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…110111112113115

Comments

  • Options
    #3422
    irelandrover
    Registered Users Posts: 3,738 ✭✭✭irelandrover


    I'm not sure I like the removal of the scrum for a free kick from scrum. Definitely just encourages an early engagement from a weak scrum.



  • Options
    #3423
    Brief_Lives
    Registered Users Posts: 3,080 ✭✭✭Brief_Lives


    I'm not crazy about "taking a mark from the kick-off".



  • Options
    #3424
    pickarooney
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 35,393 Mod ✭✭✭✭pickarooney


    isn't it a penalty now if you engage early for a second time?



  • Options
    #3425
    phog
    Registered Users Posts: 24,222 ✭✭✭✭phog


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121912743#Comment_121912743

    2nd offense would be a penalty so weak scrums would have to pick the right moment to cheat



  • Options
    #3426
    irelandrover
    Registered Users Posts: 3,738 ✭✭✭irelandrover


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121912916#Comment_121912916

    I know. But it still gives them an out the first time. If your scrum has been dominated and you have to defend a 5metre scrum then you will 100% go for an early engagement.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3427
    phog
    Registered Users Posts: 24,222 ✭✭✭✭phog


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121912856#Comment_121912856

    I suppose it's to stop long kick offs in the hope that the restart would be more contestable



  • Options
    #3428
    Lost Ormond
    Registered Users Posts: 3,919 ✭✭✭Lost Ormond


    Dont like 20 minute red. And any further look at implementing it isnt a good thing for me.

    Dont like having to play the ball after a maul has been stopped once, think it should stay in law as its now with no change

    Many refs, depending on circumstances would have playrd on for crooked throws in line out already as part of basic game managemenf...



  • Options
    #3429
    pickarooney
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 35,393 Mod ✭✭✭✭pickarooney


    I'd have the maul stop once then you either play it or go again but if it stops twice you lose possession.



  • Options
    #3430
    Lost Ormond
    Registered Users Posts: 3,919 ✭✭✭Lost Ormond


    WWill Be interesting to see results of closed trials as well

    https://www.world.rugby/news/927372/rugby-fan-focused-law-changes-confirmed



  • Options
    #3431
    Podge_irl
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 26,525 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    • Protection of the nine at the base of the scrum, ruck and at the maul following successful trials in Major League Rugby in the USA and in elite and community competitions in New Zealand. The nine will not be able to be played while the ball is still near a tackle, ruck or maul, and the offside line at the scrum for the non-putting in scrum-half will be the middle of the tunnel.

    Hmmm…that is an interesting trial.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3432
    pickarooney
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 35,393 Mod ✭✭✭✭pickarooney


    What's the current law on playing the 9 and does it specifically refer to a player with 9/21 on their back or is any player who finds him/herself in that position given the same protection?



  • Options
    #3433
    Ben Bailey
    Registered Users Posts: 637 ✭✭✭Ben Bailey


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122119230#Comment_122119230

    Presumably Law 9:15 covers this

    Except in a scrum, ruck or maul, a player who is not in possession of the ball must not hold, push, charge or obstruct an opponent not in possession of the ball.


    "Playing the 9" is a misnomer. The same protection is afforded to any player not part of the ruck.



  • Options
    #3434
    Lost Ormond
    Registered Users Posts: 3,919 ✭✭✭Lost Ormond


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122119230#Comment_122119230

    Yeah agree with Ben. Playing 9 is simply the phrase people use but it's same for anyone who acts as half back at the breakdown regardless of number on back of their Jersey

    NNo The law doesn't refer to a numbered Jersey



  • Options
    #3435
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,477 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122121012#Comment_122121012

    If you come straight through the middle of a ruck, and your only option to win possession is to go beyond the ball to "kick it backwards"... How do you do that without coming in context with the 9 and giving away a pen?



  • Options
    #3436
    pickarooney
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 35,393 Mod ✭✭✭✭pickarooney


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122121057#Comment_122121057

    Where is the ruck at this point when the ball is on the ground with you, a defender, and the 9, an attacker over it but not in contact?



  • Options
    #3437
    Ben Bailey
    Registered Users Posts: 637 ✭✭✭Ben Bailey


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122121080#Comment_122121080

    Either the ball is in the ruck, ie: on the ground somewhere between the hindmost foot of the players contesting the ruck, or it is not.

    Any player binding to the ruck may continue to contest possession while the ball remains in the ruck.

    If, while contesting, a player comes into contact with any player not part of the ruck they may be penalised under Law 9.

    If a 9 (or any player in that position) contests possession of the ball while it is still in the ruck then that player has joined the ruck.



  • Options
    #3438
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,477 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122121080#Comment_122121080

    Plenty of incidents of the first defender in contact with attacker over the ball drives past the attacker straight through the middle of the ruck. I don't agree that in these cases the player must stop going forward for fear of "pushing" the 9

    Interesting also that the new law says "ball is near a tackle ruck or maul"

    I've no idea how a ball can be near a ruck. It's either in or out



  • Options
    #3439
    pickarooney
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 35,393 Mod ✭✭✭✭pickarooney


    In that case the defender has removed the attacker from the ruck, thereby ending it, no? If he's pushed the defender back and out of contact then he can just play the ball.

    This one needs diagrams for clarity, I think.



  • Options
    #3440
    blackwhite
    Registered Users Posts: 8,722 ✭✭✭blackwhite


    Suspect the intention is to do away with the ability of a player in the ruck - who is more advanced than an onside defender not in the ruck - reaching out and grabbing the 9s arm, or similar, when the 9 is attempting to play the ball



  • Options
    #3441
    Ben Bailey
    Registered Users Posts: 637 ✭✭✭Ben Bailey


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122124948#Comment_122124948

    Maybe, but any player on their feet and onside can play the 9's arm once he lifts the ball. Once the '9' lifts the ball it (should be) is out of the ruck and the ruck is over. It's the job of those players in the ruck who have kept or gained posession of the ball to prevent the opposition playing the '9'. It's not the Ref's job.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3442
    blackwhite
    Registered Users Posts: 8,722 ✭✭✭blackwhite


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122129143#Comment_122129143

    I’m not saying I like the law change - but I suspect that’s what it is trying to eliminate.


    Southern nations, and Australia in particular, seem to want to keep pushing the game closer and closer to rugby league rules. This seems like another step in that direction



  • Options
    #3443
    Ben Bailey
    Registered Users Posts: 637 ✭✭✭Ben Bailey


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122131073#Comment_122131073

    Agree with this. Since League is by far the largest and most popular sport in New South Wales, Queensland and the Australian Capital Territory (which constitute 55% of the population of Australia) Union may be trying to mimic it's appeal. League pays players more too.



  • Options
    #3444
    phog
    Registered Users Posts: 24,222 ✭✭✭✭phog


    World Rugby trialling TMO protocols

    https://twitter.com/worldrugbymedia/status/1803164469704437951?t=x2g_bHgqCQVfg60Cm9jOVw&s=19



  • Options
    #3445
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122276661#Comment_122276661

    Feel this is going to be frustrating as some TMOs in particular are going to go way over the top and get involved too often, while others will take a more stand-off approach.

    To me - a solution that has always sounded intriguing is a challenge style system like in NFL or tennis. You get 2 or 3 a half (that’s probably too many) and a captain can decide to specifically ask a ref to review something. If you win the challenge, you don’t lose your number of remaining challenges.

    It would insert some drama and judgment and would put the referral process back in the hands of people on the field rather than the TMO.



  • Options
    #3446
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,477 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122277261#Comment_122277261

    We've had that before? The "captains challenge"

    It was a bit of a sham to be honest, with calls being made more in hope than anything else. Giving each captain 2 calls each was a minimum of about five minutes added to the game time, and more if they were successful.

    I don't agree with these trails, we want less TMO intervention, not more.

    If the objective is to pick up "clear and obvious" infringements, I'd be questioning what the hell have the ref and two touch judges been doing to miss them.

    Post edited by Boards.ie: Mike on


  • Options
    #3447
    TheRona
    Registered Users Posts: 1,831 ✭✭✭TheRona


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122277340#Comment_122277340

    Yes, of course the obvious reasoning for this is to justify disallowing NZ's try in the RWC final. It's probably the most notable example I can think of anyway.

    If something is clear and obvious and missed by the ref and touch judges, then the TMO should be able to call this IMMEDIATELY, not let play go on and then only go over everything up until the last stoppage if a team ends up scoring a try.



  • Options
    #3448
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,477 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122277494#Comment_122277494

    I don't agree.

    In your situation the TMO is the ultimate arbitrator of the game.

    I believe it should be the referee, and only the referee.



  • Options
    #3449
    Ben Bailey
    Registered Users Posts: 637 ✭✭✭Ben Bailey


    It's immediately obvious that some Refs welcome TMO & AR 'advice' in their ear throughout the game and rightly so. No Ref sees everything & it's frustrating for everyone involved to have something obvious seemingly ignored. It's also obvious that some Refs do not welcome 'a word in their ear' & prefer a combination of authority & incompetence.

    The Laws make it clear that the Referee shall be the final arbiter and that has to remain, but it's bit pointless having 2 ARs & a TMO and not utilising their input in that final decision.

    The review process in Cricket works well & I'd be happy to trial that system.



  • Options
    #3450
    Podge_irl
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 26,525 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122277494#Comment_122277494

    The TMO absolutely should not have the ability to stop the game. You can't have multiple people in control of that - he can let the ref know what he saw but multiple times you hear a TMO comment on something and the ref say "I saw it, I think it was fine" and he is the ultimate judge always.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3451
    TheRona
    Registered Users Posts: 1,831 ✭✭✭TheRona


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122277570#Comment_122277570

    I wasn't suggested that the TMO stop the game. He makes the ref aware, if the ref says he saw it and it's fine, then the incident shouldn't be referred to again in the case of a try being scored.



Advertisement