[Law] Clarification 1 "021

[Ciaran Trainor]

just received this "clarification" that I didn't know I needed.
Assume this clarifies that you can bring a kicker on to take a shot at goal.
https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/clarification/2021/1/

 

[didds]

cue props falling on the floor holding a knee when "needed to".

 

[OB..]

I think that is an Obfuscation rather than a Clarification.

When the referee blows the whistle to award a PK, play stops. However that is what we call "zombie ball" because play can be restarted by the players without any action from the referee.

 

[crossref]

I think that WR could have said more
- in what circumstances should the referee declare the ball dead
- what is the signal by which teams know the ball is dead

 

[Balones]

Total fudge that will lead to more inconsistency and argument. Clarification 2-2007 wasn’t brilliant but had greater clarification than this. It is now superseded by this latest one. It is simply to pander to the professional referees who have been seeking more ‘power’. Doesn’t help the grassroots refs all. It was noticed during the 6 Nations that players were being introduced and re-introduced to the field by the fourth official whenever the referee blew his whistle and without any consultation. Perhaps it was this situation that gave rise to the request for clarification. ‘Why can’t he come onto the field ref”? “Because I say so”. - The worst way of justifying a decision.

 

[crossref]

I think WR need to go back to what is meant by 'dead' in all different circumstances, as it's not just PKs where there is a zombie ball. Also when ball goes into touch, and QTI is still a possibility, and when a mark is called, when a 22m dropout is awarded, and in some ways after a try, before the conversion.

All of those have come up from time to time as possibilities for bringing back YC players etc.

Perhaps the zombie-ball concept needs to be formally brought into the Law Book

Perhaps it would be good to have a specific signal for ball being completely dead, and subsitututions etc being allowed -- a double peep perhaps?

 

[Phil E]

What a total cluster****!

The award of an FK or PK does not in itself mean the ball is dead..... NOT DEAD
However, sometimes when an FK or PK occurs alongside an incident such as an injury the Referee will make the ball dead......DEAD
The referee needs to make the ball dead....REALLY DEAD

The definition of dead is: The ball is dead when the referee blows the whistle to stop play or following an unsuccessful conversion....

[LAWS]But the law says: The referee carries a whistle and blows it: g When a penalty, free-kick or scrum is awarded...DEAD
[/LAWS]
So if he blows his whistle to indicate a PK, FK is awarded, and the law says "the ball is dead when the referee blows his whistle", how do we know whether its dead or not?

And how does the referee do this:

The referee needs to make the ball dead.

Maybe we should carry a pistol and shoot the ball to indicate its really dead?

As clarifications go this one is a doozy

 

[didds]

the point made is that when the ball is dead in some situations the side with the ball decide when it is live.

In fact it seems more often than not... even at a lineout ie nota QTI the side throwing in can throw in as soonas they like - it just has to be straight and travel 5m. _Maybe_ a restart kick needs some sort of refs approval - or doesit?

Otherwise the only definite dead ball scenario I can think of that the ref controls is a scrum and kick off at each half.

PKs and FKs sort of histprically require a mark to be made... but Im not really sure its NEEDED - just that the kick has to be taken on or behind. a walked 10m Fk/PK possibly needs a mark I can see.

?

 

[crossref]

the point made is that when the ball is dead in some situations the side with the ball decide when it is live.

In fact it seems more often than not... even at a lineout ie nota QTI the side throwing in can throw in as soonas they like - it just has to be straight and travel 5m. _Maybe_ a restart kick needs some sort of refs approval - or doesit?

Otherwise the only definite dead ball scenario I can think of that the ref controls is a scrum and kick off at each half.

PKs and FKs sort of histprically require a mark to be made... but Im not really sure its NEEDED - just that the kick has to be taken on or behind. a walked 10m Fk/PK possibly needs a mark I can see.

?

and back in the day, even scrums got started without any intervention from the ref - teams just formed up and went for it... the game was never really dead.

 

[didds]

and back in the day, even scrums got started without any intervention from the ref - teams just formed up and went for it... the game was never really dead.

Very true CR. I don't even remember when it became ref controlled now... i can just recall doing both but cant think of a definitive time when end of one season we did our own thing and the start of the next season we didnt.

 

[Treadmore]

Not sure why this is seen as unclear.

Red blows whistle for penalty (8g) - this does not stop play

Ref decides to stop play (8b) - blows whistle again

Isn't that what the clarification means?

 

[Balones]

Not sure why this is seen as unclear.

Red blows whistle for penalty (8g) - this does not stop play

Ref decides to stop play (8b) - blows whistle again

Isn't that what the clarification means?

No. That’s your interpretation of how you’d like things to happen. When the referee blows the whistle play stops and the ball becomes dead. This is usually for an offence. Law6.8b allows the referee to stop play for any reason outside of an offence and outside of those not mentioned in 6.8. For example an injury by the referee, a brawl/altercation, pitch invasion or even a dog on the pitch, etc.

 

[crossref]

No. That’s your interpretation of how you’d like things to happen. When the referee blows the whistle play stops and the ball becomes dead. This is usually for an offence. Law6.8b allows the referee to stop play for any reason outside of an offence and outside of those not mentioned in 6.8. For example an injury by the referee, a brawl/altercation, pitch invasion or even a dog on the pitch, etc.

It doesn't always become dead. When a PK is awarded (or a 22 ) for example , one team is free to play the ball immediately

 

[Dickie E]

Not sure why this is seen as unclear.

Red blows whistle for penalty (8g) - this does not stop play

Ref decides to stop play (8b) - blows whistle again

Isn't that what the clarification means?

Agree with this

 

[Balones]

Agree with this

It would have helped if the clarification stated clearly what the sequence of events should be to allow a replacement, returning player or substitution should/must be including how many times to blow the whistle. If the whistle is to be blown twice then simply say so.

However, and it is here that I feel the basis for dissension with the clarification lies, it simply says when the referee gives permission. That in itself is vague and gives no guidance to referees and will lead to inconsistency and confusion. Some referees will allow replacements at penalties, some won’t until the ball has been kicked for touch, some won’t allow until there has been a kick at goal etc, etc. When a YC has done their time can they return at the next blow of the whistle? Assuming there is no quickly taken penalty. If you wait for a kick at goal and they miss and play continues for another five minutes is that fair?
Over the years I have observed referees making all sorts of random decisions in relation to replacements, subs and YC’s and it leads to annoyance. We should have had much clearer guidance and clarification on such matters to, in particular, help the grassroots officials. At my level and above we have fouth officials and direct communication with the referee. How does the lone ref manage such situations? Leaving such decisions up to the referee and the vagaries of how he feels about things does not help the new referee doing his second game with Old Dogs 4ths. Again WR has not thought about the game as a whole. Under what were the existing conditions I have given my referees a very clear procedure to follow which allows for consistency but I don’t know if other coaches adopt the same procedure or if the next Society does.The whole situation about replacements,subs and YC returners is a mess and needs ‘clarification’ for everyone across the world of rugby.

 

[Dickie E]

Balones, I take a slightly different view.

I don't want WR (or anyone else) dictating how I manage the game through excessive prescription.

I'm comfortable managing the game (whether it be talking to the captain, talking to the coach, marching a team 10 metres, defusing heated situations, bringing subs on, etc) within loosely defined boundaries.

In the OP, it's straightforward. "Kicker, what are you going to do?" "Kick for touch, sir" "Touchie, make subs at the lineout please"

 

[crossref]

.

In the OP, it's straightforward. "Kicker, what are you going to do?" "Kick for touch, sir" "Touchie, make subs at the lineout please"

But how much inconsistency can we put up with ?
For instance i never ask the team what they are going to do, is that wrong, does that matter?.



Some scenarios. PK awarded to Red
- Red would like to bring YC player back on before taking the PK
- red would like bring YC 10 back on to take the kick
- red would like to make a substitution before taking the kick
- a player is injured, given clock is stopped , red would like to make a substitution before taking the kick
- if you allow a YC red player back, can blue make a substitution

Red opt to kick for posts (and do not want any subs etc) Now
- can blue bring a YC player back before kick is taken
- can blue make a substitution before kick is taken ?


For me it's yes to all those by law am I right/wrong or not clear ?
Does it matter if different refs take different views ?

Has the clarification helped us deal consistently with those scenarios

 

[Balones]

Balones, I take a slightly different view.

I don't want WR (or anyone else) dictating how I manage the game through excessive prescription.

I'm comfortable managing the game (whether it be talking to the captain, talking to the coach, marching a team 10 metres, defusing heated situations, bringing subs on, etc) within loosely defined boundaries.

In the OP, it's straightforward. "Kicker, what are you going to do?" "Kick for touch, sir" "Touchie, make subs at the lineout please"

What you are suggesting in your example is eminently sensible and I could support it but what I have experience of is a very wide variation of interpretation of the law and situations from week to week. The list of questions that CR outlines is only the tip of the iceberg and I could fill a page on this forum with inconsistencies. The examples outlined so far have tended to revolve around PKs and FKs but what about at scrums? Here I see referees not allowing replacements/returns at scrum options at penalties etc. From one week to the next I see some referees allowing a YC back at a penalty to kick for touch or take a shot at goal but then refusing the same incident for the YC opposition being refused! Other refs refuse until there is a lineout or scrum. We have to be fair to both sides clearly but I don’t always see it.
Part of the inconsistency over the years has been based around Clarification 2-2007 which some officials were aware of and others not. In your example as a coach I would be really annoyed if you had refused my best line kicker entry to the pitch since 2-2007 clearly said you(I) can bring him on. How would you explain your decision to the coach in such circumstances? The coach can point it out in writing.
Producing a procedure document on how to consistently and fairly manage replacements/subs/returners is not difficult and should be published for the benefit of all, including refs, players and spectators.

 

[Phil E]

In the OP, it's straightforward. "Kicker, what are you going to do?" "Kick for touch, sir" "Touchie, make subs at the lineout please"

I was almost on your side until you said "touchie" :shrug:

You can get put on a register for that here :wink:

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Looks pretty clear to me.