Steps...

[AZOffaly]

No it isn't. If advantage doesn't accrue, then you are brought back for the original foul. The very fact you are taking too many steps means you are not gaining a legal advantage.

[Taylor]

No it isn't. If advantage doesn't accrue, then you are brought back for the original foul. The very fact you are taking too many steps means you are not gaining a legal advantage.

Along with the 'rule' whereby some referees allow you to handpass with one hand if your other hand is being help back shows how much of a revamp the rule book  needs

[manfromdelmonte]

No it isn't. If advantage doesn't accrue, then you are brought back for the original foul. The very fact you are taking too many steps means you are not gaining a legal advantage.

accrue?
you sound like martin carney

[westbound]

No it isn't. If advantage doesn't accrue, then you are brought back for the original foul. The very fact you are taking too many steps means you are not gaining a legal advantage.

Along with the 'rule' whereby some referees allow you to handpass with one hand if your other hand is being help back shows how much of a revamp the rule book  needs

You are allowed to do this regardless whether your other hand is held or not. See 1.4 (e) and (f) below.

Rule 1.4:
When a player is in possession of the ball, it
may be:-
(a) carried for a maximum of four consecutive
steps or held in the hand(s) for no longer
than the time needed to take four steps;
(b) played from the foot to the hand(s) -toetapped;
(c) bounced once, and once after each toe-tap;
(d) changed from one hand to the other once,
with the original holding hand maintaining
contact until the change is completed;
(e) played away with:
(i) a fist
(ii) an open hand-in which instance there
shall be a definite underhand striking
action
(f) released for a kick, a toe-tap or a pass with
a fist or an open hand.

[AZOffaly]

That's a shocking insult.

[manfromdelmonte]

That's a shocking insult.

yeah, sorry
bit over the top, it must be said....

[AZOffaly]

It's ok. There was no malice in it.

[UlsterMan2]

No it isn't. If advantage doesn't accrue, then you are brought back for the original foul. The very fact you are taking too many steps means you are not gaining a legal advantage.

If you foul while on an advantage be in throw ball, double bounce, over carry it's a free against you, FACT, this is a problem with lots of people not understanding the rules

[AZOffaly]

No it isn't. If advantage doesn't accrue, then you are brought back for the original foul. The very fact you are taking too many steps means you are not gaining a legal advantage.

If you foul while on an advantage be in throw ball, double bounce, over carry it's a free against you, FACT, this is a problem with lots of people not understanding the rules

You are wrong. Because the act of fouling is in itself not an advantage so the ref brings it back.

Edit. Apologies, you are 100% right. The referees handbook does indeed state that if a foul is committed by the team receiving the advantage, then advantage is cancelled and a free awarded AGAINST them. It doesn't make sense to me, but you are spot on. Apologies.

[UlsterMan2]

No it isn't. If advantage doesn't accrue, then you are brought back for the original foul. The very fact you are taking too many steps means you are not gaining a legal advantage.

If you foul while on an advantage be in throw ball, double bounce, over carry it's a free against you, FACT, this is a problem with lots of people not understanding the rules

You are wrong. Because the act of fouling is in itself not an advantage so the ref brings it back.

Edit. Apologies, you are 100% right. The referees handbook does indeed state that if a foul is committed by the team receiving the advantage, then advantage is cancelled and a free awarded AGAINST them. It doesn't make sense to me, but you are spot on. Apologies.
[/quote

Lol, thanks I knew I was right but I don't agree with it either

[macdanger2]

No it isn't. If advantage doesn't accrue, then you are brought back for the original foul. The very fact you are taking too many steps means you are not gaining a legal advantage.

If you foul while on an advantage be in throw ball, double bounce, over carry it's a free against you, FACT, this is a problem with lots of people not understanding the rules

You are wrong. Because the act of fouling is in itself not an advantage so the ref brings it back.

Edit. Apologies, you are 100% right. The referees handbook does indeed state that if a foul is committed by the team receiving the advantage, then advantage is cancelled and a free awarded AGAINST them. It doesn't make sense to me, but you are spot on. Apologies.

That's ridiculous, definitely should be called back for the initial foul as per rugby rules

[Main Street]

I agree 100% with this and as someone that was a defender for most of my career, its always been a bugbear of mine.

I think the idea to change from 4 steps to 3 seconds is a god idea. If someone can take 5/6 steps in that time , then so be it, but at least it gives you a reasonable chance of defending it and timing the tackle.

I think that's an erroneous interpretation of the rule.

The rule is  4 steps, OR if you're just holding the ball you have that same amount of time to decide upon an action.
At least that's the clear intent of the rule, imo.
There is a level of ambiguity in the rule but I think it's not at all credible to think that a player can take more than 4 steps, if they're fast steps

When a player is in possession of the ball, it
may be:-
(a) carried for a maximum of four consecutive
steps or held in the hand(s) for no longer
than the time needed to take four steps;

[ONeill]

Yer boy Johnston with the haircut takes 6 steps whilst performing an elaborate bounce of the ball.

[Dinny Breen]

It's ok. There was no malice in it.

yea manfromdelmonte is not that type of poster..

[blewuporstuffed]

I agree 100% with this and as someone that was a defender for most of my career, its always been a bugbear of mine.

I think the idea to change from 4 steps to 3 seconds is a god idea. If someone can take 5/6 steps in that time , then so be it, but at least it gives you a reasonable chance of defending it and timing the tackle.

I think that's an erroneous interpretation of the rule.

The rule is  4 steps, OR if you're just holding the ball you have that same amount of time to decide upon an action.
At least that's the clear intent of the rule, imo.


There is a level of ambiguity in the rule but I think it's not at all credible to think that a player can take more than 4 steps, if they're fast steps

When a player is in possession of the ball, it
may be:-
(a) carried for a maximum of four consecutive
steps or held in the hand(s) for no longer
than the time needed to take four steps;

What I am saying is, forget about the number of steps, the rule could be changed to a period of time (3 seconds as suggested)
That would leave no ambiguity on how many steps where take etc, how long it takes to take 4 steps and all that. You are allowed 3 seconds to play the ball and thats it.