PDA

View Full Version : Diving over the ruck to score



ctrainor
09-11-14, 23:11
Just watching Scotland v Argentina highlights and Argentina score a try late on where the scrum half picks the ball up and dives over the ruck to score.
I've always thought this is dangerous play and never allowed it but I guess it is not explicitly mentioned in the laws. What do you think

crossref
09-11-14, 23:11
(c) A player must not intentionally collapse a ruck. This is dangerous play
(d) A player must not jump on top of a ruck..

should cover it ?

Browner
10-11-14, 07:11
(c) A player must not intentionally collapse a ruck. This is dangerous play
(d) A player must not jump on top of a ruck..

should cover it ?

But is over it, on it?
try was given, after a Rv so what does that mean?

Ian_Cook
10-11-14, 08:11
Just watching Scotland v Argentina highlights and Argentina score a try late on where the scrum half picks the ball up and dives over the ruck to score.
I've always thought this is dangerous play and never allowed it but I guess it is not explicitly mentioned in the laws. What do you think

Perfectly legal.



(c) A player must not intentionally collapse a ruck. This is dangerous play
(d) A player must not jump on top of a ruck..

should cover it ?

No it doesn't.

LAW 16 DEFINITIONS
A ruck is a phase of play where one or more players from each team, who are on
their feet, in physical contact, close around the ball on the ground. Open play has
ended.

In this case, the SH has lifted the ball and the ruck is over, so he has not jumped on top of a ruck because no ruck exists. With the exception of offside, you cannot apply ruck law after the ruck is over.

Why should a player not be allowed to dive over a bunch of players in front of him? Its a time honoured tactic that has been a part of the game for at least as long as I can remember. If the defending team are not awake to the possibility, then that is their lookout.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqDGLAIzAEc


ETA: Not pointing the finger at anyone here (I know of others outside of this forum who think this is, or ought to be illegal) but I have never understood why some people want to stifle innovative and clever thinking and tactics out of the game.

Pegleg
10-11-14, 08:11
Of the two parts of law quoted above, only the second is relevant and even then not always. If you clear the ruck it does not apply, as Browner suggests.

As said the try was given so:

If you clear it - fine.

If you get it wrong and "land on the ruck" - Ping.

Or should we see it as "potentially" dangerous and rule it out and say the review got it wrong?

Ian_Cook
10-11-14, 09:11
Of the two parts of law quoted above, only the second is relevant and even then not always. If you clear the ruck it does not apply, as Browner suggests.

As said the try was given so:

If you clear it - fine.

If you get it wrong and "land on the ruck" - Ping.

Or should we see it as "potentially" dangerous and rule it out and say the review got it wrong?

What ruck?

There is no ruck if you have the ball in your hands!

Pegleg
10-11-14, 10:11
What is left of the ruck. I feel, this time, your comment is a bit pedantic. We all know what the OP and the other posters to this thread mean.

crossref
10-11-14, 10:11
I underatand the technical point made about the ruck being over, but these two Laws

(c) A player must not intentionally collapse a ruck. This is dangerous play
(d) A player must not jump on top of a ruck..

are clearly about safety, and dangerous play.

I don't think it makes sense to say that these dangerous, unsafe, illegal actions become safe and legal once you have the ball in your hands..
Does anyone seriously think that was the intention of the IRB ?

FlipFlop
10-11-14, 10:11
If a player dives over a ruck, can you tackle them? Or are they a player in the air?

crossref
10-11-14, 10:11
If a player dives over a ruck, can you tackle them? Or are they a player in the air?

part of the reason why it's dangerous -- two players landing heavily on a (ex-)ruck, now.

Ian_Cook
10-11-14, 11:11
What is left of the ruck. I feel, this time, your comment is a bit pedantic. We all know what the OP and the other posters to this thread mean.

Not pedantic at all, I too know exactly what the OP means.

What I am saying is that diving over the remains of the ruck is NOT illegal in Law any more than diving over the remains of a tackle, or diving over in the tackle while players try to tackle you. I challenge you to find me a Law that says otherwise.

I agree that the referee can decide/judge that the manner in which a player attempts this is dangerous; he can do that for pretty much anything in the game, but that is not what the OP is asking. He cites a particular case (Scotland v Argentina) and asks about it, and this particular instance was not dangerous.

The point I make is that jumping over the remnants of a ruck or tackle to score a try is not automatically an infringement!

ChrisR
10-11-14, 12:11
I think the principle reason that collapsing or jumping on a ruck is illegal is because it kills the ball. Dangerous play is anything that the referee so deems.

crossref
10-11-14, 12:11
I think the principle reason that collapsing or jumping on a ruck is illegal is because it kills the ball. Dangerous play is anything that the referee so deems.

well, for collapsing the Law actually gives a reason

c) A player must not intentionally collapse a ruck. This is dangerous play
(d) A player must not jump on top of a ruck..

Browner
10-11-14, 13:11
Its better if you view the ruck as a " state of play", not a description of a physical object.

Ruck ended, player is a mere BC now & free to dive to the line to score as is any player in any other try scoring attempt. So he has to be free to be tackled - otherwise you've created an untacklable undefendable event , which is plainly daft.

But once you've dived ( up/horizontal/over) then you've opted to forego any 'protection in the air' law interpretation

For me anyway.

RobLev
10-11-14, 15:11
I underatand the technical point made about the ruck being over, but these two Laws

(c) A player must not intentionally collapse a ruck. This is dangerous play
(d) A player must not jump on top of a ruck..

are clearly about safety, and dangerous play.

I don't think it makes sense to say that these dangerous, unsafe, illegal actions become safe and legal once you have the ball in your hands..
Does anyone seriously think that was the intention of the IRB ?

The wording is "on top of", not "over". The whole point of diving over the "ruck" is not to make contact with the players formerly forming it (thereby neither collapsing it nor landing on top of it). It makes it difficult to ground the ball...

RobLev
10-11-14, 15:11
If a player dives over a ruck, can you tackle them? Or are they a player in the air?

IIRC there used to be an exception for tackling a player in the air in act of thereby scoring a try; which was removed relatively recently.

Browner
10-11-14, 23:11
I underatand the technical point made about the ruck being over, but these two Laws

(c) A player must not intentionally collapse a ruck. This is dangerous play
(d) A player must not jump on top of a ruck..

are clearly about safety, and dangerous play.

I don't think it makes sense to say that these dangerous, unsafe, illegal actions become safe and legal once you have the ball in your hands..
Does anyone seriously think that was the intention of the IRB ?

16.3 (b&c) are listed as dangerous play. 16.3(d) isn't, I can only presume this is deliberate.

Maybe (d) is concerned with lessening the chance of the ball emerging rather than the safety aspect.

I suspect that Law never really considered that a Ruck could be dived over , as maybe Rucks were supposed to be pushing contests ( scrums in open play ) "on your feet" !!:deadhorse:. So diving over the top was beyond comprehension, ( but then so was the BC running over the top of the scrum )

crossref
10-11-14, 23:11
16.3 (b&c) are listed as dangerous play. 16.3(d) isn't, I can only presume this is deliberate.

Maybe (d) is concerned with lessening the chance of the ball emerging rather than the safety aspect.


I think it simply goes without saying that jumping on a ruck is dangerous

Browner
11-11-14, 00:11
I think it simply goes without saying that jumping on a ruck is dangerous

The fact that "dangerous" is mentioned repeatedly in law, trumps that suggestion :-)

Ian_Cook
11-11-14, 00:11
16.3 (b&c) are listed as dangerous play. 16.3(d) isn't, I can only presume this is deliberate.


I think it simply goes without saying that jumping on a ruck is dangerous


The fact that "dangerous" is mentioned repeatedly in law, trumps that suggestion :-)

I agree. Furthermore

16.3 (c) - collapsing the ruck
17.2 (e) - the maul equivalent of 16.3 (c)
20.9 (a) - the scrum equivalent of 16.3 (c)

All have a counterpart in Law 10.4

10.4 DANGEROUS PLAY AND MISCONDUCT
(k) Dangerous play in a scrum, ruck or maul. The front row of a scrum must not rush against
its opponents.
Sanction: Penalty kick
Front row players must not intentionally lift opponents off their feet or force them upwards
out of the scrum.
Sanction: Penalty kick
Players must not charge into a ruck or maul without binding onto a player in the ruck or
maul.
Sanction: Penalty kick
Players must not intentionally collapse a scrum, ruck or maul.
Sanction: Penalty kick

However, the restrictions for jumping on top of the ruck - 16.3 (d) and the maul - 17.2 (f) - have no equivalent reinforcing counterpart in Law 10.4, therefore I can only conclude that jumping on top of a ruck or a maul is not considered dangerous play. It must therefore be related to something else, and my guess would be that it is related to killing the ball.

In fact almost all mentions of Dangerous Play in the Laws of the Game has a reinforcing counterpart on Law 10 4

Here is a list
16.3 (c) collapsing a ruck > 10.4 (k) line 4
17.2 (e) collapsing a maul > 10.4 (k) line 4
20.1 (i) charging while forming a scrum > 10.4 (k) line 1
20.8 (h) collapsing a scrum > 10.4 (k) line 4
20.8 (i) lifting opponent in scrum > 10.4 (k) line 2
20.9 (a) collapsing a scrum (10.4 (k) line 4

The only ones that are not mentioned are...

16.3 (b) kneeling in a ruck
6.B.4 (b) Assistant referee flagging Dangerous Play


Interestingly, there is no Law that specifically states a player cannot jump on top of a scrum, although in practical terms the SH is the only one in a position to do so (all others would be offside first) and in any case, that would seem to be ruled out by

20.1 (e) Number of players: eight. A scrum must have eight players from each team. All eight
players must stay bound to the scrum until it ends. Each front row must have three players
in it, no more and no less. Two locks must form the second row.
Sanction: Penalty kick

ctrainor
11-11-14, 07:11
So diving over to score a try appears to be ok, what about jumping over in open play to make a break

crossref
11-11-14, 07:11
So diving over to score a try appears to be ok, what about jumping over in open play to make a break

Scrum half makes a pop pass to incoming centre who hurdles the ruck?

For me clearly dangerous, someone is likely to receive a boot to the head

Ian_Cook
11-11-14, 09:11
Scrum half makes a pop pass to incoming centre who hurdles the ruck?

For me clearly dangerous, someone is likely to receive a boot to the head

Yes, I agree, but this is not in any way., shape or form the same as diving over players on the ground.

ddjamo
11-11-14, 14:11
things change near the goal line.

Jarrod Burton
12-11-14, 03:11
I'm struggling with seeing how this is legal.

If a 9 picks up the ball at the back of a ruck just behind the goal line and while diving to score over his knee or elbow catches one of the defenders on the head getting to his feet at the back of the ruck - what would you do?

Many agree that hurdling players in open play can be done on a "any contact with the boot on the hurdled player constitutes foul play" basis, so does that mean any contact from the attackers legs on any of the defenders (including those in the ex-ruck) would constitute foul play when leaping over an ex-ruck?

Dickie E
12-11-14, 03:11
Scrum half makes a pop pass to incoming centre who hurdles the ruck?

For me clearly dangerous, someone is likely to receive a boot to the head

could the defending team lie on the ground head to toe across the field from touch line to touch line about 10 metres out from their own goal line? At some point an attacker would need to jump over one of them and hence be guilty of foul play

Ian_Cook
12-11-14, 04:11
I'm struggling with seeing how this is legal.

If a 9 picks up the ball at the back of a ruck just behind the goal line and while diving to score over his knee or elbow catches one of the defenders on the head getting to his feet at the back of the ruck - what would you do?



How is this any different from the 9 trying to blast his way through two or three tacklers and an elbow catching one of them in the head as he does so.

Browner
12-11-14, 12:11
I'm struggling with seeing how this is legal.

If a 9 picks up the ball at the back of a ruck just behind the goal line and while diving to score over his knee or elbow catches one of the defenders on the head getting to his feet at the back of the ruck - what would you do?


If it was C&O foul play I'd penalise, if not, I'd award the try.

crossref
12-11-14, 12:11
could the defending team lie on the ground head to toe across the field from touch line to touch line about 10 metres out from their own goal line? At some point an attacker would need to jump over one of them and hence be guilty of foul play

nah, take the easy drop goal :pepper:

SimonSmith
12-11-14, 13:11
So, the ball carrier has the ball at the back of the ruck. With all his players in front of him. And he jumps over them. Using them as a shield from would-be tacklers.

Some might consider that to be offside/blocking/obstruction.

winchesterref
12-11-14, 14:11
Would be tacklers are looking elsewhere/not in a position to defend... if he was my TMO - "Patrick, was it material?" ;)

ddjamo
12-11-14, 15:11
this issue is not addressed specifically in law. it is basically a situation that needs to have a decision made on the spot. trying to attach absolutes is not going to work. if you do you will run into things like, "well he dove over his head and that's dangerous...but if he dives over outstretched legs - that's okay..." what will you allow? anything? some? or penalize it every time?

make the decision on the day IMO. isn't that our purpose?

Browner
09-04-15, 15:04
The latest example ...

http://www.rugbyonslaught.com/2015/04/ref-pings-player-who-dives-over-ruck-to.html

Any queries?