PDA

View Full Version : Boot on body



Glyndwr
18-11-06, 18:11
Following on from other discussions on this topic, wich I cannot immediately find:

Scotland v PI 25 minutes gone, Scotland have attacking ruck. PI player reaches over and grabs ball, ref calls advantage.

Scottish player applies boot to arm/hand of PI player to release ball and play continues.

At breakdown, ref returns to spot, penalises PI player and yellow cards him.

My question, gentlemen: should he then have reversed the penalty and considered a card for the Scottish player?

didds
18-11-06, 18:11
of course he should have.

Once again you blokes at the coal face are savagely let down by your alleged betters.

didds

Jaycee
18-11-06, 19:11
Scotland v PI 25 minutes gone, Scotland have attacking ruck. PI player reaches over and grabs ball, ref calls advantage.

Scottish player applies boot to arm/hand of PI player to release ball and play continues.

At breakdown, ref returns to spot, penalises PI player and yellow cards him.

My question, gentlemen: should he then have reversed the penalty and considered a card for the Scottish player?

What do you consider the Scottish player to have done wrong exactly? He rucked the ball. That is stll legal.

Jacko
18-11-06, 19:11
Or did he stamp on a player?? You decide...

Jaycee
18-11-06, 19:11
Or did he stamp on a player?? You decide...

His foot made contact with the ball, that to me is rucking. You are allowed to get the ball with your foot in a ruck. The contact with the player's arm is the same as if you move a player on the ground with your boot. If you ban what the Scottish player did you would be outlawing rucking as far as I can see.
The only other person to make a mistake in that ruck was the referee who allowed the sitution to continue so long without blowing.

OB..
18-11-06, 20:11
The contact with the player's arm is the same as if you move a player on the ground with your boot.
Moving a player with your foot is illegal.

Incidental, unintentional contact when rucking the ball is legal, unless reckless or dangerous.

Jaycee
18-11-06, 20:11
Moving a player with your foot is illegal.

Incidental, unintentional contact when rucking the ball is legal, unless reckless or dangerous.

I should have said moving the player whilst playing the ball, knew what I meant typed something else.Obviously moving a player with your boot who is not in contact with the ball would be illegal. Thanks for the clarification.

ExHookah
18-11-06, 20:11
Should have penalized the player for boots, the same way that Walsh pinged Richards for mountain climbing all over the Bok player today.

Now whether the Bok player should have been allowed to be there anyway is another question, but Walsh was absolutely correct to penalize Richards.

oxped
18-11-06, 20:11
Should have penalized the player for boots, the same way that Walsh pinged Richards for mountain climbing all over the Bok player today.

Now whether the Bok player should have been allowed to be there anyway is another question, but Walsh was absolutely correct to penalize Richards.

I agree. Would I be right in saying that in the past this would have probably been a pen to england for the bok being on the wrong side, but with a little warning to richards to be careful? That how it always seemed to me at that level, which was never any help to us.

Dixie
18-11-06, 21:11
I should have said moving the player whilst playing the ball, knew what I meant typed something else.Obviously moving a player with your boot who is not in contact with the ball would be illegal. Thanks for the clarification.

Jaycee, I'd be interested to have some more of your perspective on rucking, given your relatively exalted grading. There still seems to be an awful lot of variation in the way the "boots on bodies" law is applied, and of course some of that is down the skill levels of both players and refs.

Reading your post, it seems that at Level 6, a player on the ground in contact with the ball both expects, and receives with impugnity, a bit of a shoeing as part and parcel of the game. I'm struggling to imagine a man on the ground being moved by a player who is rucking the ball - technically, how does this happen?

All would surely agree that "moving a player with your boot who is not in contact with the ball would be illegal". In this case, the player on the ground was apparently in contact with the ball, and his arm was targetted by the ruckign player to remove its grip on the ball ("Scottish player applies boot to arm/hand of PI player to release ball and play continues."). At Level 11, I would ping that as rucking the man, not the ball, and depending on the proximity of the boot to the joint, might YC the rucker. Would I be right in thinking that you'd take a different view at L.6?

Jaycee
19-11-06, 12:11
Reading your post, it seems that at Level 6, a player on the ground in contact with the ball both expects, and receives with impugnity, a bit of a shoeing as part and parcel of the game. I'm struggling to imagine a man on the ground being moved by a player who is rucking the ball - technically, how does this happen??

In answer to your question I pose another simple one. If a player is on the ground facing the wrong way with the ball in his midriff and an opposition player puts his foot on the ball and pushes backwards moving the player and ball would you penalise him? I assume your answer would be no therefore that I hope answers your question.
If then his foot slips off the ball and goes across the prone player's body would say that was deliberate and penalise him?



All would surely agree that "moving a player with your boot who is not in contact with the ball would be illegal". In this case, the player on the ground was apparently in contact with the ball, and his arm was targetted by the ruckign player to remove its grip on the ball ("Scottish player applies boot to arm/hand of PI player to release ball and play continues."). At Level 11, I would ping that as rucking the man, not the ball, and depending on the proximity of the boot to the joint, might YC the rucker. Would I be right in thinking that you'd take a different view at L.6?

You have obviously not watched the incident, or read the whole of this thread, as the PI player was standing ontop of other players in the ruck having climbed there and was reaching over the top of the ruck and picking up the ball. the ball was clearly visible to the Scottish player who put his boot to it and inevitably caught the PI's arm. I would hope at level 11 you would off course not allowed the situation to have gone that far and blown earlier to prevent what would have been a brawl at that level if a player had tried what the PI player did. The yellow for the PI player was the least the referee could have done for such a professional foul.
Hope that clarifies.
Regards
The Exalted Jaycee

jboulet4648
19-11-06, 12:11
I am in agreement with Jayce on this one.

First off, if the PI player had his hands illegally on the ball, and was killing it, the ref obviously saw this and was playing advantage, hence the yellow card to PI later (not seeing the game this was must have been either a repeat thing or happened near the PI ingoal as Scotland was attacking)

Second, if hands are on the ball holding that ball in the ruck, and two hands means ball is out, the player needs to use one hand or his foot to get that ball free. As long as a stamping motion is not being used, is not on the head or neck, and not across one of the major joints (elbow, knee, ankle) or groin, and the intent is not to "teach a lesson" but to secure ball, than what is wrong with it.

You need to distinguish what is dangerous from what is not, what is an attempt to play the ball, from what is just an excuse to put the boots on someone. Once again, just because there is some boot does not mean you HAVE to go right to yellow card. If you have done your job in pre match chat, and during the match, you won't have to use yellow cards, or red for that matter, unless it is clear as day that you have too, and then you wouldn't have to say I did this was it right, because you know it is right.

Failure on the refs part to effectively manage the tackle situation where a player needs to ruck the ball back over bodies who have already slowed the ball down by the player being where he should not be, should not mean the player gets a yellow card because his boots touch the player on the ground. That is an absoultely ridiculous requirement you are putting on the players and a cop out for poor management by the ref.

Pre match chat- scrummy, player lying on the ball and/or slowing it down, you will hear my advantage. If you want to play advantage, keep your boots off of him (By boots I mean boots just to teh body, not boots trying pull the ball back) If you put any boots on the player, teh penalty will be reversed and I will no longer play advantage in the same situation, but have the quick penalty. I make myself clear? Then during the match, as you are the thrid man at teh tackle, you quickly can gauge what the defense has done to end up where there bodies end up, and can be there to make known that advantage is being played for slowing the ball down.

Glyndwr
19-11-06, 16:11
http://www.rugbyrefs.com/forums/showthread.php?p=15339

"Walsh colnrtacted by TJ/asistant who points out boots on body by (I thiknk) Giteau. Walsh penalises this and has a quite specific chat with aus regarding "the ruling handed down" [sic] and NO boots on bodies, boots on the rugby ball only etc."

This has to be sorted out and quickly.

Is the ruling "no boot on flesh" or is it "no boot on flesh unless I think it's OK"?

For me, it's simple - in the Scottish match yesterday, Scotland had the penalty and the card for the PI offence. Their player committed an offence which warranted a reversal.

The players MUST NOT be allowed to take over the reffing of the game.

Jaycee
19-11-06, 19:11
http://www.rugbyrefs.com/forums/showthread.php?p=15339

"Walsh colnrtacted by TJ/asistant who points out boots on body by (I thiknk) Giteau. Walsh penalises this and has a quite specific chat with aus regarding "the ruling handed down" [sic] and NO boots on bodies, boots on the rugby ball only etc."

This has to be sorted out and quickly

Is the ruling "no boot on flesh" or is it "no boot on flesh unless I think it's OK"?

So just to be sure you are saying is everytime you put a boot on a body it is a penalty minimum. Do you think this this is how the law is to be intreperated? No international was refereed like this this weekend thank God.


[url]For me, it's simple - in the Scottish match yesterday, Scotland had the penalty and the card for the PI offence. Their player committed an offence which warranted a reversal.

The players MUST NOT be allowed to take over the reffing of the game.
We will have to disagree on this as I did not see Scotland causing an offence.

jboulet4648
19-11-06, 19:11
Once again, boots will touch a body on the floor if a player is trying to ruck a ball backward. This should be okay, because rugby players are not ballerina's. Excessive use of a boot on a body is what is being asked to be dealt with, not normal processes that occur within a game.

Dixie
19-11-06, 21:11
You have obviously not watched the incident, or read the whole of this thread,

Jaycee, it seems clear from your response that you regarded my request as critical and perhaps sarcastic, which was not my intent and I apologise. There is a world of difference between my level and yours - I have tried L.9 and struggled. You are right - I didn't see the game, nor the incident, but I had read the entire thread and like the interpretation of the Law, it seems to give rise to significantly differing views. Not having seen the incident, I won't dip further into the specific issue.

I did see Richards in the England game give a South African a bit of a seeing-to with his boots, and he was penalised for it. No yellow there from Steve Walsh, though there would have been in my L.11 game. At my level, these sort of incidents are far more likely to lead to ill-discipline than at international or even competent local 1st XV, and so my YC will inevitably come out where others might stay their hand.

Jaycee
20-11-06, 09:11
Jaycee, it seems clear from your response that you regarded my request as critical and perhaps sarcastic, which was not my intent and I apologise. There is a world of difference between my level and yours - I have tried L.9 and struggled. You are right - I didn't see the game, nor the incident, but I had read the entire thread and like the interpretation of the Law, it seems to give rise to significantly differing views. Not having seen the incident, I won't dip further into the specific issue.

Hi Dixie
I did read your post as sarcastic and accept your apology and I hope you accept mine. It is difficult to express views in text format sometimes and misunderstandings regularly occur.
JBoulet seems to have expressed most of what I would say on the interpretation of the rucking laws. Basically if a man is in contact with the ball putting a foot to him in a rucking motion to free the ball is acceptable and I believe that is what the new version of laws will and are being intrepretated as. What they are there for is to prevent bodies being tramped on indiscrimatelty who happen to be in the ruck or excessively rucking a player who is near the ball. The object of rucking is to free the ball and footwork not to this end is to be penalised more vigorously is the way I read it. This appears to be they are being refereed so far at least.
I did not see the England game only bits of the highlights so could not comment on the stamping there.

Glyndwr
01-12-06, 16:12
I am now back in my normal state of total confusion. A few of you have told when, in the normal run of play, boots will inevitably be applied.

Yet a neighbouring thread: http://www.rugbyrefs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1562

starts from the premise that they must never be.

Deeps
01-12-06, 16:12
It's really quite simple. Rucking is done to the ball only, not to players. However. should a boot come in contact with a player on the floor accidentally while the ball is being rucked in an appropriate manner then this is acceptable within law. Any deliberate use of the foot in any way, shape or form on a player on the floor is contrary to law.

The referee must judge whether rucking is a legal attempt to secure the ball or if it is being performed carelessly, excessively or outright dangerously when players are on the floor in the close vicinity or again is deliberately targetted at the player on the floor and act accordingly.

OB..
01-12-06, 16:12
Basically if a man is in contact with the ball putting a foot to him in a rucking motion to free the ball is acceptable and I believe that is what the new version of laws will and are being intrepretated as. I disagree, and so, apparently, does the IRB (my emphasis in section 1).

RULING 1: 2005
Law Ruling by Designated Members of Laws Committee
April 2005
The IRFU has requested a ruling with regard Law 16-Ruck
1. To paraphrase the definition, it basically states that rucking can occur as long as players are not in contravention of Law 10 Foul Play. In 16.3(f) it states that 'a player rucking for the ball must not ruck players on the ground'. It also states that 'a player must not intentionally step on players who are on the ground, and that 'a player rucking must do so near the ball'.
Is this then taken to mean that there are no exceptions or qualifications to the Law, and that rucking which is directed at a player to remove him as an obstruction or impediment to securing possession of the ball is illegal?
2. Can the Law also be taken to mean that so called 'mountain climbing' where a player is using his boots to climb on a players back/body, is illegal?
3.Can the Law also be taken to mean that rucking can only occur when a player is in a ruck and bound correctly {Law 16.2(b)} and that any player not caught in or bound in the ruck cannot be rucking for the ball and is therefore liable to penalty for Dangerous Play and Misconduct under Law 10.4(b) and/or (c) and/or 10.4(k).
4. Additionally, would inadvertent or unintentional contact with players in a ruck as an incident of legitimate rucking for the football (reckless and patently dangerous rucking apart) be considered legal and within the Laws of the Game?
The Designated Members have ruled the following in answer to the questions raised:
Rulings
1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. Yes

Note particularly that a player not in the ruck cannot ruck even for the ball, let alone a player.

Davet
01-12-06, 18:12
Note particularly that a player not in the ruck cannot ruck even for the ball, let alone a player.


That'll please a few scrums-half!

Not.