Man Off Rule: Bath v Northampton

[RobLev]

The RFU regulations Dixie links to are 2013,

True; but the relevant 2009 RFU regulation (7.3) didn't apply to the Premiership either. Both sets of Regulations leave the Premiership as a separate case, and unless somebody has changed the Premiership rules since 2009, the 2009 adoption of the man off rule would surely still apply.

 

[didds]

The Bath scenario could have been worse. Imagine if rather than hit the drop goal Bath had spun the ball wide and it had been intercepted by George North who sprints off down field, is clearly not going to be caught and will score a winning try for Saints. Now the ref, because of the flag, stops the game to go back for the 'penalty'. This would have been catastrophic when the TMO replay shows it wasn't foul play.

Except surely the ref won;t do that.

he'll allow North to score, blow fot time off, check with the AR what he thought he saw. If the AR says its a PK against Bath the ref then checks with the TMO for what the AR reported with a regard to a card. If the pen is for Bath, it gets reviewed wrt cards buit also yes to a PK.

If its a bath PK, ref signals "not try" and awards the PK appropriately. If is against bath, he signals the try.


cards issued as appropriate before PK/conversion taken.

n'est-ce pas?

didds

 

[crossref]

The RFU regulations Dixie links to are 2013,

True; but the relevant 2009 RFU regulation (7.3) didn't apply to the Premiership either. Both sets of Regulations leave the Premiership as a separate case, and unless somebody has changed the Premiership rules since 2009, the 2009 adoption of the man off rule would surely still apply.

It's all bullocks really. Why don't they simply put the rules of the competition into a the public domain?

 

[Dixie]

True; but the relevant 2009 RFU regulation (7.3) didn't apply to the Premiership either. Both sets of Regulations leave the Premiership as a separate case, and unless somebody has changed the Premiership rules since 2009, the 2009 adoption of the man off rule would surely still apply.

Except that if the Premiership wants to do something different from Regulation 13 (like accept Man Off when Reg. 13 says it doesn't apply to the Premiership), we need a RFU Council decision varying the 2013 iteration of Reg 13, not simply a Premiership rule.

Of course, that is unlikely to mean that a Premiership rule is void if it exists without a Council regulation. But what a shambles - why aren't the competition rules located somewhere they can be found by coaches, players, ARs, referees in a hurry - not to mention the paying punter or TV researcher who might like to know what's going on!

 

[Waspsfan]

Except surely the ref won;t do that.

he'll allow North to score, blow fot time off, check with the AR what he thought he saw. If the AR says its a PK against Bath the ref then checks with the TMO for what the AR reported with a regard to a card. If the pen is for Bath, it gets reviewed wrt cards buit also yes to a PK.

If its a bath PK, ref signals "not try" and awards the PK appropriately. If is against bath, he signals the try.


cards issued as appropriate before PK/conversion taken.

n'est-ce pas?

didds

When I referee with ARs and comms a flag coming in would be accompanied by something verbal like 'I have foul play against Red'. As soon as blue intercepted I would therefore stop the game. To my knowledge top level teams of three work in a very similar fashion. The interesting thing is that in the world of TMO the AR can subsequently be wrong. My AR cannot. Don't confuse what happened here; a clear flag for foul play against green against a scenario where the referee retrospectively chooses to look for foul play. I don't think he would of let George North run the length. What if the intercept just leads to him making 50 metres and then Green keep the ball for 30 phases and 5 minutes and then hit a winning DG? Are you sure he is still waiting to go back for the flag?!

 

[crossref]

Can anyone point to a single example before this game, when man off was enforced in the premiership

 

[didds]

hey - I'm not a ref etc.

Clearly different protocols need to exost for To3 v To3+VR - to avoid the situation you descrive initially WF.

as for the north gets tackled, 30 phases bit, that's down to C&O presumably... ref plays on until the potential score isn't and blows immediately THEN.

Seems eminently sensible. maybe that's the issue?

didds

 

[4eyesbetter]

edit: didn't read thread, n/m

 

[Wert Twacky]

The man-off rule definitely applies for Prem/Champ and BIC. Don't ask me about links to regs, i only have hard copies.

 

[crossref]

The man-off rule definitely applies for Prem/Champ and BIC. Don't ask me about links to regs, i only have hard copies.

excellent. you could scan the relevant page and post it up?

 

[Taff]

It's all bullocks really. Why don't they simply put the rules of the competition into a the public domain?

I've suggested before that competition Regs eg BUCS, Premiership etc be added to the RR.com Wiki. I don't think it proved popular, but it would be a start.

But I agree Crossref, anyone should be able to find competition regs with just a couple of simple clicks. This is the internet age after all, and these days there is no good reason why they shouldn't be available to the whole world if they want to read them.

 

[Browner]

Naming ALL the STEs in the match squad list prior to kick off solves both the Glaws match problem and this one, providing the competition rule can be agreed upon.

 

[crossref]

Naming ALL the STEs in the match squad list prior to kick off solves both the Glaws match problem and this one, providing the competition rule can be agreed upon.

and obviously you would have to specifially state which particular positions they are STE for.

 

[TheBFG]

Having read this thread, couple of points (my 2p worth):

I've used the comms they use, and yes they work 100% of the time (however I've not used them with 10,000+ people screaming at me!)

There needs to be a new protocol for "I think I've seen foul play check it"

It didn't look good at the end and although MC was right with his "no foul play" by playing "advantage" for something Bath can feel hard done by :shrug:

Catt offered to play hooker having played it before (Gloucester take note!, but agree a slightly different scenario) and as for the throw in's Mercer is their 7's thrower, but maybe should have done some practice!!

 

[Dixie]

I've suggested before that competition Regs eg BUCS, Premiership etc be added to the RR.com Wiki. I don't think it proved popular, but it would be a start.

It would indeed. If you can find the 2013 Aviva Premiership regs, do please tell Robbie so he can put them on the wiki.

 

[Dixie]

The man-off rule definitely applies for Prem/Champ and BIC. Don't ask me about links to regs, i only have hard copies.

I knew one of our more senior members would have chapter and verse! Are you able to say what year those Premiership Regulations were sent out? And what is BIC? I was thinking razor, but on the few occasions we've met, you didn't seem to need one. Biro perhaps?

 

[Wert Twacky]

BIC and Champ, can'f find Prem and Dixie, am sure AR would assist you if you're desperate to see them...

(a) In all Matches up to seven (7) replacements and substitutes are permitted in accordance
with Law 3 and the IRB resolutions/rulings/directives relating thereto and each Club shall
comply with such Law and resolutions/rulings/directives.
(b) In the interests of safety each team playing in the Championship must have at least five (5)
fit and able players in the squad who are suitably trained and experienced to ensure that on
the first occasion that a replacement prop is required and on the first occasion that a
replacement hooker is required (whether due to injury or consequent to a player(s) being
temporarily suspended or ordered off) the team can continue to play safely with contested
scrums.
(c) If on any occasion where uncontested scrums are ordered by the Referee as a result of there
being no suitably trained and experienced front row replacement for any reason (which
includes injury, temporary blood injury, temporary exclusion (i.e. following a yellow card)
or permanent exclusion (i.e. following a sending off)), the team concerned shall not be
entitled to replace the player whose departure caused the uncontested scrums. On return to
the field of play of the front row player who has been temporarily excluded or injured the
Match shall continue with contested scrums.

 

[crossref]

the hunt for premiership regs continues

 

[Browner]

and obviously you would have to specifially state which particular positions they are STE for.

Yep sireeee