Laws Question? Ask here!

DDC1990

jwwb wrote: »

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?

Yup it was a Connacht game. Carthy came on for Nikora or possibly the other way around after getting kneed in the face in the act of scoring and had to go off for a concussion assessment. Leader ended up taking and slotting the kick.

Hagz mentioned yesterday that perhaps the difference was that Sexton in was off for a blood sub, and the other one was a concussion test. Much easier to prove a blood injury then a head injury.

I tweeted Nigel Owens about it but he hasn't tweeted me back :P

Edit: It was Munster Connacht and it was Ronaldson at 10. Dived over and got a belt to the face.

Losty Dublin

DDC1990 wrote: »

Yup it was a Connacht game. Carthy came on for Nikora or possibly the other way around after getting kneed in the face in the act of scoring and had to go off for a concussion assessment. Leader ended up taking and slotting the kick.

Hagz mentioned yesterday that perhaps the difference was that Sexton in was off for a blood sub, and the other one was a concussion test. Much easier to prove a blood injury then a head injury.

I tweeted Nigel Owens about it but he hasn't tweeted me back :P

Edit: It was Munster Connacht and it was Ronaldson at 10. Dived over and got a belt to the face.

This is correct. Law 3:10 covers blood replacements. A player covering a blood injury is allowed to kick for goal. There is a current Law Amendment trial in place regarding possible concussions whereby a player can be removed and replaced during a game. A replacement player coming on in the event of a head injury may not kick penalties or conversions. I gather that this limitation is to help prevent teams from trying to tactically exploit potential injuries in the game a la Bloodgate.

Edit; just to add something here. A blood sub only arises when a player is cut and needs the bleeding to be stopped.

mfceiling

This is something that we were talking about today....

A player is penalised for not rolling away at a ruck...ref takes out card, getting ready to show yellow for persistent offence.

When the ruck is cleared, it transpires that the player had been knocked out cold and therefore would have been unable to move. Player leaves on buggy.

What happens?

Scrum - attack ball.

Surely the penalty can't stand?

phog

mfceiling wrote: »

This is something that we were talking about today....

A player is penalised for not rolling away at a ruck...ref takes out card, getting ready to show yellow for persistent offence.

When the ruck is cleared, it transpires that the player had been knocked out cold and therefore would have been unable to move. Player leaves on buggy.

What happens?

Scrum - attack ball.

Surely the penalty can't stand?

Nigel Owens changed the penalty to a scrum for Munster when he realised Dom Ryan had been knocked out and couldn't roll away from the ruck. He explained his decision to both captains

The Lost Sheep

mfceiling wrote: »

This is something that we were talking about today....

A player is penalised for not rolling away at a ruck...ref takes out card, getting ready to show yellow for persistent offence.

When the ruck is cleared, it transpires that the player had been knocked out cold and therefore would have been unable to move. Player leaves on buggy.

What happens?

Scrum - attack ball.

Surely the penalty can't stand?

The penalty could stand but it would be harsh enough to keep it as a penalty and penalise player. Just blow up and call on a stretcher and call a scrum awarding to team last in possession/team going forward

The Lost Sheep

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTFhQsxjdwU

Anyone?

jacothelad

mfceiling wrote: »

This is something that we were talking about today....

A player is penalised for not rolling away at a ruck...ref takes out card, getting ready to show yellow for persistent offence.

When the ruck is cleared, it transpires that the player had been knocked out cold and therefore would have been unable to move. Player leaves on buggy.

What happens?

Scrum - attack ball.

Surely the penalty can't stand?

Barnes, Poite, Phillips, Lacey and Clancy turn the card from yellow to red for not rolling away and then time wasting and real referees restart the game with a scrum to the team last in possession.

jacothelad

Deleted User wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTFhQsxjdwU

Anyone?

Never. Shameful decision.

irishbucsfan

Podge_irl wrote: »

What does act accordingly mean? Get out of the way and just let the onrushing player have the ball?

It means measuring your footwork as you approach the ball and getting up into the air to give yourself a chance to win the ball.

irishbucsfan

Podge_irl wrote: »

Yeah...and if Russell had jumped vertically up he would have been absolutely pummelled by the oncoming Biggar.

It wouldn't have been remotely as one sided a contest and if he had approached the ball properly I'd doubt either would have come out too badly. Source: Every fair mid air contest in the history of the sport.

Losty Dublin

jacothelad wrote: »

Never. Shameful decision.

Why so? What's your call and how do you arrive at your decision?

The Lost Sheep

Deleted User wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTFhQsxjdwU

Anyone?

No try. Back to Penalty to England for Italy 5 in at the side.

jacothelad wrote: »

Barnes, Poite, Phillips, Lacey and Clancy turn the card from yellow to red for not rolling away and then time wasting and real referees restart the game with a scrum to the team last in possession.

Slight bit harsh there Jaco

Tox56

irishbucsfan wrote: »

You should be able to take account of the opposition, judge whether any chaser is going to be able to contest the reception and then act accordingly. Players are well capable of this, I'm sure even Russell can do this the vast majority of the time.

I really don't think there should be responsibility on the receiver to react to a chasers decision to jump by having to jump themselves. It happens all the time where a receiver catches a ball without jumping and is immediately smashed by the chaser. If the chaser in those instances had decided to jump and contest, the receiver is then forced to jump? That's bizarre and unfair imo.

If a guy is going to contest the ball by flying in at full speed that's his choice, but provided the receiver is 100% genuinely focused on catching the ball he shouldn't be punished if he decided not to jump and the guy in the air collides with him

irishbucsfan

Tox56 wrote: »

I really don't think there should be responsibility on the receiver to react to a chasers decision to jump by having to jump themselves. It happens all the time where a receiver catches a ball without jumping and is immediately smashed by the chaser. If the chaser in those instances had decided to jump and contest, the receiver is then forced to jump? That's bizarre and unfair imo.

If a guy is going to contest the ball by flying in at full speed that's his choice, but provided the receiver is 100% genuinely focused on catching the ball he shouldn't be punished if he decided not to jump and the guy in the air collides with him

Of course it should be up to any player to judge where their opponents are and contest safely with them. There is nothing bizarre or unfair about that, that's exactly how the sport works (and is how it should work, contesting the ball in the air is a great skill and should be encouraged).

Also the player is not "the receiver" until he has the ball in his hands. The ball is entirely contestable, he has no right to it by virtue of the fact he happens to be on the opposite team to the kicker. Russell and Biggar's right to the ball in this case is 100% the same. If Russell had jumped and Biggar had run into him (like in Payne's case) then it would be just as illegal. If you think there's any chance the ball is going to be contested then get into the air and make certain.

mfceiling

jacothelad wrote: »

Barnes, Poite, Phillips, Lacey and Clancy turn the card from yellow to red for not rolling away and then time wasting and real referees restart the game with a scrum to the team last in possession.

Lacey would probably wait until the next Ulster game then penalise the first Ulster player he happened to see!!

Poite would give a penalty try - pointing at the tighthead's binding as his reason.

The rest would probably go to the TMO and then do the opposite!!

Tox56

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Of course it should be up to any player to judge where their opponents are and contest safely with them. There is nothing bizarre or unfair about that, that's exactly how the sport works (and is how it should work, contesting the ball in the air is a great skill and should be encouraged).

Also the player is not "the receiver" until he has the ball in his hands. The ball is entirely contestable, he has no right to it by virtue of the fact he happens to be on the opposite team to the kicker. Russell and Biggar's right to the ball in this case is 100% the same. If Russell had jumped and Biggar had run into him (like in Payne's case) then it would be just as illegal. If you think there's any chance the ball is going to be contested then get into the air and make certain.

I was using the receiver for ease of comprehension, I know they have no divine right to catch it, I'm saying you shouldn't have to leave the ground to be legitimately contesting for the ball. As long as you are making a genuine and obvious attempt to catch the ball, it's fair game imo. i.e if the receiver is standing exactly in position with the ball about to arrive and a chaser comes flying in, I don't think the receiver should be punished for what happens to the chaser

I'm going by what I think the rules should be, not what they are, by the way

Interested Observer

I think banning Russell is incredibly harsh. Had his eyes on the ball for the entire time, didn't move into Biggar, I don't even think it was a penalty tbh.

molloyjh

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Of course it should be up to any player to judge where their opponents are and contest safely with them.

Isn't that what Russell tried to do though? He went to field the ball and when he realised Biggar was jumping for it he tried to avoid the collision. He simply couldn't have reacted any quicker unless he could tell the future and knew Biggar would jump before he did.

SaveOurLyric

Thats a scandal. Thought this was just an academic debate until I read he has actually been banned. Very unfair. Hopefully the appeal hearing sees sense.
While players are fully entitled to jump for the ball, from a pure player safety aspect, if that were what were important, Biggar would be guilty of dangerously jumping into a standing player. So avoid a mid air collission between two jumping players and you are penalised and suspended? Crazy.

irishbucsfan

molloyjh wrote: »

Isn't that what Russell tried to do though? He went to field the ball and when he realised Biggar was jumping for it he tried to avoid the collision. He simply couldn't have reacted any quicker unless he could tell the future and knew Biggar would jump before he did.

He probably couldn't have reacted any quicker, he should never have put himself in a position where he needed to react though, and that is something that could definitely have been avoided.

molloyjh

irishbucsfan wrote: »

He probably couldn't have reacted any quicker, he should never have put himself in a position where he needed to react though, and that is something that could definitely have been avoided.

So basically players either have to jump for every high ball in future or stay the f**k out of the way. That seems totally crazy to me. It means players can target high balls at where covering players are standing. Someone jumping with momentum will easil beating some jumping with none and if the player fielding the ball doesn't want to jump they'd have to actively move out of the way. It puts defences at a disadvantage and puts both players in greater risk than they need to be in.

Regardless of the laws of the game I'm very much of the opinion that Biggar was at fault here. He made the decision to jump and Russell literally couldn't have known that was going to happen until it was too late. The whole situation is BS as far as I'm concerned. The guy who made the decision to put himself in harms way got the benefit over the guy who he jumped into. It's madness.

Clearlier

molloyjh wrote: »

So basically players either have to jump for every high ball in future or stay the f**k out of the way. That seems totally crazy to me. It means players can target high balls at where covering players are standing. Someone jumping with momentum will easil beating some jumping with none and if the player fielding the ball doesn't want to jump they'd have to actively move out of the way. It puts defences at a disadvantage and puts both players in greater risk than they need to be in.

Regardless of the laws of the game I'm very much of the opinion that Biggar was at fault here. He made the decision to jump and Russell literally couldn't have known that was going to happen until it was too late. The whole situation is BS as far as I'm concerned. The guy who made the decision to put himself in harms way got the benefit over the guy who he jumped into. It's madness.

Either jump for every high ball or time their run to hit the catcher as they hit the deck. Watch Kearney and you'll see him do just that all the time. I think we agree (correct me if I'm wrong) that Biggar jumping into a space already occupied is Biggar's responsibility to stay safe. What we disagree on is whether Russell was close enough to that position to describe him as static. I don't think that he is. I agree that he hasn't got far to go and it looks to me like he hesitates initially and decides to compete in the air but then changes his mind and pulls out. Either way he moves from a position 2 or 3 metres away from where he collided with Biggar and that's far too big a movement for me to say that Russell occupied a space into which Biggar jumped. They arrived more or less simultaneously but with Biggar in the air and Russell on the ground.

irishbucsfan

molloyjh wrote: »

So basically players either have to jump for every high ball in future or stay the f**k out of the way. That seems totally crazy to me. It means players can target high balls at where covering players are standing. Someone jumping with momentum will easil beating some jumping with none and if the player fielding the ball doesn't want to jump they'd have to actively move out of the way. It puts defences at a disadvantage and puts both players in greater risk than they need to be in.

Regardless of the laws of the game I'm very much of the opinion that Biggar was at fault here. He made the decision to jump and Russell literally couldn't have known that was going to happen until it was too late. The whole situation is BS as far as I'm concerned. The guy who made the decision to put himself in harms way got the benefit over the guy who he jumped into. It's madness.

No you don't have to jump for every high ball, you have to jump for every contestable high ball. And you have to judge the kick and chasers to let you know when that is the case. Russell failed to do this.

Biggar wasn't at fault, that's patently not the case.

aimee1

Interested Observer wrote: »

I think banning Russell is incredibly harsh. Had his eyes on the ball for the entire time, didn't move into Biggar, I don't even think it was a penalty tbh.

Russell tries to play the ball. 2 week ban

johnson tackles DK and gets 3 weeks.

Doesnt make sense to me

Gits_bone

Interested Observer wrote: »

I think banning Russell is incredibly harsh. Had his eyes on the ball for the entire time, didn't move into Biggar, I don't even think it was a penalty tbh.

Except you have to be aware of what's around you. He only had eyes for the ball is not a road we want to go down. You have to take into account other players safety.

Gits_bone

aimee1 wrote: »

Russell tries to play the ball. 2 week ban

johnson tackles DK and gets 3 weeks.

Doesnt make sense to me

Whether he tried to tackle the ball or not doesn't matter. He was reckless and the end result was Biggar was shouldered in the air. 2 week ban is justified. Have to stamp out tackling in the air. And I also mean players just running into others in the air too.

molloyjh

irishbucsfan wrote: »

No you don't have to jump for every high ball, you have to jump for every contestable high ball. And you have to judge the kick and chasers to let you know when that is the case. Russell failed to do this.

Biggar wasn't at fault, that's patently not the case.

We'll have to agree to disagree so.

Gits_bone

molloyjh wrote: »

What Kearney does he does when chasing the ball. Russell was not chasing it. He also didn't hesitate. He had to wait to see exactly where the ball was going to land. In that position you'll never see a player leave attackers have the ball and tackle them once they have it. It was right on the Scottish 22.

I also don't get all this talk of Russell needing to be aware of his surroundings and Biggar not. They guy with the momentum and who made the decision not to try and tackle Russell but instead throw himself into the air it would seem has absolutely no responsibility in all of this, which I find baffling.

One thing for sure is that Russell will think twice about what he does next time the situation arises but Biggar won't. And if these collisions are allowed happen then you will have the opposite effect.

molloyjh

Gits_bone wrote: »

One thing for sure is that Russell will think twice about what he does next time the situation arises but Biggar won't. And if these collisions are allowed happen then you will have the opposite effect.

Basically any time a ball is contestable players will need to try and take it in the air putting themselves in a more precarious position than they need to be in. That is hardly the kind of thing that should be encouraged. The whole thing seems totally devoid of common sense to me.

Gits_bone

molloyjh wrote: »

Basically any time a ball is contestable players will need to try and take it in the air putting themselves in a more precarious position than they need to be in. That is hardly the kind of thing that should be encouraged. The whole thing seems totally devoid of common sense to me.

You will rarely see anyone get injured if 2 players contest for the same ball.
You will see players run towards the full back hold back on their run so they can hit the player hard when they return to ground. That's how it should be done.

High fielding is an art. Do you want to see play like Halfpenny and Biggars disappear from the game?