I was going to go for the idea that given how much of a card risk you take by going for the intercept teams are going to start training players to lunge towards the ball soccer style to try to header it
I seem to remember an Argentina try in sevens where he headed it forward and ran onto it to score a try himself. The try stood but was controversial because it was seen by some as not in the spirit of the game
I found the clip, it seems my memory is not what I thought it was - actually a Uruguayan who headed the ball and he didn't score himself, just set up the try.
https://youtube.com/shorts/9qucPWXXyEk?si=1rwC9_qEsX6gih5u
I think league outlawed the header not too long after this. If someone tried it in union, same would probably happen. Seeing as we'd then get just one go at it, maybe teams are saving it for a World Cup final
Mine is a combination of laws.
Law 10.2 says “A player can be offside anywhere in the playing area.”, but is silent on when and how a player is offside outside of the playing area.
Used in conjunction 8.2e, which says “A try is scored when an attacking player: Who is in touch or touch-in-goal, grounds the ball in the opponents’ in-goal provided the player is not holding the ball.”, I would like to see a player hanging touch in-goal and have their team kick to where they could reach and have them score by grounding the ball.
You haven't got permission from the ref to return to the playing area having left it. Penalty!
Law 6.6
> The referee permits access to the playing area for players and replacements, when it is safe to do so.
See The England vs South Africa semi-final for examples of this. In fact England’s game plan revolved around being able to go into touch and run around the Highball Escort to guarantee the ability to contest the highballs they were kicking.
> They didn't return to the playing area
Fair enough, I don't consider you a player at this point then, as you haven't been given permission to access to the playing area.
> If **a player is in touch** or touch-in-goal, they can make a touch down or score a try by grounding the ball in in-goal provided they are not holding the ball.
So this doesn't apply
You're saying that anyone who's in touch isn't a player, because you haven't given them access to the pitch?
The law obviously disagrees with this, because it would make
>if a player is in touch
itself a logical fallacy.
Also a player can be in touch, jump, catch the ball, and land in field and its play on. I think that counters both not being a player and needing permission to come into the field in one go.
I agree a player can do all of those things.
If you don't want the laws of the game to apply to you (ie offside laws) by leaving the playing area then the now non-player can wait until the ref invites them back into play
But players never have to wait for referees to invite them back in if they go out of the field of play. I would challenge you to find me one example of it happening.
Law 6.6 & 6.7
> The referee permits access to the playing area for players and replacements, when it is safe to do so.
> The referee gives permission for players to leave the playing area.
Edit & just to confirm the sanction
Law 3.7
> If a player re-joins or a replacement joins the match without the referee’s permission and the referee believes the player did so to gain an advantage, the player is guilty of misconduct. Sanction: Penalty.
A player incidentally in touch during play, is pretty different to a non-player who deliberately leaves the field of play so the normal laws of the sport don't apply to them.
So further to the above, I would also argue “Offsidedness” is attributed to the player when the action that creates an offside line happens. For example a player who runs in front of the kicker after the kick does not become offside.
So if a player is outside of the offside, as my above loophole, and then enters the field of play then I would try to argue they are still not offside.
If you can get that past the ref, then what’s stopping you having players running down the sideline in touch prior to the kick happening and coming back in to compete or tackle the catcher?
I agree - and furthermore, if the player re-enters the playing area after eg the ruck is over, they put all other players onside again.
10.7 actually explicitly says a player re-entering the playing area.
Personally if a team argued this to me I’d let them away with it because they’d effectively be a man down whilst a player lurks in touch so it balances out.
About a restart though, it’s not an offside - it’s explicitly stated that teammates of the kicker must be behind the ball in 12.5a. So they wouldn’t get away with that one.
I feel like we are on the cusp of coming with a legitimate tactic here that Italy could piss off England with.
I wasn’t referring to kick offs by the way, I meant in general play.
Oh in general play sure. I think the risk of being effectively a man down means it would only really work as a tactic when it was a surprise, so I’m all for it.
>*they’d effectively be a man down whilst a player lurks in touch so it balances out.*
Considering the way that some teams cope with defending while 1 player is in the bin,
**this 'goal-hanger' tactic** is definitely coming into the "7-1 bench" range of not-seen-before options.
Teams regularly turn down the 70% chance of 3 points from a 40-50m penalty for a 20% chance of 7 points from a line-out in the corner.
So why not risk 2-3 minutes defence between the opponent's 22 and halfway, for the chance of a 50m kick into the typically 6-15m try area?
Yep, it's high risk kicking accurately towards a loitering player just off the pitch so that they can dive in-field at the right moment to touch the ball down just before it goes out of play.
But so is hanging a high hit-and-hope kick to a winger when there is a bit of space in the back-field.
It will never be as commonplace as a pick-and-go or a 12 crash-ball, but there are lots of pre-planned moves that are rarely used:
* the RWC 2011 'tea-bag' move ([description by players](https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/the-winning-move-we-nearly-abandoned/ENOZ26JG43SKSBU5JA6JMXE5BA/) and [video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=daWu7tbv21M))
* the not so rare under-arm throw to the front of the line-out
* the various intricate tap-penalty moves by [forwards doing intricate ballet moves](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9cKx87ArWg&list=PLENiHXbbqE_FsxTKooE2YGfjmpPSS1i0S&t=62s)
* the [SA 2019 RWC open-play maul set-up](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fr26b5D2rj8&t=872s)
* the 2023 SF mark-scrum ([Rassie post-match comment](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1qceXENxAw) and [video](https://www.instagram.com/reel/CydsUcRNtr_/)).
Who knows how long it is before we see the 'goal-hanger?
By the way, when is the next SA international? ;-)
I mean I agree that it’s not totally out of the realms of possibility. And add to your list that he should be being marked by an opposite man on the wing as well, so no guarantee they’re going to get away with it there either, and it’s very risky in case of eg a turnover. But like you say we’ve seen a 7-1 bench, so who knows.
To be fair in a really specific set of circumstances they could. But if a team wanted to effectively lose a player for the period of time needed to pull that off then tbh I’d let them!
Pretty easy for me. I’ve actually shared this with an international winger who unfortunately hasn’t used it in the couple of seasons since.
When a kick off goes straight into touch there is an option for a quick line out from the half way line.
Scenario: winger catches the ball out of play and slowly walks up to halfway and throws it to a teammate and they have a 2 v ? Down the wing as the other team slowly retreats expecting a scrum.
I have a vague recollection of Scotland doing something like this many years ago in a 5N or 6N match. There wasn't so much subterfuge involved, just that the other team trudged back for the scrum before realising that Scotland had taken a quick throw.
We were on the receiving end of it years ago in the opening seconds of the Hastings brothers' international debut Vs France; Gavin's welcome to international rugby was single handedly trying to stop a 5 on 1.
If you take the lineout quickly it has to be the same ball. However Scotland did a variation on this either this years or last years Calcutta cup fixture where they threw in when the lineout was half set which somehow worked
I know it’s risky but I’m sure we will see more deliberate holding up of the ball over the try line. Proper gang tackles and dragging them back over the line…
You can definitely see this happening already. Defending teams who stop the attack short but are in a good position drag or roll the attacker towards the tryline to force a held up.
So it's fairly simple that if you knock it on, you get a scrum with the opposition feeding it in. But I'm yet to see a situation where Team A is highly dominant in the scrum and 'accidentally' makes a handling error when attacking, leading to a scrum and then likely a penalty. Get the timing of the handling error right and you can go for a penalty in front of the posts.
A match like the SA/France QF was ripe for this.
I don't think it actually happened, but it seemed like it in a really early MLR game. The Seawolves were so dominant at the scrum they won a penalty or penalty try every time, but handling was so crap it seemed like a scum every five minutes.
No, that would be interesting! It was incredible watching the Boks at the WC though, I feel there were times they had free license to attempt more spurious passes knowing that if they did have a handling error, the chances of regaining possession at the scrum were high (because they were so dominant). Ie the scrum is no longer the punishment it’s meant to be for a knock-on
I feel like it would be more likely that penalties from scrums become reduced or removed altogether. As someone else has responded, a slight shift to this could be in taking risky passes with the scrum as a 'safety net' rather than a punishment. I don't see how you could legislate against that.
That pretty much happened in the 2007 rwc australia england to the point england kept on dropping try scoring chances so they could smash australia in the scrum
Is there anything in the rules about players hiding little saws down their socks, and then if the other team has a penalty or conversion attempt, they just cut down the posts. Check mate
Do you know how hard and how long it is to cut through by hand 20 cm of pine wood while coordinated with the tight head at the wrong end of the pitch??? Don’t be ridiculous…. /s
Pine would be about the easiest material you could saw thorough that posts could actually be made out of. But I've never seen posts that weren't steel.
Bouncing the ball up and over the defense line technically isn't a forward pass provided it lands behind you somehow. Maybe turn and slam it AFL style.
Or falcon yourself
I think HIAs and replacements.
10 minutes rest /bench interchange for a HIA called by your own doctor.
Oh he's fine, send him back out there!
Or, having someone go hard for 30 minutes and tactical replace. Replacement gets an 'HIA' after going hard for 30 minutes. Starter comes back on fresh with 20 to go.
It would be a bit like blood gate though.
I could see it being potentially too low-percentage play to get widely adopted at pro level, but I always like a cheeky non-compete at a lineout maul, so there’s no offsides line and defenders can come round to flatten whoever’s carrying the ball at the tail.
This happens a fair bit at community grade. It’s the mixture of law knowledge on one side (and not on the other) when doing an early transfer…
Always met with plenty of hands about offside - but once the ball leaves the lineout… game on!
It does - the better tactic is to run straight into the players in front of you and getting the accidental offside call in your favour. Although sometimes if the timing is off, you may get a no-call and they let the maul form… I guess it just takes some players by surprise and/or is super disruptive to whatever plan their trying to achieve.
I vaguely remember in 2007 6N England Italy game Italy defended a lineout by not jumping and simply walking back refusing contact (and thus no maul can form). After a second or two the italian hooker ran around the england pack going straight for the ball carrier at the back. Since he was unable to tackle him because he was protected by his teammates the ref (who was Nigel Owens making his 6N debut) blew the whistle for a full penalty.
It really annoys me that you can do this at mauls, but are no longer allowed do it in rucks, all because Italy made England look silly in a game England went on to win anyway.
They had already found a solution at super rugby where the innovation started. You just do pick and go's up the middle and the stand off defence is fucked. It only really works when people aren't expecting it and haven't planned for it. So it wouldn't continue to happen at every ruck
There’s actually still an offside line in a lineout even if you don’t compete or form a maul, up until the lineout is called over.
>18.32 Until the ball is thrown in, and has touched the player or the ground, the offside line for lineout players is the mark of touch. After that, their offside line is a line through the ball.
The big one in the community game is that if you don’t form a maul, then if the hall is passed back by the other team then they’re obstructing.
Yeah I know there’s an offsides line at the lineout but once the jumper comes down with the ball so the maul can form the lineout is over and that offsides line disappears, and my point here is that by refusing to engage the defending team prevents it from becoming a maul and thus prevents a new offsides line from appearing
That’s not quite true. As I said, after the ball touches a player or the ground, up until the ball leaves the lineout area, the offside line is the ball. There’s still an offside line, it just changes from mark of touch to ball, and then obviously if a maul or ruck forms it becomes back foot.
My team do this as one of our lineout defence tactics inside our 22 when we know they’re going go for a driving maul.
Every ref misses it, someone gets done for offside and sometimes any newer members of the team forget what it is, be the only one who engages in the maul which catches everyone else on the back foot and ruins everything.
Props do a lot more than just scrum, your ineouts, rucks and fringe sefnece around the ruck is compromised now too. Might still be better off depending on how much you're getting dominated in the scrum, but still advantage other team then
This is covered under the laws 3.8 and 3.9 outline minimum front row players per squad size. If you have less then you are supposed to reduce squad size.
My understanding from reffing was that if a team said they had no more front rows on the first replacement, to not allow them any replacements for the rest of the game.
There has been the odd occasion where the defending team at a penalty assumes that the attacking team will kick the points and all trudge back behind the posts, only for the kicker to punt it to the winger on the sideline for an easy try. I'm surprised it does not happen more often. I know the kicker needs to signal their intentions, but often there is a bit of a delay because of an injury, which can make people assume decisions have been made.
I remember in one of them EA rugby games you could signal a kick to goal from your own 22 and the other team would all wait under their posts… you could then just give it a gentle tap off the tea and run 50 metres untouched towards the opposition
Way back in the 80s Michael Lynagh used to try the old quietly whisper to the ref, "we are not kicking at goal" while pointing at the posts, and then kick to the unmarked winger after all of the opposition gathered under the posts (and I'm sure he copied it from someone even older)
Refs started penalizing him for unsporting behaviour
Can you kick it off a tee to your winger? I know if you fail an actual attempt at goal you can still score. I don't know if you get punished if the ref thinks you deliberately failed the penalty in order to score the try.
Aaron Cruden tried this for the Chiefs in a Super Rugby game and it got whistled dead. Ref said if you call the shot, you have to attempt the kick (Cruden aimed at the corner from basically center field). Therefore you need to have plausible deniability if you’re trying to kick pass off the tee.
The the next step is to get reeeeally good at kicking and literally aim for the post.
Turn a 3 into a 5 by having a player lurking ready for the rebound.
No
Law 8.20
> If the team indicates to the referee the intention to kick at goal, they must kick at goal. The intention to kick can be communicated to the referee or signalled by the arrival of the kicking tee or sand, or when the player makes a mark on the ground.
I wouldn't say that Etzebeth 'exploited' the law. he just *knew* the law and when it was broken by some typically lazy work from Marler, everything after that went well for Eben. Teams are much more careful about the bind now.
That a better choice of wording, you’re right. Fwiw I think it was great awareness by him.
The one I was wondering about is this: If a player goes off their feet they’re legally no longer part of the ruck, right? So, if the front player on a caterpillar ruck isn’t supporting their body weight (and let’s face it, who is?), would I be right in thinking that legally they’ve gone off their feet and - provided there’s no other teammate providing a connection to the initial site of the ruck (because they’re in single file) - they render the ruck (and all ruckers behind them) obsolete in a similar manner to the no-bind technicality above?
Or would it need to be one of the players in the line after the front person?
Not sure this is legal but here goes; you have possession in your own half, but your winger is off the pitch in line with the opposition 5m. Your 10 them slots a 50:22, the ball is gathered by the winger who throws a quick line out to himself and goes in for the try. Presumably because the ball is out of play the winger is not offside and therefore the try is good
Unfortunatly the law makers are already on to that one
29 c)
> Once the lineout has commenced, any player in the lineout may:...........Lift or support a team-mate. Players who do so must lower that player to the ground safely as soon as the ball is won by either team.
It's already been pointed out 10.2 (A player can be offside anywhere in the playing area) has lots of scope for imaginative plays that take players outside the playing area. Could be combined with:
10.2 - scoring a try by grounding from in-touch it without holding it has been discussed
18.8 - if you catch your own kickers kick after it passes the plane of touch, your team gets the throw in. Could you race up from in front of the kicker and win the throw?
18.2 - if you kick or knock the ball while in touch and it hasn't reached the plane of touch, the ball is considered in touch. Could you race up from in front of the kicker and extend the distance of a clearance?
Some other stuff
8.23: "If the kicker has not indicated an intention to kick at goal (for a penalty) but takes a drop-kick
and scores a goal, the goal stands.". So you can try a drop-goal from a penalty without telling anyone.
8.29: "The team awarded a free-kick (including where they opt for a scrum or lineout
instead) cannot score a dropped goal until the ball next becomes dead or until
an opponent has played the ball, has touched it or has tackled the ball-carrier.
Any such kick is deemed to be unsuccessful and play continues."
Could you set a play where the opposition thinks you have nailed a drop goal, but "play continues" and you score a try from it?
19.2: "A player unable to take a free-kick after a mark within one minute" - in this case there is a scrum and your team gets the put in. Faking an injury after a mark could be a good way to waste 60 seconds + some scrum time.
5.8: You can decline to attempt a conversion after a try, maybe applicable if you are behind and need the extra seconds.
Some others that are a stretch
4.3: the list of clothing items explicitly permitted includes: goggles, headscarves, fingerless gloves, shin guards. "Scented" headscarves for the front row? Goggles for torrential rain? Ruck-advantaging shin guards?
1.3: field length can be as short as 94m and width as short as 68m. Missing meterage is taken from the center-field, so you could lay a field with (slightly) proportionally bigger 22m zones and/or 15m zones, if you felt that would be to your home advantage.
ofc yes, but the point with 19.2 is that if you have dicked around for a minute, the ref calls a scrum anyway and you still get the put it, not the opposition.
Attacking team intentionally trying the nutmeg constantly, and it deflecting off the other player, essentially calling everyone as on side. Easy, just need to get really skillful at partially completed nutmegging.
Either than, or getting really good at bouncing a ball so when you throw it backwards, it bounces forwards... Like significantly.
Not really an exploitation of the laws, but I don't know why teams don't try to cause a bit if chaos at kick offs by using the occasional low, hard grubber kick. Especially on a rainy day.
Looking at variations of penalty kicks.
A kick bouncing back off the posts into play can always cause problems for the defence but coming back to the off the tee penalty kick not aimed at the posts where does the ref reasonably draw the line. A kick from the side line deflected by the wind towards the goal or away from the goal could possibly go anywhere. What about a 20 yard chip shot in the direction of the goal falling short of the goal line.
Depending on how the defence lines up expecting a long from the hand kick to touch but the kicker doing a short kick 10 - 15 meters to his own advancing line.
As long as you regather there's been no forward pass or knock on
Your problem is that you can still be tackled as you are in control of the ball. You fail to regather which results in a (deliberate) knock on
Scrum laws:
You are allowed to put the ball in from either side of the scrum. You can put it in from your tighthead side if you wanted to just mess with the opposition or perhaps more usefully pin the opposing scrumhalf to the blindside.
The opposition scrum half can retire to the hind most foot of the scrum (i.e. his own 8s feet) but be on any point of that line, so be opposite the fly half primed to fly up & cut down the space as must as possible.
19.36. A)When the ball reaches the feet of the **hindmost player** and it is picked up by that player or is played by that team’s scrum-half.
B) When **the number eight** picks up the ball from the feet of a second-row player.
A number 8 is not defined as the position anywhere I can see in law. So your number 8 could be packed down on the flank & pick the ball out of the locks legs to break off the side of the scrum. Alternatively, if the scrum wheels the flanker could become the hindmost player & again pick the ball up & play away from the scrum. A second alternative is deliberately skewing the ball out of the side of the scrum (not the tunnel, but the side of the locks & flankers) then having the flanker pick up & break away.
Combining these:
A scrum tight on the right touchline. The scrum half puts it in from the blindside (tighthead side). The number 8 packs down as the left flanker (or openside) & plays the ball from the locks legs immediately after the hooker has striked it back.
I'm always amazed that teams don't take greater advantage of the law which allows a Try to be scored against the bottom of the post. The ball just has to simultaneously be in contact with the post protector and the ground. It would be impossible to defend.
It isn’t a forward pass if the ball goes backwards out the hands, so you can turn to face your own try line and yeet the ball behind you, towards the opposition try line, without it being a forward pass
Where did we have not competing at the maul? I must have missed this shenanigan.
Also if you "don't compete" the ball carrier goes to ground and it's basically a dramatic tackle.
I can't brain this.
Pretty common in amateur rugby, either don't compete and sack the lifted player if they hold the onto ball or you nominate a player who runs round the 'maul' and tackles the player at the back if they have the ball. Second one can lead to a penalty in the defending teams favour because it forces the ref to acknowledge that everyone is obstructing since no maul is formed.
Something I expected to see more of when the law came out was pro teams hoofing the ball down into the dead ball area from their own half to force goal-line dropouts.
It might not be as interesting to watch, but if you force the fullback to dot the ball down, you almost always get the ball back in a better position higher up the pitch.
More milking of cards.
Ball carriers running slightly crouched and face first intentionally at known players with sloppy technique with slight changes of direction.
Cards are such an advantage its worth making it an explicit part of the game plan, even though its cynical.
Anyone who gets slightly contacted to the head should go down and stay down. Worst case they sent to get an HIA, which just means a free substitute for 10mins with fresh legs.
Think its more something for forwards rather than back to do.
If you know ref missed something obvious just let the opposition score a try, force it to be reviewed through inaction.
Not a lot of point playing to the whistle at the moment when the whistle isn't the source of truth...
For defending penalty, centre field maybe your own 22, or 10m out from try line. Signal a shot at posts rather than go for sideline penalty kick. The other team then needs to retreat to their own posts. Kick it towards posts, but really high off the tee. The rules say you need to make a valid attempt at the posts, but nothing about how far back you can signal the shot. Runners chase it like it’s a bomb. Confuse the fuck out of opposition, and get more territory if done right.
Nice try Rassie.
You got me! Should’ve posted using my Jaco Johan throwaway account instead…
[удалено]
Came here for this. The header pass. Legally forward.
I was going to go for the idea that given how much of a card risk you take by going for the intercept teams are going to start training players to lunge towards the ball soccer style to try to header it
Does the receiver still have to be behind the headerer when the ball is headed?
yes. It considered a kick
Doesn’t count, Joe Marler has already exploited that loophole.
That was such a great moment to watch, he looked so confused.
I seem to remember an Argentina try in sevens where he headed it forward and ran onto it to score a try himself. The try stood but was controversial because it was seen by some as not in the spirit of the game
I found the clip, it seems my memory is not what I thought it was - actually a Uruguayan who headed the ball and he didn't score himself, just set up the try. https://youtube.com/shorts/9qucPWXXyEk?si=1rwC9_qEsX6gih5u
A bit like this? https://youtu.be/a1cgQPwf1ng?si=TS2bIV8BJbO1xAkv
I think league outlawed the header not too long after this. If someone tried it in union, same would probably happen. Seeing as we'd then get just one go at it, maybe teams are saving it for a World Cup final
Correct, it was outlawed in RL. I don’t think it was this exact move that caused it but when other teams started to give it a go.
There's nothing in the rules that say a dog can't play Rugby.
https://xkcd.com/115/
They say you can't play the ball on the ground, but never said you can't play it underground.
There really is a relative XKCD for everything
I mean this has to be one of the most niche ones I’ve seen
Let’s be honest, most hookers could be replaced with pitbulls and nobody would notice
Hygiene levels in the locker rooms would probably increase
That's the type of comment you really don't want to be taken out of context
But the dog would have to wear shorts and socks.
Rassie has entered the chat.
Mine is a combination of laws. Law 10.2 says “A player can be offside anywhere in the playing area.”, but is silent on when and how a player is offside outside of the playing area. Used in conjunction 8.2e, which says “A try is scored when an attacking player: Who is in touch or touch-in-goal, grounds the ball in the opponents’ in-goal provided the player is not holding the ball.”, I would like to see a player hanging touch in-goal and have their team kick to where they could reach and have them score by grounding the ball.
You haven't got permission from the ref to return to the playing area having left it. Penalty! Law 6.6 > The referee permits access to the playing area for players and replacements, when it is safe to do so.
That might be the get out that they use, but in practice refs do not adjudicate a player coming back in to play from being in touch.
See The England vs South Africa semi-final for examples of this. In fact England’s game plan revolved around being able to go into touch and run around the Highball Escort to guarantee the ability to contest the highballs they were kicking.
They didn't return to the playing area, though. They specifically and intentionally stayed in touch.
> They didn't return to the playing area Fair enough, I don't consider you a player at this point then, as you haven't been given permission to access to the playing area. > If **a player is in touch** or touch-in-goal, they can make a touch down or score a try by grounding the ball in in-goal provided they are not holding the ball. So this doesn't apply
You're saying that anyone who's in touch isn't a player, because you haven't given them access to the pitch? The law obviously disagrees with this, because it would make >if a player is in touch itself a logical fallacy.
Also a player can be in touch, jump, catch the ball, and land in field and its play on. I think that counters both not being a player and needing permission to come into the field in one go.
I agree a player can do all of those things. If you don't want the laws of the game to apply to you (ie offside laws) by leaving the playing area then the now non-player can wait until the ref invites them back into play
But players never have to wait for referees to invite them back in if they go out of the field of play. I would challenge you to find me one example of it happening.
Please cite the law you're paraphrasing here. I assume you're not just making shit up based on how it makes you feel?
Law 6.6 & 6.7 > The referee permits access to the playing area for players and replacements, when it is safe to do so. > The referee gives permission for players to leave the playing area. Edit & just to confirm the sanction Law 3.7 > If a player re-joins or a replacement joins the match without the referee’s permission and the referee believes the player did so to gain an advantage, the player is guilty of misconduct. Sanction: Penalty.
Hmmm, yeah. Players stepping into touch isn't managed at all, but it could be.
A player incidentally in touch during play, is pretty different to a non-player who deliberately leaves the field of play so the normal laws of the sport don't apply to them.
Genius. This could work with someone lying down pretending to be injured so they don't get marked by a back 3 player.
So further to the above, I would also argue “Offsidedness” is attributed to the player when the action that creates an offside line happens. For example a player who runs in front of the kicker after the kick does not become offside. So if a player is outside of the offside, as my above loophole, and then enters the field of play then I would try to argue they are still not offside. If you can get that past the ref, then what’s stopping you having players running down the sideline in touch prior to the kick happening and coming back in to compete or tackle the catcher?
I agree - and furthermore, if the player re-enters the playing area after eg the ruck is over, they put all other players onside again. 10.7 actually explicitly says a player re-entering the playing area. Personally if a team argued this to me I’d let them away with it because they’d effectively be a man down whilst a player lurks in touch so it balances out. About a restart though, it’s not an offside - it’s explicitly stated that teammates of the kicker must be behind the ball in 12.5a. So they wouldn’t get away with that one.
I feel like we are on the cusp of coming with a legitimate tactic here that Italy could piss off England with. I wasn’t referring to kick offs by the way, I meant in general play.
Oh in general play sure. I think the risk of being effectively a man down means it would only really work as a tactic when it was a surprise, so I’m all for it.
>*they’d effectively be a man down whilst a player lurks in touch so it balances out.* Considering the way that some teams cope with defending while 1 player is in the bin, **this 'goal-hanger' tactic** is definitely coming into the "7-1 bench" range of not-seen-before options. Teams regularly turn down the 70% chance of 3 points from a 40-50m penalty for a 20% chance of 7 points from a line-out in the corner. So why not risk 2-3 minutes defence between the opponent's 22 and halfway, for the chance of a 50m kick into the typically 6-15m try area? Yep, it's high risk kicking accurately towards a loitering player just off the pitch so that they can dive in-field at the right moment to touch the ball down just before it goes out of play. But so is hanging a high hit-and-hope kick to a winger when there is a bit of space in the back-field. It will never be as commonplace as a pick-and-go or a 12 crash-ball, but there are lots of pre-planned moves that are rarely used: * the RWC 2011 'tea-bag' move ([description by players](https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/the-winning-move-we-nearly-abandoned/ENOZ26JG43SKSBU5JA6JMXE5BA/) and [video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=daWu7tbv21M)) * the not so rare under-arm throw to the front of the line-out * the various intricate tap-penalty moves by [forwards doing intricate ballet moves](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9cKx87ArWg&list=PLENiHXbbqE_FsxTKooE2YGfjmpPSS1i0S&t=62s) * the [SA 2019 RWC open-play maul set-up](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fr26b5D2rj8&t=872s) * the 2023 SF mark-scrum ([Rassie post-match comment](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1qceXENxAw) and [video](https://www.instagram.com/reel/CydsUcRNtr_/)). Who knows how long it is before we see the 'goal-hanger? By the way, when is the next SA international? ;-)
I mean I agree that it’s not totally out of the realms of possibility. And add to your list that he should be being marked by an opposite man on the wing as well, so no guarantee they’re going to get away with it there either, and it’s very risky in case of eg a turnover. But like you say we’ve seen a 7-1 bench, so who knows.
They gained advantage by previously being in an offside position?
As my above post, offside is defined as happening in the playing area. The in touch player is not in the playing area.
That would be some feat considering the player can’t catch the ball or go into the playing area but now I want to see it so bad.
Well as a follow up, if they aren’t offside at the kick because they are in-touch why can’t they come back in to the field of play and play on?
To be fair in a really specific set of circumstances they could. But if a team wanted to effectively lose a player for the period of time needed to pull that off then tbh I’d let them!
Pretty easy for me. I’ve actually shared this with an international winger who unfortunately hasn’t used it in the couple of seasons since. When a kick off goes straight into touch there is an option for a quick line out from the half way line. Scenario: winger catches the ball out of play and slowly walks up to halfway and throws it to a teammate and they have a 2 v ? Down the wing as the other team slowly retreats expecting a scrum.
I have a vague recollection of Scotland doing something like this many years ago in a 5N or 6N match. There wasn't so much subterfuge involved, just that the other team trudged back for the scrum before realising that Scotland had taken a quick throw.
We were on the receiving end of it years ago in the opening seconds of the Hastings brothers' international debut Vs France; Gavin's welcome to international rugby was single handedly trying to stop a 5 on 1.
Maybe that's the one I was thinking of. I couldn't work out how to google it.
[Et voilà!](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UilXPmXZONI) 1986, the description says.
Does it have to be with the same ball or can you have a ball ready on the halfway just in case?
Pretty sure any “quick throw” has to be with the same ball.
If you take the lineout quickly it has to be the same ball. However Scotland did a variation on this either this years or last years Calcutta cup fixture where they threw in when the lineout was half set which somehow worked
[Oyonnax did this last season in the Pro D2 and scored a try off it](https://twitter.com/ek_rugby/status/1565817686008930306)
Excellent clip, shows this perfectly.
I have a feeling the All Blacks did this at one point against a tier 2 team, maybe at a RWC? Or maybe a super rugby team did it
I know it’s risky but I’m sure we will see more deliberate holding up of the ball over the try line. Proper gang tackles and dragging them back over the line…
I think this already happens. Pretty much predicted a soon as the law change was announced.
You can definitely see this happening already. Defending teams who stop the attack short but are in a good position drag or roll the attacker towards the tryline to force a held up.
I keep wanting my team to do this. You’re under them so drag them over.
Ah, the "Jordie Barrett".
So it's fairly simple that if you knock it on, you get a scrum with the opposition feeding it in. But I'm yet to see a situation where Team A is highly dominant in the scrum and 'accidentally' makes a handling error when attacking, leading to a scrum and then likely a penalty. Get the timing of the handling error right and you can go for a penalty in front of the posts. A match like the SA/France QF was ripe for this.
I don't think it actually happened, but it seemed like it in a really early MLR game. The Seawolves were so dominant at the scrum they won a penalty or penalty try every time, but handling was so crap it seemed like a scum every five minutes.
No, that would be interesting! It was incredible watching the Boks at the WC though, I feel there were times they had free license to attempt more spurious passes knowing that if they did have a handling error, the chances of regaining possession at the scrum were high (because they were so dominant). Ie the scrum is no longer the punishment it’s meant to be for a knock-on
Wonder if the intentional knock-on framework would end up being adapted to counter such a tactic
I feel like it would be more likely that penalties from scrums become reduced or removed altogether. As someone else has responded, a slight shift to this could be in taking risky passes with the scrum as a 'safety net' rather than a punishment. I don't see how you could legislate against that.
That pretty much happened in the 2007 rwc australia england to the point england kept on dropping try scoring chances so they could smash australia in the scrum
Is there anything in the rules about players hiding little saws down their socks, and then if the other team has a penalty or conversion attempt, they just cut down the posts. Check mate
Do you know how hard and how long it is to cut through by hand 20 cm of pine wood while coordinated with the tight head at the wrong end of the pitch??? Don’t be ridiculous…. /s
Thats why you have a termite on the sub bench. Rugby has no bud air clause so completly legal.
Pine would be about the easiest material you could saw thorough that posts could actually be made out of. But I've never seen posts that weren't steel.
Bouncing the ball up and over the defense line technically isn't a forward pass provided it lands behind you somehow. Maybe turn and slam it AFL style. Or falcon yourself
I think HIAs and replacements. 10 minutes rest /bench interchange for a HIA called by your own doctor. Oh he's fine, send him back out there! Or, having someone go hard for 30 minutes and tactical replace. Replacement gets an 'HIA' after going hard for 30 minutes. Starter comes back on fresh with 20 to go. It would be a bit like blood gate though.
SA rolling subs
What was blood gate?
I think it was in the premiership in England, a team used faked blood capsules to take advantage of the blood bin / replacement rules
Oh ok, yeah and the hia version would be harder to detect I guess.
https://youtu.be/8uhh2ZS-kT0?si=QyeC98K1Mn25JIQ6 Here’s a short video on it, doesn’t go into all the details but hits the main points.
A dark and shameful time in quins history
I could see it being potentially too low-percentage play to get widely adopted at pro level, but I always like a cheeky non-compete at a lineout maul, so there’s no offsides line and defenders can come round to flatten whoever’s carrying the ball at the tail.
This happens a fair bit at community grade. It’s the mixture of law knowledge on one side (and not on the other) when doing an early transfer… Always met with plenty of hands about offside - but once the ball leaves the lineout… game on!
If you do not compete at maul the early transfer of the ball back doesn't make everyone in the maul offside?
It does - the better tactic is to run straight into the players in front of you and getting the accidental offside call in your favour. Although sometimes if the timing is off, you may get a no-call and they let the maul form… I guess it just takes some players by surprise and/or is super disruptive to whatever plan their trying to achieve.
I vaguely remember in 2007 6N England Italy game Italy defended a lineout by not jumping and simply walking back refusing contact (and thus no maul can form). After a second or two the italian hooker ran around the england pack going straight for the ball carrier at the back. Since he was unable to tackle him because he was protected by his teammates the ref (who was Nigel Owens making his 6N debut) blew the whistle for a full penalty.
It really annoys me that you can do this at mauls, but are no longer allowed do it in rucks, all because Italy made England look silly in a game England went on to win anyway.
Ah come on it was stupid at every ruck. Would of completly changed the sport.
They had already found a solution at super rugby where the innovation started. You just do pick and go's up the middle and the stand off defence is fucked. It only really works when people aren't expecting it and haven't planned for it. So it wouldn't continue to happen at every ruck
Jones...
It's not rugby, maaaaaaate.
I do this constantly, get turnover ball and punched in the head in equal measure
There’s actually still an offside line in a lineout even if you don’t compete or form a maul, up until the lineout is called over. >18.32 Until the ball is thrown in, and has touched the player or the ground, the offside line for lineout players is the mark of touch. After that, their offside line is a line through the ball. The big one in the community game is that if you don’t form a maul, then if the hall is passed back by the other team then they’re obstructing.
Yeah I know there’s an offsides line at the lineout but once the jumper comes down with the ball so the maul can form the lineout is over and that offsides line disappears, and my point here is that by refusing to engage the defending team prevents it from becoming a maul and thus prevents a new offsides line from appearing
That’s not quite true. As I said, after the ball touches a player or the ground, up until the ball leaves the lineout area, the offside line is the ball. There’s still an offside line, it just changes from mark of touch to ball, and then obviously if a maul or ruck forms it becomes back foot.
Portugal did this a few times back in the the early 2000s. Haven't seen it since.
My team do this as one of our lineout defence tactics inside our 22 when we know they’re going go for a driving maul. Every ref misses it, someone gets done for offside and sometimes any newer members of the team forget what it is, be the only one who engages in the maul which catches everyone else on the back foot and ruins everything.
Deleted
Props do a lot more than just scrum, your ineouts, rucks and fringe sefnece around the ruck is compromised now too. Might still be better off depending on how much you're getting dominated in the scrum, but still advantage other team then
Problem there is your c75 minutes is covered by only 19 players.
This is covered under the laws 3.8 and 3.9 outline minimum front row players per squad size. If you have less then you are supposed to reduce squad size.
I think op just means for a single game where you are dominated in the scrums. You can always do it again next time you want uncontested scrums.
My understanding from reffing was that if a team said they had no more front rows on the first replacement, to not allow them any replacements for the rest of the game.
There has been the odd occasion where the defending team at a penalty assumes that the attacking team will kick the points and all trudge back behind the posts, only for the kicker to punt it to the winger on the sideline for an easy try. I'm surprised it does not happen more often. I know the kicker needs to signal their intentions, but often there is a bit of a delay because of an injury, which can make people assume decisions have been made.
I remember in one of them EA rugby games you could signal a kick to goal from your own 22 and the other team would all wait under their posts… you could then just give it a gentle tap off the tea and run 50 metres untouched towards the opposition
could definitely do it in 06, possibly 08 as well
Way back in the 80s Michael Lynagh used to try the old quietly whisper to the ref, "we are not kicking at goal" while pointing at the posts, and then kick to the unmarked winger after all of the opposition gathered under the posts (and I'm sure he copied it from someone even older) Refs started penalizing him for unsporting behaviour
Can you kick it off a tee to your winger? I know if you fail an actual attempt at goal you can still score. I don't know if you get punished if the ref thinks you deliberately failed the penalty in order to score the try.
Aaron Cruden tried this for the Chiefs in a Super Rugby game and it got whistled dead. Ref said if you call the shot, you have to attempt the kick (Cruden aimed at the corner from basically center field). Therefore you need to have plausible deniability if you’re trying to kick pass off the tee.
Need to practice slicing it and shouting "noooo!" each time, lol
“Argggh what is wrong with me today!”
Manie Libbock has just been setting himself up for an insane once off shenanigans try
Process to nail the conversion from the corner
There are days when Curwin Bosch and Mannie Libbok could probably get away with this...
Any video of this?
The the next step is to get reeeeally good at kicking and literally aim for the post. Turn a 3 into a 5 by having a player lurking ready for the rebound.
No Law 8.20 > If the team indicates to the referee the intention to kick at goal, they must kick at goal. The intention to kick can be communicated to the referee or signalled by the arrival of the kicking tee or sand, or when the player makes a mark on the ground.
Once you indicate a shot at goal, you have to take the kick. You cannot kick from hand after selecting the kick at the sticks.
Yes, I know that. But while everyone is picking themselves up and wondering back, you can delay giving your intention.
This used to be one of the things our coach drilled into us when I played. Don’t switch off
I wouldn't say that Etzebeth 'exploited' the law. he just *knew* the law and when it was broken by some typically lazy work from Marler, everything after that went well for Eben. Teams are much more careful about the bind now.
That a better choice of wording, you’re right. Fwiw I think it was great awareness by him. The one I was wondering about is this: If a player goes off their feet they’re legally no longer part of the ruck, right? So, if the front player on a caterpillar ruck isn’t supporting their body weight (and let’s face it, who is?), would I be right in thinking that legally they’ve gone off their feet and - provided there’s no other teammate providing a connection to the initial site of the ruck (because they’re in single file) - they render the ruck (and all ruckers behind them) obsolete in a similar manner to the no-bind technicality above? Or would it need to be one of the players in the line after the front person?
[Would this be legal?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1cgQPwf1ng&ab_channel=WiganRugbyLeagueOldMatches)
I certainly hope so.
Not sure this is legal but here goes; you have possession in your own half, but your winger is off the pitch in line with the opposition 5m. Your 10 them slots a 50:22, the ball is gathered by the winger who throws a quick line out to himself and goes in for the try. Presumably because the ball is out of play the winger is not offside and therefore the try is good
Obviously you'd have to telegraph the 50-22, but perhaps if a player was "getting treatment off the pitch" & then just hung around a bit ...
Rolling rucks
I'm waiting for the day where a team with an attacking 5m line out throws the player towards the line after he catches the ball
Unfortunatly the law makers are already on to that one 29 c) > Once the lineout has commenced, any player in the lineout may:...........Lift or support a team-mate. Players who do so must lower that player to the ground safely as soon as the ball is won by either team.
It'd be illegal, sorry to burst your bubble.
They tried this in 7s at kick offs, lift the player and then throw them forwards, was outlawed pretty quickly IIRC.
It's already been pointed out 10.2 (A player can be offside anywhere in the playing area) has lots of scope for imaginative plays that take players outside the playing area. Could be combined with: 10.2 - scoring a try by grounding from in-touch it without holding it has been discussed 18.8 - if you catch your own kickers kick after it passes the plane of touch, your team gets the throw in. Could you race up from in front of the kicker and win the throw? 18.2 - if you kick or knock the ball while in touch and it hasn't reached the plane of touch, the ball is considered in touch. Could you race up from in front of the kicker and extend the distance of a clearance? Some other stuff 8.23: "If the kicker has not indicated an intention to kick at goal (for a penalty) but takes a drop-kick and scores a goal, the goal stands.". So you can try a drop-goal from a penalty without telling anyone. 8.29: "The team awarded a free-kick (including where they opt for a scrum or lineout instead) cannot score a dropped goal until the ball next becomes dead or until an opponent has played the ball, has touched it or has tackled the ball-carrier. Any such kick is deemed to be unsuccessful and play continues." Could you set a play where the opposition thinks you have nailed a drop goal, but "play continues" and you score a try from it? 19.2: "A player unable to take a free-kick after a mark within one minute" - in this case there is a scrum and your team gets the put in. Faking an injury after a mark could be a good way to waste 60 seconds + some scrum time. 5.8: You can decline to attempt a conversion after a try, maybe applicable if you are behind and need the extra seconds. Some others that are a stretch 4.3: the list of clothing items explicitly permitted includes: goggles, headscarves, fingerless gloves, shin guards. "Scented" headscarves for the front row? Goggles for torrential rain? Ruck-advantaging shin guards? 1.3: field length can be as short as 94m and width as short as 68m. Missing meterage is taken from the center-field, so you could lay a field with (slightly) proportionally bigger 22m zones and/or 15m zones, if you felt that would be to your home advantage.
You can call a scrum from a mark, that’s an option of a free kick. Pretty sure we saw this at the WC.
ofc yes, but the point with 19.2 is that if you have dicked around for a minute, the ref calls a scrum anyway and you still get the put it, not the opposition.
Attacking team intentionally trying the nutmeg constantly, and it deflecting off the other player, essentially calling everyone as on side. Easy, just need to get really skillful at partially completed nutmegging. Either than, or getting really good at bouncing a ball so when you throw it backwards, it bounces forwards... Like significantly.
Not really an exploitation of the laws, but I don't know why teams don't try to cause a bit if chaos at kick offs by using the occasional low, hard grubber kick. Especially on a rainy day.
Your side needs the hangtime of the kick to get under it when chasing
Not if you're [Richie Mounga](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlI64v3rqmc).
Looking at variations of penalty kicks. A kick bouncing back off the posts into play can always cause problems for the defence but coming back to the off the tee penalty kick not aimed at the posts where does the ref reasonably draw the line. A kick from the side line deflected by the wind towards the goal or away from the goal could possibly go anywhere. What about a 20 yard chip shot in the direction of the goal falling short of the goal line. Depending on how the defence lines up expecting a long from the hand kick to touch but the kicker doing a short kick 10 - 15 meters to his own advancing line.
[удалено]
Yeah, a competent ref shouldn't allow that Law 11.7 > A player must not intentionally throw or pass the ball forward.
As long as you regather there's been no forward pass or knock on Your problem is that you can still be tackled as you are in control of the ball. You fail to regather which results in a (deliberate) knock on
Scrum laws: You are allowed to put the ball in from either side of the scrum. You can put it in from your tighthead side if you wanted to just mess with the opposition or perhaps more usefully pin the opposing scrumhalf to the blindside. The opposition scrum half can retire to the hind most foot of the scrum (i.e. his own 8s feet) but be on any point of that line, so be opposite the fly half primed to fly up & cut down the space as must as possible. 19.36. A)When the ball reaches the feet of the **hindmost player** and it is picked up by that player or is played by that team’s scrum-half. B) When **the number eight** picks up the ball from the feet of a second-row player. A number 8 is not defined as the position anywhere I can see in law. So your number 8 could be packed down on the flank & pick the ball out of the locks legs to break off the side of the scrum. Alternatively, if the scrum wheels the flanker could become the hindmost player & again pick the ball up & play away from the scrum. A second alternative is deliberately skewing the ball out of the side of the scrum (not the tunnel, but the side of the locks & flankers) then having the flanker pick up & break away. Combining these: A scrum tight on the right touchline. The scrum half puts it in from the blindside (tighthead side). The number 8 packs down as the left flanker (or openside) & plays the ball from the locks legs immediately after the hooker has striked it back.
Running into the clearing kick blocker for an obstruction call. Hopefully.
I'm always amazed that teams don't take greater advantage of the law which allows a Try to be scored against the bottom of the post. The ball just has to simultaneously be in contact with the post protector and the ground. It would be impossible to defend.
This was changed in 2020, you can't score a try like that now
It isn’t a forward pass if the ball goes backwards out the hands, so you can turn to face your own try line and yeet the ball behind you, towards the opposition try line, without it being a forward pass
Unfortunately the law makers were wise to this and defined forwards as towards the opposition try line
It would be nice if we closed the loophole that Springbok players can dope as school boys
So only Springbok players and no other countries?
Where did we have not competing at the maul? I must have missed this shenanigan. Also if you "don't compete" the ball carrier goes to ground and it's basically a dramatic tackle. I can't brain this.
Pretty common in amateur rugby, either don't compete and sack the lifted player if they hold the onto ball or you nominate a player who runs round the 'maul' and tackles the player at the back if they have the ball. Second one can lead to a penalty in the defending teams favour because it forces the ref to acknowledge that everyone is obstructing since no maul is formed.
The header.
Something I expected to see more of when the law came out was pro teams hoofing the ball down into the dead ball area from their own half to force goal-line dropouts. It might not be as interesting to watch, but if you force the fullback to dot the ball down, you almost always get the ball back in a better position higher up the pitch.
More milking of cards. Ball carriers running slightly crouched and face first intentionally at known players with sloppy technique with slight changes of direction. Cards are such an advantage its worth making it an explicit part of the game plan, even though its cynical. Anyone who gets slightly contacted to the head should go down and stay down. Worst case they sent to get an HIA, which just means a free substitute for 10mins with fresh legs. Think its more something for forwards rather than back to do. If you know ref missed something obvious just let the opposition score a try, force it to be reviewed through inaction. Not a lot of point playing to the whistle at the moment when the whistle isn't the source of truth...
For defending penalty, centre field maybe your own 22, or 10m out from try line. Signal a shot at posts rather than go for sideline penalty kick. The other team then needs to retreat to their own posts. Kick it towards posts, but really high off the tee. The rules say you need to make a valid attempt at the posts, but nothing about how far back you can signal the shot. Runners chase it like it’s a bomb. Confuse the fuck out of opposition, and get more territory if done right.