Laws Question? Ask here!

Podge_irl

Losty Dublin wrote: »

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

Ah yeah, its completely a rare occurrence. The ruck has to be in the exact right position on the pitch and that's next to impossible to actually plan for.

It's not that big a deal, it's just coming up because, to my mind, it was actually impossible to defend legally on that occasion. And that's just annoying.

phog

.ak wrote: »

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.

But you either allow the slight advantage to the attacking team or the defending team. As it is the defending team has the advantage along the try line as the hind most foot is out of the equation once the ruck is near the try line.

entangled

Same thing happened in Munster game actually. No offside (although perhaps he would have given it if they hadn't scored.

In this video around 2:44

Probably just rarely penalised rather than rarely happens.

pickarooney

Any reason we can't have american football type posts, and half the problem?

Losty Dublin

pickarooney wrote: »

Any reason we can't have american football type posts, and half the problem?

And put every single school and club to the expense and hassle of having to change the posts on every single pitch for a non issue?

locum-motion

pickarooney wrote: »

Any reason we can't have american football type posts, and half the problem?

Just by the way, it wouldn't halve the problem, it would eliminate it completely. The bottom part of an American Football post is curved, so that it can be set back from the line. See this photo

pickarooney

I'm going to score against the post tomorrow night, just for ****s and giggles.

who_me

pickarooney wrote: »

I'm going to score against the post tomorrow night, just for ****s and giggles.

I sense a Darwin award on the way...

matthew8

Scoring against the base of the post always seemed a bit vague to me. How high does the base go?

sydthebeat

I would have thought base means bottom.

matthew8

sydthebeat wrote: »

I would have thought base means bottom.

Then how high does the bottom go? Szarzewski grounded it against the base of the post but it was half a foot off the ground.

Podge_irl

It has to touch the ground as well I believe.

locum-motion

matthew8 wrote: »

Then how high does the bottom go? Szarzewski grounded it against the base of the post but it was half a foot off the ground.

You have to "ground" the ball to score a try. If it was half a foot off the ground, it wasn't "grounded", was it? Seriously, the clue's right there in the word!

ArmchairQB

Podge_irl wrote: »

It has to touch the ground as well I believe.

Ball has to be grounded for a try regardless of where

ArmchairQB

locum-motion wrote: »

Just by the way, it wouldn't halve the problem, it would eliminate it completely. The bottom part of an American Football post is curved, so that it can be set back from the line. See this photo

Unlike American football our touchdown area or dead ball zone can be up to 10 mts deep but most club pitches vary in size of dead ball area from 5m to 10m so the one size fits all would not work andakeit. Extremely costly. Good idea and agree that would work well but would never be a runner due to cost implications

randomname2005

Obviously, in the event of foul play, penalties etc are reversed, but I was surprised by events involving Trimble's yellow card in the game this weekend. After watching the video (and eventually getting the correct number) the ref awarded a yellow card to Trimble for tackling without the ball. However, on the ref said that he would not award a penalty try because the pass was forward.

I would have thought that if player A passes the ball forward to player B, but player B is tackled before receiving the ball, that the forward pass is the first offence and a scrum should have been awarded.

Did I miss-interpret what the ref was saying ref during the game or what is the reasoning behind punishing the second offence? (approx 26:30 in the match video posted on the game thread is the conversation between the ref and TMO, and at 26:50 when he talks to the Argentinian player).

CIARAN_BOYLE

randomname2005 wrote: »

Obviously, in the event of foul play, penalties etc are reversed, but I was surprised by events involving Trimble's yellow card in the game this weekend. After watching the video (and eventually getting the correct number) the ref awarded a yellow card to Trimble for tackling without the ball. However, on the ref said that he would not award a penalty try because the pass was forward.

I would have thought that if player A passes the ball forward to player B, but player B is tackled before receiving the ball, that the forward pass is the first offence and a scrum should have been awarded.

Did I miss-interpret what the ref was saying ref during the game or what is the reasoning behind punishing the second offence? (approx 26:30 in the match video posted on the game thread is the conversation between the ref and TMO, and at 26:50 when he talks to the Argentinian player).

Foul play is more important than a knockon

padser

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

Foul play is more important than a knockon

I'd like to see a refs view on this as I was also a little puzzled and I think the above answer is a little simplistic.

A late tackle is not a yellow card offence unless it's part of persistent infringing or it prevents a try scoring opportunity. Given the pass was forward neither of these apply so I don't see how it's a yellow card offence.

Do all penalty offences that occur after knock ons get penalised? I'm fairly sure they don't, I've only ever seen the team with the knock on advantage get a penalty during advantage, not the other way around. Now I'd expect dangerous play to be penalised but I'd be surprised for just a regular penalty offence (say offside)

randomname2005

padser wrote: »

I'd like to see a refs view on this as I was also a little puzzled and I think the above answer is a little simplistic.

A late tackle is not a yellow card offence unless it's part of persistent infringing or it prevents a try scoring opportunity. Given the pass was forward neither of these apply so I don't see how it's a yellow card offence.

Do all penalty offences that occur after knock ons get penalised? I'm fairly sure they don't, I've only ever seen the team with the knock on advantage get a penalty during advantage, not the other way around. Now I'd expect dangerous play to be penalised but I'd be surprised for just a regular penalty offence (say offside)

Not all penalties are foul play, and I am pretty sure Ciaran is a ref. Likewise, I would not have considered a split-second early tackle in the 'reverse decision' category that stamping/punching etc would be in.

I would like some clarification on the application of Law 8.5 which is the closest I can find to this situation which talks about advantage with multiple offenses.

8.5 b)
If advantage is being played following an infringement by one team and then the other team commit an infringement, the referee blows the whistle and applies the sanctions associated with the first infringement. If either infringement is for foul play, the referee applies the appropriate sanction for that offence. The referee may also temporarily suspend, or order off, the offending player.

Is there another law that governs offenses after the first, but when no advantage was being played?

Riskymove

padser wrote: »

I'd like to see a refs view on this as I was also a little puzzled and I think the above answer is a little simplistic.

I was thinking on this one too and the conclusion I came to was that the offence was for tackling the man without the ball...i.e. before the ball arrived and that the subsequent pass was forward as a result of Trimble's foul play.

So therefore the tackle was the first offence and the forward pass came after that

Losty Dublin

padser wrote: »

I'd like to see a refs view on this as I was also a little puzzled and I think the above answer is a little simplistic.

A late tackle is not a yellow card offence unless it's part of persistent infringing or it prevents a try scoring opportunity. Given the pass was forward neither of these apply so I don't see how it's a yellow card offence.

Do all penalty offences that occur after knock ons get penalised? I'm fairly sure they don't, I've only ever seen the team with the knock on advantage get a penalty during advantage, not the other way around. Now I'd expect dangerous play to be penalised but I'd be surprised for just a regular penalty offence (say offside)

Tackle late enough or cynically enough and yes it can warrant a card; they have been issued before at club and test level for late tackles.

A penalty try only come into the equation if foul play or a law breach stops what would have otherwise have been a probable try. The referee mentioned seeing forward pass which removes the penalty try debate in this instance.

padser

Riskymove wrote: »

I was thinking on this one too and the conclusion I came to was that the offence was for tackling the man without the ball...i.e. before the ball arrived and that the subsequent pass was forward as a result of Trimble's foul play.

So therefore the tackle was the first offence and the forward pass came after that

Ball being forward is relative to the person passing, not the receiver. So Trimble can't have impacted the forward pass by tackling the receiver.

Btw, if he somehow had caused the pass to be forward through a penalty offence then it should be a penalty try

Riskymove

padser wrote: »

Ball being forward is relative to the person passing, not the receiver. So Trimble can't have impacted the forward pass by tackling the receiver.

Btw, if he somehow had caused the pass to be forward through a penalty offence then it should be a penalty try

If I recall it correctly the player Trimble tackled flicked on the ball....forward

As Trimble had already tackled him he may not have been viewed as "causing the forward pass"

padser

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Tackle late enough or cynically enough and yes it can warrant a card; they have been issued before at club and test level for late tackles.

A penalty try only come into the equation if foul play or a law breach stops what would have otherwise have been a probable try. The referee mentioned seeing forward pass which removes the penalty try debate in this instance.

Sorry, my list of things that can turn a late tackle into a card offence wasn't exhaustive so I take your point on that

In this specific instance though, I don't see how any of them apply. The tackle wasn't dangerous or particularly cynical (he was committed to it before it became appearing the man wasn't getting the ball, he was fractionally early), it didn't have any impact on a play the opposition was making (as the ball was forward).

I still don't see how you get to a yellow card from it, once you rule the ball is forward.

randomname2005

padser wrote: »

Sorry, my list of things that can turn a late tackle into a card offence wasn't exhaustive so I take your point on that

In this specific instance though, I don't see how any of them apply. The tackle wasn't dangerous or particularly cynical (he was committed to it before it became appearing the man wasn't getting the ball, he was fractionally early), it didn't have any impact on a play the opposition was making (as the ball was forward).

I still don't see how you get to a yellow card from it, once you rule the ball is forward.

I have started out from a position of: forward pass was first offence, why was a penalty and a yellow card awarded. I can appreciate that the letter of the law states that an early tackle is foul play, and it looks like foul play over rules everything else. Now I am at the stage of accepting the penalty but, like Padser, don't know why the yellow was awarded.

Given the obvious lack of clarity in communication between the ref and TMO, is it possible that there was a mix up in what was recommended?

Shelflife

I would have ruled on the forward pass and had a word with Trimble to be careful.

Scrum to Ireland, had it been a dangerous tackle then I would be looking a pen and possible card.

Guy:Incognito

On the posts thing, they could be pushed back to the dead ball line and taken out of the equation but still be there for kicks. Extra 10 metres to work up for a drop goal though

The Lost Sheep

randomname2005 wrote: »

Obviously, in the event of foul play, penalties etc are reversed, but I was surprised by events involving Trimble's yellow card in the game this weekend. After watching the video (and eventually getting the correct number) the ref awarded a yellow card to Trimble for tackling without the ball. However, on the ref said that he would not award a penalty try because the pass was forward.

I would have thought that if player A passes the ball forward to player B, but player B is tackled before receiving the ball, that the forward pass is the first offence and a scrum should have been awarded.

Did I miss-interpret what the ref was saying ref during the game or what is the reasoning behind punishing the second offence? (approx 26:30 in the match video posted on the game thread is the conversation between the ref and TMO, and at 26:50 when he talks to the Argentinian player).

I would have done as the referee did. The pass was forward so no penalty try(wasn't clear and obvious a try would be scored) but Trimble tackled man without ball and gets yellow for that as he was well off getting man and ball.

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Tackle late enough or cynically enough and yes it can warrant a card; they have been issued before at club and test level for late tackles.

A penalty try only come into the equation if foul play or a law breach stops what would have otherwise have been a probable try. The referee mentioned seeing forward pass which removes the penalty try debate in this instance.

+1

Losty Dublin

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

On the posts thing, they could be pushed back to the dead ball line and taken out of the equation but still be there for kicks. Extra 10 metres to work up for a drop goal though

Not every pitch has the same distance between the dead ball line and the try line. In the case of at least one Dublin pitch (The seconds pitch in Donnybrook.), the posts will actually be at an angle to the try line

randomname2005

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

I would have done as the referee did. The pass was forward so no penalty try(wasn't clear and obvious a try would be scored) but Trimble tackled man without ball and gets yellow for that as he was well off getting man and ball.
+1

Still strikes me as harsh, but then making those decisions is what separates the refs from the boys.