PDA

View Full Version : ELV IRB Law Rulings (August 2008)



Simon Thomas
12-08-08, 17:08
Two rulings after FIR questions (see chaps, we are not alone !) :

ELV Law 20.12 OFFSIDE AT THE SCRUM - confirms non-winning sh must stay within 1m of scrum.

ELV 19.7 Forming a lineout - there must be a player in opposition to the player throwing in the ball who must be between the touchline and the 5 metre line and that player must be at least 2 metres from the 5 metre line.


see IRB site for full rulings (http://www.irb.com/mm/document/lawsregs/0/080811sgelvrulings2008_6012.pdf)

chopper15
12-08-08, 17:08
Two rulings after FIR questions (see chaps, we are not alone !) :

ELV Law 20.12 – OFFSIDE AT THE SCRUM - confirms non-winning sh must stay within 1m of scrum.

ELV 19.7 – Forming a lineout - there must be a player in opposition to the player throwing in the ball who must be between the touchline and the 5 metre line and that player must be at least 2 metres from the 5 metre line.


see IRB site for full rulings (http://www.irb.com/mm/document/lawsregs/0/080811sgelvrulings2008_6012.pdf)


Does that vindicate me when I stated that the law allows the 'counterpart' to position himself anywhere back along the trams . . . 2m from the 5m line of course, there being nothing stated to the contrary?

My 'vindication' being that the IRB have stuck to their wording, which as far as I'm concerned is obvious! Their experienced panel have their pride and won't give in that easy. . . and who can blame them, I ask?

The ques should've queried. '. . . there must be a player in opposition', which does imply that they meant 'pretty near' and not back up the trams which their wording allows!

Please don't bite my head off, it's only an observation

PaulDG
12-08-08, 18:08
Does that vindicate me when I stated that the law allows the 'counterpart' to position himself anywhere back along the trams . . . 2m from the 5m line of course, there being nothing stated to the contrary?

Not yet as the question asked didn't address that point.


The ques should've queried. '. . . there must be a player in opposition', which does imply that they meant 'pretty near' and not back up the trams which their wording allows!

Unfortunately, it didn't, so we're not really any the wiser.

Dixie
12-08-08, 20:08
I do wish the iRB were competent in answering these questions. Almost every one leaves the answer open to doubt. The French FIR made no mention of the non ball-winning SH, so the iRB's gratuitous comment remains unclear about where that player is when he has to stay close to the scrum. By answering as they do, and failing to specify whether they are addressing the offside line at the ball, the one at the hind foot or both, they leave open the possibility that they were addressing only the normal situation (opposing SH standing level with the ball, where their opinion is clearly both accurate and sensible) rather than the much less common position behind the back foot (where their opinion runs contrary to the wording of their own ELV, the diagram that supposedly clarifies their ELV and the explanatory presentation materials they have promulgated to guide players, coaches and refs in the implementation of the ELVs).

Davet
12-08-08, 21:08
I think the answer relating to the scrum-half is perfectly clarified by the gratuitous bit of the answer. The non-ball winning SH MUST stay close to the scrum. The law is already very clear in saying that if he remains on the putting in side he can follow the ball (old Law which still remains in force), or if he moves to the other side he must not go in front of the back foot (old law). The ruling makes clear that he cannot move away from the scrum - if he does then he becomes another player and their offside line applies.

The ruling which answers nothing (except the badly phrased RFU question) is whether when part of a maul is pulled down, and no defenders are left in contact, is the maul over? The ruling specifically sayas the maul continues if defenders are still attached.. (well - Duuh!), but says nothing about the status of the maul if only ball carriers are left.

The information I have from the society meeting would suggest that the maul remains in progress - the pullers down not having "voluntarily" left it. But the ruling itself is unclear.

I am now quite claer on the Society instructions, but do feel that there is much room for improvement.

Maybe it's beacuse I'm involved in IT specs and contractual terms all day, that I take a harsh view, but I know that if I wrote anythng so sloppy folks would drive a coach and horses through it and laugh all the way to the bank.

chopper15
12-08-08, 22:08
[QUOTE=PaulDG;49514]Not yet as the question asked didn't address that point.
Unfortunately, it didn't, so we're not really any the wiser.[/QUOTE

Why not just accept the ELV's explicit wording and accept positioning back along the trams?

OB..
12-08-08, 23:08
Why not just accept the ELV's explicit wording and accept positioning back along the trams?
It is NOT explicit in the ELV - that is just your interpretation, which conveniently ignores the "immediate opponent" point.

The explanation in the Guide says: "the defending team must have a player in immediate opposition to the player throwing in".

Why do you keep pursuing this chimaera?

FlipFlop
13-08-08, 07:08
The ruling which answers nothing (except the badly phrased RFU question) is whether when part of a maul is pulled down, and no defenders are left in contact, is the maul over? The ruling specifically sayas the maul continues if defenders are still attached.. (well - Duuh!), but says nothing about the status of the maul if only ball carriers are left.

The information I have from the society meeting would suggest that the maul remains in progress - the pullers down not having "voluntarily" left it. But the ruling itself is unclear.


Err - the previous rulings can be taken as: If the defenders have not voluntarily left the maul, it means the maul is over. If they have voluntarily left it, then the maul is not over.

Therefore if the defneders attempt to pull down a maul, and are deemed not to have voluntarily left it, then the maul is over. This is what I have been told.

So I think your view is contradictory.

Dixie
13-08-08, 09:08
The ruling which answers nothing (except the badly phrased RFU question) is whether when part of a maul is pulled down, and no defenders are left in contact, is the maul over? ... The information I have from the society meeting would suggest that the maul remains in progress - the pullers down not having "voluntarily" left it. But the ruling itself is unclear.

I am now quite clear on the Society instructions, but do feel that there is much room for improvement. Let's see if we can't add a little confusion to your clarity::p At the Basingstoke meeting, this point was addressed at length by the RFU referee and coaching development team. Their view, supported by specific Powerpoint slides addressing the issue, was that if the attempt to pull down the maul results in no defenders left on their feet, then the maul is OVER, and the ref needs to communicate an urgent need to use the ball to avoid being pinged for obstruction, or to avoid having the opposition come round the back and steal it.

This position, which accords with Flipflop's view, was contrasted with the one in which the defenders voluntarily detatched from the maul, which was confirmed as the continuance of the maul, albeit without participants from the defending side.

ex-lucy
13-08-08, 12:08
what Dixie says ....re: maul and when it's over.. this is what i have u/stood from two ELV discussions now. Ref has to manage situation.

ST: nice timing ... i went to an ELV chat last night and was able to quote from the IRB ruling about attacking SH and Barnes' decision on Sat with some authority. thx.

Simon Thomas
13-08-08, 13:08
[QUOTE=PaulDG;49514]Not yet as the question asked didn't address that point.
Unfortunately, it didn't, so we're not really any the wiser.[/QUOTE

Why not just accept the ELV's explicit wording and accept positioning back along the trams?

Chopper - because it is incorrect. I repeat yet again that ELVs must be read and applied in context of existing Law.

The non-throwing opponent must by existing Law be an immediate opponent and not metres away down the trams.

Simon Thomas
13-08-08, 13:08
Dixie summarsies it perfectly for both current Law and ELV

a) maul formed ball at back of pod, all defenders voluntarily detach - previous IRB ruling - MAUL still formed.

b) maul formed ball at back of pod, some defenders (not all) pull down and detach, but others do not detach - MAUL still formed.

c) maul formed ball at back of pod, some defenders pull down and all detach - MAUL has ended and potential obstruction / "truck & trailer", defender can come round, RDO suggestion ref should say "use it" (personally don't agree) - MAUL over.

PaulDG
13-08-08, 13:08
a) maul formed ball at back of pod, all defenders voluntarily detach - previous IRB ruling - MAUL still formed.

Can someone point me to that ruling, please? (I just can't find it on the IRB website and I'm starting to believe I dreamt it!)

Phil E
13-08-08, 13:08
c) maul formed ball at back of pod, some defenders pull down and all detach - MAUL has ended and potential obstruction / "truck & trailer", defender can come round, RDO suggestion ref should say "use it" (personally don't agree) - MAUL over.

Having thought about this, I think (at my level anyway) I would shout "Maul Over". Having given both sides that information, anything they do after that is in the knowledge that the maul has ended and they are responsible for their own actions in accordance with the laws.

ed. having thought about it some more, I would only be shouting this for a few games until I thought everyone had got the message.

Simon Thomas
13-08-08, 13:08
Can someone point me to that ruling, please? (I just can't find it on the IRB website and I'm starting to believe I dreamt it!)

Odd PaulDG - I can find the ruck (http://www.irb.com/mm/document/lawsregs/0/071105sllawrulings2007_3820.pdf) one but not the maul !

Dixie
13-08-08, 15:08
Odd PaulDG - I can find the ruck (http://www.irb.com/mm/document/lawsregs/0/071105sllawrulings2007_3820.pdf) one but not the maul !I think we all inferred the maul consequence from the ruck ruling, IIRC.

OB..
13-08-08, 17:08
I don't think there was a Ruling about the maul. All I got was a set of slides from our Chairman, based on a letter he had from the RFU.

Simon Thomas
13-08-08, 17:08
I will chase my Hon Sec 'cos I didn't get a letter from RFU (on the maul topic !) - got hundreds of others which will subsidise my fuel bills this winter.

OB..
13-08-08, 17:08
Simon - it was January last year (or maybe a little earlier).

beckett50
16-08-08, 19:08
Many of the questions that are being raised are answered here (http://www.rfu.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/RFUHome.articles_Detail/StoryID/20424) - esepecially in realtion to the maul

In relation to where the opposition Hooker stands I must admit that I tend to agree with Chopper. After all the area of touch extends from the LoT to 10m toward the goal-line. IMHO the oppo #2 can stand any where inside the tram lines within this area (as long as he is no closer than 2m to his own participating players!)

I believe that the FIR clarification was to stop the defensive #9 gaining a march when trying to attack the #10. It means that we know the defensive SH MUST stay within 1m of the scrum even when following the ball round. If you look at some of the GP and HC matches last season there was a tendency for the defensive SH to move away from the scrum to try and cut out the pass from #9 to #10.

Still lets see how the 1st games go:)

Davet
16-08-08, 19:08
If the throwers imediate opponent is 10m from the thrower, in what way is his opposition immediate?

Last year the offside line for ALL players not involved the scrum was the back feet, which became the offside line for the non-ball-winning scrum-half if he went to his looseheads side. Since he was on-side, the same as any other player, thehn he could stay on that line and cover accross.

This year things are different, and the offside line for other players is 5m back. If the n-b-w s-h moves to his loosehead side AND moves more than 1m from the scrum, then his offside line is 5m back, along with the rst of te backs.

beckett50
16-08-08, 20:08
If the throwers imediate opponent is 10m from the thrower, in what way is his opposition immediate?

In the same way that the n b w sh is the immediate opponent to the attacking #9 - even if he elects to move to the 5m off-side line after the ball is thrown into the scrum


Last year the offside line for ALL players not involved the scrum was the back feet, which became the offside line for the non-ball-winning scrum-half if he went to his looseheads side. Since he was on-side, the same as any other player, thehn he could stay on that line and cover accross.

This year things are different, and the offside line for other players is 5m back. If the n-b-w s-h moves to his loosehead side AND moves more than 1m from the scrum, then his offside line is 5m back, along with the rest of the backs.

Yes, I know. But the FIR obviously felt the need to clairfy the point because of some dubious practises that iRB referees had allowed through the net. In much the same way as the NZRFU sought clarification about #8s binding before the CTPE phases;)

OB..
16-08-08, 21:08
In the same way that the n b w sh is the immediate opponent to the attacking #9 - even if he elects to move to the 5m off-side line after the ball is thrown into the scrum
Law 20 does not refer to an "immediate opponent".

The ELV says that if the defending scrum half moves to the 5 metre line, he must stay there.

Not a useful analogy.

Dixie
17-08-08, 20:08
Law 20 does not refer to an "immediate opponent".At today's Southern Federation meeting, it was stated as a fact that the defending SH is not only tied to the scrum to prevent him from defending the overlap caused by his counterpart's ability to go wide, but is also not allowed to decline to contest the scrum at all by starting 5m back. He is obliged to start the scrum shadowing his oppo at the tunnel.

The definition of a scrum does not require an opposing SH. The number of players in the scrum is mandated at 8. The front-row positions are mandated. Far from finding a mandatory requirement that the SH should start at the tunnel, the only provision I can find relating to the oppo SH is the offside provision. So why do the powers that be feel he is obliged to start at the tunnel?

Does anyone know the justification for, or provenance of, this interpretation? If it is correct, it does seem to me that the intention of law in this area is that an attacking 5m scrum should inevitably lead to a try by action of law (deliberately preventing the defence from matching numbers), assuming the attacking side doesn't drop the ball or pass forward. That being so, it seems to me that a defending SH moving more than 1m from the scrum should concede a PT. I hate the thinking that takes me there, but I can't see an alternative. Can anyone set my mind at rest?

KML1
17-08-08, 22:08
At today's Southern Federation meeting, it was stated as a fact that ...... [the defending SH] is obliged to start the scrum shadowing his oppo at the tunnel.

I don't remember that bit, nor do I agree with it. In my game yesterday, I did allow there to be no "defending SH" and he had to stay back 5 until the scrum ended.

Personally as a tactic, I think its a poor one - taking their only unbound defender out of that 10m channel would not be high up on my list of good things to be doing.

Pablo
18-08-08, 09:08
At today's Southern Federation meeting, it was stated as a fact that ...... [the defending SH] is obliged to start the scrum shadowing his oppo at the tunnel.

This was the way David Rose communicated it to us at the Herts meeting in July too. In fact, in one of the ELV example vids, Rosey pointed out the referee insisting that the Canterbury SH take up a position near the scrum on his opponent's put-in.

I am confused as to how this is justified in Law, but rather doubt that it will arise at L6 - I suspect most teams will have a defending SH because a) "that's how it's always been done" and b) it gives them the opportunity to harrass a #8 pick-up. Also, as KML points out, it's probably not a great tactical choice.

Dixie
18-08-08, 10:08
The issue has relevance at U.15 and below, where the defending SH is not allowed to move beyond the tunnel. That being so, and being tied to the scrum, IMO he is better placed 5m back to prevent the overlap. What is the point of asking him to sprint backwards 5m before taking his place in the defensive line-up, hoping he can get there and position himself correctly before the #8 picks up?

ddjamo
18-08-08, 12:08
if the defending sh takes a position back 5m and his side wins ball...it's pretty much an 8 man pick then - eh? he cannot join to get the ball out - correct? not sure if I would allow them to take the 5m stance...would go with what was written above - that they must start at the tunnel and then choose to move...

Wilko
18-08-08, 13:08
ddjamo

The ELV states that the scrum half of the side that wins the ball may move anywhere and it is only the scrum half of the side that lose the ball who is restricted.

In your example then, the scrum half who started back in the defensive line can move forward of the 5m without fear of penalty as his side has "won the ball". It is his opposing scrum half who is then restricted in his movements.

Simon Thomas
18-08-08, 13:08
ddjamo

Two weeks ago that is what I thought, and had been told by authorative RFU staff. But as with all things ELV it appears minds are changed and clarifications made.

How we were told it on Sunday by Panel Referees and RFU Referee Development Manager was :

a) you must have an immediate and opposite defensive scrum half present at throw-in

b) if non-ball-winning scrum half retires 5m, and then ball is kicked through, taken against the head, etc he is no longer the non-ball-winning scrum half, so all options are open to him again !

ex-lucy
18-08-08, 13:08
a) you must have an immediate and opposite defensive scrum half present at throw-in

b) if non-ball-winning scrum half retires 5m, and then ball is kicked through, taken against the head, etc he is no longer the non-ball-winning scrum half, so all options are open to him again !

so what you saying in practice is that the non throwing in SH must stand at the tunel until throw in, then he can retire 5m, then if won against the head, he can approach the scrum again...

okey cokey time ...

Dixie
18-08-08, 16:08
Haven't seen anything from anyone that justifies the position being taken by RFU regarding the defending SH having to start the scrum at the tunnel, rather than 5m back. Do we imagine that other Unions are adopting the same interpretation, given the lack of any justiffication in existing law text and rulings?

Simon Thomas
18-08-08, 16:08
so what you saying in practice is that the non throwing in SH must stand at the tunel until throw in, then he can retire 5m, then if won against the head, he can approach the scrum again...

okey cokey time ...

But if he or she starts to shake it all about, then I will not be amused though.

ddjamo
18-08-08, 17:08
interesting...thank you boys...