Laws Question? Ask here!

Yeah_Right

I have a question regarding yellow cards.

A player gets a yellow card at 71 minutes. Usually that means he is gone for the game. However due to a long sequence of play and maybe penalties, the game doesn't finish until 84 minutes. Is that player allowed back on?

Similar scenario around halftime. Player is carded on 32 minutes. Play carries on till 42 minutes. Does this player came straight back on after half time or does he still have to wait till 2 minutes into the second half?

sydthebeat

Yeah_Right wrote: »

I have a question regarding yellow cards.

A player gets a yellow card at 71 minutes. Usually that means he is gone for the game. However due to a long sequence of play and maybe penalties, the game doesn't finish until 84 minutes. Is that player allowed back on?

Similar scenario around halftime. Player is carded on 32 minutes. Play carries on till 42 minutes. Does this player came straight back on after half time or does he still have to wait till 2 minutes into the second half?

surely the players "10 minutes" is linked to the refs watch and is only counted when time is 'on'

The Lost Sheep

Yeah_Right wrote: »

I have a question regarding yellow cards.

A player gets a yellow card at 71 minutes. Usually that means he is gone for the game. However due to a long sequence of play and maybe penalties, the game doesn't finish until 84 minutes. Is that player allowed back on?

Similar scenario around halftime. Player is carded on 32 minutes. Play carries on till 42 minutes. Does this player came straight back on after half time or does he still have to wait till 2 minutes into the second half?

Player carded on 32 minutes doesn't come on until 1 or 2 minutes into 2nd half depending on the amount of injury time played at end of first half
Player carded on 71 minutes can come back on if his 10 minutes are up and game is still in play

sydthebeat wrote: »

surely the players "10 minutes" is linked to the refs watch and is only counted when time is 'on'

We were told recently enough at a ref meeting you shouldn't really be stopping the clock too much in a game and certainly not saying 'time off' too much in games.

Clearlier

molloyjh wrote: »

Russell isn't a full back for starters. And secondly there wasn't another player jumping for it when he took his last step. Review the footage again. Biggar started to jump after Russell took his last step to get under the ball. As soon as Russell realised what was happening he tried to avoid it but could do nothing about it.

Also the length of time the ball was in the air is irrelevant to momentum. Distance run and speed are. There were a few metres between where Russell was and where the ball was going to land. So he could never have built up momentum. It would have been impossible.

I said he was for all intents and purposes a static player, not that he literally was. He wasn't running in to challenge for anything. He took a step or two to get under the ball. Watch restarts and up and unders over the next few weeks. Players often take the ball on the ground in and around their 22. It's a pretty common occurrence. In this circumstance the other thing that hasn't been mentioned is that Russell actually tried to avoid the collision where-as Biggar did nothing to avoid it. Neither player knew in advance what the other player was going to do. Yet because Biggar jumped he's suddenly deemed to have less responsibility over the incident than Russell. That is what I find bizarre.

I've looked at the video in post #533 again and it's pretty clear to me that Russell takes a significant step forward after Biggar leaves the ground (I'm looking at the 19 second mark), just one step but it carries momentum with it as it follows on from a couple previously made. If he was adjusting his position slightly then I would haven't a problem with it because I don't think that it would have been as dangerous but it's the combination of his forward momentum and Biggar's jump that flips Biggar over 180 degrees. Again if Russell gets into the air I don't think that the situation is nearly as dangerous - you end up with something like the Davies tackle where both players are fine and there's never a point at which you're unduly concerned that they might incur a bad injury. The issue IMO is that Russell moves into to jump to catch the ball, changes his mind and ends up hitting Biggar on the legs leading him to flip over.

To perhaps be pedantic Russell didn't make any attempt to avoid the collision (I'm not sure that he could have) he just turned to protect himself.

A professional rugby player would certainly have anticipated what Biggar was aiming to do with his kick. It's just not tenable to suggest that Russell couldn't have anticipated that having put up a garryowen Biggar wouldn't try and catch it by jumping in the air. It's a routine part of the game now.

sydthebeat

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

We were told recently enough at a ref meeting you shouldn't really be stopping the clock too much in a game and certainly not saying 'time off' too much in games.

i was at a game recently where the ref played 11 minutes overtime......
the supporters were going mad.


anyway, im talking about pro level ..... when you can see the yellow card clock counting down... i always took it that it was linked to the refs "time on"

so if someone was carded on 71 minutes there was no chance of them returning, even if another 12-13-14 minutes was played in "real time"

sydthebeat

Gits_bone wrote: »

Except you're allowed to jump to get the ball. A player will know if another is contesting for it, it's expected the opposition will jump to get it.

why should you be forced to jump? please answer.....

dub_skav

I'm no ref, but I think this is the way it is.

Player binned at 71 cannot come back on as the clock will have passed 80 before he can return. He can only return at a break in play and once clock passes 80 the game is over at the next break in play, so his first opportunity to re-enter is also the end of the game.

A player binned on 32 is binned for 10 minutes of playing time, so if the clock goes beyond 40 in the first half, this should count as part of his 10.

The Lost Sheep

sydthebeat wrote: »

i was at a game recently where the ref played 11 minutes overtime......
the supporters were going mad.


anyway, im talking about pro level ..... when you can see the yellow card clock counting down... i always took it that it was linked to the refs "time on"

so if someone was carded on 71 minutes there was no chance of them returning, even if another 12-13-14 minutes was played in "real time"

What happened that 11 minutes were needed??
Nothing ever good can happen in the 11th minute of over time. If game is going well Why keep it going when potentially something could go wrong and if game hasn't been going well why the f*** are you still on the pitch in the 11th minute of over time. No wonder supporters were going mad

At pro level the clocks should be linked to referees time and there is a qualified referee at all pro games who's role is to be the timekeeper and he is who the referee is actually saying time on/time off to.

Yeah_Right

dub_skav wrote: »

I'm no ref, but I think this is the way it is.

Player binned at 71 cannot come back on as the clock will have passed 80 before he can return. He can only return at a break in play and once clock passes 80 the game is over at the next break in play, so his first opportunity to re-enter is also the end of the game.

A player binned on 32 is binned for 10 minutes of playing time, so if the clock goes beyond 40 in the first half, this should count as part of his 10.

Break in play could be a penalty so the game wouldn't be over.

dub_skav

Yeah_Right wrote: »

Break in play could be a penalty so the game wouldn't be over.

You're right, stupid me.
I actually think I have an extremely hazy memory of somebody coming back on as a result of exactly that. Commentators even mentioned that he wouldn't have been expecting to return

sydthebeat

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

What happened that 11 minutes were needed??
Nothing ever good can happen in the 11th minute of over time. If game is going well Why keep it going when potentially something could go wrong and if game hasn't been going well why the f*** are you still on the pitch in the 11th minute of over time. No wonder supporters were going mad
.

the home team were loosing

ah no, there was one incident in the second half where a player had to get treatment on the pitch, but im talking about 90 seconds max.
In cases like this i think a ref has obviously stooped their watch quite often in a half, they should have to audibly annouce to both teams "10 mins left" , "five mins left", "1 min left" etc

does the refs watch give 'real time' and 'match time'? or do refs were two watches to indicate how much over real time they are going?

Downtime

dub_skav wrote: »

Player binned at 71 cannot come back on as the clock will have passed 80 before he can return. He can only return at a break in play and once clock passes 80 the game is over at the next break in play, so his first opportunity to re-enter is also the end of the game.

Unless there is a penalty on the 81st minute, where by he could return.

aimee1

Gits_bone wrote: »

I don't look at the number of weeks as the punishment.

I look at the number of games missed.

Russell got 1 and Johnson got 3.

Should have been a red for Johnson really.

Russell is unavailable to play for glasgow this weekend. I say this because look at Healys ban 2 years ago when it was manipulated around the fact he wouldnt have played for leinster in the off week.

At any other time in the season its 2 games.

rrpc

molloyjh wrote: »

That's exactly what gets me. The responsibility in this case is on 1 party and 1 party alone. The other party has none. It's completely and utterly lob-sided.

The responsibility is on both players to avoid injury to each other. The guy on the ground has a much greater chance of avoiding an injury because he's on the ground, he can change direction, he can duck, he can step aside, he can step back or he can do all those things with a jump included. The guy in the air can do none of those things.

That's why it's lopsided. The second problem is the guy on the ground can completely invert a player in the ar because of their relative positions. Dan Biggar and Dave Kearney got creamed because physics dictated that they would. Biggar was lucky not to have been hurt.

The bottom line is the guy on the ground has a much greater chance of changing the dynamic, the guy in the air is completely exposed and vulnerable.

captbarnacles

Here Kearney jumps when he has no need to really and wins a penalty - using this example could a player jump to catch a pass the same way? what is a defender supposed to do?

Ok after several attempts I can't get the video the start at the time I want - point me in the right direction?

Starts at 1:34:54

irishbucsfan

captbarnacles wrote: »

Here Kearney jumps when he has no need to really and wins a penalty - using this example could a player jump to catch a pass the same way? what is a defender supposed to do?

Ok after several attempts I can't get the video the start at the time I want - point me in the right direction?

Starts at 1:34:54

Yeah you could do that to catch a pass as well.

The problem is that you lose a lot of control when you jump into the air, if you jump to catch a pass and the opposition just wait and hit you the second you hit the ground you're going to get flattened and risk a turnover.

SaveOurLyric

rrpc wrote: »

The responsibility is on both players to avoid injury to each other. The guy on the ground has a much greater chance of avoiding an injury because he's on the ground, he can change direction, he can duck, he can step aside, he can step back or he can do all those things with a jump included. The guy in the air can do none of those things.

That's why it's lopsided. The second problem is the guy on the ground can completely invert a player in the ar because of their relative positions. Dan Biggar and Dave Kearney got creamed because physics dictated that they would. Biggar was lucky not to have been hurt.

The bottom line is the guy on the ground has a much greater chance of changing the dynamic, the guy in the air is completely exposed and vulnerable.

But you can look at it the other way too. A jumping player, whether to catch a ball or not, cannot responsibly do so if he is going to jump into a player on the ground. A player on the ground is entitled to stay there if he wishes. The jumper must bear the responsiblity and risk for himself of his conscious decision to do so. And, will he clatter into a player fairly standing his ground and risk injuring him. It cannot be player on the ground bears all the responsibilty.
Surely had Russel been in the air (which is clearly legitimate) would only have added to the risk to both players. So surely at least one player planted on the ground is safer than that. So he should not be penalised for doing something that is safer to both players than something he is entitled by the laws to do (jump) ?

irishbucsfan

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Surely Russel being in the air (which is clearly legitimate) can only have added to the risk to both players. So surely at least one player planted on the ground is safer than that. So he should not be penalised for doing something that is safer to both players than something he is entitled by the laws to do (jump) ?

The exact opposite of this is the case. One player on the ground is exactly where the danger is.

SaveOurLyric

irishbucsfan wrote: »

The exact opposite of this is the case. One player on the ground is exactly where the danger is.

You would have to expand on that to make a case. It is not self evidently fact.

irishbucsfan

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

You would have to expand on that to make a case. It is not self evidently fact.

It is self evidently fact if you just consider any mid-air contest in the sport of rugby and compare them to collisions with players on the ground.

If I am standing on the ground wearing studs (and thus anchored) and you are in the air, you are going to be inverted and land dagerously. Look at Goode/Kearney/Biggar and many more. If we are both in the air then I am not anchored in one place, we'll both be moved by the impact and our final velocity will be much closer to your original velocity.

Can you point to a game-ending injury resluting from a mid-air contest? They're not common.

The Lost Sheep

sydthebeat wrote: »

the home team were losing

ah no, there was one incident in the second half where a player had to get treatment on the pitch, but im talking about 90 seconds max.
In cases like this i think a ref has obviously stooped their watch quite often in a half, they should have to audibly annouce to both teams "10 mins left" , "five mins left", "1 min left" etc

does the refs watch give 'real time' and 'match time'? or do refs were two watches to indicate how much over real time they are going?

That happens too much.....
I think you are correct on the time and the referee has probably stopped their watch for various things during half like injuries, waiting for a new ball at a line out etc. I used always stop watch but after being assessed on an occasion and criticised for my time keeping I now try use 2 watches. Referees should be wearing 2 watches. One counting down or in real time and another as a stop watch that they can stop and restart if required

rrpc

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

But you can look at it the other way too. A jumping player, whether to catch a ball or not, cannot responsibly do so if he is going to jump into a player on the ground. A player on the ground is entitled to stay there if he wishes. The jumper must bear the responsiblity and risk for himself of his conscious decision to do so. And, will he clatter into a player fairly standing his ground and risk injuring him. It cannot be player on the ground bears all the responsibilty.

The player in the air does have some responsibility, but it doesn't follow that they bear all or equal responsibility to the guy on the ground. Even at the basic level of vulnerability, it's the guy in the air who has most to lose if he's tackled or hit whilst in the air. The guy on the ground may get a bang, but he's in a much better position to avoid contact or minimise it.

The whole point of the exercise is to get the ball; we seem to be losing sight of that. Standing on the ground in a position likely to be hit by a high fielding player is not what I would call a guaranteed positive outcome in that respect. Standing back and allowing the player to hit the ground before hitting him with a tackle is a much better play.

dcrosskid

I came across the video earlier where Leinster had a penalty against Connacht and the ball went through the post and the wind blew it back. It's probably been asked or clarified a few times here before but was it the right call to allow the 3 points or should it have been play on?

If I kicked a ball over the line and it blew back in before it hit the ground it would be play on so why was this given?

sydthebeat

dcrosskid wrote: »

I came across the video earlier where Leinster had a penalty against Connacht and the ball went through the post and the wind blew it back. It's probably been asked or clarified a few times here before but was it the right call to allow the 3 points or should it have been play on?

If I kicked a ball over the line and it blew back in before it hit the ground it would be play on so why was this given?

it was counted and the ball is considered dead

locum-motion

dcrosskid wrote: »

...If I kicked a ball over the line and it blew back in before it hit the ground it would be play on so why was this given?

If it's the touchline you're referring to, the ball isn't 'out' until it touches the line, the ground beyond the line, or something else beyond the line (like a stand or a camera or a crane or a person).

If the ball is kicked out, but the wind blows it back without touching anything or anybody, play on.

pickarooney

Losty Dublin wrote: »

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 etvent 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.

That seems like a blatant contradiction. Blood subs can take kicks but not concussion subs and this is to prevent a repeat of bloodgate? Why just kicking? Should a concussion sub be allowed to scrum or contest a lineout? Besides if sexton was not given a concussion test last week after that collision there something amiss.

phog

pickarooney wrote: »

That seems like a blatant contradiction. Blood subs can take kicks but not concussion subs and this is to prevent a repeat of bloodgate? Why just kicking? Should a concussion sub be allowed to scrum or contest a lineout? Besides if sexton was not given a concussion test last week after that collision there something amiss.

But there was obvious blood.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

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

Anyone?

Losty Dublin wrote: »

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

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

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

Deleted User wrote: »

Vunipola and the ball are in touch at 31 seconds when they are on top of the player on the ground, outside the field of play.

If not, there is the contention that team A could have their players lie down in a formation outside the pitch, and have their lightest member walk outside the pitch over them to the try line. A farcical but logical extension.

Any actual referees able to confirm/contradict this? It's been bugging me!

dub_skav

Seems to me the decision was that Billy didn't touch the ground when he went out over the line as he was lying on another player - the 9, and they adjudge that he subsequently grounded the ball beside the 9's arm.

The grounding is a little unclear to me from the video, but I can see what the decision was based on.

pickarooney

phog wrote: »

But there was obvious blood.

Just like in bloodgate?