Slapping the ball out of the Scrum Half

[OB..]

I agree with Davet. The referee's job is inter alia, to interpret the laws sensibly.

I have no objection to teasing out problems in the laws on forums such as this but we should not lose sight of the wood while studying the bark on the trees.

 

[Simon Thomas]

I agree with DaveT, OB and Didds. The Laws are a framework for interpretation, to provide an enjoyable match safely, equitably and within the framework AND spirit of the Laws; not a 1984 type anally retentive all encompassing black & white decision support mechanism - and the higher the grade of referee, there is more protocol and agreement to aid those interpretation, as his requirement is communication and management which is needed quicker and quicker as you go up the levels.

Some of you are getting far too micro-detailed and focussed. When advising (or assessing) lower grade refs I often see a concentration on one key element of play (e.g. tackler away) and missing another issue, which may have much greater material affect. Referees must have a much more holistic approach in general, and those that are successful (at whatever level) tend to have that approach.

 

[David J.]

Sage advice, boys. Thanks.

 

[Chris Picard]

Some of you are getting far too micro-detailed and focussed. .

What do you expect from a lawyer?!?

When advising (or assessing) lower grade refs I often see a concentration on one key element of play (e.g. tackler away) and missing another issue, which may have much greater material affect. .

Very true, this is an aspect I personally need to work on. Just when you get something down, you continue to learn. OB please help here, I think there is an old saying: Everyday you should learn something new or it is a wasted day.

Referees must have a much more holistic approach in general, and those that are successful (at whatever level) tend to have that approach.

Very good advice

 

[OB..]

OB please help here, I think there is an old saying: Everyday you should learn something new or it is a wasted day.

It's not in my law book.

I am more inclined to believe six impossible things before breakfast.

 

[Mat 04]

you can read the mind of the slapper presumably? how do you know this is his/her intention?



slow the game down? maybe tackling somebody is "slowing thebgame down" as well? Don't be daft!!!



Rubbish. Its a perfectly legitimate ploy to use against somebody who hasn't been coached well enough, or refuses to understand, that a 10 point grip on the ball is necessary. If the ball carrier hasn't the skills to deal with it that is their problem.

There's enough to stop the game as it is without introducing even more unilateral interpretations.

didds

I honest to God cannot believe what I am reading. TACKLING is a KEY part of rugby, slapping is not and as I have said before - I will challenge any one of you to hold a ball out infront of me ready to pass and not drop it after I have slapped it. It takes NO skill to slap a ball out of someones hands. none at all.

Didds, can you also tell me why someone would slap a ball other than to make someone else lose it forward?? If the player wanted to play the ball surely he would make a grab for it, not slap it where he had little or even no control over it.

 

[SimonSmith]

Mat04, just to be explicit - you're saying that you're independently contracting out of the law, contrary to specific IRB guidance?

 

[Dixie]

Mat04, just to be explicit - you're saying that you're independently contracting out of the law, contrary to specific IRB guidance?

Simon, it seems to me that Mat04's position is actually in line with iRB guidance, in that the designated members have come out against the scrum-half slap as well. They couldn't find a sensible rationale, but just didn't like it. Mat04 seems to be on the same wavelength. It is, after all, a question of interpretation, not a considered abrogation or abnegation of any particular law.

You'll recall that this lengthy digression started when I inadvisably offered my caustic and trenchant views on the iRB's dodgy reasoning.

 

[OB..]

Dixie - how do you square that view with the fact that in their 4th answer the IRB permits hitting the arm of the scrum half?

The first three questions involve diving over players, the 4th doesn't. That seems to be the point, not the matter of "slapping".

 

[Mat 04]

Mat04, just to be explicit - you're saying that you're independently contracting out of the law, contrary to specific IRB guidance?

Yes, Because I dont believe in that particular ruling.

 

[OB..]

Mat04 - don't you think that approach is a tad arrogant? Why should you be entitled to decide what to accept and what to reject? Why should the players have to put up with a referee who chooses to write his own laws?

 

[Mat 04]

RULING 8: 2006
Law Ruling by Designated Members of Rugby Committee
29 November 2006

The FFR has requested a ruling with regard to Law 16 Ruck

Question:
1. Can the referee allow a defender coming from his side to intervene on an
opponent as soon as his opponent has his hands on the ball, by diving over
the players on the ground in front of him?
2. Can the referee allow a defender coming from his side to intervene on the
ball as soon as it emerges from the ruck, by diving over the players on the
ground in front of him?
3. Can the referee allow a player coming from his side to hit the arm of the
opponent as this opponent has the ball in his hands, by diving over the
players on the ground in front of him?
4. Can the referee allow a player coming from his side to hit the arm of the
opponent as this opponent has the ball in his hands, by staying on his feet but being in contact with players on the ground in front of him?

The Designated Members have ruled the following in answer to the question raised:
1. No. See Laws 16.2(d) and16.3(d).
2. No. See Laws 16.2(d) and16.3(d).
3. No. See Laws 16.2(d) and16.3(d).
4. Yes. If the player was on his feet and came from an onside position.

At no point does that ruling give a player permission to slap the ball deliberately out of a players hands. All it does is say a player can make contact with the scrum halves arms and I would strongly suggest that it also means in an attempt to try and make a fair tackle on the SH.

 

[Mat 04]

Yes OB, I'll admit that it is a tad arrogant.

However. In my still continuing experience as a player (I am only a young pup at 18) , I know that if this particular incident happened it would be expected of me and by others to be penalised with a penlty kick and possibley even a YC. It is completely unsportsman like I still consider it a deliberate knock on.

Secondly, I am not picking and choosing which laws to apply, I am merely exercising my right to interperet them in a fair and consistent way.

(On a different note, the only law I do choose to ignore off the top of my head is the one concerning a hooker having his foot on the line when throwing in.)

 

[collybs]

MAT 04

Why is it not sportsmanlike to try and get possession of the ball? Is that not the aim of the defending side.
If I can reach for the ball when in the scrum half's possession and I am onside why can I not take posssesion of the ball?
If I slap it with a downward motion towards myself and the ball comes towards me and I pick it up am I not just stealing the ball as is done in a tackle?

If the defending side are not allowed to remove possession of the ball from the attacking side what is the aim of defending?

 

[Dixie]

It is completely unsportsman like I still consider it a deliberate knock on.

Secondly, I am not picking and choosing which laws to apply, I am merely exercising my right to interperet them in a fair and consistent way.

Mat, I thing everyone agrees that if as a result of the slap at the ball it goes forward relative to the slapper, then that is a deliberate knock-on and is to be penalised as such - and not under the unsportsmanlike behaviour catch-all. What people are struggling with is the idea that it is unsportsmanlike to try to divest an opponent of the ball.

You say you'll interpret the "unsportsmanlike behaviour" law consistently. Then let me return to a previous "what if" from this thread, and ask whether you'd award a penalty try and a YC against a winger who caught his opponent in-goal, and knowing the tackle would result in a successful grounding, stripped the ball out of his hands instead, so that the ball went backwards - after which it was grounded by a defender?

 

[Davet]

Mat04

One of the most important principles in Rugby Union is the contest for the ball.

Slapping, knocking, stripping the ball from an opponent is surely part of that contest. If the defender has sufficient skill to do so without knocking on then credit to him. He knows the risk if he does knock on.

Rugby is also about choices - each choice carries risks, and rewards.

Disrupting the attack is what defence is all about - its not negative play - indeed I think one of the most pernicious and short-sighted themes in modern refereeing is the arbitrary distinction between between positive and negative play. As referees what concerns us legal or illegal.

The player who deliberately knocks on and then gathers the ball to run in for the try is being "positive" - sadly, and more importantly, he is also being illegal. The player who disrupts an opposition move by knocking the ball from the grasp of an opponent, without knocking-on, could well be accused of being negative - but that's his job during that phase of play. What he is not doing is acting illegally.

It is NOT unsportsmanlike - its good rugby.

If you don't like it then - frankly - tough.

 

[didds]

I honest to God cannot believe what I am reading. TACKLING is a KEY part of rugby, slapping is not

i've had a look in the laws and I can't find the law that states this. ie slapping the ball is not a part of the game ie is illegal.

could somebody please illustrate the law being alluded to here?

I am also aware that other aspescts of the game are not included in the laws - starting with the tap tackle and the hand off. Should these also be viewed as not key parts of the game then?

didds

 

[didds]

I will challenge any one of you to hold a ball out infront of me ready to pass and not drop it after I have slapped it. It takes NO skill to slap a ball out of someones hands. none at all.

but it takes a little skill to NOT have it slapped out one's hands. Shouldn;t THAT skill be required?

Didds, can you also tell me why someone would slap a ball other than to make someone else lose it forward??

because the player maybe only has the choice of getting one had to the ball or none, and slapping the ball away/out and creating the chance of a free ball is preferable to watching the opposition use it? seems eminently reasonable to me.


didds

 

[didds]

At no point does that ruling give a player permission to slap the ball deliberately out of a players hands.

neither does it refuse permission to slap the ball out of a players hands!

didds

 

[didds]

It is completely unsportsman like I still consider it a deliberate knock on.

even if it goes backwards?

I think the Scots had this concept poo-pooed about a century ago ?

didds