Laws Question? Ask here!

Losty Dublin

sydthebeat wrote: »

No my question is. ...
When he catches the ball he had one foot in touch and one foot in play. But then he takes a quick throw with that stance ie one foot in touch and one foot in play.

Is that legal?

Law 19.2 (E) states that a quick throw in isn't allowed if a player steps into play when throwing in. A player is in touch when one or more of his/her feet are on or outside of the touchline. Also, a player who is in touch may play or kick the ball but not hold or carry the ball if it hasn't crossed the plane of touch.

In your instance the player hasn't stepped in with both feet. He is also playing and not holding the ball by throwing it in, assuming of course he made it dead. As such he hasn't infringed the laws as they stand so personally I would take it to be play on.

Losty Dublin

rudiger2.0 wrote: »

I would say no because he caught the ball. It seems this law only applies to when the ball is already on the ground and you are touching it down.

This is correct. It relates only to grounding the ball for one of a 22, scrum 5 or try.

feargale

Interesting thread.

padser

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Back in the day, before they changed the law virtually every kick-off was smashed over the dead-ball to force a 22 drop-out. There were hardly any contested kick-offs..

I seem to recall there being something about kicks at goal having to be "reasonable attempts" or you could be penalised - Although it may only apply to Penalty kicks and not DG's

Basically to stop a team in the lead with 60 seconds left pointing at the posts from their own 22 to eat up the clock for example...

This actually seems like a good tactic so there must be a law against it given that it isn't used. For example, someone with a big boot like Rob could probably get a drop kick from about his own 10 to have a good chance of going dead (assuming one covering full back). If it doesn't go dead you have pushed the opposition way back as they are in possession close to their goal line and if if goes dead it's a 22.

There must be a law against it???

Losty Dublin

padser wrote: »

This actually seems like a good tactic so there must be a law against it given that it isn't used. For example, someone with a big boot like Rob could probably get a drop kick from about his own 10 to have a good chance of going dead (assuming one covering full back). If it doesn't go dead you have pushed the opposition way back as they are in possession close to their goal line and if if goes dead it's a 22.

There must be a law against it???

The whole concept of having a kick off and a 22 is that they are means by which to start or to restart the game. In olden times, you simply kicked the ball dead and you were deep inside the half with a good chance to win a 22; hardly an ideal way to restart a game as it meant that a restart was followed by a restart. Law 13 was amended to deal with this tactic

If either kick goes directly into touch you may...

• Opt for a scrum, which is formed on either the 22 or half way.
• Face a retaken kick.
• Accept the kick and form a line out, again taken on either the 22 or half way line.

If the ball goes into "in goal" after a kick off or 22 and it hasn't gone dead, the non kicking team may choose to play on or to make the ball dead. If the ball is made dead, there are two options.

• Opt to take a scrum.
• Face a retaken kick.

In this context, play on means simply that you don't make the ball dead immediately. If you take your time to make the ball dead, a 22 is the end result.

Oh yeah, should you kick off and the ball ends up in your "in goal" and goes dead, the non kicking team get the scrum on your 5 metre line

The Lost Sheep

padser wrote: »

It's funny, that seems to be the common sentiment here but I find it surprising.

In Rugby (to a much much greater extent than any other sport I can think of, save perhaps judges in boxing) the referee has a monumental influence (both the way the game is played on the field, and the final scoreline) on the game and that's largely down to interpretation. I'm talking about systematically different decisions from one ref vs another (not a referee missing an incident or viewing a single incident on the margins differently, which happens in every sport)

One implication of this is that some refs interpretation suits certain teams. Another implication is that a huge part of a teams preparation is on dealing with this referees quirks / nuances.

To be fair, the article is absolutely useless as if doesn't really do any serious analysis of the differences between the referees etc. But the notion that some referee choices favour certain teams in certain games is undoubtably correct in my view and I don't see it as embarrassing to point that out. For me, it's equivalent to pointing out that a dry day suits the team who excels at running the ball.

I don't see any issue with pointing out certain referees interpretations suit certain teams more but disagree that changes to the laws need to be made for the betterment of the sport.

padser wrote: »

This in itself is a major issue though. The fact that there is such disparities between referring styles and interpretations that a referee meets with teams before a game to tell them which of the myriad of rule he plans to enforce today.

There should be consistency across referees rather than meetings before the games telling players what he is going to "focus on"

Is it an issue and how would you change this to improve the sport?
Where do you want Consistency and in which areas of the game do you want see refereed differently to know?
At breakdown etc everyone will see things very differently. How do you change this?
When you say consistency amongst all referees what do you propose for this to happen?

padser wrote: »

Just to be clear, my viewpoint here is not to do with an individual game or outcome. Specifically if anyone thinks it's to do with last Saturday, IMO Wales deserved to win the game irrespective of the decision of the referee at the death.
But, I dislike additional elements of randomness added into a game that can't be controlled by players. I get the point above that if referees enforced every law them the game would be unwatchable (and IBF point that it's difficult to see how you implement a system that is unbiased).
But surely it's possible for us to design rules for the game of rugby, as it's currently played, such that we can greatly reduce the arbitrary impact referees have on the game.
Simple example. Playing advantage. At the moment each referee interprets advantage differently. Let's stop that from happening. Decide precisely what constitutes an advantage, put a small set of concise rules in place describing them. Get referees to enforce them.
Will there still he some inconsistency in interpretation? Yes. Will there be some instances which fall outside these rules and result in something unfair? Yes (because discretion will be removed from referee). However, will there be greater consistency and hence less impact on the game from the referee?
I personally this it's something worth striving for and I don't know why rugby continually allows referrers such level of discretion in interpretation. Just tighten up guidelines.

What rules/laws would you put in force to change the role of the referee in games? a
I, speaking as a coach and referee, and former player, and I don't see any issue with referee interpretation of law being an integral part of the sport.
How do you propose making a specific definition of what comprises advantage?
What is your definition of advantage now and what would you like a definition of advantage to be in your ideal game?

padser wrote: »

It doesn't really matter to the argument exactly what I define advantage to be. My point is that the fact it's not clearly and tightly defined leads to referees needing to make case by case decisions. This leads to an element of randomness.
I'd rather remove that element of randomness and introduce more certainty by defining (for example) what an advantage is.
I think this would make things easier rather than harder for players (for example, an outhalf might know "if I Dink this ball behind the defense it's advantage over even if we don't retrieve the ball").
We would remove the situation where when a whistle blows, you have to immediately look at the referee to see which arm he had up, as you genuinely don't know which way he is going to go.
But I take the point, we are getting a little OT on this thread

It totally is relevant to the argument you are making as to what you define advantage as.
Your proposals wouldn't introduce more certainty and would, in my experience, make the game more difficult to manage.

padser

I think I'm going to try and re state my position a little rather than answer each individual point if you don't mind.

I believe we are starting from fundamentally different positions. I believe that the referee who is on the pitch should be as close as possible to irrelevant. So I should be able to substitute Poite for Barnes for Owens 5 minutes before the kick off of a game, and it makes no difference to the way the game is officiated or played. I suspect you like these differences and regard them as part of the game (an understandable position, just not one I share).

Today, the tactics a coach employs may be dictated by whether the ref is one who likes to facilitate a contest at the breakdown or one who will blow up anytime someone ends up on the wrong side of a ruck, almost irrespective of how we got there.

The only way to get to consistency is to give much more detailed rules to referees, and to remove discretion from them. Discretion, in theory, allows a referee to be "more equitable" in applying the rules but, in reality, leads to lack of consistency between referees.

You asked where I see inconsistency today. Among others, the breakdown, the offside line, the maul, the scrum and the advantage rule. (I appreciate that's most of the game).

I mentioned the advantage rule as an example, and you asked me how I would define the advantage rule. That's really not something I want to do in order to make this argument. It will lead to is getting sidetracked but for the sake of argument, I'll create an example of how it might work.

One rule you could give a referee. "On a penalty advantage, if the team with the advantage is 15 metres forward of the advantage spot, and has the ball, in all cases the advantage is over". Now this might lead to unfairness, a team can gain an easy average 30 metres by kicking to touch if the advantage is 20 metres in from the sideline and maybe the player 15 metres on with the ball is about to get smashed and turnover possession. But what you gain is certainty for each team, once I go 15 metres, I lose the right to come back for a penalty.

The Lost Sheep

padser wrote: »

I think I'm going to try and re state my position a little rather than answer each individual point if you don't mind.

I believe we are starting from fundamentally different positions. I believe that the referee who is on the pitch should be as close as possible to irrelevant. So I should be able to substitute Poite for Barnes for Owens 5 minutes before the kick off of a game, and it makes no difference to the way the game is officiated or played. I suspect you like these differences and regard them as part of the game (an understandable position, just not one I share).

Today, the tactics a coach employs may be dictated by whether the ref is one who likes to facilitate a contest at the breakdown or one who will blow up anytime someone ends up on the wrong side of a ruck, almost irrespective of how we got there.

The only way to get to consistency is to give much more detailed rules to referees, and to remove discretion from them. Discretion, in theory, allows a referee to be "more equitable" in applying the rules but, in reality, leads to lack of consistency between referees.

You asked where I see inconsistency today. Among others, the breakdown, the offside line, the maul, the scrum and the advantage rule. (I appreciate that's most of the game).

I mentioned the advantage rule as an example, and you asked me how I would define the advantage rule. That's really not something I want to do in order to make this argument. It will lead to is getting sidetracked but for the sake of argument, I'll create an example of how it might work.

One rule you could give a referee. "On a penalty advantage, if the team with the advantage is 15 metres forward of the advantage spot, and has the ball, in all cases the advantage is over". Now this might lead to unfairness, a team can gain an easy average 30 metres by kicking to touch if the advantage is 20 metres in from the sideline and maybe the player 15 metres on with the ball is about to get smashed and turnover possession. But what you gain is certainty for each team, once I go 15 metres, I lose the right to come back for a penalty.

I can see where you are coming from but I asked you for your definition of the advantage law as that's a key part of your argument and by not giving an opinion on what you think it is when you see referees not having the same opinion on the advantage law doesn't help your argument IMO.
Rugby has so many varied and in comparison to some other sports complicated scenario's. There can be 4/5 potential infringements at every breakdown and I don't see how you give "more detailed rules to refs" without fundamentally changing the whole sport.
15 metres gain in ground will be advantage over in some cases but not in others. It all depends on context of where the penalty infringement was on the field, what the offence was and the context of the offence(1st offence, 2nd etc)

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

RE: Players and kicking routines.

Deleted User wrote: »

One for the laws thread perhaps so, but if Ireland were 1 point down with 90seconds remaining on the playing clock and won a penalty directly in front of the posts, what prevents our tee-bringer-on-er taking his sweet ass time so that when Sexton receives the tee there's only 50s left on the clock, meaning that he can take his time and there wont be time left for the restart?

I was under the impression (seemingly wrongly) that the referee marks the intention to kick (by pointing at the posts) which then means that the team are committed to taking a kick at goal and can no longer take a tap penalty / kick for touch.

This was missed previously. Anyone able to clarify? What happens if the tee-carrier takes an age (intentionally or otherwise -> recall Italy's Kicking Tee remote control car breaking down :pac:) and in doing so runs down the clock?

Or even just gives his kicker additional time to steady himself?

Losty Dublin

[Deleted User] wrote: »

This was missed previously. Anyone able to clarify? What happens if the tee-carrier takes an age (intentionally or otherwise -> recall Italy's Kicking Tee remote control car breaking down :pac:) and in doing so runs down the clock?

Or even just gives his kicker additional time to steady himself?

The intention to kick at goal is signalled either by the kicker telling the referee, his making a mark in the frohnd or by the arrival of the tee or sand. Once any of these are called, your minute starts. If the kick hasn't been taken, a scrum is formed with the penalised team defending same.

Most referees will ask you to hurry if you are dawdling, especially when it's obvious.

Losty Dublin

Losty Dublin wrote: »

The intention to kick at goal is signalled either by the kicker telling the referee, his making a mark in the frohnd or by the arrival of the tee or sand. Once any of these are called, your minute starts. If the kick hasn't been taken, a scrum is formed with the penalised team defending same.

Most referees will ask you to hurry if you are dawdling, especially when it's obvious.

This is what I assumed, but was told otherwise. That it's the making a mark or the arrival of the tee that starts the 60 second countdown.

Losty Dublin

[Deleted User] wrote: »

This is what I assumed, but was told otherwise. That it's the making a mark or the arrival of the tee that starts the 60 second countdown.

Understandable. I had a player once tell me it was a minute from when he placed the ball; others feel it's from the offence itself.

One quick quirk; a ref may also ask a player of his intentions. Once answered then that's the minute begun and thats without the other 29 bodies being any the wiser. In reality no ref will cut you off after the 60 seconds but they will call you up if you are taking the piss.

21.4 Penalty and free kick options and requirements

thinker

21.4 Penalty and free kick options and requirements wrote:

(c)No delay.

If a kicker indicates to the referee the intention to kick a penalty kick at goal, the kick must be taken within one minute from the time the player indicates the intention to kick at goal. The intention to kick is signalled by the arrival of the kicking tee or sand, or when the player makes a mark on the ground. The player must complete the kick within one minute even if the ball rolls over and has to be placed again. If the one minute is exceeded, the kick is disallowed, a scrum is ordered at the place of the mark and the opponents throw in the ball. For any other type of kick, the kick must be taken without undue delay.

The opening two sentences are almost out of sync with each other.

You could read the first sentence and say "As soon as a player tells the referee he's kicking, the clock starts".
And then read the second and say "The clock only starts when a mark is made/tee presented".

Losty Dublin

[Deleted User] wrote: »

thinker


The opening two sentences are almost out of sync with each other.

You could read the first sentence and say "As soon as a player tells the referee he's kicking, the clock starts".
And then read the second and say "The clock only starts when a mark is made/tee presented".

You could but you don't as they are critical to each other

Losty Dublin

Losty Dublin wrote: »

You could but you don't as they are critical to each other

So if the intention is signalled only when the tee arrives, we're back to my initial problem?

Quin_Dub

Deleted User wrote: »

So if the intention is signalled only when the tee arrives, we're back to my initial problem?

Think it comes back to Referee discretion - Just as they don't watch the clock slavishly for the 60 seconds but will pull you up if you are obviously taking the piss.. The same could apply in terms of the Tee-boy - If it is taking longer than is reasonable the referee can stop the clock to ensure no unfair advantage is gained

locum-motion

Deleted User wrote: »

"...If a kicker indicates to the referee the intention to kick a penalty kick at goal, the kick must be taken within one minute from the time the player indicates the intention to kick at goal. The intention to kick is signalled by the arrival of the kicking tee or sand, or when the player makes a mark on the ground..."

The opening two sentences are almost out of sync with each other.

You could read the first sentence and say "As soon as a player tells the referee he's kicking, the clock starts".
And then read the second and say "The clock only starts when a mark is made/tee presented".

I would read the first sentence as exactly what it says. It's quite clear.

I would read the second sentence as "If the player hasn't already indicated it to the referee in any other way, then the arrival of tee/sand or the making of a mark shall be considered as such an indication."

sydthebeat

I was at a game yesterday when a curious incident happened.

Team A pass the ball off a scrum back into their try area for the 10 to kick it. The kick is partially blocked down, but still moves forward. ... and the ball hits the ref.

What would the decision be?

Losty Dublin

sydthebeat wrote: »

I was at a game yesterday when a curious incident happened.

Team A pass the ball off a scrum back into their try area for the 10 to kick it. The kick is partially blocked down, but still moves forward. ... and the ball hits the ref.

What would the decision be?

If the ball hits the referee and in doing so it interferes with the game in favour of one team over another, the call is for play to stop and to restart with a scrum with the the team last in possession putting in. If no advantage materialises for either team then it's play on.

In this case the kicker is the last person in possession and thus that team puts in. A block down is not considered as possession.

Quin_Dub

sydthebeat wrote: »

I was at a game yesterday when a curious incident happened.

Team A pass the ball off a scrum back into their try area for the 10 to kick it. The kick is partially blocked down, but still moves forward. ... and the ball hits the ref.

What would the decision be?

My 1st reaction would be that it would be a scrum to the kicking team where it hit the ref..

Don't think a partial block down could be counted as "being in possession" so it should go back to Scrum ball for the kicking team...

The Lost Sheep

sydthebeat wrote: »

I was at a game yesterday when a curious incident happened.

Team A pass the ball off a scrum back into their try area for the 10 to kick it. The kick is partially blocked down, but still moves forward. ... and the ball hits the ref.

What would the decision be?

Scrum to team who kicked the ball where ball hits ref

sydthebeat

that was the decision that was eventually arrived at.

The referee first indicated a scrum to team B, but when challanged and deliberated with Team A's captain, he changed his decision to indicate scrum to team A

locum-motion

sydthebeat wrote: »

I was at a game yesterday when a curious incident happened.

Team A pass the ball off a scrum back into their try area for the 10 to kick it. The kick is partially blocked down, but still moves forward. ... and the ball hits the ref.

What would the decision be?

Ah, here...

(Unless the same thing happened in two matches yesterday, which I doubt...)

The losing team lost that game 46-3.

They were totally outclassed.

Despite the very vocal (and very misinformed) shouting from a certain contingent among their supporters, the referee was neither blind nor bribed nor biased, and bleating about the ball hitting the ref (or any other decision) is not going to change the result!

It was the first time I have ever seen a player in a match turn to the sideline and tell his own supporters to Shut Up!

sydthebeat

locum-motion wrote: »

Ah, here...

(Unless the same thing happened in two matches yesterday, which I doubt...)

The losing team lost that game 46-3.

They were totally outclassed.

Despite the very vocal (and very misinformed) shouting from their supporters, the referee was neither blind nor bribed nor biased, and bleating about the ball hitting the ref (or any other decision) is not going to change the result!

It was the first time I have ever seen a player in a match turn to the sideline and tell his own supporters to Shut Up!

ah here yourself.....

all i was doing here was asking the question to see if there was some thought process that lead to the refs original decision, i was genuinely interested because it was a bit of an unusual situation. i was wondering if there was some scenario in which bringing the ball over the try line would mean loosing the possession.

i made no comment about the ref in that game, he made absolutely no difference to the result.

rrpc

locum-motion wrote: »

I would read the first sentence as exactly what it says. It's quite clear.

I would read the second sentence as "If the player hasn't already indicated it to the referee in any other way, then the arrival of tee/sand or the making of a mark shall be considered as such an indication."

I wouldn't read an 'if' there. The time starts when the indication to kick is made. It then defines how you decide when that indication is made.

So the first part defines what the time period is and the second part defines when the clock starts and what starts it.

locum-motion

sydthebeat wrote: »

ah here yourself.....

all i was doing here was asking the question to see if there was some thought process that lead to the refs original decision, i was genuinely interested because it was a bit of an unusual situation. i was wondering if there was some scenario in which bringing the ball over the try line would mean loosing the possession.

i made no comment about the ref in that game, he made absolutely no difference to the result.

Sorry, Syd, I may have been slagging you off unnecessarily - I have amended my post to point out that it was actually only a certain contingent among the support. No disrespect intended to you personally. :P

sydthebeat

locum-motion wrote: »

Sorry, Syd, I may have been slagging you off unnecessarily - I have amended my post to point out that it was actually only a certain contingent among the support. No disrespect intended to you personally. :P

no problem

Losty Dublin

locum-motion wrote: »

It was the first time I have ever seen a player in a match turn to the sideline and tell his own supporters to Shut Up!

Obviously you have never been to a game in CYM

locum-motion

locum-motion wrote: »

I would read the first sentence as exactly what it says. It's quite clear.

I would read the second sentence as "If the player hasn't already indicated it to the referee in any other way, then the arrival of tee/sand or the making of a mark shall be considered as such an indication."

That's basically exactly how I read it, however in the example given, the referee was informed of the intention to kick, he signalled at the posts that a kick was to be taken. 'Some time' later the tee arrived. Shortly before 60s from the 'tee arrival', the kick was taken.

That 'some time' changes fairly from kick-to-kick for a load of factors (other side of the field for example), but could a litigious referee penalise a dawdling tee-bringer-on-er?

Shelflife

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That's basically exactly how I read it, however in the example given, the referee was informed of the intention to kick, he signalled at the posts that a kick was to be taken. 'Some time' later the tee arrived. Shortly before 60s from the 'tee arrival', the kick was taken.

That 'some time' changes fairly from kick-to-kick for a load of factors (other side of the field for example), but could a litigious referee penalise a dawdling tee-bringer-on-er?

If you felt that a team were time wasting you have a number of options, time off and a stern word with the capt, or you just tell the kicker to proceed without a tee as the clock has started.
You could also penalise them for time wasting - free kick or unsportsmanlike conduct - pen.
You would try to manage it first, then penalise it.