Strewthcobber
Simon Poidevin (60)
The laws are the same for both phases, but I agree they are reffed differently (particularly collapsing a ruck - it's never penalised)
Refereeing decisions
- Thread starter boyo
- Start date
dru
David Wilson (68)
There it is. The problem.
Hands on the ball = ball carrier. Or it should, I think.
Look, overall the changes are really good. Even the bits that I wonder about will be fine. Play on.
JRugby2
Billy Sheehan (19)
Well to answer your question, ultimately its the referee (per laws) who time keeps all of these different things, but different stadiums and host broadcasters will have access to different technologies and may be able to put it up in the stadium or as an onscreen graphic for broadcast.
WR (World Rugby) might set this as minimum requirement for hosting a test match (ie displaying the time on a score board) - but this might exclude some stadiums from hosting tests especially in tier 2 nations.
Strewthcobber
Simon Poidevin (60)
Fundamentally, the laws don't define when the ball is out of the ruck.
This leads to these weird contradictions in the laws, because the role of the halfback isn't what it was historically, but the laws haven't been updated.
Historically the ball had to be heeled out of the ruck before the half could touch it - but that's long gone.
Every ruck that the half goes fishing for the ball this law gets broken. The ball is still in the ruck, but it's being handled
dru
David Wilson (68)
Hey, Strewth. (Minor detail, something I said is referenced to JRugby2.) Mate, I'm less bothered at the ruck. In the maul though, it seems to me that the 9, with hands on the ball aught logically be considered the ball holder (even if "joint") within the maul. Let's see how it pans out.
Derpus
Nathan Sharpe (72)
That's damn near every ruck.
I think the point of the law clarification is that a player in the maul can't take the half back as they try and clear the ball because they are offside. If they remain bound to the maul they would be changing their bind or if they leave the maul they are offside and need to retreat to an onside position.
Likewise, until the ball is only in the half back's hands, it is still part of the maul so a player who is onside can't run around the maul and tackle the half.
JRugby2
Billy Sheehan (19)
They kind of do (ball is out when it leaves the ruck)- but what I think is your key point is very true and very annoying.
RA's game management guidelines last year clarified this but these don't officially apply to professional game despite being the done thing. Annoyingly the laws aren't filled with many exactitudes when it comes to a lot of different scenarios....
JRugby2
Billy Sheehan (19)
Bingo.
JRugby2
Billy Sheehan (19)
Correcting myself here - there is a clarification from 2014 - When a scrum half attempts to retrieve the ball from a ruck, the ball is not out until that player has picked the ball up from the ground.
Fuck me would it be that hard to put this in the book?
Derpus
Nathan Sharpe (72)
It does seem like a grey area. They could easily address this by being prescriptive about what is 'really definitely foul play' and then letting the rest fall into the 20 minute basket i.e. by making any striking/biting/gouging a straight red.
"In the event foul play is determined to be deliberate and with a high level of danger".
I think that is fine.
A referee essentially can't determine that an action is deliberate unless it is a non-rugby action like striking etc.
I agree, but Rugby admins don't do this stuff well.
I'm not sure it's a great idea in the long run, unless the position from most of the home nations on red cards changes dramatically. Having different systems in different hemispheres will probably create more problems than it solves.
Plus, sports want to be really careful about appearing to diminish, in any way, the sanction for head contact, intended or accidental. It's a ticking time-bomb.
I think we are going to see the red card changes adopted globally. It's just a matter of time. I think World Rugby has signaled their intent by bringing it in where they have control.
I think the focus being on the player more so than the team is key here. They're not diminishing the punishment on the offending player. They still miss the rest of the match and get a suspension.
I think the focus being on the player more so than the team is key here. They're not diminishing the punishment on the offending player. They still miss the rest of the match and get a suspension.
Strewthcobber
Simon Poidevin (60)
This is the contradiction I'm talking about.
We give a practical exemption, and even law clarifications for the half to touch the ball (presumably in the interest in letting a game of rugby occasionally break out), but it's still technically illegal for a halfback to put their hands on the ball at all while it's still in the ruck
Strewthcobber
Simon Poidevin (60)
I don't think that meets the definition of when the ball is out of the maul. So we are still in the maul phase.
I do think there could be interesting situations where the ball is at the back of a maul, and an opposition player has come through the maul legally (noting you don't have to be bound to a maul).
If the ball carrier detaches and attempts to pass it, can the opposition player still caught in the maul play them?
JRugby2
Billy Sheehan (19)
Yeah true, not hard to add some words along the lines of "a player not bound to ruck may use their hands to play the ball away from the ruck from behind their last players feet" (or something).
JRugby2
Billy Sheehan (19)
Yes - because the maul is over the moment the ball is removed, so it's just a simple case of a tackler, attempting to tackle a ball carrier. The "tackler" is onside as there were apart of the previous maul.
Brumby Runner
Jason Little (69)
But if the player in the maul is still held by an opposition player, as occurs in almost every maul situation the ends with the half back taking the ball out of the maul, is that obstruction?