Rugby Focused Law Changes - May 9th

[jdeagro]

Yes.
I brief them that they can come straight on; I'm going to keep playing on unless we're coming back towards them and it would be dangerous to keep going. If they believe that the game needs stopped, they should just let me know.

Never had an issue with it.

Coming straight on is fine. Getting your attention to stop in an emergent situation is different. Not sure how they can immediately "just let you know" in such a case, especially when it may involve needing to run across the pitch without getting caught up between 29 other rugby players. But if it's been working for you, then that's cool.

 

[Dickie E]

Coming straight on is fine. Getting your attention to stop in an emergent situation is different. Not sure how they can immediately "just let you know" in such a case, especially when it may involve needing to run across the pitch without getting caught up between 29 other rugby players. But if it's been working for you, then that's cool.

I'll keep a peripheral eye on them. And there'll be plenty of players willing to let me know if the medics are having an issue

 

[Phil E]

Coming straight on is fine. Getting your attention to stop in an emergent situation is different. Not sure how they can immediately "just let you know" in such a case, especially when it may involve needing to run across the pitch without getting caught up between 29 other rugby players. But if it's been working for you, then that's cool.

What do you believe can be gained by stopping the game? How is that going to improve the medical attention being given to the downed player?

 

[DocP]

Yes.
I brief them that they can come straight on; I'm going to keep playing on unless we're coming back towards them and it would be dangerous to keep going. If they believe that the game needs stopped, they should just let me know.

Never had an issue with it.

This is exactly how I deal with it and I have found it fairer.

For example, I had a game where the front row went down after the ball had left the scrum, nothing major. Blue hooker for the defending team was screaming blue murder, that I should of stopped the game (he'd been gobby all game) as the FR went down and there was an "injury". No try was scored but territory was gained by Red. Blue hookers's actions were purely to get the game stopped and halt the attack that Red were building. FYI, all the FR were fine, I'm ex-FR and could tell the FR going down was nothing, just a slip. I still kept my eye on it as play went on to make sure nothing serious was building.

I then reminded the Blue captain about our conversation pre-match and to control his players behaviour.

Low and behold, situation was reversed about 10 mins later. Red player was down with a knock. A penalty had been awarded to Blue 10m out from Red goal line. Blue took a quick tap and moved play away from the injured player. Then scored. Cries of from Red "theres an injury sir, the game has to stop". Physio was already on taking care of the player. Funnily enough no uproar from Blue this time around.

Why take away the advantage for the attacking team because there is a minor injury. Play goes on. Physios will soon shout to stop the game. When they come on I'm always keeping it in my periphial vision and if the players shout I don't immediatley stop the game, I look over to where the injury is and see if the Physio is waving at me to stop the game or if the player is clearly in trouble/out cold. Just game management for me

 

[jdeagro]

What do you believe can be gained by stopping the game? How is that going to improve the medical attention being given to the downed player?

As I mentioned earlier, in situations it may be absolutely necessary to. Such as when an ambulance needs to come onto the field. Of course you're not going to play on while that's occurring.

Anyway, I'm not taking a side particularly one way or the other. I'm just asking and commenting in regards to what I've typically seen here in the states.

 

[jdeagro]

Why take away the advantage for the attacking team because there is a minor injury.

Fair enough about taking away advantage. To be fair, I'm not talking about minor injury here. But in any case, situational dependent, would you not stop the game at an already good stopping point such as a scrum?

 

[Marc Wakeham]

This is exactly how I deal with it and I have found it fairer.

For example, I had a game where the front row went down after the ball had left the scrum, nothing major. Blue hooker for the defending team was screaming blue murder, that I should of stopped the game (he'd been gobby all game) as the FR went down and there was an "injury". No try was scored but territory was gained by Red. Blue hookers's actions were purely to get the game stopped and halt the attack that Red were building. FYI, all the FR were fine, I'm ex-FR and could tell the FR going down was nothing, just a slip. I still kept my eye on it as play went on to make sure nothing serious was building.

I then reminded the Blue captain about our conversation pre-match and to control his players behaviour.

Low and behold, situation was reversed about 10 mins later. Red player was down with a knock. A penalty had been awarded to Blue 10m out from Red goal line. Blue took a quick tap and moved play away from the injured player. Then scored. Cries of from Red "theres an injury sir, the game has to stop". Physio was already on taking care of the player. Funnily enough no uproar from Blue this time around.

Why take away the advantage for the attacking team because there is a minor injury. Play goes on. Physios will soon shout to stop the game. When they come on I'm always keeping it in my periphial vision and if the players shout I don't immediatley stop the game, I look over to where the injury is and see if the Physio is waving at me to stop the game or if the player is clearly in trouble/out cold. Just game management for me

All fine and dandy except

19.25 If a scrum collapses or if a player in the scrum is lifted or is forced upwards out of the scrum, the referee must blow the whistle immediately so that players stop pushing.

 

[DocP]

All fine and dandy except

19.25 If a scrum collapses or if a player in the scrum is lifted or is forced upwards out of the scrum, the referee must blow the whistle immediately so that players stop pushing.

I did say ball was out, so scrum was over

 

[DocP]

Fair enough about taking away advantage. To be fair, I'm not talking about minor injury here. But in any case, situational dependent, would you not stop the game at an already good stopping point such as a scrum?

But in my scenario, ball was out, play was underway. To stop here would be to penalise the attacking side because Blue had requested it. The physios are given direct permission by me before the game starts to come on as and when to treat a player. If they want me to stop a match I will. But not because of the cries of a player in the vacinity unless I look over and it is clear and obvious.

I have stopped the match when I have heard someone scream in agony at the break down or tackle area only for them to get up a couple of seconds later absolutely fine. I explain that safety comes first and I get no complaints from either side about my decision, they heard the yelp too. I've also stopped the game for someone who has had their leg trapped in an awkward positions in a ruck and here them panicingly shouting stop. One more shove at the ruck and it could of been a serious injury, not through foul play. Again no complaints and a case of reading the game and situation I am reffereeing.

For someone who is "taken the knee" or not in serious and obvious discomfort I'll let the physio/first aider tell me if the match needs to stop.

Also you mention a good stopping point. At a scrum the ball is dead, so yes a good point to stop. A penalty, ball is still live and available for the quick tap. I make the same point about captains asking me questions. Only when the ball is dead (scrum/lineout), not at a penalty or free kick.

 

[jdeagro]

But in my scenario, ball was out, play was underway. To stop here would be to penalise the attacking side because Blue had requested it. The physios are given direct permission by me before the game starts to come on as and when to treat a player. If they want me to stop a match I will. But not because of the cries of a player in the vacinity unless I look over and it is clear and obvious.

I have stopped the match when I have heard someone scream in agony at the break down or tackle area only for them to get up a couple of seconds later absolutely fine. I explain that safety comes first and I get no complaints from either side about my decision. I've also stopped the game for someone who has had there leg trapped in an awkward positions in a ruck and here them panicingly shouting stop. One more shove at the ruck and it could of been a serious injury, not through foul play. Again no complaints and a case of reading the game and situation I am reffereeing.

For someone who is "taken the knee" or not in serious and obvious discomfort I'll let the physio/first aider tell me if the match needs to stop.

Also you mention a good stopping point. At a scrum the ball is dead, so yes a good point to stop. A penalty, ball is still live and available for the quick tap. I make the same point about captains asking me questions. Only when the ball is dead (scrum/lineout), not at a penalty or free kick.

Cool, sounds like we're pretty aligned logically.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

I did say ball was out, so scrum was over

The scrum has still collapsed. The point of the law is player safety

A collapse of 16 players in a "scrum formation" does not suddenly become safe just because the ball is out.

Our (WRU) guidence is clear; even if the ball is out if the scrum goes down then you blow. Only in the semi pro and pro games do they have dispensation to play on. Why it is safe for them and on others I dont know. but this law is about safety.

 

[jdeagro]

Our (WRU) guidence is clear; even if the ball is out if the scrum goes down then you blow. Only in the semi pro and pro games do they have dispensation to play on. Why it is safe for them and on others I dont know. but this law is about safety.

Interesting. I believe the refs in the union I play for are guided to play on at a collapsed scrum, given specific criteria, such as ball at the back and available to be played on from.

 

[SimonSmith]

I'll keep a peripheral eye on them. And there'll be plenty of players willing to let me know if the medics are having an issue

This. It isn't as tricky as others are making out. And if play stops, I'll keep an eye on them then.

 

[Flish]

I raised the question of offside players at a QTI and whether offside lines are reset at out last society meeting, the answer from tonight is no, they are not reset and must keep retreating.

 

[Dickie E]

I raised the question of offside players at a QTI and whether offside lines are reset at out last society meeting, the answer from tonight is no, they are not reset and must keep retreating.

Interesting. The first bullet point is a direct contradiction of law 6.9.
I had a look for the referred to WR Law Aaplication Guidelines without success.

I have this weird mind picture of:
Blue player makes to take QTI so Red forwards retire, then Blue player relaxes so Red forwards advance to participate in lineout, then Blue player makes to take QTI again so Red forwards retire again, then Blue player relaxes again, ad infinitum until its full time and we can all go home

 

[Flish]

Yet the pro refs (and myself on occasion) use the phrase ‘still live’ when the ball is in touch (dead) and a QTI is still on (zombie ball?).

So the concept of not dead but dead exists, even if not written down, in more than one use case

For now I’ll stick with this as aligns with my interpretation, I can sell it, and now I’ve been advised it.

 

[RemainingInTheGame]

One interesting observation from the clarification image shown is that there is an implied way of AR signals up there:
1) Flag up when ball/player goes out.
2) Arm up (indicating throwing side I assume) when QTI is no longer on.

I like this idea, and it would be great if it was highlighted as a good practice for everyone to be aware of.

(In my last AR gig the ask from the ref was Flag up when player/ball goes out, then flag down when QTI is no longer an option - which was good, but I don't think as good as above).

 

[Dickie E]

(In my last AR gig the ask from the ref was Flag up when player/ball goes out, then flag down when QTI is no longer an option - which was good, but I don't think as good as above).

Gee, I've never heard of that. Where did the ref want you to stand as the lineout formed & commenced?

 

[RemainingInTheGame]

Gee, I've never heard of that. Where did the ref want you to stand as the lineout formed & commenced?

Normal spot (i.e. where ball went out) - so just there with flag up, then if the ball was touched etc... just drop the flag down so he knew the QTI was off - then get about business as usual once the teams started to set up (I usually put the flag back up once it was clear he knew the QTI was off).

I reckon indicating with the arm up is better.

 

[Flish]

Yup, that’s the RFU direction for AR’s which I got introduced to last season, makes sense and seems to work.

I can probably dig out the full doc if useful? Covers positioning and a lot more detail?