Rugby Focused Law Changes - May 9th

[Mipper]

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

Sorry Dickie, but I don't agree that this is a contradiction.

It says that the referee will deem the ball to be dead when the ball is in touch.

The salient point here is that 'the referee will deem', so its up to us when the ball is dead in touch. I like the screenshot from Durham refs, that Flish posted.

 

[RemainingInTheGame]

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?

I would appreciate if you could share, I reckon most will similar to our docs, but more gold like the arm signal could be in there!

 

[Dickie E]

Sorry Dickie, but I don't agree that this is a contradiction.

It says that the referee will deem the ball to be dead when the ball is in touch.

The salient point here is that 'the referee will deem', so its up to us when the ball is dead in touch. I like the screenshot from Durham refs, that Flish posted.

Once we start quibbling over the definition of words like "deem" I know we're on a road to nowhere. Hasta la vista on this one

 

[Flish]

I would appreciate if you could share, I reckon most will similar to our docs, but more gold like the arm signal could be in there!

Find attached, don't think there's any trade secrets in there

 

[Mipper]

Once we start quibbling over the definition of words like "deem" I know we're on a road to nowhere. Hasta la vista on this one

Its not a quibble Dickie. The fact that it exists in the law you quoted, corrects your assertion of a 'direct contradiction'. To consider it a quibble is to wholly miss its point.

 

[SimonSmith]

Sorry Dickie, but I don't agree that this is a contradiction.

It says that the referee will deem the ball to be dead when the ball is in touch.

The salient point here is that 'the referee will deem', so its up to us when the ball is dead in touch. I like the screenshot from Durham refs, that Flish posted.

"Will deem" and "may deem" are two very different things, and your brief seems to have them confused.

This has all the hallmarks of London Society making up their own shit about uncontested scrums (not allowing a 8 pick up) way back when.

 

[Dickie E]

"Will deem" and "may deem" are two very different things, and your brief seems to have them confused.

This has all the hallmarks of London Society making up their own shit about uncontested scrums (not allowing a 8 pick up) way back when.

Simon, I'm interested in your view regarding QTI & offside lines

 

[Marc Wakeham]

It says that the referee will deem the ball to be dead when the ball is in touch.

The salient point here is that 'the referee will deem', so its up to us when the ball is dead in touch. I like the screenshot from Durham refs, that Flish posted.

But that does not mean he can make it up. Being the "Sole Judge" does not me the ref can't be wrong.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

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

The QTI is on so the Red forwards can't advance. So we do not get the "Hokey Kokey". In reality either the QTI will be taken or players who were onside will advance and the optio nof the QTI will pass. (We are getting some Chopperesque suggestion from the Antipodies Lately.)

 

[Marc Wakeham]

There certainly was a ruling some years ago but it seems to have dissapeared. I remember Chris White Penalising Cardiff Blues against Leinster at the Principality Stadium Cardiff Arms Park on the 14 May 2006 for advancing toward the line of touch and thus preventing the QTI.

I thought at the time he as wron. But was told in a society meeting that he was right. The Ruling can after that.

A QTI is "zombie ball" or "Schrödinger's Touch". the ball being bothe alive and dead at the same time. It seems wrong for a player who was offside before the ball crossed the line of touch yet he can benefit from that positioning if the other side tries to be positive.

A Very experienced dvisor always use to say: "What is the law trying to achieve?" For me it is to allow positive play and prevent gaining from having been offside. Just like a tackle / Ruck / maul where if you were offside during the phase you have to get back on side even though the phase is over before you ply the ball / mke a tackle.


The view of the society quoted above is fair. Perhaps we need a union to seek re-clarification.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Somebody posted on this forum on Jan 18 2016

"The point WR is making is this: consider if players are complying with law before the ball goes dead.

If not, penalise."

So if you are liable to penalty before the ball goes into touch (ie you are not retreating as required by the law then you can't benefit from being offside. The offside line is still in effect for those players.

and

"If so, ball in touch puts everyone onside."

Well they were not offside so it does not piut them onside thery are onside.

So this person felt that you can't benefit from being offside before the ball went into touch.

This might be the ruling but the link is now broken:

At a meeting in May 2012, the Laws Representation Group (LRG) considered the areas of the Game where, it had been agreed by the LRG/Rugby Committee/IRB Council, Law amendments were not required but that current Law was to be enforced by match officials including:

2 -Offside when the ball is kicked to touch thereby preventing quick throw ins

http://www.irblaws.com/EN/guidelines/5/enforcement-of-current-law-june-2012/

 

[Jz558]

Current link here: https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/guidelines/5

 

[Marc Wakeham]

That video tells us nothing. What a waste!

 

[Jz558]

It is somewhat unspecific and would benefit from a fuller explanation. It does seem to hint however that players in front of the kicker should not be allowed to benefit from their offside position if they werent previously retreating whilst falling short of actually saying so.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

It is somewhat unspecific and would benefit from a fuller explanation. It does seem to hint however that players in front of the kicker should not be allowed to benefit from their offside position if they werent previously retreating whilst falling short of actually saying so.

Yes but clearly inadequate as there are conclusions being drawn that really can't from the information provided.

WR: MUST DO BETTER!

 

[Volun-selected]

This kinda reminds of the line we have in the USAR goal-line permutations for a kick-off into in-goal made dead by a defender. The text had “If without delay, kick retaken or scrum at center of restart kick line. If delay, GLDO (implied, but not explicit in Law).” Emphasis mine. I also note we have “without delay” in 12.18.

Similarly, we have the instruction that “Teams form the lineout without delay” - so by implication the QTI has to be taken “without delay”?

Or for brevity on the pitch I can just point to the name - Quick. Ball in touch, go for the QTI and if the opposing players are not actively retreating or illegally interfere, they get dealt with. Fart-arse around and ball becomes bereft of life, I whistle and it’s a lineout.

 

[SimonSmith]

Simon, I'm interested in your view regarding QTI & offside lines

Assuming players were complying before the ball went dead, offside lines are rest by the ball going dead.

In no other circumstances of the ball going dead that I can think of is this not true.

 

[Dickie E]

Fart-arse around and ball becomes bereft of life, I whistle and it’s a lineout.

There are several conditions that can rule out a QTI (ball touched, different ball, lineout formed). Fart-arseing around is not (somewhat surprisingly) one of them

 

[jdeagro]

This kinda reminds of the line we have in the USAR goal-line permutations for a kick-off into in-goal made dead by a defender. The text had “If without delay, kick retaken or scrum at center of restart kick line. If delay, GLDO (implied, but not explicit in Law).” Emphasis mine. I also note we have “without delay” in 12.18.

Funny enough you mentioned that one specifically. I just had this happen twice in a game I played in yesterday. My coaches were asking me about the GLDO but I reminded them at kickoff the options are the scrum or re-kick. Was really questioning myself after though. The GLDO scenarios throw me off a bit still.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

This kinda reminds of the line we have in the USAR goal-line permutations for a kick-off into in-goal made dead by a defender. The text had “If without delay, kick retaken or scrum at center of restart kick line. If delay, GLDO (implied, but not explicit in Law).” Emphasis mine. I also note we have “without delay” in 12.18.

Similarly, we have the instruction that “Teams form the lineout without delay” - so by implication the QTI has to be taken “without delay”?

Or for brevity on the pitch I can just point to the name - Quick. Ball in touch, go for the QTI and if the opposing players are not actively retreating or illegally interfere, they get dealt with. Fart-arse around and ball becomes bereft of life, I whistle and it’s a lineout.

Surely, tThe without delay is to deter farting around in in goal by the defending team with a completely live ball. At a QTI the same option is not open to the throwing in side. If, legally the non throwing in side effetively prevent the QTI then we move on.