Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Laws Question. Ask here! 2016 Laws changes Post #113

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Originally posted by ManWithDog View Post
    I've seen much comment about Peter O'Mahony's binding on Stephen Archer in various scrums during the Leinster game. I always expected to see a flanker bind onto the jersey of the 2nd row, but felt that that style of bind was merely traditional, and POM's bind on Saturday to be something innovative. Having player flanker on a few occasions, I always considered the traditional bind to be awkward and not capable of delivering 'full thrust' whereas this new bind appeared much more effective. I also played Prop and was always very vocal if the flanker was perceived to be 'leaning' instead of shoving !
    It seems a lot of Leinster fans are claimimg POM to have been binding illegally - can anyone clarify if there is, in fact, a specific law regarding the bind of a flanker ?

    Sanction: Penalty.
    1. The players in the scrum bind in the following way:
    2. The props bind to the hooker.
    3. The hooker binds with both arms. This can be either over or under the arms of the props.
    4. The locks bind with the props immediately in front of them and with each other.
    5. All other players in the scrum bind on a lock’s body with at least one arm.

    Comment


      Very clear Evanderch !

      I'm old enough to remember the delightful days of the Hooker slipping off his bind on the Tighthead to cover the eyes of his opposite number as the ball was put in. Today's front-row outbursts are very mild compared to the chaos of the '70's !!

      Comment


        Conway’s conversion charge down reminded me of a question about charging free kicks that I never had a definitive answer for. I used to do this years ago before it became common place and often was met with bemusement by both the opposition and referee. On occasion the kicker would stop in his tracks, in this situation can you tackle him? And if so is it a scrum advantage for an incorrect free kick?

        Comment


          Originally posted by red exile View Post
          Conway’s conversion charge down reminded me of a question about charging free kicks that I never had a definitive answer for. I used to do this years ago before it became common place and often was met with bemusement by both the opposition and referee. On occasion the kicker would stop in his tracks, in this situation can you tackle him? And if so is it a scrum advantage for an incorrect free kick?
          Once the kicker has tapped it, you can move. Of course you might start moving before he actually taps it, then up to the Ref or officials to decide.
          Nulla semper amicus, servivit mihi, in iniuriam mihi neminem quem non persolvi

          Comment


            Originally posted by Sulla View Post

            Once the kicker has tapped it, you can move. Of course you might start moving before he actually taps it, then up to the Ref or officials to decide.
            I thought it was once the kicker makes a motion to kick (similar to a conversion) you can charge. I should have said I am specifically referring to a 'mark' which may or may not make a difference.

            Comment


              So what is the general opinion about the try disallowed in the Glos V Castres game?

              Comment


                Originally posted by the plastic paddy View Post
                So what is the general opinion about the try disallowed in the Glos V Castres game?
                For me the defender is over the ball, so as soon as the Gloucester player makes contact with him, they are on their feet in close contact over the ball. So its a ruck and a legitimate try.

                Comment


                  That was my read of it too
                  "There are a lot of points that we’ve left behind and this is with a young group. That probably tells you what they’re capable of and that they’re a very good side.

                  Probably next year or the year after next they will take some stopping"

                  Anthony Foley, May 2016. Axel RIP

                  Comment


                    "Use it !!!"
                    In the 2nd half when Munster were driving the Exter scrum slowly backwards, one expected that they'd continue the drive, (hopefully) winning a penalty. Instead Garces shouted "use it !" thus compelling Duncan to pass, when there was no desire to do so.
                    When did it become acceptable for a Ref to make this call while the scrum is in motion ? I fully get it that where a scrum is immobile but the ball is available that he should give that direction, but in the case as above, surely it's disadvantageous to the attacking side ?

                    Comment


                      Originally posted by red exile View Post

                      For me the defender is over the ball, so as soon as the Gloucester player makes contact with him, they are on their feet in close contact over the ball. So its a ruck and a legitimate try.
                      I felt he was stood behind the ruck waiting to defend the blindside. That he had a hand on a player in the ruck is irrelevant. I can see both sides though and thought it was a very tough call for Mitrea who I thought had a very good game.

                      Comment


                        Originally posted by the plastic paddy View Post

                        I felt he was stood behind the ruck waiting to defend the blindside. That he had a hand on a player in the ruck is irrelevant. I can see both sides though and thought it was a very tough call for Mitrea who I thought had a very good game.
                        If he's not involved there is no ruck, just a tackle. He is over the player and the ball as can be seen in the picture. IMO when the Gloucester [prop?] binds on to him that is now a ruck.

                        Comment


                          Originally posted by red exile View Post

                          If he's not involved there is no ruck, just a tackle. He is over the player and the ball as can be seen in the picture. IMO when the Gloucester [prop?] binds on to him that is now a ruck.
                          I think you will find it was the Castres tight head being cleared out that was the penalty/ no try offence.

                          Comment


                            Originally posted by the plastic paddy View Post

                            I think you will find it was the Castres tight head being cleared out that was the penalty/ no try offence.
                            No, he inexplicably wanders off to the open side and pushes their blindside flanker who was guarding that side of the ruck in field. You can see it on the video here about 40 seconds in
                            Munster face Gloucester this coming Saturday at 1pm in Thomond Park in Round two of the Heineken Champions Cup. The 'Cherries' opened their campaign this aftern...

                            Comment


                              Interesting article in the Guardian Breakdown on the proposed new rucking laws.

                              "Last week’s player welfare symposium in Paris organised by World Rugby looked at ways of creating a greater contest at the ruck. And then it was revealed that the days of the jackal could be numbered if an attempt to stop players arriving at a breakdown from handling the ball is endorsed.

                              The proposal has been made with safety in mind. The early retirement of Wales captain Sam Warburton highlighted the risk of jackalling – standing over the ball after a tackle to win a turnover, with opposition players charging in to make body challenges and thump the scavenger to the ground."
                              The law book requires a player joining a ruck to do so from behind the offside line and to bind on to a teammate or an opponent before, or at the same time as, making contact. The safety of jackallers would be enhanced were those stipulations enforced, but with the contest element of the game now minimised in the quest for continuity, attacking teams are given latitude.

                              The symposium reflected on the way the game has changed since it went open in 1995. The ball-in-play time has virtually doubled, the average number of scrums in a match has decreased by 75%, there are half the number of lineouts with kicking tactically for touch now a rarity. Breakdowns, meanwhile, have increased fivefold.

                              As a consequence, defensive lines across the field have led to constant collisions. Some teams, notably New Zealand, rarely take play beyond a few phases, kicking the ball in the expectation of quickly receiving it back and then counterattacking. Others, including Ireland, hold on to the ball for long periods, abetted by the way the laws are applied.

                              Outlawing jackalling would mean a return to rucking as the lawmakers intended, supporting players remaining upright and looking to drive forward, playing the ball only with their feet. The intention of the law experiment is to commit more players to the breakdown, preferably forwards, and create space behind – but would it enhance safety if laws were applied as loosely as they are now? Not just through the risk of the tackler or his victim being stamped on, but players charging in to repel a drive. Would it increase the prospect of turnovers? In this year’s Six Nations, the chances of a team retaining possession at a breakdown were 94%, with set-pieces also returning a figure in the 90s.

                              The essential difference between the two codes of rugby is that union is a contest for possession, but the game itself has become a contest for money. As a result, its more arcane features have been ditched to make it less complex to casual viewers.

                              World Rugby is proposing a Nations League, worth an estimated £5bn over 12 years, while the Six Nations, as self-serving an organisation as any in sport and disdainful of outside ambition, has been talking to private equity companies. It is prepared to concede commercial control, and with it free-to-air television coverage, in return for a lump sum that for some will match their annual turnover and the loss to the game of some 27% of profits each year.

                              The game is putting its soul up for sale. The increasing dependence on financial backers drives law reform as much as player welfare. Union may never be as readily understood as football, but by diluting the contest for possession and making it increasingly resemble rugby league, it is moving in that direction.

                              How many put-ins to the scrums in the Six Nations were straight? How many crooked feeds resulted in a free-kick? Any throws went down the middle of a lineout? And how many scrums resulted? Referees look to keep the game flowing: the days of 30-plus penalties in a match are history, and if that is welcome, it is less down to an improvement in discipline but at a conniving of offences, especially by the side in possession, in the quest for entertainment.

                              Who wants to watch a mangle of scrum collapses or hookers repeatedly wiping a ball with a towel before throwing in? The law experiments announced last week are an attempt to cajole toothpaste back into a tube. Moves to create space on the field have tended to backfire because coaches devise ways of ensuring they have the opposite effect to that intended: it was the rule requiring backs to stand five metres behind a scrum that prompted the collapses and resets that caused consternation earlier in the decade.

                              Today, referees often wave play on when a scrum goes down in the interest of flow. How long before it goes the way of rugby league which uses the set-piece as an uncontested means of restarting the game? As well as being a contest for possession, union has prided itself on being a sport for all shapes and sizes; while league does not have any flankers, it is props that it lacks.

                              Comment


                                I don't see how they can outlaw the jackall without completely negating the contest for the ball. A player on his feet must be able to challenge for the ball on the floor after the tackle otherwise you may as well just hand it back to the attacking team.

                                EDIT: Perhaps it is not the Jackall they should be outlawing but the hitting of a player with the shoulder whilst he has his hands on the ball. Maybe if they interpreted the law as the player with hands on the ball is now in possession and the laws of the tackle be applied rather than entering a ruck. ie. full arm wrap below the shoulders etc.
                                Last edited by red exile; 28th-March-2019, 12:07.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X