Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Law Question Thread

  1. #1
    Player RugbyRef's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    466
    vCash
    5000000

    Law Question Thread

    I know there is a law forum, but it seems to get under used.

    So I thought I would create a specific Law thread for the Perth Metro supporters/players/coaches/refs.

    There are enough refs on here and it saves hijacking other threads into law clarifications.

    So if you have a question, post it here and we'll see if we can enlighten you. However what we will tell you is only what the law is, and how we are told to referee it. Whether you or we agree with it is somewhat irrelevant, we don't make the laws.

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  2. #2
    Immortal GIGS20's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Rockingham
    Posts
    20,739
    vCash
    1474000
    I reserve the right to bitch and moan about the refs like any true rugby lover!

    That being said, thanks for giving me the opportunity to ask the question about all this!

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    C'mon the

  3. #3
    Champion GAFFA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Gosnells
    Posts
    2,180
    vCash
    5000000
    He's been doing it all day Sir!

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    “Everyone knows whether it’s rugby, politics or whatever, front-rowers should rule the world, so to have a hooker at the helm makes sense,” Nathan Charles Western Force & Wallabies Hooker.

  4. #4
    Champion
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    South Perth
    Posts
    1,446
    vCash
    5012000
    Question: In an earlier thread you mentioned if players in a maul go to ground - say collapsed maul - and one player from each team contesting, it becomes a ruck.

    Why then in so many circumstances you hear a ref call out "it's a maul" when ball carrier is held up, then maul collapses and tackler can effecyively smother the ball which results in ref blowing it up and giving possesion to defending team. So much of the time, you still have players at the the fringes of this collapsed maul on their feet so it is then a ruck and tackler must roll away??? should he not?

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  5. #5
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    North perth
    Posts
    114
    vCash
    5000000
    Quote Originally Posted by Hansie View Post
    Question: In an earlier thread you mentioned if players in a maul go to ground - say collapsed maul - and one player from each team contesting, it becomes a ruck.

    Why then in so many circumstances you hear a ref call out "it's a maul" when ball carrier is held up, then maul collapses and tackler can effecyively smother the ball which results in ref blowing it up and giving possesion to defending team. So much of the time, you still have players at the the fringes of this collapsed maul on their feet so it is then a ruck and tackler must roll away??? should he not?
    Hansie, I know this has been discussed many times, and the IRB even issued a clarification in 2011/2012.

    If a maul collapses (legally), and the ball gets to ground, then it becomes a ruck and ruck law applies I.e. players must move away and release ball. If maul collapses and ball doesn't get to ground, it is deemed a collapsed maul - if one of the players has remained holding the ball and is on feet, then person holding ball and on ground must release (penalty). Anybody laying on the ball carrier in a collapsed maul (not a ruck) does not have to roll - it is scrum turnover to team not in possession at commencement of maul. Some refs will incorrectly tell players go roll in this instance - remember if ball is on ground then it is a ruck and they do have to roll. Ireland use this maul / scrum turnover defence well as other teams are now doing it. Hope this clarifies
    Posted via Mobile Device

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  6. #6
    Champion
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    South Perth
    Posts
    1,446
    vCash
    5012000
    Purfectly, and yes I had the Irish defensive strategy in mind.

    I do like the 5 second use or lose it law at rucks, but am waiting with baited breath for the time I will see it getting used more regularly than the one occassion, I think the Reds were pinged in attack.

    If I was to be critical of referee consistency I would like to point to the lack of use of yellow cards in the red zone.

    Frankly I think in all upper grade matches, Prems through to S15 and test matches, refs should include in their pre-match chat with front rowers, teams and captain, that second PK infringement in Red zone will automatically lead to yellow card and every PK thereafter.

    This may mean a team losing 2 or even 3 players, but people have paid good money for S15 and test matches to watch a fast moving, free flowing game with lots of points being scored. Whilst we are a game we are also now entertainment as well.

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  7. #7
    Champion GAFFA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Gosnells
    Posts
    2,180
    vCash
    5000000
    Quote Originally Posted by Hansie View Post
    Purfectly, and yes I had the Irish defensive strategy in mind.

    I do like the 5 second use or lose it law at rucks, but am waiting with baited breath for the time I will see it getting used more regularly than the one occassion, I think the Reds were pinged in attack.

    If I was to be critical of referee consistency I would like to point to the lack of use of yellow cards in the red zone.

    Frankly I think in all upper grade matches, Prems through to S15 and test matches, refs should include in their pre-match chat with front rowers, teams and captain, that second PK infringement in Red zone will automatically lead to yellow card and every PK thereafter.

    This may mean a team losing 2 or even 3 players, but people have paid good money for S15 and test matches to watch a fast moving, free flowing game with lots of points being scored. Whilst we are a game we are also now entertainment as well
    .
    The Brumbies wouldnt have any players left on the field if this was the case.

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    “Everyone knows whether it’s rugby, politics or whatever, front-rowers should rule the world, so to have a hooker at the helm makes sense,” Nathan Charles Western Force & Wallabies Hooker.

  8. #8
    Immortal GIGS20's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Rockingham
    Posts
    20,739
    vCash
    1474000
    OK Refs, riddle me this.

    Ball is near the goal line, the attacking team are running the whole pick n drive smash it into the tryline strategy, the defense are turning the ball runner back into the pile of bodies remaining from the previous ruck. You see it all the time.

    Let's say the defense runs the attacker into this pile of bodies and he ends up on top of it, with his mate pushing him forward (as is typically the case in this instance) and several tacklers pushing him back (again, very typical) the ball is off the ground, being held up by the dogpile and at least one player from either team is bound to the ball carrier (who is usually by now lying on a pile of about four blokes)

    Ruck or Maul?

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    C'mon the

  9. #9
    Veteran Ecky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,891
    vCash
    5004000
    Quote Originally Posted by GIGS20 View Post
    OK Refs, riddle me this.

    Ball is near the goal line, the attacking team are running the whole pick n drive smash it into the tryline strategy, the defense are turning the ball runner back into the pile of bodies remaining from the previous ruck. You see it all the time.

    Let's say the defense runs the attacker into this pile of bodies and he ends up on top of it, with his mate pushing him forward (as is typically the case in this instance) and several tacklers pushing him back (again, very typical) the ball is off the ground, being held up by the dogpile and at least one player from either team is bound to the ball carrier (who is usually by now lying on a pile of about four blokes)

    Ruck or Maul?
    Sorry GIGS, but Law 15 Tackle says in part

    15.3 BROUGHT TO THE GROUND DEFINED
    (a) If the ball carrier has one knee or both knees on the ground, that player has been ‘brought to ground’.
    (b) If the ball carrier is sitting on the ground, or on top of another player on the ground the ball carrier has been ‘brought to ground’.
    If, in your scenario, the ball carrier is held as he lands on this dogpile then it be a tackle.

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  10. #10
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    North perth
    Posts
    114
    vCash
    5000000
    I concur with Ecky (thanks Ecky)

    If prolonged wrestling then occurs then I'd be looking to award scrum to team going forward (which by your description Gigs 'could' be argued to be the tacklers), however if there's doubt about who's moving forward, scrum 'attacking' team
    Posted via Mobile Device

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  11. #11
    Champion
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    South Perth
    Posts
    1,446
    vCash
    5012000
    Quote Originally Posted by GAFFA View Post
    The Brumbies wouldnt have any players left on the field if this was the case.
    They would only do it once or twice. Actually neither would the AB's.

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  12. #12
    Champion welshrugbyfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Home
    Posts
    2,014
    vCash
    5000000
    My old coach used to say "if you're holding the ball you're in a maul, if you're in the muck you're in a ruck".
    Posted via Mobile Device

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  13. #13
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    North perth
    Posts
    114
    vCash
    5000000
    Quote Originally Posted by RumourMonger View Post
    My mouth waters at the prospect of being in a ruck with Hansie lying on the ground and all over the ball below me! You'd have no chance of rolling away then!
    As long as it isn't a collapsed maul
    Posted via Mobile Device

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

Similar Threads

  1. Reds have question mark over Super side
    By travelling_gerry in forum Queensland Reds
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 25-01-11, 21:28
  2. English question new rugby laws
    By Flamethrower in forum International Rugby
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 21-06-08, 00:15
  3. To see troubles or not to see, that is The Question
    By laura in forum Western Force
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-05-08, 11:01
  4. A Quick Question about the TMO...
    By Jess in forum Rugby
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: 15-03-07, 05:38
  5. Favorite Thread / Favorite Post
    By Darren in forum Site News, Suggestions and Troubles
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-11-06, 20:34

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •