Refereeing decisions

[Strewthcobber]

Question: Who has the right to hook the ball in a scrum? I always assumed it was the hooker, but Sam Cane hooked the ball from the flanker position against Scotland.

Law 20.8 says any front row player can hook the ball backward. Is a flanker considered part of that front row? I wouldn't think so, since the rest of that section refers to the front row forming the tunnel, and the flankers aren't part of that.

Scotland is penalized in that scrum, but I'm just wondering if Cane is legal hooking the ball back like that.

20.9 (f) Locks and flankers: Staying out of the tunnel. A player who is not a front row player must not play the ball in the tunnel.

Depends if the ref thinks the ball was out of the tunnel by the stage the flanker plays at it.

So short answer, no the flanker can't hook it in the tunnel, long answer, in this case the ball may not have been in the tunnel when the flanker played at it - in which case it would be play on.

 

[mxyzptlk]

Depends if the ref thinks the ball was out of the tunnel by the stage the flanker plays at it.

So short answer, no the flanker can't hook it in the tunnel, long answer, in this case the ball may not have been in the tunnel when the flanker played at it - in which case it would be play on.

Yep, that makes sense. It looks like the ball pops out of the tunnel before Cane hooks it, so totally fine.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

I think in the instance above, the ball has already been "hooked" by a front row player, and all Cane is doing is channeling the ball back for his halfback to receive.

 

[Man on the hill]

No he's not - look at law 20 again - especially definitions - everyone's role is defined. "The outside players who bind onto the second or third row are the flankers".

So it stands to reason that if only the front row can hook for the ball and the flankers are defined as being in the 2nd or 3rd row, then a flanker cannot hook for the ball.

And then if we are in any doubt, law 20.9 (f) spells it out -

Locks and flankers: Staying out of the tunnel. A player who is not a front row player must not play the ball in the tunnel.


The video is not conclusive as to what side of the prop's foot it emerges and is almost simultaneous with the referee's signal for advantage. Regardless - I think the attention had moved from the strike for the ball to the dynamics of a falling scrum.

 

[mxyzptlk]

I think in the instance above, the ball has already been "hooked" by a front row player, and all Cane is doing is channeling the ball back for his halfback to receive.

It looks like it bounces off the prop's foot, back out of the tunnel, and that's when Cane hooks it. So I'm still of the opinion that while weird, it's legal. And I'm still of the opinion that I'll probably not see that again, at least not this year.

 

[Man on the hill]

It looks like it bounces off the prop's foot, back out of the tunnel, and that's when Cane hooks it. So I'm still of the opinion that while weird, it's legal. And I'm still of the opinion that I'll probably not see that again, at least not this year.

If it's out - it can't be returned to the scrum. When in doubt it helps to consult the laws...

law 20.9 d)

All players: When the ball comes out, leave it out. When the ball has left the scrum, a player must not bring it back in to the scrum.​

​

http://www.irblaws.com/index.php?law=20.9

 

[terry j]

A quick question (rather than ref decisions)

A player contesting the ball has to remain on his feet right? So, to prevent him getting the ball they clean the guy out. Usually, by pushing him BACK off the ball. So he is braced for that and it takes some effort.

Would it not be easier and quicker to PULL him forward off his feet? He is already braced 'that way' and so is ready to topple forward if pulled.

But I have never seen someone do that which makes me wonder if it would be against the laws, that they have to be cleaned out by forcing them off the ball/feet by pushing back towards their own try line rather than pulling him towards your own.

 

[Braveheart81]

If you pull the opposition player back over towards your side of the ruck, effectively he's cleaning you out. It might stop that guy winning the ball, but you've given the opposition momentum at the breakdown.

 

[Strewthcobber]

The IRB have just put out a clarification on something similar. I'm on the phone but if you google "irb law clarification 4-2014" you should find it.

There was debate about whether this was either tackling a man without the ball or collapsing the ruck but the IRB gave said it's fine as long as the player is grabbed below the head or neck

 

[mxyzptlk]

If it's out - it can't be returned to the scrum. When in doubt it helps to consult the laws.

law 20.9 d)
All players: When the ball comes out, leave it out. When the ball has left the scrum, a player must not bring it back in to the scrum.


http://www.irblaws.com/index.php?law=20.9

So Cane was still illegal in hooking the ball. Although I can't quite tell if he hooks it under the prop's foot or to the outside of it -- and I'm assuming if the ball comes out and Cane hooks it back outside of the prop's foot, then he technically hasn't brought it back into the scrum.

 

[Sully]

Still talking about this?
To me the ball comes out the same tunnel. Repack the scrum. Canes hook makes no difference. Penalty still holds.

 

[Grant NZ]

A quick question (rather than ref decisions)

A player contesting the ball has to remain on his feet right? So, to prevent him getting the ball they clean the guy out. Usually, by pushing him BACK off the ball. So he is braced for that and it takes some effort.

Would it not be easier and quicker to PULL him forward off his feet? He is already braced 'that way' and so is ready to topple forward if pulled.

But I have never seen someone do that which makes me wonder if it would be against the laws, that they have to be cleaned out by forcing them off the ball/feet by pushing back towards their own try line rather than pulling him towards your own.

I see people doing it all the time.

 

[Grant NZ]

If you pull the opposition player back over towards your side of the ruck, effectively he's cleaning you out. It might stop that guy winning the ball, but you've given the opposition momentum at the breakdown.

It often exposes the ball to be played and/or won. Usually when a guy is able to be cleared out like that it's cause he's the only one over the ball.

 

[mxyzptlk]

Still talking about this?
To me the ball comes out the same tunnel. Repack the scrum. Canes hook makes no difference. Penalty still holds.

Nope, I think I'm done. I've just never seen a flanker hook before, and had to know. I'm a dork like that.

 

[terry j]

It often exposes the ball to be played and/or won. Usually when a guy is able to be cleared out like that it's cause he's the only one over the ball.

Hmm, can't say I have noticed it. I will probably see it all the time now! (like when you buy a red car of a certain brand, all of a sudden there are a million haha)

Yeah, tho I think I get bravehearts point, the times I was thinking is simply when (and we know it as it happens) it is getting very close to the ref calling 'holding on', and you lose the ball. In THAT case the overiding goal is to maintain possession so it would be quicker to yank them towards your goal line and they could very well end up penalised for being on the wrong side.

anyways, my main question was answered, that it is not against the laws to do so.

 

[Grant NZ]

Hmm, can't say I have noticed it. I will probably see it all the time now! (like when you buy a red car of a certain brand, all of a sudden there are a million haha)

Yeah, tho I think I get bravehearts point, the times I was thinking is simply when (and we know it as it happens) it is getting very close to the ref calling 'holding on', and you lose the ball. In THAT case the overiding goal is to maintain possession so it would be quicker to yank them towards your goal line and they could very well end up penalised for being on the wrong side.

anyways, my main question was answered, that it is not against the laws to do so.

Clearing out is a huge grey area as far as the laws go anyway, of course. There's nothing that says you can clear out past the ball (or how far) but people do it all the time and only get pinged if they do it well past the ball.

If you grab a guy by the jersey and pull him off the ball you could technically be pinged for not binding properly (ie, you're supposed to bind by using your shoulder and all of your arm), you could be said to be deliberately collapsing a ruck if you pull the guy off his feet but then people do both those things routinely when driving forwards and don't get pinged.

 

[terry j]

ahh, yes that makes sense. Yet when you drive them off the ball (normally) do you actually bind? Or more shove.

guess that is the grey area you are talking about, but it is clearer in my mind how 'my' suggestion might be interpreted by the ref.

thanks

 

[boyo]

I see people doing it all the time.

A sixth sense?

 

[Grant NZ]

A sixth sense?

That does kind of read like a line from the porno parody of that film, doesn't it? "The Sixth Sex" perhaps?

 

[Lee Grant]

France v Italy

Not enough advantage.

At 82mins 36 secs referee George Clancy is obviously responding to an AR when he puts his arm out towards attackers, France, near the Argentina goal line.

He asks, "Number?" (I think it was for off side, but that is not to any point.)

Ten seconds after Clancy says that, Spedding of France is over the goal line being held up.

Ten times out of ten the officials would have played advantage to France and came back to the point of infringement - being held up ten seconds later is not a fulfillment of penalty advantage.

Instead Clancy blew his whistle to end the game.

I think that the AR must have been Stuart Berry otherwise the other AR, Steve Walsh, would have mentioned it when he consulted with Clancy about the Spedding grounding incident.

Did Clancy just forget?
.