Force sweat on Haylett-Petty injury

My recollection was that it was only covered in law when reaching out for the try, but they extended the principle to cover the ruck.

In this instance Hoffman said that he was in the ruck which suggests there was no problem with binding. He told Hanigan that you have to let the ball come (to the opponents he meant) which is nonsense. The next step for the game will be a "play the ball". Regarding kicking the ball out of a players hands. Has been illegal as long as I can remember. Ask Colin Meads how long it's been illegal.

We found some common ground Timbo. :-) on the Hanigan YC. Piru is correct on 16.4 (b). It was a compromise around the ELVs where the trial of handling the ball in the ruck was rejected. It has been there since approx 2009. It is Pocock's particular strength. It has led to unintended consequences however. Players reverted to body rolls in an attempt to remove the Pococks from the ball. This was illegal but was subsequently legalised which has now progressed to the ugly neck roles.

I would have thought it was fine, so long as the player is properly bound. I know there was a clarification a couple of years ago about kicking the ball out of the scrumhalf's hands...?

That would have made you wrong as well Piru if you had YCd him. This come up the other day. I would be interested in the law amendment or law clarification that makes kicking the ball in a ruck an offence.

Timbo - you have been all over the shop on this one I'm afraid...in fact I think "shoplifting" even got a mention at one stage. You still have not explained the "hand off" although I'm sure it does not matter at this point. You have now progressed your point of view to Retallick being an "oaf" and a further Chiefs player being involved. I have to say that you have gone to great lengths to justify your view point but I'm not sure what you think the indisputable facts are and any debate from me has been a counter to every point you have made so no deflection coming from this end. But I do agree on the core question. If only we could have stuck to that. Well actually I don't quite agree. The simple question was did Retallick cause obstruction. Yes or No. Obviously you say yes and I say no. However I don't see the need for you to raise matters in subsequent posts that I have already addressed. It gives me the impression that you are just bullocking onward, including rushing to the law (not rules by the way) book, without reading the points I had made.

There used to be a law that specifically prohibited players from kicking the ball in a ruck, I always thought it was under 16, but was unable to find it - perhaps it's been removed. 16.4 is a fairly new one, came in after the Stellenbosch experiment, in tandem with the refs requiring players to take their hands off the tackled player before going for the ball.

Tony is correct in what he says as is Andy. What is wrong however is that Timbo says that the 10m rule applies to an imaginary circle. In fact it is an imaginary line across the field. i.e touch line to touch line. I think it's reasonable to assume that the referee in this instance has made a decision that the Force players ahead of the kicker have not complied with the 10m law. With the benefit of the replay we can see that if this is the case then he has made an error of judgment. This is in my opinion a very good example of why referees should stay silent and let the players make their own decisions. The Force players are actually in the best position to decide if they are complying. I believe he has affected the play. Firstly he has no doubt confused the players. Initially he has told them to hold then he wants them to keep coming back...well which one is it? And in making the decision and instructing the players so... he has then affected their decision to proceed/or not forward towards the attacking player.

He was in the ruck and on his feet, he can do just about anything he likes except pull the Halfback into the ruck. He may have been called for not binding properly but I never see that rule enforced. http://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=16&language=EN "Players are rucking when they are in a ruck and using their feet to try to win or keep possession of the ball, without being guilty of foul play." and here is a weird one that will change the way I armchair refaree: 16.4 (b) Players must not handle the ball in a ruck except after a tackle if they are on their feet and have their hands on the ball before the ruck is formed.

I think some force players were advancing downtown before DHP got to them in the chase.

Honestly couldn't say, Tony. As you say, the ref called advantage for something as Cruden approached the defensive line, by which time the camera had zoomed in and cut off some of the players. Perhaps something happened out of vision, or maybe he got it wrong, but either way it didn't really affect the play. Someone would have needed to stop Cruden in order to find out.

When he's good he's very good. I think our weak link is Brache personally - cannot understand why you'd ever play him ahead of Rona. His standard catch/pass/hold onto the ball skills are lacking lately

Craig, we don't know you, you have no profile, no history, offer no thoughts, just a silly, negative comment. The equivalent of some yob yelling from a car window as they go past

Because he cynically kicked the ball out of the ruck? I'd have carded him as well

Thanks Andy, maybe I've got it wrong then. But in that case why did the ref call advantage to the Chiefs? I watched the footage several times. No Force players are ever within 10m of where the ball was caught (it's closer to 20m) and none of them are advancing toward the ball - they remain where they are and wait. And yet the ref calls advantage.

11.4b and 11.5b only apply to players offside under the 10m law, which means someone nearer than 10m to the player that caught the ball or where the ball landed (11.4a). In the play being discussed, no-one was offside under that law because no-one was that close to Lowe. They were offside in general play because they were in front of the last of their players to touch the ball, until Lowe passed the ball to Cruden.

No Timbo, that isn't correct. Under laws 11.4(b) and 11.5(b), a player offside under the 10m rule (by being in front of the kicker) "cannot be put onside by any action of the opposing team". To get back onside, you need the kicker or another onside teammate to run past you, or you have to go back behind the kicker. That didn't happen here; hence the advantage to the Chiefs. The rules about being put back onside during general play (such as an opponent passing the ball) don't apply.

Cuw, Yup, just as baffled. It did balance out in the end though, 1 Tah should have gone off. Hoops must have some sort of invisibility cloak on to get away with that. The Hoff already has a bad rep for being a rubbish ref. I was expecting nothing less.

Maybe some detente is required here. I may have been using my words incorrectly When I say "Offside" I mean being in an offside position. There is nothing wrong about being in an offside position provided the player and I quote the laws here: "takes no part in the game". These facts are indisputable and any debates on them are smoke and mirrors to deflect focus from my core question: Were Retallic and the Prop "Taking Part" in the game.

Tony, I think you might have your wires crossed. The 10m rule applies to an imaginary circle around the receiver, not the kicker. Look at the link to the rules, there a couple of handy video's explaining it. The rules are quite simple, you are offside if you are in front of the last player who played the ball, so if the kicker runs in front of you, you are "put onside". If the receiving player passes the ball, all opposition players are automatically onside. It is a quirk that I never thought of: The high ball receiver can run the ball without any fear of a tackle right up until he reaches the line of kicker. This is why kickers must chase, and it isn't always a great idea for the kick receiver to pass. I may be mistaken about the rules about retreating, it may only apply to the 10 exclusion. But they are specific about "taking no part in the game". In my opinion setting up a defensive barricade is taking part in the game. As to defending it, sure, they did a better job the second time around. Wessels briefed them at half time and they were ale to work around the tactic a bit better. My rant is that I didn't think the big, offside ,oaf Retallic is allowed to make any movement to obstruct an onside defender. And an attacking player is not allowed to run in a fashion that put an offside player between them and a defender.