Long placement

[Lex Hipkins]

Just been watching the U20 Ireland v Wales and numerous penalties against both sides at line outs for long placement/ball not being ripped.

Looking at the WR memo (http://laws.worldrugby.org/?domain=9) the example they show has the catcher passing over the top of players bound on ... In this case I can see the obvious obstruction.

But so far in the match I'm watching some (not all) of the penalised line outs simply had the catcher reaching out with the ball to the clearing up team mate, no team mates in the way offering any obstruction ... The ref penalised the player for "not ripping".

Anybody else confused?

 

[chbg]

Is this relevant:

"and the ripper needs to stay in contact with the jumper until they have transferred the ball"?

 

[Dixie]

Is this relevant:

"and the ripper needs to stay in contact with the jumper until they have transferred the ball"?

I suspect this may be the point. WR mentions:

Long placements are to be avoided as they often lead to obstruction and invite attacking players to join in front of the ball. In the future this will be PENALISED

The wording in the absence of the final sentence suggests that it is a risk area to be aware of and managed. The final sentence though makes clear that if the placement is so long that the collector of the ball is not in contact with the ball carrier, a PK is to be awarded. Not my preference, but I'm not WR,

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

Please describe "long placement"

 

[L'irlandais]

Not KW, check out the last video clip in the WR memo, linked in post #1, it makes clear what they mean by the term. I must confess I wondered at first what it meant too.

As to the numerous penalties, Ireland cut down on their penalty count in the second half.
[video]http://www.worldrugby.org/u20/video/167257[/video]
Anybody think the Green try from line out maul, was clearly and obviously truck and trailer?
2 minutes 20 into the short highlights clip.

 

[DocY]

I suspect this may be the point. WR mentions:

Long placements are to be avoided as they often lead to obstruction and invite attacking players to join in front of the ball. In the future this will be PENALISED

The wording in the absence of the final sentence suggests that it is a risk area to be aware of and managed. The final sentence though makes clear that if the placement is so long that the collector of the ball is not in contact with the ball carrier, a PK is to be awarded. Not my preference, but I'm not WR,

I suspect the WR proof reading monkey has gone on strike again.

It's nothing to do with the ripper being in contact with the BC and everything to do with another player being between the two.

 

[didds]

yep... as in a snake of players behind the maul.

so (if X are attacking right to left, against O)


OX
OXXX <--- ball at rightmost X having been transferred there from the leftmost X via the middle X
OX

didds

 

[Wert Twacky]

The officials (and teams, coaches, etc) at U20 WC have all been briefed about penalising situations where the catcher of the ball at a LO "long places" the ball back to any potential "ripper"/team-mate in the act of trying to set up a maul.
They have used the phrase "long placement" as a consistent approach/language to all teams... relevant when there are teams/coaches/players where English is not the first language.
The circulated clips were very clear with regards to good practice at maul set-up and... well, not-so-good practice.

 

[Lex Hipkins]

The officials (and teams, coaches, etc) at U20 WC have all been briefed about penalising situations where the catcher of the ball at a LO "long places" the ball back to any potential "ripper"/team-mate in the act of trying to set up a maul.
They have used the phrase "long placement" as a consistent approach/language to all teams... relevant when there are teams/coaches/players where English is not the first language.
The circulated clips were very clear with regards to good practice at maul set-up and... well, not-so-good practice.

Well if they have been briefed, I'd say it hadn't filtered down by the first round of matches as the players (particularly the Welsh) looked pretty perplexed.

I certainly get the theory behind this in the maul as explained by Didds ... And can see the scenario in the example clip being obvious obstruction with the ball handed back to a player over the backs of team mates already bound on. But there was at least one if not more examples in this U20 game where the oppo weren't really competing at the LO, and the ball winning team therefore hadn't really formed any kind of maul and the ball was quickly handed back to a sweeping player. OK this player didn't "rip", but then he didn't need to either. And I can't see that there was any obstruction.. At least any more than if the catching player had tossed it back rather than handing it back, which would mean we wouldn't be looking at any kind of offence

I feel that we should be looking for actual obstruction (ie players blocking) not finding more reasons to blow the whistle when the ball has left the LO quickly

 

[didds]

Yup. What this is calling for is the understanding of how the ball got to the rightmost X. If via middle X, all fine and dandy. If it gets there directly from leftmost X that's this law in action. As a law its fine in itself... but as alluded to above it needs empathy and understanding if exactly what is happening to be pinged - or not. As we all know there are -some_ people with a whistle that do not have this empathy and understanding and just referee in a rote manner as per the words.

didds