Laws question (or, more accurately, "not in the Laws" question?)

Laws question (or, more accurately, "not in the Laws" question?)

Post by Don Del Gran » Tue, 28 Jul 1998 04:00:00


Right about the time that a try was changed from 4 points to 5, I seem to
recall a bit of a discussion about a change in the laws that had something
to do with awarding a scrum to the non-attacking team rather than the team
"moving forward" in some situations.  However, I can't seem to find it in a
1997 copy of the Laws.  Did I misunderstand something way back when, or is
it still in the Laws and I just missed it, or were the laws changed and
then changed back?

-------------------------------------------------------

'Tis better to play rugby and lose then to be even seen anywhere near that
"slow-pitch softball" stuff

 
 
 

Laws question (or, more accurately, "not in the Laws" question?)

Post by b.. » Wed, 29 Jul 1998 04:00:00


Quote:

> Right about the time that a try was changed from 4 points to 5, I seem to
> recall a bit of a discussion about a change in the laws that had something
> to do with awarding a scrum to the non-attacking team rather than the team
> "moving forward" in some situations.  However, I can't seem to find it in a
> 1997 copy of the Laws.  Did I misunderstand something way back when, or is
> it still in the Laws and I just missed it, or were the laws changed and
> then changed back?

We are talking rucks and mauls here I presume. The laws were initially
changed for both so that teams failing to quickly deliver the ball from rucks
or malls lost possession. The team that took the ball in therefore was
motivated to control it and use it quickly, the team that did not was
motivated to stop them without being too obvious since while it was legal to
try to win possession from the team controlling the ball, it was illegal to
deliberately impede the use of the ball by the team controlling it.

The laws were subsequently amended for rucks so that the team moving forward
gained possession in the event the ball could not be quickly delivered,
regardless of who had taken it into the ruck.

The law was also amended for mauls forming immediately after receiving the
ball from a kick. In this case the side which took the ball into the maul did
not lose possession in the event of the ball not being quickly delivered.

-- Rick Boyd

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp   Create Your Own Free Member Forum

 
 
 

Laws question (or, more accurately, "not in the Laws" question?)

Post by Geoff Muldo » Wed, 29 Jul 1998 04:00:00


Quote:
>Right about the time that a try was changed from 4 points to 5, I seem to
>recall a bit of a discussion about a change in the laws that had something
>to do with awarding a scrum to the non-attacking team rather than the team
>"moving forward" in some situations.  However, I can't seem to find it in a
>1997 copy of the Laws.  Did I misunderstand something way back when, or is
>it still in the Laws and I just missed it, or were the laws changed and
>then changed back?

Don,

I believe you are referring to the 'use it or lose it' maul law.
Applies only to mauls, not rucks.  Once a maul has become stationary,
the ref will call for the team in possession to clear the ball from
the maul.  If they are unable to do so quickly (our local refs give us
about 3 seconds) then the ref will call a scrum with the feed going
against the team holding possession, regardless of who was moving
forward prior to it becoming stationary.

From the IRFB web site at:
http://www.irfb.com/laws/

Law 22 4) (a) When a maul remains stationary or stops moving forward
or collapses (not subject of Law 26 (3) (h)) or the ball in a maul
becomes unplayable, a scrummage shall be ordered. The ball shall be
put in by the team NOT in possession at the commencement of the maul.

Cheers,

Geoff M
SCU Rugby Club, Lismore, NSW, Australia