Refereeing decisions

[Strewthcobber]

my understanding is that you can't tackle someone in the Maul to bring them to the ground, but you can in a ruck ie cleanout.

The laws are the same for both phases, but I agree they are reffed differently (particularly collapsing a ruck - it's never penalised)

15 Ruck
12. Players must endeavour to remain on their feet throughout the ruck.
15.b Players must not: Intentionally collapse a ruck or jump on top of it.

16 Maul
9. All other players in a maul must endeavour to stay on their feet.
11.a Players must not: Intentionally collapse a maul or jump on top of it.

 

[dru]

2. I can imagine that ...

There it is. The problem.

3. ... If a player merely has hands on the ball then they are not a part of the maul/ ruck anyway -

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]

There it is. The problem.

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]

Hands on the ball = ball carrier. Or it should, I think.

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.

Law 15.11 - Once a ruck has formed, no player may handle the ball unless they were able to get their hands on the ball before the ruck formed and stay on their feet.

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]

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

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]

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

That's damn near every ruck.

 

[Braveheart81]

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.

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]

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

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]

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.

Bingo.

 

[cyclopath]

Cue the howls from the NH regarding red cards.
I think the distinction between "really foul play" and no replacement after 20 mins, and "kind of foul play" where they can be replaced after 20 mins is going to cause some issues.

 

[JRugby2]

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

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....

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]

Cue the howls from the NH regarding red cards.
I think the distinction between "really foul play" and no replacement after 20 mins, and "kind of foul play" where they can be replaced after 20 mins is going to cause some issues.

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.

 

[Braveheart81]

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.

 

[cyclopath]

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.

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.

 

[Braveheart81]

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.

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 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]

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?

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]

the 9, with hands on the ball aught logically be considered the ball holder (even if "joint") within the maul.

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.

Law 16.16 A maul ends and play continues when: The ball or ball-carrier leaves the maul.

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]

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

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]

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?

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]

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.

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?