Laws Question? Ask here!

padser

rje66 wrote: »

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

I'm fairly sure this is incorrect assuming I'm understanding you correctly.

When a tackle is made (no ruck called, player not yet gone to ground, no maul called) there is neither an offside line nor a gate. A player can assist in that tackle from any direction, a player can intercept an offload from any location etc.

Have I missed something?

chris85

rje66 wrote: »

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

There is no gate until a ruck or maul has formed.

In open play If I am retreating back to defend I am entitled to tackle any opposition with the ball from any angle until a ruck or maul/ruck has formed at which point an offside line is set and I must retreat to this point and enter the ruck/maul from the back.

John_C

John_C wrote: »

Another question about the rules:

My understanding is that the bottom of the posts is part of the touchline so a try can be scored by touching the ball of the bottom of the padding surrounding the post. I saw two similar situations last week where a ruck had formed about a foot back from the try line beside one of the the posts, in Blackrock -v- Clongows and Scotland -v- Wales. It seems to me that it should be reasonably easy to pick up the ball and get to the bottom of the post for a try since the post is stopping a defender from standing on the try line itself at this point.
Is there any reason why this isn't done?

Did anyone notice this in the Leinster game yesterday? Just before the first Toulon try, Cian Healey got penalised for offside because he stood in front of the post, trying to defend it. You can see it at 3 mins in this youtube clip. Is there any legal way to defend the foot of the post in this situation?

Podge_irl

John_C wrote: »

Did anyone notice this in the Leinster game yesterday? Just before the first Toulon try, Cian Healey got penalised for offside because he stood in front of the post, trying to defend it. You can see it at 3 mins in this youtube clip. Is there any legal way to defend the foot of the post in this situation?

Yeah - was reasonably annoyed about that at the time. Not entirely sure how you're supposed to easily legally stop them grounding the ball at the base of the post in that scenario.

Buer

John_C wrote: »

Did anyone notice this in the Leinster game yesterday? Just before the first Toulon try, Cian Healey got penalised for offside because he stood in front of the post, trying to defend it. You can see it at 3 mins in this youtube clip. Is there any legal way to defend the foot of the post in this situation?

I was watching that at the time, knew it was coming but I wondered why Barnes didn't call it beforehand. He stood, waiting for the ball to be picked from the ruck, watching Healy and as soon as the ball was picked, he indicated offside. A referee should surely be communicating to try and maintain the flow of the game not waiting to give a penalty that can be avoided with some instruction.

awec

The only way for Healy to be onside there is to stand to the left of the post, which would have given Toulon a free run at the post.

Seems like one of those nuances.

Losty Dublin

Buer wrote: »

I was watching that at the time, knew it was coming but I wondered why Barnes didn't call it beforehand. He stood, waiting for the ball to be picked from the ruck, watching Healy and as soon as the ball was picked, he indicated offside. A referee should surely be communicating to try and maintain the flow of the game not waiting to give a penalty that can be avoided with some instruction.

Healy joined the defensive line from offside position so he was treading on thin ice. When the ball was in the ruck he was not interfering with play so there is no need to penalise. Once the ball emerged he was interfering and the resulting advantage.

Buer

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Healy joined the defensive line from offside position so he was treading on thin ice. When the ball was in the ruck he was not interfering with play so there is no need to penalise. Once the ball emerged he was interfering and the resulting advantage.

I know but the point I'm making is referees often will communicate the offside line during play i.e. "Get back number 1" to police the game. It was clear he was watching Healy and just waiting for the ball to become active again. I'd prefer a referee to try and prevent penalties with good communication rather than allow it to happen and penalise.

Losty Dublin

Buer wrote: »

I know but the point I'm making is referees often will communicate the offside line during play i.e. "Get back number 1" to police the game. It was clear he was watching Healy and just waiting for the ball to become active again. I'd prefer a referee to try and prevent penalties with good communication rather than allow it to happen and penalise.

He was told once so he had his warning. You can't be coaching players, especially at critical points in critical games. Any more of a warning and Toulon may not have had a penalty.

.ak

Losty Dublin wrote: »

He was told once so he had his warning. You can't be coaching players, especially at critical points in critical games. Any more of a warning and Toulon may not have had a penalty.

Are you sure he was told once? I defo couldn't hear anything although the noise levels were pretty high. I thought it was an interesting scenario, because Healy had to put himself infront of the post as you're allowed just touch the post cover to score a try (a silly rule that needs to be reviewed imo). He then looks down, looks at where his feet are, and moves them back over the line. I thought it was pretty clever and disciplined play by Healy. Barnes just stared at him, waited for him to play the receiver and then said he was offside - penalty. I thought it was pretty unfair, although Barnes doesn't have to warn him.. but I thought technically speaking he was onside because his feet were touching the white wash?

rje66

padser wrote: »

I'm fairly sure this is incorrect assuming I'm understanding you correctly.

When a tackle is made (no ruck called, player not yet gone to ground, no maul called) there is neither an offside line nor a gate. A player can assist in that tackle from any direction, a player can intercept an offload from any location etc.

Have I missed something?

its not a tackle until players are on the ground, if its players still on their feet with no maul called its just a 'ball carrier and a few defenders wrestling for the ball' so no off side until maul called, when team mate of ball carrier joins then its a maul..
if that 'ball carrier and a few defenders wrestling for the ball' goes to ground then its a tackle and you must enter through the gate to compete. the gate is the width of the players involved in the tackle. if you dont enter through the gate its a penalty for in at the side

Losty Dublin

.ak wrote: »

Are you sure he was told once? I defo couldn't hear anything although the noise levels were pretty high. I thought it was an interesting scenario, because Healy had to put himself infront of the post as you're allowed just touch the post cover to score a try (a silly rule that needs to be reviewed imo). He then looks down, looks at where his feet are, and moves them back over the line. I thought it was pretty clever and disciplined play by Healy. Barnes just stared at him, waited for him to play the receiver and then said he was offside - penalty. I thought it was pretty unfair, although Barnes doesn't have to warn him.. but I thought technically speaking he was onside because his feet were touching the white wash?

He got his warning when he came around the front; at the 3 minute mark you can see Healy immediately step backwards to play himself onside after Barnes speaks. There is no questions about it; he was offside coming in as he did so there isn't much comeback here.

For the record, you may ground the ball on the surface by way of touching the post covers as they are considered to be the try line.

The Lost Sheep

.ak wrote: »

Are you sure he was told once? I defo couldn't hear anything although the noise levels were pretty high. I thought it was an interesting scenario, because Healy had to put himself infront of the post as you're allowed just touch the post cover to score a try (a silly rule that needs to be reviewed imo). He then looks down, looks at where his feet are, and moves them back over the line. I thought it was pretty clever and disciplined play by Healy. Barnes just stared at him, waited for him to play the receiver and then said he was offside - penalty. I thought it was pretty unfair, although Barnes doesn't have to warn him.. but I thought technically speaking he was onside because his feet were touching the white wash?

Why should law be reviewed about scoring against post?
Its the equivalent of scoring on the try line.

awec

The base of the post is a decent enough one to defend. The defender just needs to get their body between ball and post. Usually when this happens there is so many bodies that there is no chance of rolling away.

Podge_irl

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Why should law be reviewed about scoring against post?
Its the equivalent of scoring on the try line.

awec wrote: »

The base of the post is a decent enough one to defend. The defender just needs to get their body between ball and post. Usually when this happens there is so many bodies that there is no chance of rolling away.

It's just that on this particular occasion the ruck was so close to the post that it would have been next to impossible to get between the ball and the post without being offside. Unless standing with your foot against the base of the post similarly counts as being onside.

awec

Podge_irl wrote: »

It's just that on this particular occasion the ruck was so close to the post that it would have been next to impossible to get between the ball and the post without being offside. Unless standing with your foot against the base of the post similarly counts as being onside.

Oh yea, that's what I meant earlier when I said this is one of those nuances. I don't see how the post could be defended in this particular case without an offside infringement.

.ak

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Why should law be reviewed about scoring against post?
Its the equivalent of scoring on the try line.

Because it sticks out half a meter from the line, has three sides and is nearly impossible to defend if the offside line is behind it - you have to be offside in order to get your body infront of it sometimes.

who_me

There might be a safety argument for the rule, if players going over the line near the posts have to dive either side of it, there's a danger of them hitting/being driven into the post. While it's padded, personally I'd rather not have 2/3/4 guys drive me into one as I'm stretching around it. It's safer if they can just dot it down against the 'front' of the post than reaching around.

You're probably right that you can't really defend it without being offside if the previous ruck is just shy of the line, but that said I don't remember many players being pinged for covering the posts.

John_C

Would Healy have been onside if he put his foot against the base of the post?

Losty Dublin

John_C wrote: »

Would Healy have been onside if he put his foot against the base of the post?

No, as you can't stand on the post or padding. The post and pad form part of the try line itself.

awec

Losty Dublin wrote: »

No, as you can't stand on the post or padding. The post and pad form part of the try line itself.

So how are you supposed to defend that scenario?

Even if putting your foot against the post made you onside it would be awkward anyway. You'd be standing with your weight not properly balanced in order to pull it off and it would be difficult to stop any attacker who runs at you.

Losty Dublin

awec wrote: »

So how are you supposed to defend that scenario?

Even if putting your foot against the post made you onside it would be awkward anyway. You'd be standing with your weight not properly balanced in order to pull it off and it would be difficult to stop any attacker who runs at you.

In all honesty, teams do not endeavour to ground the ball on the posts what with they being maybe 2 foot out of a 60 odd meter wide try line to play with. In effect, worrying about specifically defending it is a misnomer to some extent.

I'd agree with you on the balance and grip issue BTW

.ak

Losty Dublin wrote: »

In all honesty, teams do not endeavour to ground the ball on the posts what with they being maybe 2 foot out of a 60 odd meter wide try line to play with. In effect, worrying about specifically defending it is a misnomer to some extent.

I'd agree with you on the balance and grip issue BTW

Which is probably why it's never been looked at it, how rarely do you see tries at that area, but still needs to be looked at. I think when you're on the line it gives an unfair advantage to the attacking team.

awec

Eventually someone will figure it out and it will be the next choke tackle.

Losty Dublin

.ak wrote: »

Which is probably why it's never been looked at it, how rarely do you see tries at that area, but still needs to be looked at.

Unless it is giving teams outrageous and unfair advantages, it is causing the game to stall or if it causing a serious safety threat on the field of play then there is no rationale to change things.

phog

.ak wrote: »

Which is probably why it's never been looked at it, how rarely do you see tries at that area, but still needs to be looked at. I think when you're on the line it gives an unfair advantage to the attacking team.

The attacking team probably deserves the advantage.

Podge_irl

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Unless it is giving teams outrageous and unfair advantages, it is causing the game to stall or if it causing a serious safety threat on the field of play then there is no rationale to change things.

But there was a situation in the Leinster game were it was basically impossible for Leinster to legally defend.

It's not a massive issue but it is an issue.

Losty Dublin

Podge_irl wrote: »

But there was a situation in the Leinster game were it was basically impossible for Leinster to legally defend.

It's not a massive issue but it is an issue.

Podge, if it was such a worry then teams would use the posts to score on a regular basis

.ak

phog wrote: »

The attacking team probably deserves the advantage.

No team deserves an advantage. That takes the fun out of sport.

.ak

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Podge, if it was such a worry then teams would use the posts to score on a regular basis

Thing is, the reason they don't, is because most refs are lenient about how you can defend around the post (i.e being offside). But when you have a top tier ref like Barnes being pedantic it would make it impossible to defend. Essentially you could have situations where you're giving one team an advantage of being able to score a try unopposed. Regardless of whether it happens often isn't a case for whether is should be looked at or not.