[Law] Sco v Eng - Scrum back?

Rich_NL

Rugby Club Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2015
Messages
1,531
Post Likes
438
Here's an interesting point though. 18.23.b very clearly says option lineout/scrum for not-5 (teammate).

At least in the Android app, and I'd guess other forms, there's a film link for illustration of the law, IRE-JAP women's international... And the ref gives a free kick for it!
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
20,147
Post Likes
2,389
Here's an interesting point though. 18.23.b very clearly says option lineout/scrum for not-5 (teammate).

At least in the Android app, and I'd guess other forms, there's a film link for illustration of the law, IRE-JAP women's international... And the ref gives a free kick for it!

I had forgotten about that!
Ammunition for the ARU viewpoint
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
20,147
Post Likes
2,389
Actually, checking back 18.25 was introduced in 2019 (unannounced)
 

menace


Referees in Australia
Joined
Nov 20, 2009
Messages
3,604
Post Likes
574
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
I think what's happened there is that they set the exam prior to 2017 and haven't updated it (either because they haven't noticed the change, or haven't accepted the change. I wonder which)

They definitely have not updated the exam as there were 2 other "correct" answers that contradicted the 2020 law book. When I queried with RA (ARU) I was advised it was the 2018 test/laws and update not yet made due to time and money (So our law accrediation is based on 2018 laws....yay for Oz rugby administartion!!!)
But that doesnt explain this particular issue...so it seems to be a deliberate RA interpretation to apply a FK.
 

CrouchTPEngage


Referees in England
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
496
Post Likes
54
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
Sinkler ripped the ball after tackled player and he had both gone to ground. I would PK that all day long. Anyone else disagree?
 

CrouchTPEngage


Referees in England
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
496
Post Likes
54
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
The option is clear, yes, but "teammate"?? What am I missing?
The options are different if it's a teammate who takes the ball within the 5m compared to an opponent who takes the ball within the 5m of the thrower.
 

Marc Wakeham


Referees in Wales
Joined
Jan 5, 2018
Messages
2,482
Post Likes
635
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
I don't agree with your assessment of the Law.


  • The section about the throw being blocked is clearly separate from the requirement that it travel 5m.
  • I think the rewrite means, inadvertently or not, that any failure of throw to go 5m is a scrum.

According to my last advisor BOTH are Free Kicks!
 

smeagol


Referees in America
Joined
Apr 20, 2012
Messages
560
Post Likes
48
Location
Springfield, IL
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
I read 18.23b as any player actually playing the ball (a la the scenario in Sco/Eng where someone catches it before the 5m line), and 18.25 as someone not actually playing the ball (i.e. slapping down a QTI).
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
20,147
Post Likes
2,389
I read 18.23b as any player actually playing the ball (a la the scenario in Sco/Eng where someone catches it before the 5m line), and 18.25 as someone not actually playing the ball (i.e. slapping down a QTI).

The QTI equivalent is 8.6. 8.25 is for lineouts
Slapping the ball is playing it
Slapping back is legal, slapping forwards is a PK
 

Treadmore

Rugby Club Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
405
Post Likes
36
I read 18.23b as any player actually playing the ball (a la the scenario in Sco/Eng where someone catches it before the 5m line), and 18.25 as someone not actually playing the ball (i.e. slapping down a QTI).

Re 18.25 - or someone in the 5m channel just waving arms in front of the thrower trying to prevent the throw (or reduce options), as per the picture in an older Law book ;)

(Btw, I think if they slap it, they have played it)
 

Phil E


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
15,606
Post Likes
1,874
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
The way i view it is.......

If the ball doesn't travel 5m its options. i.e. front man caught it before it went 5m, so just bad timing.

If the ball is prevented from going 5m deliberately, its a FK. i.e. opposition standing in the 5m channel and slapping the ball down.
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
20,147
Post Likes
2,389
Re 18.25 - or someone in the 5m channel just waving arms in front of the thrower trying to prevent the throw (or reduce options), as per the picture in an older Law book ;)

(Btw, I think if they slap it, they have played it)

Treadmore , yes if an opponent steps into the channel and plays the ball, I would give a FK as well. But above you said options
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
20,147
Post Likes
2,389
The way i view it is.......

If the ball doesn't travel 5m its options. i.e. front man caught it before it went 5m, so just bad timing.

If the ball is prevented from going 5m deliberately, its a FK. i.e. opposition standing in the 5m channel and slapping the ball down.


For me that's quite novel .. a catch means options, a slap means a FKm. I don't see how you get that from the Laws


In practice they always catch it ..which means you always give options ?
 
Last edited:

Treadmore

Rugby Club Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
405
Post Likes
36
Treadmore , yes if an opponent steps into the channel and plays the ball, I would give a FK as well. But above you said options

And I stick with options for the scenario described.

The "blocker" is a bit of an odd one and the only point of reference I have is the the old Laws :-/ And to me blocking was something being done before the ball was thrown (so the question of reaching 5m doesn't even arise). Maybe that's not all it means for some people but it's the best rationalisation I have for now. (And for blocking it's an FK, of course.)
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
20,147
Post Likes
2,389
And I stick with options for the scenario described.

The "blocker" is a bit of an odd one and the only point of reference I have is the the old Laws :-/ And to me blocking was something being done before the ball was thrown (so the question of reaching 5m doesn't even arise). Maybe that's not all it means for some people but it's the best rationalisation I have for now. (And for blocking it's an FK, of course.)

I think you are thinking of QTI, where you do get people in the tramlines blocking the throw. (I would actually likely give a PK for that,)

But 18.25 means a line out. You don't have people standing in the tramlines at lineouts . But you do have people leaping across the 5m line to catch a throw. That's what 18.25 is about (for me)
 

Treadmore

Rugby Club Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
405
Post Likes
36
I think you are thinking of QTI, where you do get people in the tramlines blocking the throw. (I would actually likely give a PK for that,)

But 18.25 means a line out. You don't have people standing in the tramlines at lineouts . But you do have people leaping across the 5m line to catch a throw. That's what 18.25 is about (for me)
I assure you I am thinking of lineout!

Blocking was previously described in the context of standing closer than 5m from touch, and before the ball is thrown (and such an player was also hampering the thrower, or indeed played or caught a throw). For me the current Laws mean the same thing.

If you felt it was deliberate infringing, then a PK is an option of course, but otherwise the blocker is technically in the wrong place doing something otherwise legal, and so a FK.
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
20,147
Post Likes
2,389
Ok but have you ever seen a lineout commence with someone standing in the tramlines ? I just don't think 8.25 is for that
 

Treadmore

Rugby Club Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
405
Post Likes
36
Ok but have you ever seen a lineout commence with someone standing in the tramlines ? I just don't think 8.25 is for that
I can't recall an example. It is what the Laws used to show though.Screenshot_20200211-123835.jpg
 
Top