Laws you know you don't know but were afraid to ask

[inactionman]

I thought I'd start a thread on this, as I'm sure there are those like me don't actually know the laws of the game inside out.

An example would be whether Slade's try should stand and what the ref should do about it. No clue.

My suggestion is simple -swallow your pride, admit you're not sure on something law-related and post it here for others to make shit up about what the law actually states.

I could of course consult the rulebook (Lawbook sounds daft before anyone starts) but that would imply effort.

My question is this:
At rucks, when the scrum-half wants to play the ball, is it just the 9 who gets the protection or is it anyone who is playing the role of distributer? (I genuinely don't know)

[Paddington Bear]

Great thread idea.

Of course there's nothing unclear to me, but some of my friends are very unclear about who gets possession of the ball if it becomes unplayable straight from a kick. No doubt my friends would be grateful for an explanation.

[Slick]

Any distributor, team who caught the kick.

Next

[inactionman]

Any distributor, team who caught the kick.

Next

Question part 2:
Is it just for someone looking to distribute? I ask as I've seen direct counter-rucks on players looking to pick and go.

This could just be my bad eyesight or bad referring, of course.

[Guy Smiley]

Someone may want to use this link

https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/home

maybe.

[inactionman]

Someone may want to use this link

https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/home

maybe.

This option was discounted as being far too utterly tedious.

[Guy Smiley]

Someone may want to use this link

https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/home

maybe.

This option was discounted as being far too utterly tedious.

Go, chase your windmills.

We'll wait.

[Slick]

Any distributor, team who caught the kick.

Next

Question part 2:
Is it just for someone looking to distribute? I ask as I've seen direct counter-rucks on players looking to pick and go.

This could just be my bad eyesight or bad referring, of course.

I think it’s as good a time as any for me to admit I don’t know

[Torquemada 1420]

Someone may want to use this link

https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/home

maybe.

This option was discounted as being far too utterly tedious.

The link, or reading Guy's posts?

[inactionman]

Someone may want to use this link

https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/home

maybe.

This option was discounted as being far too utterly tedious.

Go, chase your windmills.

We'll wait.

This may not be an ideal thread for you.

[Guy Smiley]

This option was discounted as being far too utterly tedious.

Go, chase your windmills.

We'll wait.

This may not be an ideal thread for you.

au contraire... this is how it works. A query, the various competing theories, an escalation in hostilities and then someone slams the Book down in a dramatic act implying finality...

is ignored and the jousting continues, albeit on a different tack.

[inactionman]

Go, chase your windmills.

We'll wait.

This may not be an ideal thread for you.

au contraire... this is how it works. A query, the various competing theories, an escalation in hostilities and then someone slams the Book down in a dramatic act implying finality...

is ignored and the jousting continues, albeit on a different tack.

I was planning on building up to deconstructing every single scrum penalty Steve 'Walsh' Welsh ever gave against England, but we'll perhaps see where the thread meanders to first.

[ASMO]

This may not be an ideal thread for you.

au contraire... this is how it works. A query, the various competing theories, an escalation in hostilities and then someone slams the Book down in a dramatic act implying finality...

is ignored and the jousting continues, albeit on a different tack.

I was planning on building up to deconstructing every single scrum penalty Steve 'Walsh' Welsh ever gave against England, but we'll perhaps see where the thread meanders to first.

Fuck off Rassie, we know its you!

[Guy Smiley]

I was planning on building up to deconstructing every single scrum penalty Steve 'Walsh' Welsh ever gave against England, but we'll perhaps see where the thread meanders to first.

Yet the idea of referring to the Laws is something you claim as being too much effort?

[inactionman]

I was planning on building up to deconstructing every single scrum penalty Steve 'Walsh' Welsh ever gave against England, but we'll perhaps see where the thread meanders to first.

Yet the idea of referring to the Laws is something you claim as being too much effort?

I said tedious. The effort was implied.

Going through Steve Walsh's penalty history would actually be quite cathartic.

[Guy Smiley]

I was planning on building up to deconstructing every single scrum penalty Steve 'Walsh' Welsh ever gave against England, but we'll perhaps see where the thread meanders to first.

Yet the idea of referring to the Laws is something you claim as being too much effort?

I said tedious. The effort was implied.

Going through Steve Walsh's penalty history would actually be quite cathartic.

Actually, you said effort.

I could of course consult the rulebook (Lawbook sounds daft before anyone starts) but that would imply effort.

[Niegs]

One I had to look up this weekend after being asked by one of my players is what conditions allow you to jump and prevent a ball from going into touch. Something I wish WR would do with sections like this (18.2) is bold key words as I had a read it a few times to pick out the distinction between two phrases that were similar.

1. Can stand IN the field of play and CATCH a ball in the air that HAS crossed the line of touch.
2. Can stand OUT of the field of play and KNOCK* a ball in the air into the field of play so long as the ball HASN'T crossed the line of touch.
3. Can jump from INSIDE or OUTSIDE the field of play and CATCH a ball that has crossed the line of touch, but that player MUST LAND in the field of play.
4. Can jump from INSIDE or OUTSIDE the field of play and KNOCK back into play a ball that has crossed the line of touch, can land either in or out.

I'm sure this is one of those many laws that WR could simplify further (ball crosses the line in the air or on the ground, it's out - period), but they seem to want to let Clever Jakes have tricky moments that are a bit exciting but confusing for the majority.

[Grandpa]

Apparently you are not allowed to throw the ball forward and re-catch it.. but can throw it backwards and re-catch it... at least there is no law against that...

So my question is.. can an opposition player tackle you while you throw the ball slightly backwards but up in the air? Or would that be tackling a player without the ball?

[inactionman]

Yet the idea of referring to the Laws is something you claim as being too much effort?

I said tedious. The effort was implied.

Going through Steve Walsh's penalty history would actually be quite cathartic.

Actually, you said effort.

I could of course consult the rulebook (Lawbook sounds daft before anyone starts) but that would imply effort.

I said it implied effort. I told you following that link would be tedious.

We are deviating from discussing why Steve Walsh couldn't see past Adam Jones' fat arse.

[inactionman]

Apparently you are not allowed to throw the ball forward and re-catch it.. but can throw it backwards and re-catch it... at least there is no law against that...

So my question is.. can an opposition player tackle you while you throw the ball slightly backwards but up in the air? Or would that be tackling a player without the ball?

I remember Brian O'Driscoll essentially passing to himself and beating a man in the process - no sanction that I recall.

I would think you'd be fair game for a tackle, as you can be tackled whilst juggling to control a ball and I'd assume it'd fall into that category. You haven't relinquished possession of the ball.

Mind you, if you hurtled it fifty feet into the air and got smashed I'd think most refs wouldn't look too kindly on the tackler.

Maybe Guy can furnish us with the chapter and verse?

[Happyhooker]

Apparently you are not allowed to throw the ball forward and re-catch it.. but can throw it backwards and re-catch it... at least there is no law against that...

So my question is.. can an opposition player tackle you while you throw the ball slightly backwards but up in the air? Or would that be tackling a player without the ball?

I remember Brian O'Driscoll essentially passing to himself and beating a man in the process - no sanction that I recall.

I would think you'd be fair game for a tackle, as you can be tackled whilst juggling to control a ball and I'd assume it'd fall into that category. You haven't relinquished possession of the ball.

Mind you, if you hurtled it fifty feet into the air and got smashed I'd think most refs wouldn't look too kindly on the tackler.

Maybe Guy can furnish us with the chapter and verse?

From the moment you touch the ball you're fair game.

[Grandpa]

Apparently you are not allowed to throw the ball forward and re-catch it.. but can throw it backwards and re-catch it... at least there is no law against that...

So my question is.. can an opposition player tackle you while you throw the ball slightly backwards but up in the air? Or would that be tackling a player without the ball?

I remember Brian O'Driscoll essentially passing to himself and beating a man in the process - no sanction that I recall.

I would think you'd be fair game for a tackle, as you can be tackled whilst juggling to control a ball and I'd assume it'd fall into that category. You haven't relinquished possession of the ball.

Mind you, if you hurtled it fifty feet into the air and got smashed I'd think most refs wouldn't look too kindly on the tackler.

Maybe Guy can furnish us with the chapter and verse?

From the moment you touch the ball you're fair game.

What if you threw it high in the air to someone standing behind you? But then decided to re-catch it yourself? How would a ref or tackler know if you have passed it to another player... or to yourself... until the other player catches it? I'm sure this anomaly could be exploited... though you'd probably only get away with it once per game...

[Woddy]

One I had to look up this weekend after being asked by one of my players is what conditions allow you to jump and prevent a ball from going into touch. Something I wish WR would do with sections like this (18.2) is bold key words as I had a read it a few times to pick out the distinction between two phrases that were similar.

1. Can stand IN the field of play and CATCH a ball in the air that HAS crossed the line of touch.
2. Can stand OUT of the field of play and KNOCK* a ball in the air into the field of play so long as the ball HASN'T crossed the line of touch.
3. Can jump from INSIDE or OUTSIDE the field of play and CATCH a ball that has crossed the line of touch, but that player MUST LAND in the field of play.
4. Can jump from INSIDE or OUTSIDE the field of play and KNOCK back into play a ball that has crossed the line of touch, can land either in or out.

I'm sure this is one of those many laws that WR could simplify further (ball crosses the line in the air or on the ground, it's out - period), but they seem to want to let Clever Jakes have tricky moments that are a bit exciting but confusing for the majority.

For once, I think the rules are pretty clear on this: a ball is in touch if it lands in touch, meaning if it hits either the ground across the line of touch or a player touching the ground across the line of touch. It can do what it likes in the air before that point. So, your 2 is in touch, whereas 1, 3 and 4 are in. There may be a qualification on a player jumping into the air from outside the line of touch to amend 4 slightly. I don't know.

What's great is that to be in touch, the ball must be out; and to be in, it can't be in touch. Not dissimilar to batting: when you go out, you're in; and when you're out, you come in.

[Woddy]

One I had to look up this weekend after being asked by one of my players is what conditions allow you to jump and prevent a ball from going into touch. Something I wish WR would do with sections like this (18.2) is bold key words as I had a read it a few times to pick out the distinction between two phrases that were similar.

1. Can stand IN the field of play and CATCH a ball in the air that HAS crossed the line of touch.
2. Can stand OUT of the field of play and KNOCK* a ball in the air into the field of play so long as the ball HASN'T crossed the line of touch.
3. Can jump from INSIDE or OUTSIDE the field of play and CATCH a ball that has crossed the line of touch, but that player MUST LAND in the field of play.
4. Can jump from INSIDE or OUTSIDE the field of play and KNOCK back into play a ball that has crossed the line of touch, can land either in or out.

I'm sure this is one of those many laws that WR could simplify further (ball crosses the line in the air or on the ground, it's out - period), but they seem to want to let Clever Jakes have tricky moments that are a bit exciting but confusing for the majority.

For once, I think the rules are pretty clear on this: a ball is in touch if it lands in touch, meaning if it hits either the ground across the line of touch or a player touching the ground across the line of touch. It can do what it likes in the air before that point. So, your 2 is in touch, whereas 1, 3 and 4 are in. There may be a qualification on a player jumping into the air from outside the line of touch to amend 4 slightly. I don't know.

What's great is that to be in touch, the ball must be out; and to be in, it can't be in touch. Not dissimilar to batting: when you go out, you're in; and when you're out, you come in.

PS. One complication being that although the ball falling outside touch defines it being in touch, where it should be played back in is taken from where it crossed the line of touch. So what would happen in a peculiarly swirling wind where a ball is kicked, flies over touch, in then blown back in and then out again before hitting the ground. Would the line-out be from the first or second crossing of the line?

[inactionman]

One I had to look up this weekend after being asked by one of my players is what conditions allow you to jump and prevent a ball from going into touch. Something I wish WR would do with sections like this (18.2) is bold key words as I had a read it a few times to pick out the distinction between two phrases that were similar.

1. Can stand IN the field of play and CATCH a ball in the air that HAS crossed the line of touch.
2. Can stand OUT of the field of play and KNOCK* a ball in the air into the field of play so long as the ball HASN'T crossed the line of touch.
3. Can jump from INSIDE or OUTSIDE the field of play and CATCH a ball that has crossed the line of touch, but that player MUST LAND in the field of play.
4. Can jump from INSIDE or OUTSIDE the field of play and KNOCK back into play a ball that has crossed the line of touch, can land either in or out.

I'm sure this is one of those many laws that WR could simplify further (ball crosses the line in the air or on the ground, it's out - period), but they seem to want to let Clever Jakes have tricky moments that are a bit exciting but confusing for the majority.

For once, I think the rules are pretty clear on this: a ball is in touch if it lands in touch, meaning if it hits either the ground across the line of touch or a player touching the ground across the line of touch. It can do what it likes in the air before that point. So, your 2 is in touch, whereas 1, 3 and 4 are in. There may be a qualification on a player jumping into the air from outside the line of touch to amend 4 slightly. I don't know.

What's great is that to be in touch, the ball must be out; and to be in, it can't be in touch. Not dissimilar to batting: when you go out, you're in; and when you're out, you come in.

PS. One complication being that although the ball falling outside touch defines it being in touch, where it should be played back in is taken from where it crossed the line of touch. So what would happen in a peculiarly swirling wind where a ball is kicked, flies over touch, in then blown back in and then out again before hitting the ground. Would the line-out be from the first or second crossing of the line?

The touch judge would use their best judgment and Dan Biggar would mouth off for 10 minutes.

More seriously, I'd use where the ball first went over the touchline.

In similar fashion, I'm sure many of us saw the video where an ostensibly successful kick at goal went through the posts but was blown back through the posts before landing. From memory, no score was awarded. Quite an edge case, but I'd base rules about where it crosses the plane of the goal.

eta: here it is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnCTqhVYbBs. I stand corrected, points awarded.

[Chilli]

Oom SB wants an update on how the offside line works.

[Biffer]

The one that confuses me is when a box kick goes virtually straight up and the ref calls a player for not being back ten. Not clear how that works.

[Kawazaki]

Are you allowed to touch the posts during an opposition kick for goal?

[inactionman]

Are you allowed to touch the posts during an opposition kick for goal?

Without going too Finbarr Saunders, are you thinking of wobbling the uprights?

[Kawazaki]

Are you allowed to touch the posts during an opposition kick for goal?

Without going too Finbarr Saunders, are you thinking of wobbling the uprights?

Ha!

I imagine that might get noticed. No, just touching the posts.

[Niegs]

The one that confuses me is when a box kick goes virtually straight up and the ref calls a player for not being back ten. Not clear how that works.

That'd be specifically for the players in the breakdown, who are offside and should retreat. Same would happen if a fullback running back a kick puts up a bomb and it's coming down short among opponents and his own teammates. Those teammates have to get back ten from the spot the ball is set to land. That'd be 10.4c in this: https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/law/10 and 10.7 says that no action can put someone onside who is offside as per the 10 Metre Law, like an onside teammate running forward or action by the opposing team.

If I'm not mistaken, it used to be a 10m circle around the spot the ball was coming down and refs would shout "Get out of the 10!" But then they made it a line/zone all the way across the pitch.

[Dan54]

Someone may want to use this link

https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/home

maybe.

I with you GS, why would we want to read things when obviously we know.
Hell who has got time to refer to law books etc when watching a game?

I always reckon the one that causes a lot of bleating at times is off side etc at rucks (well from yelling at games), and mainly because a lot get confused between a tackle and a ruck. From what I remember (and I maybe wrong and not going to be bothered checking) you have to have a player from EACH team on feet and bound over ball for it to be a ruck, a lot start screaming when it just a tackle or pile up. But hey it's probably fun for them to yell at ref !

[troglodiet]

Playing advantage to the attacking team within 10m from their opponent's try line...

Is there any way for the defending team to play out the advantage - i.e "advantage over" without the attacking team being given a penalty kick if they don't score a try?

As I see it, playing advantage to the attacking team within 10m of the try line, can only result in two possible outcomes: try/penalty try or penalty to the attacking team.

[pjm1]

Playing advantage to the attacking team within 10m from their opponent's try line...

Is there any way for the defending team to play out the advantage - i.e "advantage over" without the attacking team being given a penalty kick if they don't score a try?

As I see it, playing advantage to the attacking team within 10m of the try line, can only result in two possible outcomes: try/penalty try or penalty to the attacking team.

Unlikely that advantage would be called over in that situation, you’re right.

The only alternative outcome I can think of would be for a penalty reversal - basically and yellow or red card against the attacking team. That always trumps advantage the other way.

[Dan54]

I remember Brian O'Driscoll essentially passing to himself and beating a man in the process - no sanction that I recall.

I would think you'd be fair game for a tackle, as you can be tackled whilst juggling to control a ball and I'd assume it'd fall into that category. You haven't relinquished possession of the ball.

Mind you, if you hurtled it fifty feet into the air and got smashed I'd think most refs wouldn't look too kindly on the tackler.

Maybe Guy can furnish us with the chapter and verse?

From the moment you touch the ball you're fair game.

What if you threw it high in the air to someone standing behind you? But then decided to re-catch it yourself? How would a ref or tackler know if you have passed it to another player... or to yourself... until the other player catches it? I'm sure this anomaly could be exploited... though you'd probably only get away with it once per game...

Ok Grandpa, my brain has officially short circuited on that, and thats without looking at Woddy's going in and out of touch.

[Enzedder]

If you knock a ball on and one of your players picks it up in an offside position, is that a penalty or the end of the game?

Asking for a French ref.

Also, if you pass the ball very badly and your team-mate jumps in the air to catch it, can you be tackled while in the air or is it a penalty to the side that can pass the ball?

Asking for a French ref.

[average joe]

If you knock a ball on and one of your players picks it up in an offside position, is that a penalty or the end of the game? The scrumhalf gets snotklap by all his forwards

Asking for a French ref.

Also, if you pass the ball very badly and your team-mate jumps in the air to catch it, can you be tackled while in the air or is it a penalty to the side that can pass the ball? The scrumhalf gets executed by firing squad after the game

Asking for a French ref.

[Grandpa]

If you knock a ball on and one of your players picks it up in an offside position, is that a penalty or the end of the game?

Asking for a French ref.

Also, if you pass the ball very badly and your team-mate jumps in the air to catch it, can you be tackled while in the air or is it a penalty to the side that can pass the ball?

Asking for a French ref.

In 2025 in an effort to "right the wrongs" of past misdemeanours, World Rugby awards the 2017 Lions series to NZ. Then also awards the 2011 World Cup to France.

Also, The 2015 World Cup semi-final between Australia and Argentina is to be re-played between Argentina and Scotland instead. With the final also to be replayed between the winners of that first semi-final and the All Blacks. Many players will need to come out of retirement to play.

[average joe]

If you knock a ball on and one of your players picks it up in an offside position, is that a penalty or the end of the game?

Asking for a French ref.

Also, if you pass the ball very badly and your team-mate jumps in the air to catch it, can you be tackled while in the air or is it a penalty to the side that can pass the ball?

Asking for a French ref.

In 2025 in an effort to "right the wrongs" of past misdemeanours, World Rugby awards the 2017 Lions series to NZ. Then also awards the 2011 World Cup to France.

Also, The 2015 World Cup semi-final between Australia and Argentina is to be re-played between Argentina and Scotland instead. With the final also to be replayed between the winners of that first semi-final and the All Blacks. Many players will need to come out of retirement to play.

How far do you want to go back? Next thing you'll be blaming Jan van Riebeeck for 95 WC

[Grandpa]

If you knock a ball on and one of your players picks it up in an offside position, is that a penalty or the end of the game?

Asking for a French ref.

Also, if you pass the ball very badly and your team-mate jumps in the air to catch it, can you be tackled while in the air or is it a penalty to the side that can pass the ball?

Asking for a French ref.

In 2025 in an effort to "right the wrongs" of past misdemeanours, World Rugby awards the 2017 Lions series to NZ. Then also awards the 2011 World Cup to France.

Also, The 2015 World Cup semi-final between Australia and Argentina is to be re-played between Argentina and Scotland instead. With the final also to be replayed between the winners of that first semi-final and the All Blacks. Many players will need to come out of retirement to play.

How far do you want to go back? Next thing you'll be blaming Jan van Riebeeck for 95 WC

Good point. 1995 World Cup final to be re-played. France v NZ...