Showing posts with label law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label law. Show all posts

Tuesday, 29 May 2012

More Fiddling

Just when you thought it was safe to look at the law book once again, the IRB comes up with some new variations.

http://www.irblaws.com/2012/

Most are un-contentious, how the TMO is used is yet to be defined so we have to see on that one. The scrum engagement is tinkering around the edges, its been said before the problem at the top of the game is all about winning the hit and I not sure that addresses the issue.

Tuesday, 25 August 2009

Countdown to Chaos


The new rugby season is getting ever closer, the elite are already involved in pre-season friendlies and for the rest of us its two weeks to go. It’s become a regular pre-season ritual to gather and hear what new law or directives have been issued for the new season. This is what I took away from the meeting and my understanding may well evolve during the season as I work with them and discuss with other refs.
Laws

Its been well flagged that a number of last season’s ELVs have passed into Law, the ones that did not make it were being able to legally pull down a maul (good), those Free Kick sanctions tried in SANZAR (good) and not bothering about numbers in the line-out (bad for refs). There has been some tweaking with the off-side at the scrum, with the defending scrum half now required to be besides the putting-in scrummy or behind the 5m off-side line. Once the ball is in, he can go were he likes as long as its on-side.
IRB Directives
These are generally instruction on how the law are to be interpreted and tighten up on what referees may varyingly judge to material. They generally move the game towards encouraging positive play and fair competition.
The big one this year is dealing with obstruction at the maul, anything other than the ball carrier being at the front as the maul forms will be obstruction. Lineout lifters must be careful how the maul forms when they land the jumper. Kick-offs catchers can’t rely on the binding onto a couple of loitering forwards in front of him. Once the ball is at the back of the maul, the ball carrier must lead the detachment and players must bind on behind him. Its all about fair contest for the ball, letting the oppo have a fair crack at stealing the ball.
The next directive involved the tackle and will generate lots of confusion. The first player arriving at the tackle will be given priority in playing the ball with his hands, even if the ruck forms around him. Last year, I would have cried “hands off, ruck!” now, as long as the player has arrived through the gate or was the tackler and is ON HIS FEET, he can handle the ball. This may come as a surprise to many players who have always played this way but finally the IRB are ‘legalising’ Richie McCaw’s game plan! What is import is intent; is that arriving playing looking to play the ball or just kill it? The latter still gets a penalty. The thoughts on this are this will improve the speed of service of the ball and will generate more space as teams will have to commit more bodies to rucks to win back the ball. In truth, at my level I doubt this will be clean enough to call but it should make a difference to what you scream at the TV.
One final thing, spear-tackles or any thing that involves lifting a player off his feet and dropping him down will be an automatic red card. Just like Rich Brown for the Aussies on Saturday who got, oh yes, a yellow card. Remember folk TV rugby is refereed very differently to your Saturday afternoon game.

Thursday, 25 September 2008

Some Clarity

In Tuesday's post I talked about the confusion with when a maul ends 'Al Italia' i.e. the oppo disengage and run away.
Its seem there now some direction from the IRB, the RFU (god bless 'em) asked this question..

The RFU has requested a ruling relating to Law 17
A maul is formed with Team A pushing their opponents (Team B) back towards their own goal line with the ball being clearly visible at the rear of the maul, all the defending side (Team B) bound to the maul voluntarily exit the maul, has the maul successfully concluded or is the maul still active?

And the answer from the IRB is

The maul has not successfully concluded and it is not still active.
As the players of the team not in possession have all left the maul the maul ceases to exist and has not ended successfully or unsuccessfully as determined by the definition of a maul. The maul has ceased to exist and the ball is now in open play and the relevant Laws apply.


So do I penalise, obstruction, do I let the oppo pop around the back? This Saturday, I'll shout and tell the ball carriers to use it and hope they take the hint.