The Laws of the Game/Referee - Discussion Thread

[InsaneAsylum]

the NRC was played like that here in Australia, once a team had a lead they didn't shut up shop and play field position, they continued having a crack! and we got to see some cricket scores

 

[smartcooky]

I think you have to bind with full arm, from hand to shoulder, you can't just be hand on the player...

this is excellent from Scott Allen:

http://www.theroar.com.au/2014/04/09/breaking-down-mauls-what-is-legal-and-whats-not/

A very good article, but he has this bit wrong

[TEXTAREA]Binding in a maul
I noticed in the comments to last week's article that some people were making reference to the law saying, "… must use the whole arm from hand to shoulder to grasp the team-mate's body at or below the level of the armpit. Placing only a hand on another player is not satisfactory binding."

That definition is from law 20.3 and is specifically for binding in a scrum – it isn't a definition of binding that applies to mauls. There is no requirement to grasp a player or where to bind on a player in relation to mauls. The law regarding binding in a maul simply says "Placing a hand on another player in the maul does not constitute binding".[/TEXTAREA]


What he has done is looked for the definition of binding in a maul; and didn't find one. That is because there isn't one. Instead there is a definition of binding in the General Definitions on page 4 of the Law book

"Binding: Grasping firmly another player's body between the shoulders and the hips with the whole arm in contact from hand to shoulder."


This covers binding in rucks & mauls. Wherever you see the word "bind" or "binding" in the Law, this definition applies, except where it is superseded by a bind definition in a Law, peculiar to that Law, such as in the scrum law, which specifies additional binding requirements for props, hookers, locks etc

 

[goodNumber10]

A very good article, but he has this bit wrong

[TEXTAREA]Binding in a maul
I noticed in the comments to last week’s article that some people were making reference to the law saying, “… must use the whole arm from hand to shoulder to grasp the team-mate’s body at or below the level of the armpit. Placing only a hand on another player is not satisfactory binding.â€

That definition is from law 20.3 and is specifically for binding in a scrum â€" it isn’t a definition of binding that applies to mauls. There is no requirement to grasp a player or where to bind on a player in relation to mauls. The law regarding binding in a maul simply says “Placing a hand on another player in the maul does not constitute bindingâ€.[/TEXTAREA]


What he has done is looked for the definition of binding in a maul; and didn't find one. That is because there isn't one. Instead there is a definition of binding in the General Definitions on page 4 of the Law book

"Binding: Grasping firmly another player’s body between the shoulders and the hips with the whole arm in contact from hand to shoulder."


This covers binding in rucks & mauls. Wherever you see the word "bind" or "binding" in the Law, this definition applies, except where it is superseded by a bind definition in a Law, peculiar to that Law, such as in the scrum law, which specifies additional binding requirements for props, hookers, locks etc

I think he goes on later to clarify that doesn't he? Not quoting the specific law, but saying it's clear that the general binding law is as you outline above.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Can we maybe discuss the matter regarding the competition for the ball in the air.

And I'm not referring to line-outs. I'm referring to when a team kicks the ball, and the chasers try to win it in the air against the defending team's player.

It seems to me that the attacking team (the team who kicks the ball) always gets the penalty against them. Last week for instance in the Bulls vs. Cheetahs game, the Bulls kicked from the ruck, and Jesse Kriel chased the ball, Willie le Roux cam forward to compete for the ball. Both Kriel and Le Roux jumped for the ball, but neither of them caught the ball. Jesse Kriel jumped with his back towards Le Roux and was in a better position than Le Roux to get the ball. Le Roux jumped before Kriel and he also jumped higher than Kriel. But Le Roux was too far away from the ball, and only got fingertips to the ball, which led to the ball deviating forwards, and then Kriel couldn't collect the ball.

To me, that should just have been a knock-on call against the Cheetahs. But instead the ref gave a Penalty against Kriel. And after much protest the ref said, "that is the law".

Last year's EOYT saw the Springboks recieving 2 yellow cards for competing in the air.

Are the referee's applying the law correctly? Should teams just stop competing and take the man as soon as he lands? Would this mean that the Up-and-under would become completely redundant in Rugby Union??

 

[smartcooky]

I think he goes on later to clarify that doesn't he? Not quoting the specific law, but saying it's clear that the general binding law is as you outline above.

He does. I just question why he would make the incorrect statement at all.

 

[goodNumber10]

He does. I just question why he would make the incorrect statement at all.

I think he makes the point as people in the discussion section previously were using the scrum defenition for Mauls as they can't find a Mauls specific bind in the Maul Laws.

The way i read it was that he's just clarifying there is no specific maul bind so you should use the general bind laws (which he confirms and expands on later).

***EDIT: sorry, i see what you're saying now, not about there being no law but that they don't need to grasp, they do.

 

[smartcooky]

Can we maybe discuss the matter regarding the competition for the ball in the air.

And I'm not referring to line-outs. I'm referring to when a team kicks the ball, and the chasers try to win it in the air against the defending team's player.

It seems to me that the attacking team (the team who kicks the ball) always gets the penalty against them. Last week for instance in the Bulls vs. Cheetahs game, the Bulls kicked from the ruck, and Jesse Kriel chased the ball, Willie le Roux cam forward to compete for the ball. Both Kriel and Le Roux jumped for the ball, but neither of them caught the ball. Jesse Kriel jumped with his back towards Le Roux and was in a better position than Le Roux to get the ball. Le Roux jumped before Kriel and he also jumped higher than Kriel. But Le Roux was too far away from the ball, and only got fingertips to the ball, which led to the ball deviating forwards, and then Kriel couldn't collect the ball.

To me, that should just have been a knock-on call against the Cheetahs. But instead the ref gave a Penalty against Kriel. And after much protest the ref said, "that is the law".

Last year's EOYT saw the Springboks recieving 2 yellow cards for competing in the air.

Are the referee's applying the law correctly? Should teams just stop competing and take the man as soon as he lands? Would this mean that the Up-and-under would become completely redundant in Rugby Union??

I think the Lawmakers have opened up a can of worms with this.

There has been a robust discussion on this on the Rugbyrefs forum (the Finn Russell v Dan Biggar one) here

http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?18657-Sco-v-Wal-penalty-count!

and then the one you are talking about here

http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?18711-offence-in-the-air-again&p=294716#post294716

Apparently, this is the protocol from World Rugby. Make of it what you will...

[TEXTAREA]IRB response to tackles in the air The following is an IRB response from Joel Jutge (IRB Elite Referee Manager) to recent controversy relating to dangerous tackles in the air. Players and referees alike should take note of this interpretation of the laws of the game. We have recently seen an increase in the number of collisions in the air. If we don’t stop this trend we will have serious injuries soon.



The following proposal is to help create consistency amongst match officials and improve the safety of players in the air.


The following is not a magic wand which will resolve all the issues, however they are guidelines which it is hoped will allow match officials to make decisions based on a common set of references.





Steps for consistency in making a decision:





Principles:

· Safety requirement â€" protect players in the air.

· Unintentional act does not mean no YC/RC (recklessness, dangerous act).

· For chasing players, saying they have their eyes on the ball is not a strong enough argument â€" they have a responsibility for the safety of the receiver.

Legal actions:

· Both players are in the air at the same level/height and contesting the ball at the same time.

· The jumping player jumps into a stationary player (or not) and falls to floor: play on.

Illegal actions:

· A player jumps without really contesting for the ball. For instance, he is jumping into the player who is trying to catch the ball mainly to disrupt the reception of the ball.

· A player is not really contesting for the ball. For instance, he is running into the player who is trying to catch the ball mainly to disrupt the reception of the ball.

· A player not jumping to contest the ball must not take out a jumping receiver. Looking at the ball does not make this action legal.

Decision:

· Like the tackler, who is responsible for the safety of the tackled player, the chasing player is responsible for the safety of the player in the air.

· For any illegal action, like for a tip tackle, it is the way in which the player falls and the part of the body that the player falls on which is relevant. If a player lands on his head/neck, it should be a red card.


[/TEXTAREA]

 

[TRF_heineken]

I get that, but the manner in which it is being interpreted is almost as bad as the Scrums.

First of all, I think they should distinguish between the tackler and the contestant in the air. How can there be an expectancy on a player who also jumps in the air to contest the ball, to be responsible for the opposing jumper. Especially when the chasing contestant gets in a better position than the defending player, and would collect the ball had the defending player not jumped??

This is causing defending players to jump for every damn ball, with the idea that if they connect with me before I touch the ground, that I would get a penalty for my team and maybe get the opposing team to play with one man short for 10 minutes.

 

[SelimNiai]

I get that, but the manner in which it is being interpreted is almost as bad as the Scrums.

First of all, I think they should distinguish between the tackler and the contestant in the air. How can there be an expectancy on a player who also jumps in the air to contest the ball, to be responsible for the opposing jumper. Especially when the chasing contestant gets in a better position than the defending player, and would collect the ball had the defending player not jumped??

This is causing defending players to jump for every damn ball, with the idea that if they connect with me before I touch the ground, that I would get a penalty for my team and maybe get the opposing team to play with one man short for 10 minutes.

Thats the key. Reading what Smartcooky posted its smacks to me that to avoid penalties and cards you have to compete but its hard to compete and make sure the other player isnt taken out in the air at the same time.

I don't think theres an answer that wont result in a drastic law change, which I don't want and don't think will happen

 

[smartcooky]

Thats the key. Reading what Smartcooky posted its smacks to me that to avoid penalties and cards you have to compete but its hard to compete and make sure the other player isnt taken out in the air at the same time.

I don't think theres an answer that wont result in a drastic law change, which I don't want and don't think will happen

I get that, but the manner in which it is being interpreted is almost as bad as the Scrums.

First of all, I think they should distinguish between the tackler and the contestant in the air. How can there be an expectancy on a player who also jumps in the air to contest the ball, to be responsible for the opposing jumper. Especially when the chasing contestant gets in a better position than the defending player, and would collect the ball had the defending player not jumped??

This is causing defending players to jump for every damn ball, with the idea that if they connect with me before I touch the ground, that I would get a penalty for my team and maybe get the opposing team to play with one man short for 10 minutes.

You both are pretty much arguing along the same lines I have been arguing on Rugbyrefs.com

IMO, encouraging players to jump for the ball is fraught with potential danger. I expect you both will have seen the Dan Biggar v Finn Russell incident from Scotland v Wales a couple of weeks back. Biggar jumped at Finn Russell at a full-on sprint from about 10 feet away. Can you picture what could have happened if Russell had done what Biggar did; what this IRB Guidance encourages him to do?

If WR stays this course, then IMO, sooner or later there is going to a really serious mid-air collision with serious, potentially career ending consequences.

 

[TRF_heineken]

You both are pretty much arguing along the same lines I have been arguing on Rugbyrefs.com

IMO, encouraging players to jump for the ball is fraught with potential danger. I expect you both will have seen the Dan Biggar v Finn Russell incident from Scotland v Wales a couple of weeks back. Biggar jumped at Finn Russell at a full-on sprint from about 10 feet away. Can you picture what could have happened if Russell had done what Biggar did; what this IRB Guidance encourages him to do?

If WR stays this course, then IMO, sooner or later there is going to a really serious mid-air collision with serious, potentially career ending consequences.

Fair enough, and player safety should be a concern. But in all fairness, there should be a responsibility on both players who jumps in the air to collect the ball. Why is the onus only on the chaser?

As an example, let's take a player like Bjorn Basson for instance. He has a 70% success rate to retrieve the ball when chasing. in other words the opposing player, who is the defending player, only has a 30% success rate that when he jumps against Basson, that he will:
a) Be in a better position than Basson when jumping
b) Catch the ball in the air.

If both of them jump, then all of a sudden there is a 100% onus on Basson to secure the safety of both players. To me that has to change. It has to be 50/50 and each instance should be judged on merit. Basson for instance has no malice in him, and whenever he chases, he tries to win the ball back and score tries, it's what made him such a good weapon for the Bulls a few seasons ago.

Sure not all chasers are like Basson, and forwards especially make silly attempts at some stage. And they are rightfully punished. But it's these other times when its clear that the chaser attempted to get the ball, was in a better position, and then the defending player is touched in the air and all of a sudden the chaser has to go to the bin for 10 minutes.

If they stay with this stupid way of interpretation. The up-and-under will dissappear completely.

 

[SelimNiai]

The only thing I can think of is you only being allowed to jump for an up and under is from a stationary position. That way the momentum of players is reduced. But that, as Hein says will hugely negate the impact of the tactic and wont be used.

I suppose now I think about it that change would also remove the chip over a rush defence too

 

[TRF_heineken]

The only thing I can think of is you only being allowed to jump for an up and under is from a stationary position. That way the momentum of players is reduced. But that, as Hein says will hugely negate the impact of the tactic and wont be used.

I suppose now I think about it that change would also remove the chip over a rush defence too

All that is going to happen is that whenever the ball is kicked or just passed a little bit high, the defending player is going to jump as high as he can and hope to milk a penalty. Sometimes I honestly wonder who these pussies are who make these crappy laws!

 

[goodNumber10]

as a slight aside, this si a nice piece on Wayne Barnes reffing a grassroots festival two days after his 150th premiership game:

http://www.premiershiprugby.com/news/35265.php

 

[steve9145]

hi all

have the scrummage laws changed ?
in my time, pre 1990, you werent allowed to push until the ball had left the scrumhalfs hands.
with good technique,timing and a decent hooker, you could get the ball away against a superior pack.


have the lineout laws changed regards the throw in?

again, in my time the hooker had to stand on or behind the touchline.
now i see them often stood with their feet over the line and often with one or more feet fully on the pitch.
ive also noticed a tendancy for hookers to take a sly step to the side immediately before throwing in the ball.

have the laws changed regards the restart ?

very rarely are all the chasers behind the ball when its kicked.
if this law was enforced more rigourously the it could have safety benefits.

im not a pedantic person but in my opinion these laws have been eroded and not for the benefit of the game.

last but not least, when is the ball EVER put in straight.
how about the ref having a white marker, a la football world cup, to show the centreine of the scrum.

 

[goodNumber10]

@<a href="http://www.therugbyforum.com/member.php?u=20605" target="_blank">smartcooky</a>

would love to hear your take on this:

[video]https://youtu.be/BO4Enxigc-o[/video]

they are effectively saying the gate is ball carrier only... is that right?

 

[smartcooky]

@smartcooky

would love to hear your take on this:

[video]https://youtu.be/BO4Enxigc-o[/video]

they are effectively saying the gate is ball carrier only... is that right?

What O'Driscoll is saying is right on the money. He is one of the few players and ex-players who really does understand the Law

Here is the Law, and I have emphasised the bit that BOD is talking about...

[TEXTAREA]Law 15.6
(d) At a tackle or near to a tackle, other players who play the ball must do so from behind the
ball and from directly behind the tackled player or the tackler closest to those players’ goal
line.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/TEXTAREA]

In pictures that translates to this (lifted from the WR's old "Rugby Ready" publication

A Green player must not step across the lower legs of the blue player, if he does so, he is not approaching from between that player and his own goal-line and therefore is entering the side of the tackle zone. He has to go around the legs of that player. This seems very technical and very pedantic, but the whole rationale for forcing players to do this sort of thing is to create time and space at the breakdown. It might only take an extra fraction of a second for the player to go around the legs of the tackler, but that fraction of a second can be the difference between the first player at the tackle being able to secure possession or not. This is what I was on about in the RWC referees thread; if referees allow a free-for-all at the breakdown, the time and space becomes constrained and the breakdown becomes a mess and either a series of scrum unplayables, or players are unfairly able to win turnovers that they would not have had they been made to comply with the Law.

So, to go back to your question "they are effectively saying the gate is ball carrier only... is that right?" IMO no, and that is not what they are saying. The tackler is part of the gate, but you have to go around the part of him that is closest to your own goal line.

 

[goodNumber10]

great explanation, thanks

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

After a mildly homo-erotic start, this article on Wayne Barnes brings hope for an end to these awful box kick scenes we were treated too lately. I like the team Caterpillar rucks. Hopefully I never see one again.

https://www.planetrugby.com/exclusive-wayne-barnes-on-japan-the-past-and-his-future/

"I'm quite sure that things like caterpillar rucks will be examined, together with a vision of tweaking the Rugby League 50/22 rule into Union to reward footballing skills. Half-back box kicking will be scrutinised too, with also a look at how we remove congestion and increase space around the gain line areas and there will also be views on improvement of breakdown clarity too."