onwards and sidewards (???) - Italy

[Thomond78]

Cutter, the thing about the numbers law is that as it stands it allows you to pod up against all their jumpers, and still have men to pull down the maul straight away. Because you can have the guys to pull down the maul, it doesn't work; certainly, we've tried it here, with some of the best mauls around, and it just hasn't happened.

But if you could maul, you'd be dead right, they would be very, very vulnerable to a short, sharp drive. Five or six of their guys would instantly behind the offside line and out of the game. So the backs would have to cover it, leaving gaps in their backline and massive overlaps. So you'd then make sure you get the ball out fast to your backline moving forward onto it with men over. It'd be brilliant.

Even on defence then, they'd have to decided how many to commit, who to have in the receiver position, how to defend it, what to do, whether to go up, etc. Proper decision-making would be rewarded, both in attack and defence, and positive play would be encouraged.

Lest you be under any illusions, the numbers one is an ELV I'm actively for, provided we can get rid of that dumb-ass maul ELV that no-one wants. Once we do that (and I'd get rid of the unnecessary new offences at the lineout that no-one ever saw a need for as well), I think it'd be a cracker. :thumb

On the maul one, it does occur to wonder why, when the IRB are cracking down on people hitting the deck, and with notably successful results, they then allow you to do something not only dangerous, but which must inevitably result in static ball with bodies on the deck around and over it. Slightly at odds with each other, to say the least of it! :nta:

 

[Lindommer]

Nick and RW, you're both wrong. The key fact here is the moving ball. The TJ was in error in Huxley's incident as the ref was in the Italian incident. As a Level I ref and a Level II TJ I've been over this ruling many times at various courses so those attending understand it properly. If a ball's moving near a touch or goal line and the receiving side take it into touch or goal the side causing the movement (mostly a kicker) lose. The receiving player is considered part of touch or in goal for the sake of the next ruling, as long as part of him is in touch or goal before he touches the ball. As Huxley's and AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper)'s left feet both were.

There was a similar incident some years ago involving the Auckland Blues when Howlett did exactly the same thing AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) did, although not in traffic, and planted his foot on the goal line before reaching out to pick up a moving ball and placed it in goal. Both teams dawdled back to the 22m line for a drop out but Howlett tore out to the line, did a tiny drop kick, picked it up and took off down the field. In this instance the attending officials knew their laws and did nothing. Excellent play all round.

 

[Gagger]

In that case, international refs and TJs not knowing it is mind boggling

 

[Cutter]

Cutter, the thing about the numbers law is that as it stands it allows you to pod up against all their jumpers, and still have men to pull down the maul straight away. Because you can have the guys to pull down the maul, it doesn't work; certainly, we've tried it here, with some of the best mauls around, and it just hasn't happened.

But if you could maul, you'd be dead right, they would be very, very vulnerable to a short, sharp drive. Five or six of their guys would instantly behind the offside line and out of the game. So the backs would have to cover it, leaving gaps in their backline and massive overlaps. So you'd then make sure you get the ball out fast to your backline moving forward onto it with men over. It'd be brilliant.

Even on defence then, they'd have to decided how many to commit, who to have in the receiver position, how to defend it, what to do, whether to go up, etc. Proper decision-making would be rewarded, both in attack and defence, and positive play would be encouraged.

Lest you be under any illusions, the numbers one is an ELV I'm actively for, provided we can get rid of that dumb-ass maul ELV that no-one wants. Once we do that (and I'd get rid of the unnecessary new offences at the lineout that no-one ever saw a need for as well), I think it'd be a cracker. :thumb

On the maul one, it does occur to wonder why, when the IRB are cracking down on people hitting the deck, and with notably successful results, they then allow you to do something not only dangerous, but which must inevitably result in static ball with bodies on the deck around and over it. Slightly at odds with each other, to say the least of it! :nta:

Thomo you cant have it both ways. If the line out pods up and stacks players in there to pull down the maul you are going to have space somewhere on the field. If they dont pod up and just prepare to pull down the maul you are going to win the lineout ball easily. If, in preparing to pull down the maul, they dont have enough players in the lineout to match your lineout, you can transfer the point of the drive and or use a slingshot drive. If they do have enough numbers in the lineout its exactly the same situation as with the old laws. A driving maul doesnt need to go 20 metres to be effective, it just needs to get in behind the defence. That might mean only 2 or 3 metres if done quickly enough and if the ball is recycled quickly enough.

 

[rugbywhisperer]

Nick and RW, you're both wrong. The key fact here is the moving ball. The TJ was in error in Huxley's incident as the ref was in the Italian incident. As a Level I ref and a Level II TJ I've been over this ruling many times at various courses so those attending understand it properly. If a ball's moving near a touch or goal line and the receiving side take it into touch or goal the side causing the movement (mostly a kicker) lose. The receiving player is considered part of touch or in goal for the sake of the next ruling, as long as part of him is in touch or goal before he touches the ball. As Huxley's and AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper)'s left feet both were.

There was a similar incident some years ago involving the Auckland Blues when Howlett did exactly the same thing AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) did, although not in traffic, and planted his foot on the goal line before reaching out to pick up a moving ball and placed it in goal. Both teams dawdled back to the 22m line for a drop out but Howlett tore out to the line, did a tiny drop kick, picked it up and took off down the field. In this instance the attending officials knew their laws and did nothing. Excellent play all round.

Well, as a L2 ref and referee coach, what you and I said is the same as far as zI can understand.
In the Aust players case (I dont think it was Huxley), he was in touch and picked up a 'still' ball, thereby taking the ballinto touch.
Same thing last weekend.
Can't see an arguement there.
Had both players caught a ball while being in touch or IG, then the opposition player would be deemed to have taken the ball into tough or IG.
Love ya

 

[Lindommer]

Well, as a L2 ref and referee coach, what you and I said is the same as far as I can understand.
In Huxley's case, he was in touch and picked up a 'still' ball, thereby taking the ball into touch.
Same thing last weekend.
Can't see an arguement there.
Had both players caught a ball while being in touch or IG, then the opposition player would be deemed to have taken the ball into tough or IG.
Love ya

In Huxley's case last year v Wales, in AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper)'s instance this year v the ABs in Sydney (in front of the Fijian TJ) and last week v Italy the ball was moving every time. In each of these occasions the Oz player had a foot in touch/goal and yet we were disadvantaged in the next play due to the ignorance of the law by the attending official.

Last year, I was involved in a massive shit fight over on TSF as Honiss was the TJ in the Welsh incident and our friends from across the ditch took umbrage at me criticising a Kiwi; one of them even accused the ARU of "inventing laws". Luckily for me, the Auckland Rugby Referees' Association use the ARU's "Line Ball Your Call" publication as their reference material. As does the SA Rugby Referees' Association. When the AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) incident happened in Sydney v the ABs last year's massive shit fight paled into insignificance as it turned positively nuclear. The issue here was the ball: was it moving?, (it was), the Fijian TJ was right in front of it and should've known better. Didn't the ABs score a try from the ensuing lineout? I think those old pages have gone to God in the new edition of TSF so I can't give you a link.

 

[cyclopath]

It seems the difficulty arises with the ball on the ground. In these cases, it was a ball moving along the ground, rather than caught on the full with a foot in goal / in touch. I know, Lindommer, this should not make a difference if it is moving, but it does raise the question of whether a ball is harder to judge to be moving when on the ground.
The one on Saturday seemed very close, but I agree on slow mo looked a bad call. Nowhere near as bad as AACs earlier this year, which I still believe boiled down to a very inexperienced ref ( the TJ) bottling it. It was interesting how many posters thought the ball had CLEARLY stopped in that case. I watched it many times and, although slowly moving, moving it was, unless my old VCR was bung! Clear, it was not. The HD recorder in place now is more helpful.

 

[rugbywhisperer]

After the AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) incident earlier in the year, a number of us refs in Bris discussed it and while I probably fel as you do, the consensus was that the Aust player took the ball into touch. We were basically then left with the decision, would the ball have gone into touch on its own accord or did the actions of the player take the ball into touch. I think that sums it up pretty well with a 'call it as you see it' addendum.
Definitely a need for an IRB ruling here.

 

[Lee Grant]

A good analysis Lindommer. A lot of people don't know the correct law on that situation but referees should. Huxley and AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) did the right thing as is understood without any IRB clarification to the contrary, and they and others are entitled to get correct rulings on their actions.

The other ref error I have seen happen a couple of times in the S14 is when a defender put a foot over the dead-ball line, waited for a rolling ball kicked through by an opponent and touch it down whilst still it was rolling but without picking it up - and the ref signalling for a scrum to the defenders to take place from where the ball was kicked on the 50 metre line, say. It should have been a 22 drop out because the defender didn't pick the ball up.

I'm looking for another ref error that I haven't spotted yet but perhaps others have: a player drop-kicks a re-start and it goes toward the sideline. An opponent has one leg outside the field of play and stretches infield to just touch the ball on the full, and before it passes the plane of the touchline, on the full. The ball is knocked on and let's say the defender tried to catch it to take the variation of a deliberate knock forward out of any discussion.

I'm picking that a knock-on would be whistled up, but the correct ruling, unless there is some kind of IRB clarification as whisperer recommends, should be to give the defending team the usual options. The defender's touch meant that the kicker had kicked the ball directly into touch a nano second before the ball left the defender's hands and went forward.

I can see this situation being pertinent under the ELVs because there are more occasions in the new law regime where adjudications have to be made about whether the ball has been kicked out on the full, or not.

 

[Pfitzy]

Law 22.9 says : A defending player who has part of one foot in in-goal is considered to have both feet in in-goal.

HOWEVER, Law 22.7(d) says : If a defending player threw or took the ball into the in-goal, and a defending player grounded it, and there has been no infringement, play is restarted by a 5-metre scrum. The position of the scrum is in line with where the ball has been touched down. The attacking side throws in the ball.

So its easy to see why this is a confusing situation. Law 22.9 is only supposed to be applied in cases where we are deciding things like offside lines, and should not be applied with respect to the rest of Law 22.

I think it would be different if he'd caught the ball on the full - however in that case he'd probably be better off calling a mark. I'm pretty sure this situation raised its head in a 3N/S12 fixture a couple of years ago where one of the Kiwis caught a bouncing ball in the air near the tryline, and grounded it thinking he'd be safe. The ref ruled a 5m scrum to the attacking side, deeming that the ball was still in the field of play, and had not crossed the plane of the tryline.

 

[Lindommer]

A good analysis Lindommer.

You should all listen to this wise old bastard more often. ;D ;D ;D

The other ref error I have seen happen a couple of times in the S14 is when a defender put a foot over the dead-ball line, waited for a rolling ball kicked through by an opponent and touch it down whilst still it was rolling but without picking it up - and the ref signalling for a scrum to the defenders to take place from where the ball was kicked on the 50 metre line, say. It should have been a 22 drop out because the defender didn't pick the ball up.

In this instance it doesn't matter if the defender picks it up or touches it, or for that matter, if it's on the ground or in the air. If it's moving, the defending team has the choice of a 22m drop out or a scrum at the spot from where the ball was kicked. If the ball was stationary (more than likely on the ground : : :), the defending side took the pill out and play restarts with a 5m scrum attacking side put in.

 

[Sully]

Just thought I would throw this out there.

Wouldn't it be clearer if it didn't matter if the ball was moving or not?

 

[Pfitzy]

Its a funny one... again the Laws aren't clear.

On a tangent - I posted this ridiculous situation on another forum some time back; look at the ball in touch:

If the ball crosses the plane of touch and I catch it from any position in or out of the field of play, then its out wherever the ball crossed the plane of touch.
If the ball crosses the plane of touch and I leap from within the field of play to put it back in (without holding/catching it), its still in play, despite having crossed the plan of touch 20 metres away.

I like the way the AFL simplifies things: is the ball over the line? If you answered "Yes", the ball is out. Otherwise the ball is in.

 

[rugbywhisperer]

Its a funny one... again the Laws aren't clear.

On a tangent - I posted this ridiculous situation on another forum some time back; look at the ball in touch:

If the ball crosses the plane of touch and I catch it from any position in or out of the field of play, then its out wherever the ball crossed the plane of touch.
If the ball crosses the plane of touch and I leap from within the field of play to put it back in (without holding/catching it), its still in play, despite having crossed the plan of touch 20 metres away.

I like the way the AFL simplifies things: is the ball over the line? If you answered "Yes", the ball is out. Otherwise the ball is in.

Not quite so. If the ball is in flight and crosses the plane of touch and you, still standing in the field of play catch the ball and neither you nor the ball lands in touch or touches the touch line, the ball is NOT in touch and remains in play.
Also, if you come from a position in touch and jump and catch the ball in flight after the ball has crossed the plane of touch and land in the field of play, the ball is NOT in touch and remains in play.

I think the best option for our dilema today is simply, if a player is in touch and carries the ball into touch, that player is deemed to have taken the ball into touch, unless that player catches the ball directly from a kick or from an opposition player before the ball first touches the ground, then the opposition player is deemed to have taken the ball into touch.
How simple is that - :lmao: :lmao:

 

[Lindommer]

Just thought I would throw this out there.

Wouldn't it be clearer if it didn't matter if the ball was moving or not?

As a (minor) rugby official I'm with you here. There's a lot to be said for the simplicity of the soccer/AFL rule for the ball being out (or ingoal or touch ingoal or whatever): all of ball has to be over the line. Can't get much clearer than that.

 

[rugbywhisperer]

Just thought I would throw this out there.
Wouldn't it be clearer if it didn't matter if the ball was moving or not?

As a (minor) rugby official I'm with you here. There's a lot to be said for the simplicity of the soccer/AFL rule for the ball being out (or ingoal or touch ingoal or whatever): all of ball has to be over the line. Can't get much clearer than that.

For what it's worth, I think the differentiation needs to me made as to whom actually took the ball or caused the ball to go into touch.
However there is a BIG, and I mean BIG flaw in all the arguements and it concerns a try or grounding of the ball.
When the ball is in goal, a player in touch or touch in goal can reach in and ground the ball.
This means that he has NOT taken the ball into touch or touch in goal, even though he himself is in touch - which is in direct contrast to all the models that have been mooted for this touch arguement.

 

[Lee Grant]

Yeah that's one that can win a few bets at the pub - not that anybody pays up.

We are way off topic here but it's good for adults to be naughty sometimes.

There was another interesting incident - on the weekend.

Italy drops out at their 22. The ball sails long and a Puma player leaps into the air, catches the ball and lands in touch. He does this deliberately so that the officials will deem that Italy kicked the ball directly into touch and thereby play could be restarted at the Italy 22 with Argentina in possession of the ball.

Instead the AR puts his flag up for a lineout. WTF mouths the Puma, and mimes with his hand that his action meant that Italy kicked directly into touch.

Now if the ball had passed the plane of the touchline before he caught it and the Puma was not in the field of play when he landed with it, play should have gone back to the 22.

But if he caught the ball before it passed the plane of the touchline and he landed outside the field of play I thought that play should have also gone back to the 22 since the Puma player's thought process was correct - Italy had thereby kicked the drop out directly into touch.

In other words: play should have gone back to the 22 regardless of where the ball was in relation to the plane of the touchline when it was caught.


The bizarre thing was that when the AR put his flag up, he awarded the thrown in to the Pumas.

No I couldn't work that out either.

 

[Cutter]

Cutter, the thing about the numbers law is that as it stands it allows you to pod up against all their jumpers, and still have men to pull down the maul straight away. Because you can have the guys to pull down the maul, it doesn't work; certainly, we've tried it here, with some of the best mauls around, and it just hasn't happened.

But if you could maul, you'd be dead right, they would be very, very vulnerable to a short, sharp drive. Five or six of their guys would instantly behind the offside line and out of the game. So the backs would have to cover it, leaving gaps in their backline and massive overlaps. So you'd then make sure you get the ball out fast to your backline moving forward onto it with men over. It'd be brilliant.

Even on defence then, they'd have to decided how many to commit, who to have in the receiver position, how to defend it, what to do, whether to go up, etc. Proper decision-making would be rewarded, both in attack and defence, and positive play would be encouraged.

Lest you be under any illusions, the numbers one is an ELV I'm actively for, provided we can get rid of that dumb-ass maul ELV that no-one wants. Once we do that (and I'd get rid of the unnecessary new offences at the lineout that no-one ever saw a need for as well), I think it'd be a cracker. :thumb

On the maul one, it does occur to wonder why, when the IRB are cracking down on people hitting the deck, and with notably successful results, they then allow you to do something not only dangerous, but which must inevitably result in static ball with bodies on the deck around and over it. Slightly at odds with each other, to say the least of it! :nta:

Thomo you cant have it both ways. If the line out pods up and stacks players in there to pull down the maul you are going to have space somewhere on the field. If they dont pod up and just prepare to pull down the maul you are going to win the lineout ball easily. If, in preparing to pull down the maul, they dont have enough players in the lineout to match your lineout, you can transfer the point of the drive and or use a slingshot drive. If they do have enough numbers in the lineout its exactly the same situation as with the old laws. A driving maul doesnt need to go 20 metres to be effective, it just needs to get in behind the defence. That might mean only 2 or 3 metres if done quickly enough and if the ball is recycled quickly enough.

Thomo you might have noticed the ABs using short lineouts on the weekend. The Irish played full numbers in the lineout. The ABs hit it up in midfield (through BBBT usually). The Irish backs made the tackle. The ABs spread it wide and had the overlap.

 

[Scotty]

When the AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) incident happened in Sydney v the ABs last year's massive shit fight paled into insignificance as it turned positively nuclear. The issue here was the ball: was it moving?, (it was), the Fijian TJ was right in front of it and should've known better. Didn't the ABs score a try from the ensuing lineout? I think those old pages have gone to God in the new edition of TSF so I can't give you a link.

I agree with you here Lindommer. The Fijian official got it wrong, and the ABs did score a try after it.