Rugby FAQ's: Open Play and General Questions

By Ian B
June 26 2003

Rugby FAQ's: Open Play and General Questions -1

In a move where players run ahead of the ball carrier who then throws a miss pass behind them to, say, the winger, the first players have no chance of receiving the ball (as they were ahead of it) and only served to distract/obstruct the opposition defence and obscure the ball. Are they blocking / off side?
In this case of obstruction or offside call it what you will, a lot of people forget that you can stand in an offside position all day IF you don't have any effect on the game. It's taking part ( or trying to) from an offside position that is the offence. Unless they have stopped someone from making a tackle, there is no offence. There is no obstruction because there wasn't anyone close enough for it to have made a difference to. But doesn't that raise the question of why they do it? Their intention is to cause a distraction and therefore are they not taking part in the game in an off-side position by seeking to affect the actions of the opposition? The intention is that they will be closer to the next breakdown - namely at the breakdown after their own FH or IC is tackled, but *standing* in an offside position isn't an offence in itself until they try to take part. If defending players are standing offside at a ruck, they aren't penalised until they try to make the tackle, so in the same way attacking players aren't *offside* until they obstruct someone or go into the tackle zone from in front of the back foot.....it will depend on the individual referee's interpretation of intent as well of course.


Not really "Law" related but on another thread it was suggested that a vociferous captain is less likely to get the tight decisions in favour of his team than a quieter type. What is your view on this and indeed your attitude?
Neither way really - the pressure out there to make any type of decision - right or wrong - is immense, and as in any walk of life, if you make a bad one and dwell on it, someone chewing your ear will really only serve to detract from the game not add to it. Personally it doesn't bother me unless it's counter productive. Continuous questioning of decisions will annoy me very quickly, so I usually tell captains beforehand that I'm happy to talk to them at an appropriate time and that if I don't think it IS appropriate, I'll say so, and expect no more until it is. I often feel that a question of why is ok as long as it stays there, so that "Who's that against please" is ok as long as it isn't followed up with "but he was this/that/the other" etc. I'm not even certain that it will get less 50/50 decisions or not. I do know captains know the referees quite well - who they can talk to and who they can't, what they can get away with etc.


What happens if a player takes over a minute to take a kick?
If more than a minute is taken for a penalty, it's a scrum at the place of infringement to the non-offending side i.e. the side NOT taking the penalty, and if it's a conversion attempt, the opportunity is forfeit and the game is re-started in the normal way.


During a tackle situation the player who tackles must move away immediately or else risks the possibility of being penalised. This, therefore, frees the tackled player. In the ideal scenario the tackled player is now 'free'; immediately he hits the ground. Can he, therefore, continue to play on, with the ball in hand, or is this still considered to be a completed tackle and he must release the ball? If any legal action causing a player to come to ground is considered to be a tackle, such as when a player is tapped on the ankle, why can he get straight up and play on?
If a player is tackled and the tackler releases and gets away as he is required to do, the ball carrier is obliged to take his options immediately - i.e. release or play the ball (pass it). If he scoots along the ground for a couple more yards, he should be penalised, but you don't see it happen very often. The phrase I hear used is 'tackled and held'; as opposed to knocked over i.e. not held, when he can get up and run again because there is no tackle. Thing is though that if a player goes to ground accidentally or by 'tap tackle'; he'll be surrounded in split seconds by players of both teams trying to re-cycle / turnover the ball. Take those players who slipped over during last weekend's internationals - they were left no time at all to regain their feet to play even though they only slipped over. There's very little decision making time in the modern game at the top level, so where errors occur, recovery time is minimal. A tackle is deemed to be made when the tackler causes the ball carrier to be in contact with the ground with one or more knee or body part above that. When the tackle is made, both the tackler and the tackled player have to release the ball and get back to their feet before playing on. The tackled player can play the ball immediately (pass or present it on his side) and it is the variation in the interpretation of 'immediately' that causes issues. If the player trips or goes to ground as a result of contact rather than a tackle then no tackle is made and he can play on.


What is the law relating to 'diving on the emerging ball' and the player being offside?
Diving on the emerging ball is not good. The whole idea behind the "tackle zone" and back feet is to open the game up and discourage players from going to ground in the tackle area.
Indeed, the laws say:
'A player who makes the ball unplayable, or who obstructs the opposing team by falling down, is negating the purpose and spirit of the game and must be penalised. A player who is not tackled, but who goes to ground while holding the ball, or a player who goes to ground and gathers the ball, must act immediately.'
However, it is often open to interpretation as to whether the ball is "out" or not. Diving on the ball in open play is different again and provided the player who goes to ground to collect the ball exercises one of three options (gets up, plays the ball or releases the ball) there is no offence. Sometimes you'll hear a cry of 'let him up' which is garbage. The player on his feet is king, so if someone goes down for a ball, as long as he takes his options, play on and happy days. It will become an offence if he hangs onto the ball when a player arriving and staying on his feet tries to take the ball off him and he won't release it.


A player receives a kick and is behind most of his own players, he opts to punt down field, do all those players of his own team who are in front of him have to be demonstrably trying to get back onside (this is what I understood to be the case) or does it only really apply if the player subsequently makes a material difference to the opposition's response?
They should be making a positive attempt to get on-side, though often it will depend where the ball is due to land. Standing there and putting their hands behind their heads only means ...... they're offside with their hands behind their heads! What happens in practice is that the kick will judged to land just ahead of where the forwards are, so the kicker (or another player who was behind the kicker when he kicked) chasing up puts the forwards onside before the ball lands. What the law wants is there to be no player offside within a ten metre line across the pitch from where the ball is caught. It used to be a circle of 10m radius, but some players got cute and ran sideways thus preventing any attempt to put width on the ball. It's one of those offences as well where there's an option - penalty where the ball lands or scrum where the player was offside


Which other offences are scrum v kick?
Only that one. There's only one more offence where there's an option and that's for a late tackle where it's kick at the place of offence or a kick where the ball lands, unless the ball lands in touch in which case the kick would be where the ball crossed the touchline but 15m in


When does 'advantage' end?
Advantage can be over in one of two ways - if the non-offending side have gained either a territorial or tactical advantage ..... in the referee's view. If not, they'll come back for the original offence. Easy to get wrong, but the best law in the book in my opinion. Certainly difficult to apply consistently.


When watching ZP, S12 & Internationals, I have noted that when a player is tackled and finds himself facing the opposition they now roll over with the ball to face the right way. However, when I play and try this I get penalised. Why? I ask the ref after the game why I got penalised and I point out that Internationals get away with it, why not me? The ref advises that it is because they are Internationals and I am not, surely this is one rule for them and one rule for every one else.
Harsh isn't it? I think the difference is the speed at which it happens, but you're right, it does seem as though they get away with things you can't. If you ask your club coaches they will tell you that every season, the ZP coaches meet with the professional referees and they all discuss the way that any given situation will be played and refereed, then the two groups come to an agreement. The situation you describe is there for continuity of play, and makes for more entertaining rugby. However, when you try it and get pinged for it, it hardly seems fair


Can a touch judge overrule a Ref on tries?
Over rule the ref?? Not a chance!!! If a referee is in doubt over whether a try was scored or not, he may look to the touch judge for a view, but ONLY if he is in doubt. A touch judge can only advise a referee, and a ref will only take that advice if he couldn't see. Before the game, a ref will tell the touch judges that he may look for an opinion if he's in doubt and will only want a Yes, No, or Unsighted, but only if he wants it. Nothing worse than a ref see an arm under the ball and a touch judge shout 'YESSSSS!!!!' for all the spectators and players to hear the ref say..... 'Trust me on that one!'


Is it true all referees have to disclose an affiliation with any clubs they might have to referee?
True - we are asked when we start refereeing who we used to play for, and though you may find it hard to believe, not many top class players take up refereeing!! Personally, my club was a level 8 side which, sadly, no longer exists. We tend to be affiliated to Referee Society's, not clubs. Our "mantra" is safety, equity and the law, in that order


If you had to change one law - which would it be ?
I'd like to see the 90 degree turnover experimental variation either scrapped or changed to 180 degrees. In my honest opinion it encourages players to wheel to gain possession, and some players will collapse a scrum to stop that happening. 180 degrees means you could wheel it right round so your back is to the opponents posts, No 8 could pick up and only have the backs to beat, and no-one would allow that, so it negates it happening.

Bookmark or share this story with: