Flutey 1st try ..surely offside

[Lex Hipkins]

..can't remember who the England dummy runner was ..but surely he was offside and interfering with play ..opened up a huge hole for England to go through ..but shouldn't our friendly Australian have called them back? Les pauvres bleus!

 

[TheBFG]

not off side, but crossing/taking out a defender...... yes!

Worsley, and because it was a SH ref is prob why he got away with it, we've (NH) have been moaning for years about the way NZ and Aus have their dummy runners taking out defenders and at last we decided to follow them! Good on um!

 

[Davet]

If in front of the ball carrier then he is offside. Offside players are only liable to be penalised if they interfere with play. Simply causing confusion is not interfering, once he is ahead of the ball carrier he is not able to recieve a pass etc., so no problem there, but if he obstructs a potential tackler then that is obstruction.

I didn't see him get in the way of anyone who could have tackled the ball carrier.

 

[TheBFG]

Worsley as the dummy runner does make contact with the potential defender, but he clearly doesn't have the ball or is in anyway faking the fact that he does, great move well executed, shame Tait didn't make the last pass as per the same move V Ire , it could have all been sooooo different!

 

[BigDai]

The runner went straight across the line 10 & 12 would have have needed to make to tackle the ball carrier. Looked a penalty to me.
Then again, isn't crossing allowed in SH??

 

[Davet]

Across their line certainly - but they were too far away to make the tackle

 

[Phil E]

It would only have been a penalty if those sneaky Frenchies had done it :biggrin:

 

[chopper15]

...and BM's query? When IS the ball out? :sad:

 

[Greg Collins]

...and BM's query? When IS the ball out? :sad:

When Austin Healey says it is.

 

[Simon Thomas]

...and BM's query? When IS the ball out? :sad:

when Gillburt has had time to go to the toilet and get back sat down !

Chopper - have a look at LoG that defines when 'ball is out'.
Law 16. 6 : A ruck ends successfully when the ball leaves the ruck, or when the ball is on or over the goal line.

'hands on' is a common call made in error, but has become commonly used by some referees for some time now, and is most frequently asked question pre-match by coaches / players.

 

[Toby Warren]

when Gillburt has had time to go to the toilet and get back sat down !

Chopper - have a look at LoG that defines when 'ball is out'.
Law 16. 6 : A ruck ends successfully when the ball leaves the ruck, or when the ball is on or over the goal line.

'hands on' is a common call made in error, but has become commonly used by some referees for some time now, and is most frequently asked question pre-match by coaches / players.

The law is clear, and that isn't the issue - the point tthat BM and others make is once the ruck is won and the contest over tehre is a tendancy for the SH to leave it in the ruck for ages
The defence can't get at it (they've realigned their defence and to compete the defensive line would be broken.)

A solution to this is for a directive to be issued for the ref to call use it or lose it after it has been won and has been free to use for a few seconds.

If they don't use it turn over scrum

 

[Davet]

Or simply use 16.7.b and call for a scrum.

 

[Toby Warren]

Or simply use 16.7.b and call for a scrum.

I read that as waiting to see if the ball will come out. In the example above the ball has emereged but isn't out, not sure this covers it off - I wouldn't be comfortable using this law to deal with this situation

 

[chopper15]

That's the prob' with that particular law, Simon. The query still remains unanswered.

I think BM was referring to the SH's persistent delay in picking up the 'out' ball by pretending an uncertainty.

The LoG covers the 'in' ball;
16.4 (f) A player must not take any action to make the opposing team think that the ball is out of the ruck while it is still in the ruck.

So why don't refs cover the 'out' with a similar rationale?

 

[OB..]

Or simply use 16.7.b and call for a scrum.

And have people arguing that "emerging" is not the same as "out"?! (edited: Lizban posted while I was still writing this!!)

More seriously, 17.6 (d) also says "emerge" and is well accepted, so it would make sense to adopt that interpretation in 16.7 (b).

 

[Adam]

But doesn't calling for the scrum give it to the team that was last moving forward? Therefore, the team who has the ball at the back would get the scrum most of the time. This system could be open to abuse by attacking teams wanting to tie defenders in (especially if they have a superior scrum).

Just a thought.

 

[Simonsky]

Why does 16.7(b) refer to a situation 'if the ruck stops moving'? Has an element of the corresponding maul law crept in hear? This might apply to rugby played on steeply slanting pitches

 

[triage]

Why does 16.7(b) refer to a situation 'if the ruck stops moving'? Has an element of the corresponding maul law crept in hear? This might apply to rugby played on steeply slanting pitches

it is more to do with the fact that what we see in rugby is a pile up and not a ruck...a ruck is a person from each side engaged over the ball trying to push the opposing side off the ball. basically looks like a maul but the ball is on the floor.

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

Getting back to the point guys. clearly crossing in my book but did happen fast.
YThere was a lot of this going on in the game, it's getting too close to RL for my liking.

 

[chopper15]

That's the prob' with that particular law, Simon. The query still remains unanswered.

I think BM was referring to the SH's persistent delay in picking up the 'out' ball by pretending an uncertainty.

The LoG covers the 'in' ball;
16.4 (f) A player must not take any action to make the opposing team think that the ball is out of the ruck while it is still in the ruck.

So why don't refs cover the 'out' with a similar rationale?

Any chance of an answer, gents?