Laws Question? Ask here!

rje66 · 05-12-2014 10:46am

sydthebeat wrote: »

yeah im not sure about what you were pinged for, did the ref tell you?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/rugby_union/rules_and_equipment/4204094.stm

this above was what i was referring to.......

law 17.3(a) a player must not try to drag an opponent out of a maul. Don't matter where he is in maul
.Rugby commentators are part of the reason some people get laws wrong.
Not sure which law book the authors of that piece were using.....
...perhaps Nigel WraysðŸ˜‰ðŸ˜‰ðŸ˜‰

matthew8 · 19-12-2014 10:03pm

In Sale-Exeter tonight an Exeter player knocked the ball on over Sale's dead ball line and as is the rule Wayne Barnes gave a 5 metre scrum rather than calling it advantage and then advantage over for a 22 drop out. A Sale player questioned the call and Barnes said it's a silly rule but it's the rule. Does anyone know the reason for this rule?

rje66 · 23-12-2014 7:46pm

matthew8 wrote: »

In Sale-Exeter tonight an Exeter player knocked the ball on over Sale's dead ball line and as is the rule Wayne Barnes gave a 5 metre scrum rather than calling it advantage and then advantage over for a 22 drop out. A Sale player questioned the call and Barnes said it's a silly rule but it's the rule. Does anyone know the reason for this rule?

Most people see it as too much advantage, if a KO occurs else where on the pitch they wouldn't get a similar out come.

rje66 · 23-12-2014 7:56pm

matthew8 wrote: »

In Sale-Exeter tonight an Exeter player knocked the ball on over Sale's dead ball line and as is the rule Wayne Barnes gave a 5 metre scrum rather than calling it advantage and then advantage over for a 22 drop out. A Sale player questioned the call and Barnes said it's a silly rule but it's the rule. Does anyone know the reason for this rule?

Most people see it as too much advantage, if a KO occurs else where on the pitch they wouldn't get a similar out come.

Max Headroom · 27-12-2014 2:37pm

Humour me....:o....

Rugby match...Team A and team B
A player from A kicks the ball into team B half/sideline.. two players A and B run after the ball...
It bounces infield and goes over the line into touch.......Lineout to B..

Player B runs to collect the ball, picks it up and runs back to where the ball went dead..at this stage player A has run past the spot but is still infield..
Question...If player B throws the ball to player A and he catches (maybe a natural reaction) the ball...is he entitled to run and score a try if possible....or...is he off-side and as such gives away a penalty to the B team....

finatron · 27-12-2014 3:16pm

It's rugby law's not rules

The Lost Sheep · 27-12-2014 3:39pm

Max Headroom wrote: »

Humour me....:o....

Rugby match...Team A and team B
A player from A kicks the ball into team B half/sideline.. two players A and B run after the ball...
It bounces infield and goes over the line into touch.......Lineout to B..

Player B runs to collect the ball, picks it up and runs back to where the ball went dead..at this stage player A has run past the spot but is still infield..
Question...If player B throws the ball to player A and he catches (maybe a natural reaction) the ball...is he entitled to run and score a try if possible....or...is he off-side and as such gives away a penalty to the B team....

the player A is offside so no try

finatron wrote: »

It's rugby law's not rules

It is but does it really matter?

Mods can we merge this into main laws thread?

f1dan · 28-12-2014 1:07am

Max Headroom wrote: »

Humour me....:o....

Rugby match...Team A and team B
A player from A kicks the ball into team B half/sideline.. two players A and B run after the ball...
It bounces infield and goes over the line into touch.......Lineout to B..

Player B runs to collect the ball, picks it up and runs back to where the ball went dead..at this stage player A has run past the spot but is still infield..
Question...If player B throws the ball to player A and he catches (maybe a natural reaction) the ball...is he entitled to run and score a try if possible....or...is he off-side and as such gives away a penalty to the B team....

If i have read this correctly then it a try would be awarded. There is no offside line at a quick lineout.

Nathan White scored a try like this for Connacht against Zebre in Galway at the very start of last season.

f1dan · 28-12-2014 1:10am

f1dan wrote: »

If i have read this correctly then it a try would be awarded. There is no offside line at a quick lineout.

Nathan White scored a try like this for Connacht against Zebre in Galway at the very start of last season.

See 37 seconds in

Max Headroom · 28-12-2014 10:57am

f1dan wrote: »

If i have read this correctly then it a try would be awarded. There is no offside line at a quick lineout.

Nathan White scored a try like this for Connacht against Zebre in Galway at the very start of last season.

Sorted...tanx for clearing that up....:)

locum-motion · 28-12-2014 2:25pm

finatron wrote: »

It's rugby law's not rules

Actually, it's Laws, not law's or rules.

locum-motion · 28-12-2014 2:31pm

Are Player A and Player B both on the same team?
Or is one of them on Team A and one on Team B?
The OP's question is confusingly worded in this respect.

Note that in the Connacht/Zebre example shown, the Connacht player intercepted a quick throw in by Zebre. He didn't catch a quick throw in from his own side.

Quint2010 · 28-12-2014 2:33pm

My first reading is that yes the try should be awarded. Guess the clip posted there proves it.

LeinsterDub · 28-12-2014 2:42pm

Is player A outside the 5?

Max Headroom · 29-12-2014 1:40pm

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Is player A outside the 5?

Yes....but i dont get why the A player isnt ajudged offside.......thems the rules i guess..

sydthebeat · 29-12-2014 2:09pm

Max Headroom wrote: »

Yes....but i dont get why the A player isnt ajudged offside.......thems the rules i guess..

From my reading of law 19.2
There is no offside line from a quick throw in, but there is from a set line out.

LeinsterDub · 29-12-2014 2:55pm

sydthebeat wrote: »

From my reading of law 19.2
There is no offside line from a quick throw in, but there is from a set line out.

My understanding is the opposition player must be outside the 5 even if it's a quick line out. I know you must be outside the 5 to mark the line out.

sydthebeat · 29-12-2014 3:12pm

LeinsterDub wrote: »

My understanding is the opposition player must be outside the 5 even if it's a quick line out. I know you must be outside the 5 to mark the line out.

Ah yes, but that's not offside.

That's to stop a player blocking the thrower.

rje66 · 29-12-2014 10:16pm

[quote="LeinsterDub;93606265" to mark the line out.[/quote]

I'm curious about this piece, what does it mean or better still give an example.
Ta

LeinsterDub · 07-01-2015 2:20pm

rje66 wrote: »

I'm curious about this piece, what does it mean or better still give an example.
Ta

When the ball goes out a player will chase it up and run pass the mark where the line is to happen to prevent a quick line out . After the mark happens a line out proper must be formed

Shelflife · 07-01-2015 2:35pm

LeinsterDub wrote: »

When the ball goes out a player will chase it up and run pass the mark where the line is to happen to prevent a quick line out . After the mark happens a line out proper must be formed

That wont legally stop a quick lineout, nothing stopping a player taking a QTI even if there is a player there.

dub_skav · 07-01-2015 4:52pm

Shelflife wrote: »

That wont legally stop a quick lineout, nothing stopping a player taking a QTI even if there is a player there.

That is true. A lineout has to be "formed" to prevent a quick throw. I believe this used to be taken as 2(?) players from each side at the mark of the lineout, but has always been open to interpretation from the ref and differs wildly from ref to ref and situation to situation

The Lost Sheep · 07-01-2015 5:03pm

dub_skav wrote: »

That is true. A lineout has to be "formed" to prevent a quick throw. I believe this used to be taken as 2(?) players from each side at the mark of the lineout, but has always been open to interpretation from the ref and differs wildly from ref to ref and situation to situation

You need at least two from each team to form a lineout. You are correct on how it is interpretation from the referee and how it differs from ref to ref and situation to situation

connemara man · 14-02-2015 7:02pm

Are the project player laws changing? I missed the opening of the rte commentary today and a friend of mine said George Hook (not the greatest source of information I know) that they were changing next year.

Losty Dublin · 14-02-2015 7:03pm

connemara man wrote: »

Are the project player laws changing? I missed the opening of the rte commentary today and a friend of mine said George Hook (not the greatest source of information I know) that they were changing next year.

They aren't in the Law book, man. Maybe ask on the forum in another thread?

sydthebeat · 14-02-2015 8:15pm

To the refs

Please explain the vunipola try and the various different outcomes that could have been considered.

14-02-2015 8:56pm

sydthebeat wrote: »

To the refs

Please explain the vunipola try and the various different outcomes that could have been considered.

Great question. I have seen it too many times and still think that 9/10 referees don't give a try there.

The Lost Sheep · 14-02-2015 10:16pm

sydthebeat wrote: »

To the refs

Please explain the vunipola try and the various different outcomes that could have been considered.

Will do so tomorrow. Could you put up a link in this thread as havent seen the try.

jwwb · 15-02-2015 10:58am

Watching a Pro12 match a few weeks ago the 10 went of for a blood injury (could have been a concussion assessment) and was replaced from the bench. An opportunity came up to take the kick and the ref would not allow the temp sub to take the kick until the substitution was final. Ref said "that's the rules". Commentary was that this was as a consequence of bloodgate. Think the full back ended up taking the kick.

Yesterday Madigan was on while Sexton was repaired and took and scored a penalty and then went off again. No mention of the above.

Have I completely mis-remembered?

jwwb · 15-02-2015 10:58am

Watching a Pro12 match a few weeks ago the 10 went of for a blood injury (could have been a concussion assessment) and was replaced from the bench. An opportunity came up to take a kick and the ref would not allow the temp sub to take the kick until the substitution was final. Ref said "that's the rules". Commentary was that this was as a consequence of bloodgate. Think the full back ended up taking the kick.

Yesterday Madigan was on while Sexton was repaired and took and scored a penalty and then went off again. No mention of the above.

Have I completely mis-remembered?

Laws Question? Ask here!

Comments