Laws Question? Ask here!

The Lost Sheep

matthew8 wrote: »

A few things annoy me at the break down. The idea that supposedly a player can be pulling at the ball but because he didn't throw his arms in the air he "hasn't released" is stupid to me. Also the amount of players who blatantly aren't supporting their own bodyweight but earn penalties for holding on at the ruck. It's also very annoying how referees basically give the attacking team a free for all at the break down on the opposition line.

The current forward pass interpretation annoys me. It seems you need a physics degree to know whether a pass is forward. I'd much rather it was simply ball goes forward, it's a forward pass.

At maul time I'm not a fan of the "once scrum half" call from the referee. It makes it too easy to maul if you get 10 seconds before you actually have to move forward. When it's a choke tackle the defense is often let away with too much. Players coming in from the side, collapsing etc. And referees often blow for the scrum straight away, I'd rather the attacking team got some time to try and use the ball.

I disagree with a lot of that(im a ref if it helps)
On the ruck the player having to release their arms works as other wise the b/down can get quite messy as once you see a player lift arms in air or do a quick little clap you know the tackler has released the ball carrier.
Again at maul time the once ..., twice scrum half makes your job as a referee a hell of a lot easier and it makes the players enjoy the game slightly more. They know exactly whats going on and know when they must get out of the maul with the ball or they lose possession.
Choke tackle is quite different and no I don't think attacking side should get time to try use the ball. They are losing possession of the ball with opposition who very fairly stopped the ball carrier and slowed him and the ball up to get a turnover. The attacking side tries use the ball but were stopped by defence who turned the contact zone into a maul. They don't deserve any more time IMO

awec wrote: »

I think the laws say the ball has to be available immediately when the maul collapses i.e. no time to burrow it out of a pile of bodies.

the law just states an unsuccessful maul occurs when ball becomes unplayable ie exactly what you said not enough time to take ball out of the pile of bodies from maul that is now on the ground

accidentprone1

matthew8 wrote: »

...

The current forward pass interpretation annoys me. It seems you need a physics degree to know whether a pass is forward. I'd much rather it was simply ball goes forward, it's a forward pass.

...

I'd really have to disagree with you on this one. You've probably seen the video explaining it by now. It turns out to be quite simple.

If we didn't have this "forward out the hands, ignoring momentum" instead of "forward no matter what" rule, the huge skill involved in throwing a flat pass while at full tilt would be completely unrewarded.

Players would have to literally check their run before passing.

sydthebeat

accidentprone1 wrote: »

I'd really have to disagree with you on this one. You've probably seen the video explaining it by now. It turns out to be quite simple.

If we didn't have this "forward out the hands, ignoring momentum" instead of "forward no matter what" rule, the huge skill involved in throwing a flat pass while at full tilt would be completely unrewarded.

Players would have to literally check their run before passing.

agreed, balls have drifted forward since the game began, its part of the game.. we now have a way of telling for sure if the pass was backward / flat.

any change to this would be an aberration.

matthew8

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

I disagree with a lot of that(im a ref if it helps)
On the ruck the player having to release their arms works as other wise the b/down can get quite messy as once you see a player lift arms in air or do a quick little clap you know the tackler has released the ball carrier.

How is it even physically possible for a player to have their hands on the ball if they haven't released the man?

And as for the forward pass I find I can generally tell but referees have been inconsistent. In the Munster Perpignan game in January a ball went slightly forward due to momentum and the referee said "ball forward, forward pass". Why should a different set of officials have such a different idea of what the rules are? I'm perfectly happy for a slightly forward pass to be let go but I want a law the referees can be consistent on.

sydthebeat

matthew8 wrote: »

How is it even physically possible for a player to have their hands on the ball if they haven't released the man?

And as for the forward pass I find I can generally tell but referees have been inconsistent. In the Munster Perpignan game in January a ball went slightly forward due to momentum and the referee said "ball forward, forward pass". Why should a different set of officials have such a different idea of what the rules are? I'm perfectly happy for a slightly forward pass to be let go but I want a law the referees can be consistent on.

its quite simple to hold man and ball at the same time... if it was very difficult we wouldnt have choke tackles.

and definitely something that should be pinged because it slows down the attacking play and doesnt give the ball carrier a chance to (a) get the ball to ground (b) present.

who_me

sydthebeat wrote: »

agreed, balls have drifted forward since the game began, its part of the game.. we now have a way of telling for sure if the pass was backward / flat.

any change to this would be an aberration.

We hardly do! People say "see if the hands go forward" but if there's always an element of a swing in any pass so the hands can go forward then backward on the follow-through regardless of whether the pass is backward/flat/forward.

Add to that you can't really tell from the hands if it's a short pop pass with no pullback. Or if the player is hit (or checks) just as he passes, then it's very difficult to tell was it thrown forward or drifted forward.

I doubt if it would be practical to have a "if it drifts forward it is forward" law, but it certainly would be more definitive. IMO, it's wide open to guesstimation as it stands.

sydthebeat

who_me wrote: »

We hardly do! People say "see if the hands go forward" but if there's always an element of a swing in any pass so the hands can go forward then backward on the follow-through regardless of whether the pass is backward/flat/forward.

Add to that you can't really tell from the hands if it's a short pop pass with no pullback. Or if the player is hit (or checks) just as he passes, then it's very difficult to tell was it thrown forward or drifted forward.

I doubt if it would be practical to have a "if it drifts forward it is forward" law, but it certainly would be more definitive. IMO, it's wide open to guesstimation as it stands.

The system we have now is a million times better than when there was no tmo.
Many fans were left seething in a close game about dodgy decisions.

Id also say that most people who understand the laws can make the same judgement call that the tmo does and its those who don't fully understand them still think they are confusing.

That being said, sometimes there's whoppers of decisions that are flabbergasting. There was one game last week in the super rugby that had as clear a knock on as you'd ever see, but the tmo determined it was knocked back by a defender.

Robbo

What's the deal with the sleeves on a props jersey? I noticed in the Connacht match today, Dragons brought on a whole new front row on 28 mins because they were getting crucified. The replacement loosehead had an arrangement on his left sleeve where he had a load of tape/strapping which gave the effect that there was no appreciable sleeve there for binding purposes. It was like this from when he came on until the game end.

Shelflife

Robbo you're not supposed to bind on the arm anyway , but some props will slip their bind and I suppose this "design" stops this happening.

The tape and strapping are on his arm/shoulder and have little impact on the binding.

It looks terrible .

davidpfitz

matthew8 wrote: »

I'd much rather it was simply ball goes forward, it's a forward pass.

Would you agree that if a player throws the ball backwards, over his head, that this is impossible to be a forward pass? If you agree with that, then you can't have it that any ball that goes forward is a forward pass as it can easily be shown that if you are running and throw the ball backwards over your head it continues to move forwards relative to the ground at all times.

who_me

sydthebeat wrote: »

The system we have now is a million times better than when there was no tmo.
Many fans were left seething in a close game about dodgy decisions.

Id also say that most people who understand the laws can make the same judgement call that the tmo does and its those who don't fully understand them still think they are confusing.

That being said, sometimes there's whoppers of decisions that are flabbergasting. There was one game last week in the super rugby that had as clear a knock on as you'd ever see, but the tmo determined it was knocked back by a defender.

We may have fewer "dodgy" decisions now that we have the TMOs, but I'm not even 100% certain about that. With more camera angles, better zoom and super slow-mo, we're arguing about millimetres and milliseconds instead of inches and seconds; but we're still arguing.

As with the Earls try vs Treviso, I think you still see "bad" decisions. Though, the only way you could prove it's bad is by measuring the speed of the player up to the release of the ball and advancing that line after release. If the ball is level with or behind that line, it's a legal pass. Of course, we don't have that, so there's guesswork and inaccuracy.

I think the only way to make it easy for the officials is if the ball travels forward it's a forward pass, but that's probably impractical from a player's point of view.

sydthebeat

The laws allow for the ball to travel forward.

To be honest I don't think is that much of a big deal. Go onto YouTube and see some of the greatest trys ever scored and you will see some iffy passes in them.

Id gladly take a 95% correct procedure over a change of law.

pickarooney

Training game at the weekend in extremely windy conditions. On two occasions I made a short backwards pass which was carried a couple of metres forward. What's the rule on that?

Shelflife

If it initially went backwards and subsequently was carried forward by the wind , then it's play on,

danthefan

pickarooney wrote: »

Training game at the weekend in extremely windy conditions. On two occasions I made a short backwards pass which was carried a couple of metres forward. What's the rule on that?

If you throw it backwards, it's backwards.

JacquesDeLad

When you see a back line move interrupted because an opponent is now between the ball carrier and intended receiver, the receiver being visibly behind the ball carrier, is the opposing player offside?

Podge_irl

JacquesDeLad wrote: »

When you see a back line move interrupted because an opponent is now between the ball carrier and intended receiver, the receiver being visibly behind the ball carrier, is the opposing player offside?

No. Though unless he's quite fast he may well have started off offside.

.ak

JacquesDeLad wrote: »

When you see a back line move interrupted because an opponent is now between the ball carrier and intended receiver, the receiver being visibly behind the ball carrier, is the opposing player offside?

Depends if he was there before the ruck formed or after. Like if he was jogging back in open play he's well in right to snatch the ball/block it/tackle you. But if a ruck had formed, and he was still in that position, yes he would be offside.

sydthebeat

JacquesDeLad wrote: »

When you see a back line move interrupted because an opponent is now between the ball carrier and intended receiver, the receiver being visibly behind the ball carrier, is the opposing player offside?

you cant become offside in open play....

you can be offside if you never were onside in the first place (lazy runner)

JacquesDeLad

Podge_irl wrote: »

No. Though unless he's quite fast he may well have started off offside.

The opposing player being ahead of the ball is ok, why?

This is the apparent new exception to the law I don't get, as I don't play anymore.

ed. I'm referring to rush defence and why it's not penalised when it prevents the progress of the ball.

sydthebeat

JacquesDeLad wrote: »

The opposing player being ahead of the ball is ok, why?

This is the apparent new exception to the law I don't get, as I don't play anymore.

ed. I'm referring to rush defence and why it's not penalised when it prevents the progress of the ball.

lets take a ruck for example
the off side line is created at the back foot of the defending ruck
once the ball is taken from a ruck the off side line disappears.....

all defenders now can run as fast as they can.
they can run through the attacking back line, turn around and challenge from behind the attacking players... including intercepting the ball.

JacquesDeLad

No one grasping the nettle here.

Player X receives the ball at inside centre and in split seconds has to make a decision on whether to run or pass but, he has a pre planned move in play, he sees from the corner of his eye that an opponent has rushed beyond his position and is now between him and his intended next recipient. Is the opponent not offside and deliberately interfering with play?

ed. I think I've got it.

The shared explanations helped. Much appreciated.

chris85

JacquesDeLad wrote: »

No one grasping the nettle here.

Player X receives the ball at inside centre and in split seconds has to make a decision on whether to run or pass but, he has a pre planned move in play, he sees from the corner of his eye that an opponent has rushed beyond his position and is now between him and his intended next recipient. Is the opponent not offside and deliberately interfering with play?

ed. I think I've got it.

The shared explanations helped. Much appreciated.

No he is not off side. Its open play so he can go wherever he wants. Once a ruck/maul forms the player then needs to get back onside behind the last foot of the ruck/maul.

locum-motion

If he was onside at the end of the ruck/maul/scrum/lineout that preceded the back move, then he can go wherever he wants.

If a new ruck/maul forms or a tackle happens, then he must retreat to where the new offside line is.

There is no offside during open play (except, as has been said, for players who were already offside before the open play started)

who_me

locum-motion wrote: »

If he was onside at the end of the ruck/maul/scrum/lineout that preceded the back move, then he can go wherever he wants.

If a new ruck/maul forms or a tackle happens, then he must retreat to where the new offside line is.

There is no offside during open play (except, as has been said, for players who were already offside before the open play started)

* being very pedantic & tangential here, but there can be offside in open play if a player knocks on or after a kick.

Losty Dublin

who_me wrote: »

* being very pedantic & tangential here, but there can be offside in open play if a player knocks on or after a kick.

You are thinking more of very rare situations whereby play has moved on and players who have been put in offside positions have not made a genuine effort to retreat. If they have not then they are loitering offside but they will only be penalised if they materially affect play when in an offside position.

This clip should keep you amused

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9hnlHG-mDE

locum-motion

who_me wrote: »

* being very pedantic & tangential here, but there can be offside in open play if a player knocks on or after a kick.

Both of those scenarios, I think it's fair to say, would mark the end of "open play".

who_me

locum-motion wrote: »

Both of those scenarios, I think it's fair to say, would mark the end of "open play".

I'm actually not sure - I'd have thought "open play" continues until the phase ends (ruck or maul forms; ball goes out of play; scrum, free-kick or penalty awarded).

I do think the concept of "offside in open play" does exist, but it actually only really applies to the side in possession.

(And yes, we're not really talking about the original question any more but the phrase "no offside in open play", so sorry for the tangent).

locum-motion

who_me wrote: »

I'm actually not sure - I'd have thought "open play" continues until the phase ends (ruck or maul forms; ball goes out of play; scrum, free-kick or penalty awarded)...

When a tackle happens, there is a new offside line that wasn't there before.
When a kick happens, there is a new offside line that wasn't there before.

In both these cases, it does not have to develop into a ruck before it is possible for a man to be offside. The 'phase' (which is actually a different thing invented by TV, not the laws of the game) is over when the tackle or kick happens.

who_me wrote: »

...I do think the concept of "offside in open play" does exist, but it actually only really applies to the side in possession...

That's just the point - the concept of 'offside in open play' doesn't exist despite what you think (Subject to the two caveats below).

who_me wrote: »

...(And yes, we're not really talking about the original question any more but the phrase "no offside in open play", so sorry for the tangent).

The 'original question' was 1,900 posts and 5 years ago! We're discussing the laws, so I think we'll be allowed continue!


The caveats:
1. As already mentioned, a player who was already offside before the 'open play' began, will remain offside unless and until he retreats behind the ball. However, he won't be pinged for it as long as he actually making an effort to get back and doesn't get in the way of play or of players who were onside.
2. In open play, all 30 players, including the ball carrier, can run wherever they want. They can scatter to the four corners if they wish, even the opponents' corners. But if, in doing so, Joe Bloggs obstructs an opposing player who is trying to get to Joe's ball-carrying teammate, then Joe will be pinged. This is usually referred to as 'crossing', but is actually a form of 'offside in open play'.




EDIT: While I was typing all of the above, I was thinking about two scenarios; tackle and kick. However, on re-reading, the two scenarios I should have been discussing were knock-on and kick, not tackle and kick. Apologies.

Due to the Advantage law, 'open play' does continue after a knock-on, at least until the ref has had a chance to see what's going to develop. In theory, our 30 players could still continue to scatter to the four corners and still not be offside. In fact, if they were to do so, then if one of them (from the non-offending side) happened to be in a position to pick up the ball he would probably have a very clear advantage and would be able to run in an unopposed try. Even then, the rest of the guys from the team that knocked-on wouldn't be offside.

rje66

locum-motion wrote: »

When a tackle happens, there is a new offside line that wasn't there before.

not correct. there is a 'gate' but no off side line.
senario:
a trackle occours , blue defending players retreating and red 9 throws out a pass from 'tackle' into hands of retreating blue player, its play on, no offside,
as opposed to a blue defender entering tackle area not through the 'gate'.
different law:o:o