Laws Question? Ask here!

LeinsterDub

Will get lost in the match thread. You've to kick it before the 80?

Losty Dublin

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Will get lost in the match thread. You've to kick it before the 80?

Answered in the thread but once again, you may kick it at any time when the ball is in play once you don't time waste at a place kick.

LeinsterDub

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Answered in the thread but once again, you may kick it at any time when the ball is in play once you don't time waste at a place kick.

In fairness he wasn't exactly taking the piss. The ref seemed to rush the kick from the minute he blew up. Offically it's 60 seconds from the time the penalty is awarded or the ball becomes available?

Losty Dublin

LeinsterDub wrote: »

In fairness he wasn't exactly taking the piss. The ref seemed to rush the kick from the minute he blew up. Offically it's 60 seconds from the time the penalty is awarded or the ball becomes available?

The 60 seconds applies from when the kick option is given. If there is a break in play then it applies from when play restarts.

I agree that he wasn't taking too long but there's always the chance in such a situation where a player will try his luck to there's no harm in a gentle reminder

locum-motion

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Will get lost in the match thread. You've to kick it before the 80?

I thought that was a bit off.

What if a penalty is awarded for a horrendous foul that breaks a guy's neck, to a team that's 2 points down, 30m out from the centre of the posts, with 79:58 on the clock, in the World Cup final?

Does the kicker have 2 seconds in which to take a high-pressure kick?

And if the answer to that is "No, he gets a minute to kick it":
Then what is the difference in the Laws of the Game between that and an offside where no injury happens, where the offending team is leading by 17 points, 68m out from the posts, 1m in from the touchline, with 79:01 on the clock in the 3rd weekend of the Leinster Metropolitan J5 League?

Answer: There is no difference. The circumstances don't matter. You've either got a minute or you don't. AFAIK, you have a minute, regardless of the match clock. If I'm right, tonight's referee was wrong.

locum-motion

You're right that it's fairly unlikely, but the Law is the Law regardless of the actual circumstances (as I outlined in my last post about tonight's ref's "You have to kick it before the 80 is up" call).

I am unfamiliar with the Connacht example that another poster mentioned, but certainly George Clancy looks to me to have done the right thing in the Toulouse-Wasps example; at the next stop in play, he went back to look to see if points had been scored.
Someone was shouting "TMO, TMO", and I don't know if that was an appeal from a Wasps player or if it was George's way of saying "I'm going to go back and look", but if it was George, fair play to him.
To me, a good ref would make sure that the players were aware that the his attitude was along the lines of "Play on for now, but we're going to look at that later". It's similar to when he sticks out his arm and shouts "Offside - penalty advantage - play on". Everyone knows where they stand.

Snickers Man wrote: »

This one is inspired by my many sleepless nights since the All Blacks beat us at the death a year ago. (OK I'm obsessional. Forgive me)

Imagine the scenario. A team is leading a test match by 5 points with less than a minute left. They are in possession around midfield and are picking and driving to run the clock down. They know they are vulnerable to the referee dealing harshly with any killing the ball or going off their feet so they decide to vary the play.


The out half attempts a drop at goal from half way. The referee scampering back to adjudicate is satisfied that the ball went between the posts but is unsure whether it cleared the crossbar. He is entitled to ask the TMO to verify.

BUT....

a defender covering back has retrieved the ball before it went dead and has opted not to touch it down for a 22m drop out given the state of the clock but to run it out instead.

Question: does the referee have the right to stop the play AT THIS POINT even though the ball may still be live? Or can he let it run to the next natural stopppage and then go back to see if the ball was indeed over the bar and that three points should be awarded?

To my mind two controversial outcomes could ensue from this. If he stops the play there and then, with the defender trying to run the ball out to start a counter attack, only to find that the ball didn't clear the bar, surely the defending team is put at a disadvantage by having to drop the ball out to the opposition.

Or in an alternative scenario, the ref doesn't immediately go to TMO, the defender who retrieved the ball sets up a counter attack which eventually results in his team scoring a try long after the 80 minutes have expired. Then the ref consults the TMO to find that the original drop goal attempt HAD been successful, so he overturns the try, awards the three points and the match to the other team.

When is the correct time for the ref to got to TMO in this scenario and what should be the protocol with restarting the game at this late stage?

awec

We all know the front row is a place of dark magic, a secret members society where only those involved have any idea what is really going on.

How do referees know who is responsible for wheeling a scrum? Ulster got pinged for wheeling their first scrum, how did Barnes know it was Herbst pushing sideways and not that it was Hayman getting shoved back by Warwick on the other side causing it to go sideways naturally?

Also, sometimes it's clear who collapses a scrum and sometimes it isn't. What do referees actually look for?

The Lost Sheep

awec wrote: »

We all know the front row is a place of dark magic, a secret members society where only those involved have any idea what is really going on.

How do referees know who is responsible for wheeling a scrum? Ulster got pinged for wheeling their first scrum, how did Barnes know it was Herbst pushing sideways and not that it was Hayman getting shoved back by Warwick on the other side causing it to go sideways naturally?

Also, sometimes it's clear who collapses a scrum and sometimes it isn't. What do referees actually look for?

Where on the field the scrum is taking place is a factor, what has happened at previous scrums in the game is a factor. hard to give a definitive answer as so many variables but they're some of the things I look for when refereeing games
Referee's at pro level are micced up so will have the aid of touch judges who can see things from another angle

awec

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Where on the field the scrum is taking place is a factor, what has happened at previous scrums in the game is a factor. hard to give a definitive answer as so many variables but they're some of the things I look for when refereeing games
Referee's at pro level are micced up so will have the aid of touch judges who can see things from another angle

So basically it's an educated guess?

Teferi

When it comes to collapsing at amateur level it's basically just a wheel of fortune whereby a ref picks a different person based on the way the wind is blowing, the placement of the moon in relation to Jupiter etc.

Swiwi.

awec wrote: »

We all know the front row is a place of dark magic, a secret members society where only those involved have any idea what is really going on.

How do referees know who is responsible for wheeling a scrum? Ulster got pinged for wheeling their first scrum, how did Barnes know it was Herbst pushing sideways and not that it was Hayman getting shoved back by Warwick on the other side causing it to go sideways naturally?

Also, sometimes it's clear who collapses a scrum and sometimes it isn't. What do referees actually look for?

What is annoying is that the ref can either give a scrum to the defensive side because the scrum wheeled through the 90...but if he thinks deliberately wheeled, he gives a penalty to the offensive side.

I like Teferi's answer best.

who_me

Snickers Man wrote: »

This one is inspired by my many sleepless nights since the All Blacks beat us at the death a year ago. (OK I'm obsessional. Forgive me)

Imagine the scenario. A team is leading a test match by 5 points with less than a minute left. They are in possession around midfield and are picking and driving to run the clock down. They know they are vulnerable to the referee dealing harshly with any killing the ball or going off their feet so they decide to vary the play.


The out half attempts a drop at goal from half way. The referee scampering back to adjudicate is satisfied that the ball went between the posts but is unsure whether it cleared the crossbar. He is entitled to ask the TMO to verify.

BUT....

a defender covering back has retrieved the ball before it went dead and has opted not to touch it down for a 22m drop out given the state of the clock but to run it out instead.

Question: does the referee have the right to stop the play AT THIS POINT even though the ball may still be live? Or can he let it run to the next natural stopppage and then go back to see if the ball was indeed over the bar and that three points should be awarded?

To my mind two controversial outcomes could ensue from this. If he stops the play there and then, with the defender trying to run the ball out to start a counter attack, only to find that the ball didn't clear the bar, surely the defending team is put at a disadvantage by having to drop the ball out to the opposition.

Or in an alternative scenario, the ref doesn't immediately go to TMO, the defender who retrieved the ball sets up a counter attack which eventually results in his team scoring a try long after the 80 minutes have expired. Then the ref consults the TMO to find that the original drop goal attempt HAD been successful, so he overturns the try, awards the three points and the match to the other team.

When is the correct time for the ref to got to TMO in this scenario and what should be the protocol with restarting the game at this late stage?

I remember one of the Irish refs (Clancy?) making call to the TMO to 'mark' a moment but kept on playing. When the play fizzled out, he called the TMO to check the replay of the marked incident for a try being scored.

I thought it was a great piece of refereeing myself, but I don't know if it's correct or frowned upon. I have seen scenarios where a team is attacking after 80 minutes have elapsed, they ruck near the try line, the ref goes to the TMO who adjudicates it was short and the game is over. To me that's terrible, it's penalising the attacking team. If they followed Clancy's example, they'd allow play to continue and go back to check it.

So, going back to your question - if the referee is George Clancy, he'd probably allow play to continue to give both sides a chance and then call it back. Or else maybe ask the kicker if he scored it or not.

who_me

awec wrote: »

We all know the front row is a place of dark magic, a secret members society where only those involved have any idea what is really going on.

How do referees know who is responsible for wheeling a scrum? Ulster got pinged for wheeling their first scrum, how did Barnes know it was Herbst pushing sideways and not that it was Hayman getting shoved back by Warwick on the other side causing it to go sideways naturally?

Also, sometimes it's clear who collapses a scrum and sometimes it isn't. What do referees actually look for?

My guess would be it's judged based on how it wheels - scrums don't always wheel perfectly around their geometric centre; much of the time one side will be holding while the other side advances or retreats. If one prop is steady and the far side is advancing, you get the benefit of the doubt. If one is steady and the other side is retreating, you're wheeling. If neither side is obviously retreating, then allow it to continue until it goes through 90 degrees.

I doubt if you'll find that anywhere in the law-book, but it seems to me to be how refs adjudge it.

Losty Dublin

awec wrote: »

We all know the front row is a place of dark magic, a secret members society where only those involved have any idea what is really going on.

How do referees know who is responsible for wheeling a scrum? Ulster got pinged for wheeling their first scrum, how did Barnes know it was Herbst pushing sideways and not that it was Hayman getting shoved back by Warwick on the other side causing it to go sideways naturally?

Also, sometimes it's clear who collapses a scrum and sometimes it isn't. What do referees actually look for?

It takes me back to a J4 appointment of mine maybe 10 years ago at which I penalised a team several times at the set scrum for wheeling their already dominant scrum. Afterwards in the bar their captain came up and admitted to me that all the calls of a wheel were spot on. Curious know know what gave it away, he asked me how did I know when they deliberately wheeled it.

I replied that his scrum half shouting "Wheel, lads! Wheel!!" may have been decisive

The Lost Sheep

awec wrote: »

So basically it's an educated guess?

Kind of...

Swiwi. wrote: »

What is annoying is that the ref can either give a scrum to the defensive side because the scrum wheeled through the 90...but if he thinks deliberately wheeled, he gives a penalty to the offensive side.

I like Teferi's answer best.

What would you have instead of that though?

who_me wrote: »

I remember one of the Irish refs (Clancy?) making call to the TMO to 'mark' a moment but kept on playing. When the play fizzled out, he called the TMO to check the replay of the marked incident for a try being scored.

I thought it was a great piece of refereeing myself, but I don't know if it's correct or frowned upon. I have seen scenarios where a team is attacking after 80 minutes have elapsed, they ruck near the try line, the ref goes to the TMO who adjudicates it was short and the game is over. To me that's terrible, it's penalising the attacking team. If they followed Clancy's example, they'd allow play to continue and go back to check it.

So, going back to your question - if the referee is George Clancy, he'd probably allow play to continue to give both sides a chance and then call it back. Or else maybe ask the kicker if he scored it or not.

TBH I haven't seen many incidents like that but fair play to Clancy. I agree your scenario is very tough but its sometimes impossible to make the right call in those situations

locum-motion

who_me wrote: »

I remember one of the Irish refs (Clancy?) making call to the TMO to 'mark' a moment but kept on playing. When the play fizzled out, he called the TMO to check the replay of the marked incident for a try being scored.

I thought it was a great piece of refereeing myself, but I don't know if it's correct or frowned upon. I have seen scenarios where a team is attacking after 80 minutes have elapsed, they ruck near the try line, the ref goes to the TMO who adjudicates it was short and the game is over. To me that's terrible, it's penalising the attacking team. If they followed Clancy's example, they'd allow play to continue and go back to check it.

So, going back to your question - if the referee is George Clancy, he'd probably allow play to continue to give both sides a chance and then call it back. Or else maybe ask the kicker if he scored it or not.

I'm fairly sure that the example you're talking about is the same example that was already used to answer this question in post #2038.

Swiwi.

@TLS: scrum laws need review post RWC. There are too many penalty offences, especially for technical infringements. I'd change these to free kicks...and probably stop the law that you can choose a a scrum when you get a free kick.

In terms of that law, I dunno, making wheeling legal might lead to anarchy at the scrum, I can't remember anymore why they introduced the "through the 90" law, it came in in the 1990s if I recall correctly. There was a reason, I think sides were wheeling it deliberately so that effectively they would swap places with the opposing side, and obviously have a massive headstart on attack.

It's not easy. But my point was more that it's a lottery which decision the ref makes at times.

former legend

awec wrote: »

We all know the front row is a place of dark magic, a secret members society where only those involved have any idea what is really going on.

How do referees know who is responsible for wheeling a scrum? Ulster got pinged for wheeling their first scrum, how did Barnes know it was Herbst pushing sideways and not that it was Hayman getting shoved back by Warwick on the other side causing it to go sideways naturally?

Also, sometimes it's clear who collapses a scrum and sometimes it isn't. What do referees actually look for?

Re: wheeling, I think the ref would be looking at the body angle of the locks and back row. It's hard enough for the front row to get a wheel on unless one of the props deliberately goes backwards, but if you can see that the other forwards are shoving left or right, then there's the answer.

Shelflife

The scrum for me is an integral part of the game, turning pens into free kicks would simply encourage more cynical play and 5m scrums would generate into a farce.

There are a lot of tell tale signs for offences at scrum time. As FL said the position of the locks/back row tell a lot when the scrum is wheeled, binds, body angles and feet positions tell a lot when the scrum goes down.

Where the scrum is and what the teams are trying to do will dictate what teams are trying to do and what to look out for.

Simply put team with the ball want clean ball, team without want them to have dirty ball and will try to disrupt,

Disrupters tend to infringe more.

Swiwi.

The penalty is supposed to be for infringements (offside, foul play etc). At the moment if your line out sucks you lose possession but if your scrum sucks you lose by multiples of 3. Head high tackle: 3 points. Prop slips bind: 3 points. That's my issue. And I'm not Australian

former legend

Swiwi. wrote: »

The penalty is supposed to be for infringements (offside, foul play etc). At the moment if your line out sucks you lose possession but if your scrum sucks you lose by multiples of 3. Head high tackle: 3 points. Prop slips bind: 3 points. That's my issue. And I'm not Australian

But then how do you distinguish the genuine slipped bind from the prop who knows he's in trouble and just flops to the floor?

Maybe you could introduce a rule that says a scrum offence is a free kick but if the scrum is reset and you infringe again, it's a penalty?

who_me

Swiwi. wrote: »

The penalty is supposed to be for infringements (offside, foul play etc). At the moment if your line out sucks you lose possession but if your scrum sucks you lose by multiples of 3. Head high tackle: 3 points. Prop slips bind: 3 points. That's my issue. And I'm not Australian

Hah, I agree. It's the only position really where lack of talent (rather than cynicism) is penalised

You could argue a prop under pressure could retreat rather than trying to hold his ground & popping/collapsing, but I'm not sure how easy it is for a player to retreat when he has 5 other players driving at the base of his spine!

Swiwi.

former legend wrote: »

But then how do you distinguish the genuine slipped bind from the prop who knows he's in trouble and just flops to the floor?

Maybe you could introduce a rule that says a scrum offence is a free kick but if the scrum is reset and you infringe again, it's a penalty?

I can't claim to have any easy answers. The main thing is that a team like Samoa can be penalised off the park because their props might be technically a bit deficient and I just think rather than handing out 3 pointers maybe there could be other options. I definitely don't want to get rid of the scrum battle or stop a dominant team from taking advantage.

The Lost Sheep

Swiwi. wrote: »

@TLS: scrum laws need review post RWC. There are too many penalty offences, especially for technical infringements. I'd change these to free kicks...and probably stop the law that you can choose a a scrum when you get a free kick.

In terms of that law, I dunno, making wheeling legal might lead to anarchy at the scrum, I can't remember anymore why they introduced the "through the 90" law, it came in in the 1990s if I recall correctly. There was a reason, I think sides were wheeling it deliberately so that effectively they would swap places with the opposing side, and obviously have a massive headstart on attack.

It's not easy. But my point was more that it's a lottery which decision the ref makes at times.

Maybe they do but I disagree with changing them all to free kicks. Not enough of a deterrent for it then
No to making wheeling legal.

Swiwi. wrote: »

I can't claim to have any easy answers. The main thing is that a team like Samoa can be penalised off the park because their props might be technically a bit deficient and I just think rather than handing out 3 pointers maybe there could be other options. I definitely don't want to get rid of the scrum battle or stop a dominant team from taking advantage.

Its a fair point but Samoa and their culture playing the game is an issue in technical deficiency of props and I cant see many other options

Losty Dublin

Swiwi. wrote: »

@TLS: scrum laws need review post RWC. There are too many penalty offences, especially for technical infringements. I'd change these to free kicks...and probably stop the law that you can choose a a scrum when you get a free kick.

In terms of that law, I dunno, making wheeling legal might lead to anarchy at the scrum, I can't remember anymore why they introduced the "through the 90" law, it came in in the 1990s if I recall correctly. There was a reason, I think sides were wheeling it deliberately so that effectively they would swap places with the opposing side, and obviously have a massive headstart on attack.

It's not easy. But my point was more that it's a lottery which decision the ref makes at times.

In days of old, a scrum could wheel away with no limitations. This was prone to create untidy set pieces, it allowed for a lot of time wasting plus at times it could lead to potentially dangerous scrummages from both wheeling and charging into scrums. I'm not too sure when it was amended to what we have today but something is telling me that it was 1993, which was the same year when the Line Out possession law came in.

Deliberate wheeling is fully lawful in rugby save for those games under which U 19 scrum variations apply. What the law book does say is that a reset scrum after a wheel may result in a turnover. In essence this tells us that the lads in Huguenot House want straight and steady scrums but that some wheeling is fine and tactically quite good when a team can get a hit and move on. Where people get confused is when tactics that may lead to a wheel such as boring, incorrect or illegally breaking binds or driving upwards or sidewards are called out as a deliberate wheel by overenthusiastic or ill-informed commentators or by ourselves when we apply park rugby scrum laws to the senior game. They may lead to a wheel but they are offences in their own right and need to thought of as such.

Swiwi.

Losty Dublin wrote: »

In days of old, a scrum could wheel away with no limitations. This was prone to create untidy set pieces, it allowed for a lot of time wasting plus at times it could lead to potentially dangerous scrummages from both wheeling and charging into scrums. I'm not too sure when it was amended to what we have today but something is telling me that it was 1993, which was the same year when the Line Out possession law came in.

Deliberate wheeling is fully lawful in rugby save for those games under which U 19 scrum variations apply. What the law book does say is that a reset scrum after a wheel may result in a turnover. In essence this tells us that the lads in Huguenot House want straight and steady scrums but that some wheeling is fine and tactically quite good when a team can get a hit and move on. Where people get confused is when tactics that may lead to a wheel such as boring, incorrect or illegally breaking binds or driving upwards or sidewards are called out as a deliberate wheel by overenthusiastic or ill-informed commentators or by ourselves when we apply park rugby scrum laws to the senior game. They may lead to a wheel but they are offences in their own right and need to thought of as such.

You hear international refs penalising for deliberate wheeling though. Whether what they actually mean is your examples above I'm note sure. I'm showing my age but remember when

1) Tries were 4 points
2) You had to have your foot on the ground to call a mark
3) No use or lose it with the maul
4) You could kick the ball dead and get a 22
5) The scrumhalf could fake a pass
6) Lifting in the lineout was banned
7) The little boy would run onto the field with actual sand for the kicks...

etc etc

sydthebeat

Actual sand? Well how posh are you. .... we just had to have a study heel and a mucky field to make our tees

locum-motion

Swiwi. wrote: »

You hear international refs penalising for deliberate wheeling though. Whether what they actually mean is your examples above I'm note sure. I'm showing my age but remember when



etc etc

I'm old enough to remember when

...
2) You had to have BOTH FEET on the ground to call a mark
...
7) You dug a little four sided 'earthcastle' with your heel for the kicks...

Swiwi.

sydthebeat wrote: »

Actual sand? Well how posh are you. .... we just had to have a study heel and a mucky field to make our tees

Me too! But then I never quite got to international level. I remember the transition period when the kicker could choose sand or the new-fangled kicking tees. Those were the carefree days of amateurism.

Losty Dublin

Swiwi. wrote: »

Me too! But then I never quite got to international level. I remember the transition period when the kicker could choose sand or the new-fangled kicking tees. Those were the carefree days of amateurism.

We only had sand if it was a cup game and even then it was limited to one bucket.

Mainly because our school could only afford the one bucket.