, that is not an acceptable scenario.

Artful_Badger

When they were checking if it was a foul on Sexton when he scored the first try in the Italy game they said it would a penalty Ireland instead of an Italian restart if it was a penalty offence.

Didnt Philips get yellow carded against Ireland after the Jackson try and it was still a restart to Wales after the conversion ?

Can a player get binned without the other team getting a penalty for it ?

Oregano_State

sydthebeat wrote: »

Stopping the clock suits the offending team of they are losing, that is not an acceptable scenario.

Explain this point, because I don't see it.

Repeated penalty offences result in yellow cards.

I'm not necessarily talking about exceeding the time limit, but losing teams take their set plays more quickly and winning teams the opposite. Stopping the clock for kicks would remove a big part of this.

sydthebeat

Oregano_State wrote: »

Explain this point, because I don't see it.

Repeated penalty offences result in yellow cards.

I'm not necessarily talking about exceeding the time limit, but losing teams take their set plays more quickly and winning teams the opposite. Stopping the clock for kicks would remove a big part of this.

Ok picture this.

Team A down by 3 points and need a victory to win league.
1 minute left on the clock and team B in possession in team a's 22.

Team A deliberately give away a penalty in front of the posts because they know, if the clock is stopped, they will have a chance of gaining possession on a restart.

That simply goes against all the ethos of rugby, in which an illegal act would work in your favor.

As i said above, the time is allowed, lockers have their set up organised to act within the allowed time.

There is no issue.

Losty Dublin

Oregano_State wrote: »

Explain this point, because I don't see it.

Repeated penalty offences result in yellow cards.

I'm not necessarily talking about exceeding the time limit, but losing teams take their set plays more quickly and winning teams the opposite. Stopping the clock for kicks would remove a big part of this.

The ball is not dead at a penalty even when a team are preparing to take the penalty. If the clock stops for a penalty kick then it also must stop for a scrum taken in lieu, a tap and go or a kick towards tough or even a Garryowen. By making the ball dead at a penalty call you effectively kill off the quick penalty.

phog

sydthebeat wrote: »

It is enforced.

Id challenge you to Find one kick in this 6n round that is illegal on time use.

Stopping the clock suits the offending team of they are losing, that is not an acceptable scenario.

Is it though?

I haven't timed him but Sexton certainly seems to take a lot longer than the 1 minute allowed.

Podge_irl

phog wrote: »

Is it though?

I haven't timed him but Sexton certainly seems to take a lot longer than the 1 minute allowed.

It is one minute from the time that the kick at goal is acknowledge rather than from the penalty being awarded.

He does seem to take quite a while though.

sydthebeat

phog wrote: »

Is it though?

I haven't timed him but Sexton certainly seems to take a lot longer than the 1 minute allowed.

It's 90 seconds iirc