If he is digging for the ball it can be lifted off the ground well before he manages to pull it clear and we wouldn't allow the oppo to tackle him at that point. Ball must come clear of bodies to be out
Where's the line?
- Thread starter Lee Grant
- Start date
If he is digging for the ball it can be lifted off the ground well before he manages to pull it clear and we wouldn't allow the oppo to tackle him at that point. Ball must come clear of bodies to be out
Browner
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2012
- Messages
- 6,000
- Post Likes
- 270
But WADR Womble, if the SH has had to go in deep, as we all see occasionally , say with him being on one knee or leaning well forward.......then your saying the defence can leave their blocks as soon as it is 3 inches off the ground?
Similarly we all now see players in the ruck manouvering the ball off the ground .... For the sake of description let's call it nicely 'presented' ....... For the scrum half to collect (ignoring discussion on that aspect for the moment) then it too is off the ground, meaning out the blocks is OK in these scenarios also?!?
This not seen or allowed, there would simply be uproar/chaos if it was. So whilst i understand your point, it makes much more sense to
A) allow the manouvering,
B) wait for it to exit the 2D perimeter
C) keep defences in the blocks for a fraction of a second longer
SH would have no benefit for deliberate procrastination, its in their interests to exit it quickly (other than drop goal set up, but if that was the objective them they'd simply leave the ball in the ruck a while longer , so I'm discounting that motive)
I see no value in having different "out of the blocks" timings, dependant on whether no's 5, 1, or 9 has the ball raised off the floor...simplify not overly complicate interpretation IMO
The problem with that approach is that the scrum half can only lift the ball like that if he has his hands in the ruck to start with. We are allowing him some licence (which is not covered in the Laws) to handle the ball, so to me it makes sense to make that licence of some value. In other words he must have an opportunity to play the ball by actually getting it clear, whereas allowing the defenders to hit him while the ball is still inside the ruck denies him that opportunity.
i don't think there is any IRB directive, but US rugby have their own guidelines and no doubt other guidelines have been distributed around the world by different unions, and different societies in various PPT, and secret emails
I applaud USA Rugby - I imagine that games refereed there must have more consistency.
I don't buy the "digging it out" thing.
If it is buried - why? Players on floor? PK them. Not rolling away - PK them. There is no need for a SH to spend an age digging the ball out. Get the ball to the back, and the SH can go. At most the SH needs to lift the ball over 1 set of legs.
If it is buried - why? Players on floor? PK them. Not rolling away - PK them. There is no need for a SH to spend an age digging the ball out. Get the ball to the back, and the SH can go. At most the SH needs to lift the ball over 1 set of legs.
TheBFG
Referees in England
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2008
- Messages
- 4,392
- Post Likes
- 237
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 6
Consistency from the Zummerzet refs (even if you don't ref for us at the moment :wink: )
TheBFG
Referees in England
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2008
- Messages
- 4,392
- Post Likes
- 237
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 6
well you can always try and educate our neighbouring society :wink:
Browner
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2012
- Messages
- 6,000
- Post Likes
- 270
Or deem it unplayable!
winchesterref
Referees in England
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2009
- Messages
- 2,014
- Post Likes
- 197
- Current Referee grade:
- Select Grade
This clarification appears to have made it public now from WRU emails?
In the first post in this thread I asked some questions of where the line is—too many of them.
The kind of thing I was curious about became pertinent in Wallabies v France last weekend.
Michalak retreats maybe to an onside position, maybe not, and advance to tackle a Wallaby player who is held up. Did he ever get to an onside position was the question?
I'm not concerned about the probability of a try being scored, or not, my curiosity is
1. How do the TMO or the referee looking at the screen, measure where the offside line is? It should be the last foot in the ruck and in my mind it doesn't matter if the player owning the last foot in the ruck was on his feet at the moment in question, or had fallen over.
Is that correct?
2. Does the defender (in this case Michalak retreating) have to have both feet behind that offside line first before participating in the play forward of the offside line (in this case tackling a Wallaby) - or is one sufficient - and in either case is "on" the line sufficient?
Note:
I asked a question earlier (maybe not exactly in these words) about whether goal line defenders had to have both feet behind the goal line on defence if the ruck was nearly right on the goal line, or a tap penalty kick or free-kick was taken by attackers on the five-metre line—or was one foot enough?
Someone answered that both feet had to be behind.
If that answer was correct does it follow that a defender should have both feet behind an offside line at a ruck before he advances?
I tried looking in the laws to answer my own questions but couldn't see them.
Are they covered there - or are there rulings or whatever that cover them? Or is just down to conventions that referees follow?
.
The kind of thing I was curious about became pertinent in Wallabies v France last weekend.
Michalak retreats maybe to an onside position, maybe not, and advance to tackle a Wallaby player who is held up. Did he ever get to an onside position was the question?
I'm not concerned about the probability of a try being scored, or not, my curiosity is
1. How do the TMO or the referee looking at the screen, measure where the offside line is? It should be the last foot in the ruck and in my mind it doesn't matter if the player owning the last foot in the ruck was on his feet at the moment in question, or had fallen over.
Is that correct?
2. Does the defender (in this case Michalak retreating) have to have both feet behind that offside line first before participating in the play forward of the offside line (in this case tackling a Wallaby) - or is one sufficient - and in either case is "on" the line sufficient?
Note:
I asked a question earlier (maybe not exactly in these words) about whether goal line defenders had to have both feet behind the goal line on defence if the ruck was nearly right on the goal line, or a tap penalty kick or free-kick was taken by attackers on the five-metre line—or was one foot enough?
Someone answered that both feet had to be behind.
If that answer was correct does it follow that a defender should have both feet behind an offside line at a ruck before he advances?
I tried looking in the laws to answer my own questions but couldn't see them.
Are they covered there - or are there rulings or whatever that cover them? Or is just down to conventions that referees follow?
.
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2008
- Messages
- 16,111
- Post Likes
- 2,372
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 8
The answer to all three of your questions (bold above) is Yes.
Lee Lifeson-Peart
Referees in England
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2008
- Messages
- 7,815
- Post Likes
- 1,008
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 6
I'd say both feet behind/on the line is sufficient along with your hand(s) if you're crouching in an American Football stylee as some are wont to do when defending close to the ruck/goal line.
View attachment 2888
View attachment 2888
Thank you. In this case I think Joubert erred and the TMO went along with him. Joubert said that he thought Michalak made an effort to get back and had his "second foot" (meaning his back foot) behind the line (the front foot was unmistakably in front of it).
Phil - where in the laws is this mentioned or is there a ruling or guideline on the matter?
.
I think in the case at the weekend, I think the outcome was:
1) The furthest back foot of Blue 10 was probably behind the last foot
2) Did he pick up his second foot before making the "tackle"? Marginal
So probably one foot onside, marginal lifting other foot before tackle. So no clear and obvious offside. I think CJ even said - not clear and obvious (or words to that effect) offside.
Personally I think it was the correct decision. I could not say with certainty if Blue 10 got back or not - it was close. Therefore it isn't clear and obvious, even with multiple TV slow-mo replays.
1) The furthest back foot of Blue 10 was probably behind the last foot
2) Did he pick up his second foot before making the "tackle"? Marginal
So probably one foot onside, marginal lifting other foot before tackle. So no clear and obvious offside. I think CJ even said - not clear and obvious (or words to that effect) offside.
Personally I think it was the correct decision. I could not say with certainty if Blue 10 got back or not - it was close. Therefore it isn't clear and obvious, even with multiple TV slow-mo replays.
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2003
- Messages
- 12,848
- Post Likes
- 189
I was comfortable with CJ's decision, albeit it was a marginal one.
I was not convinced that there was a clear and obvious offside offence and I thought that Freddie had made enough effort to get back behind the back foot.
I was not convinced that there was a clear and obvious offside offence and I thought that Freddie had made enough effort to get back behind the back foot.
Lee Lifeson-Peart
Referees in England
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2008
- Messages
- 7,815
- Post Likes
- 1,008
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 6
All the above is not material as Freddie Michalak can't tackle!
Browner
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2012
- Messages
- 6,000
- Post Likes
- 270
Maul and Ruck offside lines are "through" the HMF, and you have to be "behind" it, so one foot ahead of it does mean you've complied 100%, only 50% IMO. So both feet behind please, and hands if they are on the ground.
1) is there any concensus on what "through" means? Heel/middle/toe ???
2) if a rucked player has his head south and his feet north when he's been cleared away then is his HMF taken to mean his HMHead/or Arm or is it his size 12 boots that always are the trigger OSL?
Pre-TMO the subjectivity of these Q's weren't open to scrutiny
Thoughts?
1) is there any concensus on what "through" means? Heel/middle/toe ???
2) if a rucked player has his head south and his feet north when he's been cleared away then is his HMF taken to mean his HMHead/or Arm or is it his size 12 boots that always are the trigger OSL?
Pre-TMO the subjectivity of these Q's weren't open to scrutiny
Thoughts?