Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Laws Question? Ask here!

Options
1…9394969899…116

Comments

  • Options
    #2852
    AbusesToilets
    Registered Users Posts: 10,281 ✭✭✭✭AbusesToilets


    .ak wrote: »
    AFAIK English is the official language of Rugby Union. i.e if various different speaking languages are used by the players then English is the default language of the officials.

    Anyway I think it's a bit mad to expect a WRU ref to speak French...

    Is it though? We expect French and Italian refs to be functional in English, why is it ridiculous to expect the same standard for English speaking refs?


  • Options
    #2853
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    AbusesToilets wrote: »
    Is it though? We expect French and Italian refs to be functional in English, why is it ridiculous to expect the same standard for English speaking refs?

    Because rather than expecting people to learn 4 or 5 different languages we can just tell everyone to learn the same language and let them spend the rest of their time worrying about actual rugby.


  • Options
    #2854
    .ak
    Registered Users Posts: 30,308 Mod ✭✭✭✭.ak


    AbusesToilets wrote: »
    Is it though? We expect French and Italian refs to be functional in English, why is it ridiculous to expect the same standard for English speaking refs?

    Because there has to be one nominated language and across the various countries that play rugby I'd imagine English is the most spoken... Atleast in the professional playing countries.


  • Options
    #2855
    AbusesToilets
    Registered Users Posts: 10,281 ✭✭✭✭AbusesToilets


    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    Because rather than expecting people to learn 4 or 5 different languages we can just tell everyone to learn the same language and let them spend the rest of their time worrying about actual rugby.

    Until you get to an important match where one team might not speak or understand English, who earn the ire of a ref because he thinks they aren't following his instructions. for instance, continuing to contest at a ruck when he's calling for them to leave it, lost etc.


  • Options
    #2856
    AbusesToilets
    Registered Users Posts: 10,281 ✭✭✭✭AbusesToilets


    .ak wrote: »
    Because there has to be one nominated language and across the various countries that play rugby I'd imagine English is the most spoken... Atleast in the professional playing countries.

    France is the biggest rugby market in the world, games are not conducted through english. How many players would be functional in English?

    Everyone here would agree that managing the ref is a huge part of the game, seems a touch unfair if one team is incapable of communicating with the ref is all.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2857
    The Lost Sheep
    Registered Users Posts: 14,967 ✭✭✭✭The Lost Sheep


    AbusesToilets wrote: »
    To continue the topic on the ruck, if you have a case where a team is simply fanning out rather than contesting the ruck, surely the answer is pick and goes to force them to stay tighter and/or try and win the ruck.

    I don't see it being any different to the current situation tbh, teams typically will either have the tackler look to slow ball by holding on or lying offside, or send in another player to attempt the same. By prohibiting hands in the ruck, you should encourage the production of quick ball, allowing for the attacking team to take advantage of defensive misalignment.
    Yeah. Just think to England Italy last year i know the law has since changed but its up to teams to adapt. By prohibiting hands in the ruck at all you are preventing a fair contest for the ball and that isnt right or good for the sport.
    AbusesToilets wrote: »
    France is the biggest rugby market in the world, games are not conducted through english. How many players would be functional in English?

    Everyone here would agree that managing the ref is a huge part of the game, seems a touch unfair if one team is incapable of communicating with the ref is all.
    At top level in top 14 quite a lot these days. Its hard to change anything as you cant really expect referees to be required to speak french or another language to an adequate level. Its far easier to use english when its the language of virtually every major world nation. Do you see it in soccer or other sports? Does rugby need to be different?


  • Options
    #2858
    MJohnston
    Registered Users Posts: 10,643 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    This seems like a dubious debate because even the most meat-headed forwards in rugby are going to be able to understand the very few common English phrases that a ref will be likely to throw at them anyway - "leave it", "tackle", "maul" - especially from the context of the game.


  • Options
    #2859
    AbusesToilets
    Registered Users Posts: 10,281 ✭✭✭✭AbusesToilets


    The Lost Sheep wrote: »
    Yeah. Just think to England Italy last year i know the law has since changed but its up to teams to adapt. By prohibiting hands in the ruck at all you are preventing a fair contest for the ball and that isnt right or good for the sport.

    I feel it would make for a fairer contest tbh, cut out the cheating that's so prevalent in the game at the minute.


  • Options
    #2860
    The Lost Sheep
    Registered Users Posts: 14,967 ✭✭✭✭The Lost Sheep


    AbusesToilets wrote: »
    I feel it would make for a fairer contest tbh, cut out the cheating that's so prevalent in the game at the minute.
    But it doesnt make for a fairer contest. How does it?


  • Options
    #2861
    AbusesToilets
    Registered Users Posts: 10,281 ✭✭✭✭AbusesToilets


    The Lost Sheep wrote: »
    But it doesnt make for a fairer contest. How does it?

    Both teams have to actually ruck over as opposed to hands everywhere, slowing things down. What's unfair about that?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2862
    The Lost Sheep
    Registered Users Posts: 14,967 ✭✭✭✭The Lost Sheep


    AbusesToilets wrote: »
    Both teams have to actually ruck over as opposed to hands everywhere, slowing things down. What's unfair about that?
    A ruck is a contest over the ball. You dont have to nor should you have to go completely beyond the ball to play the ball. Its completely unnecessary to look for that change. Slowing the ball legally is possible and shouldnt be prevented.


  • Options
    #2863
    randomname2005
    Registered Users Posts: 1,952 ✭✭✭randomname2005


    I am surprised there has been very little said of this incident:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFlTd4eFE94&t=2820s

    It is about 39 mins on the game clock, Leavy just on to replace VDF and he seems to be "getting welcomed to the game". To me it looks like a clear strike using a head (it is a scrum, Leavy looks bound correctly, French flanker seems to creep around to perform the action) which would be a card, but haven't seen it mentioned anywhere.
    Anyone else thing it deserved a looking at, at least?


  • Options
    #2864
    as_mo_bhosca
    Registered Users Posts: 219 ✭✭as_mo_bhosca


    randomname2005 wrote: »
    I am surprised there has been very little said of this incident:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFlTd4eFE94&t=2820s

    It is about 39 mins on the game clock, Leavy just on to replace VDF and he seems to be "getting welcomed to the game". To me it looks like a clear strike using a head (it is a scrum, Leavy looks bound correctly, French flanker seems to creep around to perform the action) which would be a card, but haven't seen it mentioned anywhere.
    Anyone else thing it deserved a looking at, at least?

    Yeah. Didn't spot that during the match at all. Watching the scrum from around 44 mins in real time, you can see him creep up to do it. Seems to do more damage to himself, but that's not the point. Could have been a card if it was picked up.


  • Options
    #2865
    pickarooney
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 35,405 Mod ✭✭✭✭pickarooney


    AbusesToilets wrote: »
    France is the biggest rugby market in the world, games are not conducted through english. How many players would be functional in English?

    Everyone here would agree that managing the ref is a huge part of the game, seems a touch unfair if one team is incapable of communicating with the ref is all.

    Last year we had Barnes attempt to communicate with Atonio in French, language neither is particularly conversant in. Only the captain really needs to speak to the ref and the vocabulary necessary is not vast.


  • Options
    #2866
    Captain_Crash
    Registered Users Posts: 2,742 ✭✭✭Captain_Crash


    pickarooney wrote: »
    Last year we had Barnes attempt to communicate with Atonio in French, language neither is particularly conversant in. Only the captain really needs to speak to the ref and the vocabulary necessary is not vast.

    Isn't Wayne Barnes fluent in French?


  • Options
    #2867
    pickarooney
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 35,405 Mod ✭✭✭✭pickarooney


    Wayne Barnes wrote:
    "I try to use my French as much as I can, but I have had French captains ask me to speak in English because they will understand me better.

    "The best referees can communicate with a nod and a wink, or one crisp, clear line - you don't have to go into too much detail."

    He does his best but is it really worth it?


  • Options
    #2868
    Captain_Crash
    Registered Users Posts: 2,742 ✭✭✭Captain_Crash


    pickarooney wrote: »
    He does his best but is it really worth it?

    Ahh... I always thought he was fluent in it... although I suppose he could be saying anything really and I still wouldn't be able to tell


  • Options
    #2869
    Quintis
    Registered Users Posts: 671 ✭✭✭Quintis


    Anyone know which law exactly covers playing the ball on the ground, seeing a few refs blow for playing the ball on the ground lately?


  • Options
    #2870
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,493 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    Quintis wrote: »
    Anyone know which law exactly covers playing the ball on the ground, seeing a few refs blow for playing the ball on the ground lately?

    http://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=13


  • Options
    #2871
    The Lost Sheep
    Registered Users Posts: 14,967 ✭✭✭✭The Lost Sheep


    Quintis wrote: »
    Anyone know which law exactly covers playing the ball on the ground, seeing a few refs blow for playing the ball on the ground lately?
    What is the context of the player playing ball on ground? Law 13 covers player on ground in open play otherwise look at the tackle and ruck laws which are laws 14/15


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2872
    joseywhales
    Registered Users Posts: 4,036 ✭✭✭joseywhales


    Can a tackler release the tackled player but obstruct the on coming player attempting to ruck without entering through the "gate", since an offside line has yet to be established? If he does not move to obstruct but either steps in front of the tackled player and holds his ground or continues his forward momentum into the on coming player?


  • Options
    #2873
    Neil3030
    Registered Users Posts: 17,149 ✭✭✭✭Neil3030


    joseywhales wrote: »
    Can a tackler release the tackled player but obstruct the on coming player attempting to ruck without entering through the "gate", since an offside line has yet to be established? If he does not move to obstruct but either steps in front of the tackled player and holds his ground or continues his forward momentum into the on coming player?

    If the tackler is still deemed "over the ball" that obstruction might be considered the start of a ruck, otherwise it should be a penalty for preventing the tackled player's team-mates from legally playing the ball.


  • Options
    #2874
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,493 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    joseywhales wrote: »
    Can a tackler release the tackled player but obstruct the on coming player attempting to ruck without entering through the "gate", since an offside line has yet to be established? If he does not move to obstruct but either steps in front of the tackled player and holds his ground or continues his forward momentum into the on coming player?

    No.

    The tackler must get back to his feet and enter through the gate if they want to affect play. This was part of last year's law amendments


    4. Law 15.4 (c)
    The tackler must get up before playing the ball and then can only play from their own side of the tackle “gate”.
    Rationale: To make the tackle/ruck simpler for players and referees and more consistent with the rest of that law


  • Options
    #2875
    The Lost Sheep
    Registered Users Posts: 14,967 ✭✭✭✭The Lost Sheep


    Think a few people need to check up some laws based on some of the comments in the leinster thread
    10m law on kicks catching a few people


  • Options
    #2876
    prawnsambo
    Registered Users Posts: 13,375 ✭✭✭✭prawnsambo


    The Lost Sheep wrote: »
    Think a few people need to check up some laws based on some of the comments in the leinster thread
    10m law on kicks catching a few people
    No, I think they expect other people to do it for them. :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #2877
    blackwhite
    Registered Users Posts: 8,723 ✭✭✭blackwhite


    https://www.facebook.com/sixnationsrugby/videos/10155728136182772/


    Anyone able to explain why England weren’t pinged for dummy throws at the last line out? 2.50 in the video above.

    Or was it just Peyper not wanting to deny England a last opportunity and letting them away with a technical infringement?


  • Options
    #2878
    Interested Observer
    Registered Users Posts: 13,051 ✭✭✭✭Interested Observer


    blackwhite wrote: »
    https://www.facebook.com/sixnationsrugby/videos/10155728136182772/


    Anyone able to explain why England weren’t pinged for dummy throws at the last line out? 2.50 in the video above.

    Or was it just Peyper not wanting to deny England a last opportunity and letting them away with a technical infringement?

    Maybe he just didn't see it?


  • Options
    #2879
    prawnsambo
    Registered Users Posts: 13,375 ✭✭✭✭prawnsambo


    Interested Observer wrote: »
    Maybe he just didn't see it?
    Yeah. Surprised the AR didn't call it though. Was pretty obvious.


  • Options
    #2880
    blackwhite
    Registered Users Posts: 8,723 ✭✭✭blackwhite


    Interested Observer wrote: »
    Maybe he just didn't see it?

    I can’t see how the AR could have missed it - assuming he was standing where he was supposed to have been


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2881
    b.gud
    Registered Users Posts: 4,806 ✭✭✭b.gud


    Was watching the 2nd half of the Blues Chiefs match this morning. Blues had a forward sin binned and conceded a scrum. They didn't bring a back in to the scrum to make up 8 but I thought there was a rule change this season to say if you were down a forward you had to bring a back into the scrum to make up the numbers. Am I imagining this or is it a law that is only in certain competitions?


Advertisement