IRB clarifies three bits of law

At the request of the Australian Rugby Union the International Rugby Board, the game’s legislative body, has clarified on three aspects of law. These clarifications, which used to be called rulings, were issued on 23 November 2011 and have the force of law.

The clarifications are the work of a committee called the Designated Members. At present the designated members are Members Graham Mourie (Chairman), John Jeffrey and David Pickering. 

The clarifications are provided in English, French and Spanish.

Clarification 1

The request came from the Australian Rugby Union.

The Request: Law 17.6 (g) says: “If the ball-carrier in a maul goes to ground, including being on one or both knees or sitting, the referee orders a scrum unless the ball is immediately available.”

Often situations arise in the game when a ball-carrier in a maul (especially when the maul consists of only 3 or 4 players) goes to ground with an opponent remaining on his feet with his arms wrapped around the ball. The Australian Rugby Union asks the following questions:

a) Does the opponent on his feet need to release the ball-carrier given that this is a collapsed maul and not a tackle?
b) Does the ball-carrier have to release the ball to the opponent on his feet? Law 17.6 (g) indicates a scrum unless the ball is immediately available but places no obligation on the ball-carrier to make it available by releasing it.
c) When a maul collapses, is there any obligation on players to roll away from the ball in order to make the ball available?
d) When a maul collapses, are players who go to ground able to interfere with the ball as it is being made available while they are still off their feet? If not, what is the sanction and what is the basis in Law?”

Clarification of the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee
Questions (a), (b) and (c) relate to questions of Law and (d) relates more to the application of Law.
There is a further variable to be taken into account when the ball goes to ground at a collapsed maul and there are players from both sides on their feet bound over the ball so that Law 16 – Ruck becomes applicable.

(a) If a maul collapses and the ball does not touch the ground the player on his feet is not obliged to release the ball or ball-carrier unless the ball touches the ground and a ruck is formed.

[See: http://www.sareferees.co.za/laws/laws_explained/clips/2824744.htm]

Clarification 2

The request came from the Australian Rugby Union.

The request: “Law 11.4 (f) states: “… The 10-metre Law applies if the ball touches or is played by an opponent but is not charged down.”

This section of Law does not appear to have been applied in any professional or international competition since it was introduced in 2009. It is current practice that if the ball is kicked and touched in flight by an opponent, we have seen referees rule that any teammate of the kicker who is in front is now deemed onside.

The Australian Rugby Union requests clarification on how this Law is to be applied. The Australian Rugby Union has several concerns:

i. This Law says “touches or is played”. Under the Definitions of the Game, ‘touched’ and ‘played’ mean exactly the same thing.

ii. The definition of “Charge Down” in Law 12 clearly indicates that the ball does NOT have to travel forward from the player charging down to be considered a charge down (stating that charge down “is not a knock-on even though the ball may go forward”). We question how Law 11.4 (f) can distinguish between the ball being touched in flight after being kicked and the ball being charged down if there is no such difference between the two.

iii. Even assuming it was argued that a charge down must travel forward (not supported in Law) this Law seems difficult to apply. If a ball ricochets off a player charging down an travels, for example, either in a perpendicular direction to the player charging down, or bobbles into the air and lands merely 2 metres behind the player charging down, the 10m Law would presumably apply and offside players (potentially an entire team) must retire 10m from where the ball lands or behind the kicker. This seems impractical to enforce and vastly at odds with current practice.

A good example of unworkability of this Law is RWC Game New Zealand v Tonga, at 12.45 first half. The ball is kicked by Black 9, touched in flight by Red 11, then played by Red 5. Then Black 2, who is within the 10m of where the ball was played by Red 5, attempts to dive on the ball. Since a player inside the 10m cannot be put onside by the action of an opponent as per Law 11.5 (b), according to current Law this should be a penalty kick to Red.

Can the IRB clarify in which scenarios this Law is to be applied? If it is agreed that this sentence of Law is unworkable, we suggest simply removing it, as the remainder of Law 11.4 (f) covers the fact that the teammates of the kicker who are in front of the kicker are not offside when a charge occurs.”

Clarification of the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee

i. The act of a charge down is one where an opposition player not in possession of the ball approaches a kicker at close quarters and makes an attempt to block the kick. In such circumstances players in front of the kicker who are within 10 metres of the kick are not liable to penalty wherever the ball lands.

ii. If the ball is not charged down but is played or touches an opposition player and a player from the kicker’s side is within the 10 metre area in front of the kick that player is liable to penalty in accordance with Law 10.4 (f).

The deletion of 11.4 (f) would require a Law amendment.

Clarification 3

The request came from the Australian Rugby Union

The request: Law 12, Definitions state: “A knock-on occurs when a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward, or when a player hits the ball forward with the hand or arm, or when the ball hits the hand or arm and goes forward, and the ball touches the ground or another player before the original player can catch it.”

The Law does not explicitly cover scenarios where the ball is ripped out of the possession of a ball-carrier by an opponent. In these situations it is almost impossible for the referee to determine exactly who last touched or had physical contact with the ball.

For the sake of improving consistency of ruling from referees worldwide, in the following scenarios, has a knock-on occurred? If so, who has knocked the ball on?

i. Ball-carrier A from the Red team runs towards the blue team’s dead ball line. Opponent B approaches A from in front and rips the ball out of A’s hands such that neither player has possession of the ball and the ball travels towards the blue team’s goal line. (We often see this ruled a knock-on by A).

ii. Ball-carrier A from the Red team runs towards the Blue team’s dead ball line. Opponent B approaches A from behind and rips the ball out of A’s hands such that neither player has possession of the ball and the ball travels towards the Red team’s goal-line. (We often see this either ruled play or a knock-on by B).”

Clarification of the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee

In each of the scenarios outlined the ball-carrier is not responsible for losing possession.

In scenario 1 the ball has been ripped from the ball-carrier by a player ripping the ball from the ball-carrier’s hands and it goes towards that player’s goal line. There is no infringement in Law and play should continue.