Rugby 101 - Know your rucks from your mauls!

theintern

I think you've the nail on the head there. There are people who work for world rugby who constantly review the laws and modify them. I can't actually remember the last season there wasn't some change to the laws.

Most _material_ offsides are spotted, or the level is high enough that adversely impacting the game to such a large degree isn't worth it. For now.

That said, sometimes refs will just have a nightmare of a day, not set their standard well early, and teams will live offside all game. Rest assured, that ref will know all about it. Referee assessments at the top level are extremely detailed and will painstakingly, frame by frame, point out everything the ref got wrong so they can improve the next day.

My opinion is generally the refs and the assistants get offside right enough of the time that I'd be against pulling in constant video review. Maybe an automated system and a beep in the ear would be good, then the ref could exercise their judgement, but I don't think the tech is there yet to do that automatically quick enough.

Ardillaun

theintern wrote: »

My opinion is generally the refs and the assistants get offside right enough of the time that I'd be against pulling in constant video review. Maybe an automated system and a beep in the ear would be good, then the ref could exercise their judgement, but I don't think the tech is there yet to do that automatically quick enough.

Thank you for your patience here. I am obviously clueless regarding the practical issues involved. What I would really like to see is more deterrence against offside, for it to be constantly in the minds of defenders as they rush up. The beep in the ear might just trigger a warning from the ref when play stops again. Maybe three beeps would merit a penalty?

theintern

I sometimes think the the assistants can be too hesitant to call offsides. The offside line is one of the hardest things to referee. You have to keep an eye on the ruck in case there are infringements there, so you're limited to doing occasional 'scans' of the offside line when you have a chance, because the line of players are often behind you.

From a referee perspective, it's a much higher priority to catch a knock on at the ruck, hands in the ruck, not rolling away etc, so your attention is often completely focused on the ruck. If you have a chance to scan, if the ruck is quiet you do, but you often don't.

I definitely agree that offside is a huge issue when it does occur, because you need space to play the game, but barring mandating an extra metre, or a TMO working overtime to try ID offsides, I'm not sure how we'd improve it past where it is today.

sydthebeat

mandating an extra meter wouldnt work due to pillar defenses .... a constant pick and go would mean that a defense would never be allowed to tackle...

Ardillaun

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

But how many of these marginal calls do we need video freeze frame etc to be used. You could realistically have to have a penalty at every tackle/ruck if you were to do that and is that really what the sport needs?
In tennis the freeze frame image over line is used for deciding points essentially and its not practical to be used all this time in every rugby game.

There are questions of whether and how. I would argue that rugby should be more like, say, tennis and anything over the line (that could have affected play), no matter how minor, should be called. As to how to fight this problem, one would look at ways that would interrupt the flow of the game as little as possible. I think the number of offences would rapidly decline as players got used to the new level of enforcement.

The Lost Sheep

theintern wrote: »

I think you've the nail on the head there. There are people who work for world rugby who constantly review the laws and modify them. I can't actually remember the last season there wasn't some change to the laws.

Most _material_ offsides are spotted, or the level is high enough that adversely impacting the game to such a large degree isn't worth it. For now.

That said, sometimes refs will just have a nightmare of a day, not set their standard well early, and teams will live offside all game. Rest assured, that ref will know all about it. Referee assessments at the top level are extremely detailed and will painstakingly, frame by frame, point out everything the ref got wrong so they can improve the next day.

My opinion is generally the refs and the assistants get offside right enough of the time that I'd be against pulling in constant video review. Maybe an automated system and a beep in the ear would be good, then the ref could exercise their judgement, but I don't think the tech is there yet to do that automatically quick enough.

I know all well about assessments of officials. Considering how assessments go at the highest level but an automated system doesnt take into account materiality to play.....

Ardillaun wrote: »

Thank you for your patience here. I am obviously clueless regarding the practical issues involved. What I would really like to see is more deterrence against offside, for it to be constantly in the minds of defenders as they rush up. The beep in the ear might just trigger a warning from the ref when play stops again. Maybe three beeps would merit a penalty?

But thats what ARs are doing.. A beep in ear isnt worth it. Not all offsides are equal or near the same.

Ardillaun wrote: »

There are questions of whether and how. I would argue that rugby should be more like, say, tennis and anything over the line (that could have affected play), no matter how minor, should be called. As to how to fight this problem, one would look at ways that would interrupt the flow of the game as little as possible. I think the number of offences would rapidly decline as players got used to the new level of enforcement.

Tennis is completely different. In/out of lines of the pitch are difference between point or not every single time.
This is completely unrealistic in practice.

Water John

Team captains have a significant role in rugby. If a team is regularly infringing on the offside line esp across the backs outside No 10 then the captain will bring it to the ref's attention and will keep doing that.

Losty Dublin

Water John wrote: »

Team captains have a significant role in rugby. If a team is regularly infringing on the offside line esp across the backs outside No 10 then the captain will bring it to the ref's attention and will keep doing that.

But of course; a referee only realises that the other lads are offside after the opposition captain points it out to him during the game

Ardillaun

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

But thats what ARs are doing.. A beep in ear isnt worth it. Not all offsides are equal or near the same.
.

I don’t think the AR’s are catching anywhere near all the premature moves by defences. At the moment, there’s an incentive to game the system and stifle the attacking side. However, with additional, perhaps automated, reviews, defenders would have to think twice about moving too soon.

The Lost Sheep

Ardillaun wrote: »

I don’t think the AR’s are catching anywhere near all the premature moves by defences. At the moment, there’s an incentive to game the system and stifle the attacking side. However, with additional, perhaps automated, reviews, defenders would have to think twice about moving too soon.

Because it isnt needed to pull them. As ive said already you have to take into account the material effect of infringements.
This isnt a major issue and certainly not to add in technology.

Akrasia

In the NZL v Pumas game, the last try at the death was from a Quick tap penalty by NZL. The thing is that the penalty was around the 10 meter line, but the NZL player had the ball from beyond the 22 and took the quick tap at full pace from somewhere resembling the mark and Argentina were immediately penalized for not being back 10 meters

I’ve seen NZL do this a few times, having a running start at a quick tap. Is this legal? Should the penalty not be taken from where the infringement took place?

Water John

Akrasia wrote: »

In the NZL v Pumas game, the last try at the death was from a Quick tap penalty by NZL. The thing is that the penalty was around the 10 meter line, but the NZL player had the ball from beyond the 22 and took the quick tap at full pace from somewhere resembling the mark and Argentina were immediately penalized for not being back 10 meters

I’ve seen NZL do this a few times, having a running start at a quick tap. Is this legal? Should the penalty not be taken from where the infringement took place?

Wouldn't know the rules, but on a broader level rugby usually allows the attacking team to restart the game anywhere behind the point. For example a quick lineout.
Sounds a bit like the Anthony Nash (Cork) saga of taking penalties on the run in hurling.

The Lost Sheep

Akrasia wrote: »

In the NZL v Pumas game, the last try at the death was from a Quick tap penalty by NZL. The thing is that the penalty was around the 10 meter line, but the NZL player had the ball from beyond the 22 and took the quick tap at full pace from somewhere resembling the mark and Argentina were immediately penalized for not being back 10 meters

I’ve seen NZL do this a few times, having a running start at a quick tap. Is this legal? Should the penalty not be taken from where the infringement took place?

the penalty doesnt have to be taken from the mark where the infringement happened. It can be taken anywhere behind the mark same parallel line to the touchline.

Akrasia

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

the penalty doesnt have to be taken from the mark where the infringement happened. It can be taken anywhere behind the mark same parallel line to the touchline.

Thanks for the clarification, so it’s a judgement call from the ref if the tap was taken in line with the offense? But then where do the defenders have to be? 10 meters back from the tap or 10 meters back from the original penalty?

Just wondering how much of a risk the All Blacks are taking that the ref will call them back
(Probably no risk in that they will just be asked to take it again so nothing to lose in trying)

The Lost Sheep

Akrasia wrote: »

Thanks for the clarification, so it’s a judgement call from the ref if the tap was taken in line with the offense? But then where do the defenders have to be? 10 meters back from the tap or 10 meters back from the original penalty?

Just wondering how much of a risk the All Blacks are taking that the ref will call them back
(Probably no risk in that they will just be asked to take it again so nothing to lose in trying)

Yes. defenders have to be 10m back from the mark. Ref could call them back and a lot of refs will call players back at a penalty that close to the try line to stop a quick tap to prevent not being in view if potential score happens, reduces chance of flashpoint occuring etc.

Water John

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

the penalty doesnt have to be taken from the mark where the infringement happened. It can be taken anywhere behind the mark same parallel line to the touchline.

I always hought similar should apply in other sports. In soccer if a player is fouled on the edge of the penalty box, it would be more beneficial to the attacking team to move back. This would allow the free taker to gat the ball up and down over the wall or around it. Also in GAA, don't know the rules enough but if a player is fouled near the end line, it's a 14 metre free I think. If out by the sideline, that's a tight angle.

locum-motion

As already posted, the quick tap of the ball would have to be in line with the mark and the opponents would have to be 10m back from the mark.
However, once tapped, the ball is live, so anyone who was already back 10 or more can immediately start moving forward. Anyone in no-mans-land (or not yet back the 10) would have to continue retreating, until:
a) they reach the imaginary line across the pitch 10m from the mark, or
b) one of their teammates (who had been behind that line) passes them, or
c) the player who took the quick tap has run 5m with the ball or has passed it.

Any one of those things puts any player (who was offside) onside.

Even a player offside shouldn’t be pinged for it if he’s retreating and not materially affecting play. However, if he stops retreating, he should be pinged immediately.

Sattwa06

a) and b) I agree with, not sure that c) applies at a penalty.
My understanding is that the 5m and/or pass law applies if players are offside in open play.

locum-motion

Sattwa06 wrote: »

a) and b) I agree with, not sure that c) applies at a penalty.
My understanding is that the 5m and/or pass law applies if players are offside in open play.

AFAIK, it applies in any offside situation. But given that I neither play nor ref any more, my knowledge might be shaky these days!

locum-motion

Law 20.13 and 20.14

You were dead right. Sorry.

Ardillaun

In the Arg-NZ game, I think it was Smith who threw the ball into a retreating Argentinian and got a penalty. It looked deliberate. When do refs warn players not to do that when it looks deliberate? I saw Nigel Owens doing that recently.

theintern

Ardillaun wrote: »

In the Arg-NZ game, I think it was Smith who threw the ball into a retreating Argentinian and got a penalty. It looked deliberate. When do refs warn players not to do that when it looks deliberate? I saw Nigel Owens doing that recently.

That's a tricky one because legitimately that's an offside penalty. If the SH wants to play the ball in a certain direction, he should he allowed to do so. A retreating player is offside and the penalty should be given.

That said, the rugby laws have a couple of handy tricks. Firstly there's a law against unsportsmanlike behaviour.

_9.27 A player must not do anything that is against the spirit of good sportsmanship_

A referee is within their rights to not give a penalty for this reason, or can fall back on the classic 6.5a

_The referee is the sole judge of fact and of law during a match._

So in summary. Situations like this are often a stonewall penalty by the letter of the offside law. But when Nigel Owens or another ref warns a scrum half not to obviously try to buy the penalty, they're within their rights to do so with one of the laws above. It's all part of refereeing with empathy for the players, rather than being a robotic law applier.

padjocollins

Ardillaun wrote: »

In the Arg-NZ game, I think it was Smith who threw the ball into a retreating Argentinian and got a penalty. It looked deliberate. When do refs warn players not to do that when it looks deliberate? I saw Nigel Owens doing that recently.

as far as i remember , he even threw it forward. i would have given a penalty against Smith, deliberate unsportsman like behavior

Pudsy33

Does anyone know anything about the very low chop tackle that England were hitting Ireland with around the rucks yesterday? Is it legal? There seemed to be very little arms involved and all shoulder. Surely if there is no attempt to grab then it's not allowed?

padjocollins

For me not a forward pass. leaves Stockdales hands flat or a few degrees backwards. of course the ball goes foward, he's running
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iK5iWCvGV18 -- about 7.30 in the video . It's very marginal though, prob flat here and i've no prob not giving it or giving it. as long as everybody knows how to judge it because from what i'm hearing from the commentators they don't take into account forward momentum of the player and the only/best way to judge it is did the ball leav the hand in a backwards motion/angle (or nearly flat) .

open to opinions/correction on this.

Water John

Agree, it wouldn't have been questioned only for the half way line. His other cut out pass which was exactly the same wasn't given against him.
Slo-mow is not the way to view it. It needs to be viewed in real time.

The Lost Sheep

padjocollins wrote: »

For me not a forward pass. leaves Stockdales hands flat or a few degrees backwards. of course the ball goes foward, he's running
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iK5iWCvGV18 -- about 7.30 in the video . It's very marginal though, prob flat here and i've no prob not giving it or giving it. as long as everybody knows how to judge it because from what i'm hearing from the commentators they don't take into account forward momentum of the player and the only/best way to judge it is did the ball leav the hand in a backwards motion/angle (or nearly flat) .

open to opinions/correction on this.

for me its clearly forward. Yes his hands go back but when the ball is clearly and obviously gone forward then you cant consider it a score.
If the distance was marginal maybe but it wasnt. he threw pass on line and pass collected several steps ahead of the line.

Water John

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

for me its clearly forward. Yes his hands go back but when the ball is clearly and obviously gone forward then you cant consider it a score.
If the distance was marginal maybe but it wasnt. he threw pass on line and pass collected several steps ahead of the line.

So many passes would be ruled forward on that basis. That's why the direction of the hands is included.

GreeBo

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

for me its clearly forward. Yes his hands go back but when the ball is clearly and obviously gone forward then you cant consider it a score.
If the distance was marginal maybe but it wasnt. he threw pass on line and pass collected several steps ahead of the line.

Then you are basically saying that he was running too fast...

Nermal

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

for me its clearly forward. Yes his hands go back but when the ball is clearly and obviously gone forward then you cant consider it a score.

It doesn’t matter if the ball goes forward, it matters only if it was thrown forward. Players have forward momentum; if they throw a flat pass it will travel forwards. It was a bad call. Top level referees routinely use language that makes me think they don’t understand this.

Water John

If Stokdale continued running he would be far ahead of where the ball landed.

The Lost Sheep

Nermal wrote: »

It doesn’t matter if the ball goes forward, it matters only if it was thrown forward. Players have forward momentum; if they throw a flat pass it will travel forwards. It was a bad call. Top level referees routinely use language that makes me think they don’t understand this.

Try ref like that. try treat every situation like that.

Water John

Georgia never called either Stokdale passes forward or objected to the ref TMK.
Anyone who has played rugby knows every game is different depending on the nuances of the ref. A lot of calls are marginal but accepted by both sides, otherwise rugby would be stopped an awful lot.

72sheep

Why do the 10's before a drop-kick kickoff often bounce the ball off the turf a couple of times? Is it to flatten the grass, get a feel for the bounce, other... Thanks.

padjocollins

Water John wrote: »

If Stokdale continued running he would be far ahead of where the ball landed.

check the video , Stockdale's still moving and is ahead of the ball when McCloskey caught it.

purpleisafruit

World Rugby even made a video explaining why that wasn't a forward pass!

BoardsMember

72sheep wrote: »

Why do the 10's before a drop-kick kickoff often bounce the ball off the turf a couple of times? Is it to flatten the grass, get a feel for the bounce, other... Thanks.

To check the firmness/bounce of the ground, so they can time the kick properly. If it's soft they might look for a better patch.

locum-motion

purpleisafruit wrote: »

World Rugby even made a video explaining why that wasn't a forward pass!

I posted that same video before in this forum.

The number of people who don’t understand this is shocking.

First Up

MJohnston wrote:

Rugby 101 cheat sheet. During the RWC we'll undoubtably get an influx of new posters into our community. If you're unsur- ?e of what a ruck is, or a line out, or where the offside line is, then ?

MJohnston wrote:

Rugby 101 cheat sheet. During the RWC we'll undoubtably get an influx of new posters into our community. If you're unsure of a a ruck is, or a line out, or where the offside line is, then this is the thread to ask!

First Up

MJohnston wrote:

Rugby 101 cheat sheet. During the RWC we'll undoubtably get an influx of new posters into our community. If you're unsure of what a ruck is, or a line out, or where the offside line is, then this is the thread to ask!

MJohnston wrote:

It's fair to say we're all buzzing for Friday's kickoff, but I figure (and hope) this RWC is going to bring a few people onboard to watching rugby who've never seen it before. As I've been basically stuck with nothing to do in a hotel room this week (steady on), and am fairly handy with the oul Photoshop I decided to make a sort of printable poster to provide a newbie guide to the game.

MJohnston wrote:

MOD: Massive thanks to MJohnston for doing up

MJohnston wrote:

It's fair to say we're all buzzing for Friday's kickoff, but I figure (and hope) this RWC is going to bring a few people onboard to watching rugby who've never seen it before. As I've been basically stuck with nothing to do in a hotel room this week (steady on), and am fairly handy with the oul Photoshop I decided to make a sort of printable poster to provide a newbie guide to the game.

MJohnston wrote:

MOD: Massive thanks to MJohnston for doing up

d

MJohnston wrote:

It's fair to say we're all buzzing for Friday's kickoff, but I figure (and hope) this RWC is going to bring a few people onboard to watching rugby who've never seen it before. As I've been basically stuck with nothing to do in a hotel room this week (steady on), and am fairly handy with the oul Photoshop I decided to make a sort of printable poster to provide a newbie guide to the game.

?

MJohnston wrote:

Thanks all, I'm making some changes thanks to your advice. I've got this wording for the gate now: "is a line at the rear of the ruck facing their own goal line."

s?#-÷--=

Think this is the right place for a few questions.

Why are grubber kicks so under-utilised in Rugby Union? Especially for penalty advantage. I also don't understand on penalty advantage why high cross-field kicks seem to be the go-to when surely a flat kick to an under-defended area is the way to go? Earls today with the disallowed try showed the benefit, changes a competed ball with it being all down to accuracy of the kick.

Other thing that seems massively under-utilised is drop goals. With modern pitch conditions they can pop it over from 35 for fun.

And finally. :pac: Anyone ever seen a defending team play smart around a ruck and let someone just go to ground on a pick-and-go? See it all the time where the player takes the ball and has no intention of staying on his feet but as soon as a finger touches him he's legal to touch the ground.

locum-motion

With the grubber, you’ve to thread the kick between defenders, which isn’t always easy.

Re. Drop goals; More often than not, if you’re within 35m, you’re better off going forward the 5 or 7 points. If you’re one or two points behind with little or no time left, then your drop goal is worthwhile.

On your third question; I really cannot understand what you’re on about. The question makes no sense.

locum-motion

locum-motion wrote: »

With the grubber, you’ve to thread the kick between defenders, which isn’t always easy.

Fair enough.

Re. Drop goals; More often than not, if you’re within 35m, you’re better off going forward the 5 or 7 points. If you’re one or two points behind with little or no time left, then your drop goal is worthwhile.

If you score 3 points every time you're anywhere near the 22 it'll add up pretty damn quickly though. 3 penalties to no score is a nice start, seems handy DGs would be a decent option.

On your third question; I really cannot understand what you’re on about. The question makes no sense.

Might be one of those things in Rugby that people pretend doesn't happen. Team is ahead. They have the ball and want to run the clock out. Player takes the ball from the ruck and runs and his heading towards the ground. If the team without the ball can avoid him then he's going to ground with the ball which isn't allowed AFAIK.

Lost Ormond

Deleted User wrote: »

Think this is the right place for a few questions.

Why are grubber kicks so under-utilised in Rugby Union? Especially for penalty advantage. I also don't understand on penalty advantage why high cross-field kicks seem to be the go-to when surely a flat kick to an under-defended area is the way to go? Earls today with the disallowed try showed the benefit, changes a competed ball with it being all down to accuracy of the kick.

Grubbers almost certainly will give the ball to the opposition and therefore advantage is over a high cross field kick has a far greater potential to be dropped/land in space etc and result in a greater advantage or a score.

Other thing that seems massively under-utilised is drop goals. With modern pitch conditions they can pop it over from 35 for fun.

Because they are not easily scorable and if you do miss you have a 22 drop out kicked well into your half and you have to work hard to get back up the field to attack again.

And finally. :pac: Anyone ever seen a defending team play smart around a ruck and let someone just go to ground on a pick-and-go? See it all the time where the player takes the ball and has no intention of staying on his feet but as soon as a finger touches him he's legal to touch the ground.

That doesnt make much sense.

Losty Dublin

Deleted User wrote: »

Might be one of those things in Rugby that people pretend doesn't happen. Team is ahead. They have the ball and want to run the clock out. Player takes the ball from the ruck and runs and his heading towards the ground. If the team without the ball can avoid him then he's going to ground with the ball which isn't allowed AFAIK.

There is no law that bars a player in possession with the ball from going to ground but I think I understand what you are getting at here. When the defending team avoid a player and his teammates at the breakdown then there is no ruck. There is also no obligation on forming a ruck; choose to not engage and as such it’s open play. Similarly there is no obligation to form a maul where a player from each team are on their feet and one is holding the ball. Crucially though there is no new offside line formed at the breakdown and it can cause a lot of confusion to player and fan alike.

Italy did this more than once against England in recent years while Ireland employed a defensive tactic of this nature at the line-out to avoid creating a maul.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMi_p_n9Pv0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nz_E5PJANik

Losty Dublin

Losty Dublin wrote: »

There is no law that bars a player in possession with the ball from going to ground but I think I understand what you are getting at here.

Fair enough, not sure where that thought came from.

padjocollins

i've been blown up for going to ground without being tackled. can't remember what the ref called but i didn't fancy the upcoming collision and thought we'd secure the ball with a few metres gained. ref could have made the wrong call of course.

sydthebeat

padjocollins wrote: »

i've been blown up for going to ground without being tackled. can't remember what the ref called but i didn't fancy the upcoming collision and thought we'd secure the ball with a few metres gained. ref could have made the wrong call of course.

its a weird one, but i suppose you can be called for playing the ball on the ground...

as no tackle has occurred you dont have the benefit of "making the ball available" from the ground

Losty Dublin

Deleted User wrote: »

Fair enough, not sure where that thought came from.

From the bit when you said.....

Deleted User wrote: »

Anyone ever seen a defending team play smart around a ruck and let someone just go to ground on a pick-and-go? See it all the time where the player takes the ball and has no intention of staying on his feet but as soon as a finger touches him he's legal to touch the ground

No issue with a player going to ground if he wishes :pac:

Water John

padjocollins wrote: »

i've been blown up for going to ground without being tackled. can't remember what the ref called but i didn't fancy the upcoming collision and thought we'd secure the ball with a few metres gained. ref could have made the wrong call of course.

Ha, the ref decided you undermined the whole rugby ethos by flunking the hit!!!