- Joined
- Nov 2, 2006
- Messages
- 6,046
- Country Flag
Let me put it nicely for you because you struggle to understand what I am trying to tell you.
This
Law 13 OFF-SIDE WHEN TAKING PART IN THE LINE-OUT
(d) The referee must penalise any player who, voluntarily or not, moves into an off-side position without trying to win possession or tackle an opponent.
Sanction: Penalty Kick on the 15-metre line
(e) No player of either team participating in the line-out may leave the line-out until it has ended
+
(i) A player taking part in the lineout must either join the ruck or maul, or retire to the offside
line and stay at that line, otherwise that player is offside.
Sanction: Penalty kick on the 15-metre line
Makes that what the Crusaders did illegal. So wrong decision.
You're simplifying the rules too much. Where do you think the offside line for the players involved in the lineout is? It goes straight through the centre of the lineout. Therefore none of those Crusaders players were offside. Secondly, there was no ruck or maul to join, just a bunch of players huddled together, half of them in front of the ball and thus offside when they eventually come into contact with an opposition player. This really is very basic, so please keep up.
I know what a hit is.
First of all it is clear that people do not know that the hit is not required. If they did why do they ask for the hit being taken away? *facepalm*
IN fact the IRB instructed when referees have a problem with the scrums to take away the hit and let the front rows come together in orderly fashion and begin their scrumming wrestle after the ball has been put into the scrum. So what rules do you want when there is none that require it?
Just have a look at some of the hits. The tighthead will hit down on the loosehead who then gets penalised for collapsing or for putting his hand on the ground to save himself.
There is no such thing as early engagement it is just referee slang for charging which states a front row must not form at a distance from its opponents and rush against them. That is dangerous play. And no they do get penalised for binding early but because the eight man performed a slingslot. Do you know what a slingshot is? The eighthman wants to ignite the engage so that the props hit is even more forceful. That force has to go somewhere most cases down. To reduce the impact they must make sure the eighthman has his head between the locks and is fully bound so that he is not looking at the referee. Thats the reason why.
Firstly, of course I know what a slingshot is. Why do you insist on treating me like some kind of idiot? There are very few rules I don't know, or don't understand in the game of rugby.
It really doesn't matter what is written in the rule book here, it's how referees ref the scrum. As donmcdazzle has stated, every scrum taking place in rugby involves an engagement. Again, it doesn't matter if the words "early engagement" isn't used in the rule book either, ref's still penalise it. This really is getting very boring, because I'm certain you know exactly what I mean, so this is the last I'm going say about the matter.
lol.Why? Are you my wife?
Like talking to a brick wall on this matter. If you want the ref to stop the pushing before the ball goes in / crooked feeds its down to the referees to sort that out. As for the hit, this will be a better. You have already written it off before they have been implemented.
I do agree that this rule variation should be given a chance before being written off. However, what would you like ref's to do about early engagement? Many ref's already award free-kicks, followed by penalties for early engagements, but it rarely helps matters. Hopefully the change in wording will make it easier for the players to time their engagements, but I'm not totally convinced.
Last edited: