Rugby union?

Stu said:
It is not a "foul" because no one is offside (so a penalty would not be awared), however, you would lose possession because it is a knock-on or forward pass (play advantage to other side, or stop play for a scrum).
Click to expand...

If you've deliberately thrown it forwards, that's a penalty I believe. You can accidentally pass forwards, or knock on, but I suspect throwing it forwards on purpose is a penalty.

If it's not a penalty, then at the very least, as above, it's a knockon/forwards pass, and therefore a scrum from where you were when you threw the ball.
 
Outcast440 said:
in Union, if you deliberately throw the ball forward into empty space, then one of your players runs onto it (from an onside position), can he pick it up, or is that deemed a foul?
Click to expand...

What part of the fundamental rule of 'no forward passes' confuses you?
 
Actually, having checked the laws...

A player must not intentionally throw or pass the ball forward. Sanction: Penalty.

However, I can't imagine a scenario where this would actually happen because this is a fundamental aspect of playing the game properly.

Technically, heading the ball forward is not a knock on, however having the ball in your hands followed by a header might be considered as losing control forward. There is also the catch all law of the referee judging your actions as not being within the spirit of the game.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, deliberately ramming the ball onto your head, heading the ball to me would normally be called as losing control forwards I reckon. Could be a loophole if you head it and catch it. Heading a kick is acceptable though, not sure I'd want to try it though.
 
Having the ball in hand and then kneeing the ball forward is also losing control forward, and counts as a knock on.
 
ok, next questions will be on the turnovers

for ex, often in RU there's a mass of bodies on the ground, yet the ball gets given to the other side, and it's not clear why.

say, you can't release the ball or ground it, then what makes the opposition gain possession? (other than fouls, offisde, knock on, losing grip of ball etc)
 
Outcast440 said:
because it's not actually a pass - more a speculative hurl forwards, like the kick into empty space, hoping that one of your players can run onto the ball
Click to expand...

That's why you would kick it. It's still a pass otherwise, just a really poor one.
 
Outcast440 said:
ok, next questions will be on the turnovers

for ex, often in RU there's a mass of bodies on the ground, yet the ball gets given to the other side, and it's not clear why.

say, you can't release the ball or ground it, then what makes the opposition gain possession? (other than fouls, offisde, knock on, losing grip of ball etc)
Click to expand...

Most often when the ball carrying team loses the ball in a ruck/turnover it is because the ball carrier don't release the ball when being on the ground. If looking at the referee you will see what he makes the call for. But most often I would say it is because not releasing the ball or that team mates comes in from the side into the ruck.
 
The ruck can be complicated.

Once tackled (carriers knee hits the ground, and is held), the ball carrier can make 1 movement to place the ball, he should then release (refs don't mind if you keep it in place if there's no competition for it). The tackler has to clear himself from preventing the ball from being placed. He must be back on his feet and enter through the gate of the ruck if he wants to take further part.

The first man to the tackled player forms the offside line. He can use his hands, as there is technically no ruck. If he is a defending player, then the tackled player should in theory let go of the ball and let him pick it up. This is where a lot of penalties come from, not releasing the ball on the ground. If there was already an attacking player on his feet over the ball, then the moment a defending player is pushing against him, a ruck is formed, and no more hands allowed inside the ruck by players involved in the ruck.

Another option for a turnover here, and the one that you may be referring to, is when defending players drive over the ball, pushing all the attacking players off of it, leading to the ball now being available for the previous defending team. If everyone falls over at this point, and the ball is stuck, this can often be where the ref will reward the team who were going forwards and turnover the ball to the previously defending side, awarding them the scrum.

There's more to the ruck, but that's a large portion of it.
 
@Outcast440 You are asking questions about the core basics of the game, indicating to me that you have little or no experience of rugby union. Are you learning to play or a curious spectator?
 
Outcast440 said:
Good post - it's all getting clearer now, thanks
Click to expand...

No worries. The ruck is a big old mess in general, with a ton going on. It's very hard for ref's to get it all right, but for the most part I think they do quite well, especially when you consider there's normally 100-200 rucks a game.

It's one of the reasons why I love the ruck. It's almost another set piece, yet it's one that plays out 10-50 times more than any other set piece. A team that works the ruck well is extremely powerful. Key points are less winning turnovers, and more clearing it and using it quickly. The All Blacks are always praised for their high skill levels, but it's their physicality that's actually out of this world, they absolutely blast the ruck. When you see a team actually match that, suddenly the ABs look a lot more human and the games often run a lot closer.
 
Anyone else already bored of all the talking about the Lions.

Lions, Legends, Heroes, Legends, Lions - ad infinitum. I am genuinely close to breaking a major personal taboo and supporting South Africa.
 
PlacidCasual said:
Anyone else already bored of all the talking about the Lions.

Lions, Legends, Heroes, Legends, Lions - ad infinitum. I am genuinely close to breaking a major personal taboo and supporting South Africa.
Click to expand...

I support the Lions, but I don't get involved in the drama, don't see it as a positive thing for England or England players. It's a cash cow for our strongest opposition, whilst simultaneously draining our players.
 
Nearly all the worst decisions in international refereeing seem to start and finish with Romaine Poitre the guy is a liability the most nitpicking bad decisions. Sooner he retires the better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom