PDA

View Full Version : [Ruck] Refuse to engage, pull rucking opponent off feet



Pablo
08-02-17, 16:02
Would value the thoughts of the hive mind on the following situation I encountered last week:


Red ball carrier tackled
Blue tackler releases and moves far enough away to not be penalised, though slow to feet
Red support arrives, adopts rucking position over tackle zone, though no blue defenders have currently arrived
First blue defender arrives, stops sharply about a half-metre short of red support, does not bind to create a formal ruck, but puts one hand on red's collar and pulls him forward.
Red, expecting impact and a ruck, has his bodyweight forward and so tumbles over easily.
Blue then steps in to breakdown as if to ruck, and he and arriving blue 9 begin complaining about red being off their feet


All of the above, of course, takes place over the course of a couple of seconds, max. In the moment, everything blue did looked wrong, so I penalised him. But I got asked (amicably) about it afterwards, and felt less certain.

He didn't bind (just a hand grab, not a full arm), so couldn't be said to be rucking - and without a ruck, his collar tug could be considered to be playing an opponent without the ball. Or even if I had interpreted it as a ruck, his action would seem to be collapsing a ruck.

Right or wrong?

Phil E
08-02-17, 16:02
Pablo

You don't need to make a full bind to form a ruck, just be in contact.
So when Blue grabbed Red's collar a ruck had formed.

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.

crossref
08-02-17, 16:02
Pablo

You don't need to make a full bind to form a ruck, just be in contact.
So when Blue grabbed Red's collar a ruck had formed.

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.

but in a two-man ruck is it OK to pull your opponent over by the collar ?

Phil E
08-02-17, 17:02
but in a two-man ruck is it OK to pull your opponent over by the collar ?

No it's not ok, but I would manage it rather than penalise it......unless it becomes material.

DocY
08-02-17, 17:02
In the situation you'd described, I'd probably ping blue for asking for a penalty.

If they didn't ask, though, the first instance I'd put down to incompetence, but ATP if it carried on.

didds
08-02-17, 17:02
Pablo

You don't need to make a full bind to form a ruck, just be in contact.
So when Blue grabbed Red's collar a ruck had formed.

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.

(devils advocate mode)

In the OP's description have they physical contact around the ball? one is standing over it waiting. the other is all but standing probably, and no more than an arms length plus oppo torso length from the ball, and just pulls him over. IIRC all the nice pictures in the laws have players in a quasi scrum formation over the ball, not ignoring it, stabding a small distance from it and doing something else.



didds

SimonSmith
08-02-17, 23:02
Blue 9 needs to shut the hell up, and quickly.

It's a ruck. If they do it once, have a quiet word. Do it a second and it's a PK for collapsing the ruck.

Dickie E
09-02-17, 00:02
No it's not ok, but I would manage it rather than penalise it......unless it becomes material.

this could be tricky to manage because you now have a red player on the ground on the wrong side of the ball, through no fault of his own.

Do you ask him to roll away? That seems a bit unfair.

As blue players now arrive, the red player is likely to get stepped on. So you could blow it up as unplayable but, again, that seems unfair to red.

I think I'd be inclined to penalise blue immediately.

It is a similar situation where the red jackler is finely balanced as he attempts to pick up the ball. A small amount of weight from arriving blue player forces him to over-balance and go to ground. Is there an offence here?

Ian_Cook
09-02-17, 09:02
I agree with PhilE. The moment the Blue player puts his hand on the Red player over the ball, he forms a ruck, and if he drags the Red player forward over the ball onto the ground on his side he is collapsing it. I think he is trying to buy a PK against Red for sealing off or going off his feet at the tackle.

didds
09-02-17, 10:02
I think the real issue is that this is not something that the law makers ever envisaged so we are left trying to interpret the new action.

Its probabl;y not a very positive action as a general rule becasue as others have said above it leaves a rather messy aftermath.

But we also need toc onsider scenarios such as

* arriving red player goes to pick it up and having put hands on the ball is then tackled to ground imediately adjacent/over the previously tackled player. Now you've a pile of bodies all around the ball

* arriving red player picks up ball, and is grabbed by blue. red and blue teammates bind on and maul is formed, over the originally tackled player

* as above but the maul naturally collapses - now you've a pile of bodies lieing over and around the ball and the original tackled player

* tackled player lays ball back and immediately red support dives on it ~90 cm from tackled player. Now you've two bodies on the floor with the ball, one between the ball+red and blue oppo. original tackled player can;t get out of the way in time before blue arrive and try to get to 2nd red + ball. Its not a dive on the ball as it emerges from a ruck (!) as no ruck has yet formed.

etc

didds

Phil E
09-02-17, 11:02
this could be tricky to manage because you now have a red player on the ground on the wrong side of the ball, through no fault of his own.

Do you ask him to roll away? That seems a bit unfair.

As blue players now arrive, the red player is likely to get stepped on. So you could blow it up as unplayable but, again, that seems unfair to red.

I think I'd be inclined to penalise blue immediately.

It is a similar situation where the red jackler is finely balanced as he attempts to pick up the ball. A small amount of weight from arriving blue player forces him to over-balance and go to ground. Is there an offence here?

I did say "unless it becomes material".

If Red win the ball straight off then we can play on and I will speak to the Blue player at an appropriate time about his appealing and collapsing. You are citing instances when it has become a material offence, so needs to be dealt with.

Ian_Cook
09-02-17, 12:02
* tackled player lays ball back and immediately red support dives on it ~90 cm from tackled player. Now you've two bodies on the floor with the ball, one between the ball+red and blue oppo. original tackled player can;t get out of the way in time before blue arrive and try to get to 2nd red + ball. Its not a dive on the ball as it emerges from a ruck (!) as no ruck has yet formed.

etc

didds


This is PK against the red player who dived on it... take your pick which Law you want to use

15.6 OTHER PLAYERS
(a) After a tackle, all other players must be on their feet when they play the ball. Players are on their feet if no other part of their body is supported by the ground or players on the ground.
Sanction: Penalty kick
By diving on it, he is playing the ball off his feet at the tackle.

15.7 FORBIDDEN PRACTICES
(c) No player may fall on or over the players lying on the ground after a tackle with the ball between or near to them.
Sanction: Penalty kick
General Definitions
Near: Within one metre.

didds
09-02-17, 12:02
that's fair enough Ian.
So if the tackled player throws the ball away wildly - say 15m - nobody call dive on it subsequently - under 15.6?

I am merely checking


didds

Thunderhorse1986
09-02-17, 13:02
that's fair enough Ian.
So if the tackled player throws the ball away wildly - say 15m - nobody call dive on it subsequently - under 15.6?

I am merely checking


didds

I would suggest the law 15.7 is supposed to be read as...

(What is forbidden?) No player may fall on or over the players lying on the ground
(when?) ...after a tackle with the ball between or near to them

So the law prohibits a player falling on or over those players lying on the ground (near to or around the ball), rather than diving on the ball itself. I appreciate they will be close ( <1m ), but you could still dive on the ball without falling on or over the player on the floor.

As long as a ruck hadn't former in which case, over to Angus Garnder...

I guess it would depend where the ball is in relation to the tackle. Anywhere outside 1m is no longer near the tackle so you can dive on it, otherwise you are going off feet at the tackle against 15.6(a) as Ian highlighted.

Wedgie
09-02-17, 13:02
OP is similar to my posts #36 and #38 here (http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?19321-Correct-decision-when-a-maul-ruck-wheels). I more often see it in U16/17 rugby than senior rugby and often see it as dangerous as the red player is face/head/neck planted into the turf.

ChrisR
09-02-17, 13:02
From the OP:



First blue defender arrives, stops sharply about a half-metre short of red support, does not bind to create a formal ruck, but puts one hand on red's collar and pulls him forward.
Red, expecting impact and a ruck, has his bodyweight forward and so tumbles over easily.
Blue then steps in to breakdown as if to ruck, and he and arriving blue 9 begin complaining about red being off their feet


Although collapsing the ruck is a legit call I would consider the parts in red bring into play the following:

10.2 Unfair Play

(d) A player must not commit any act that may lead the match officials to consider that that player was subject to foul play or any other type of infringement committed by an opponent.
Sanction: Penalty kick

10.2(d) is an important and potent law and should take precedence over a technical violation.

Pinky
09-02-17, 19:02
For me, grabbing by the collar and I am thinking penalty against the grabber for foul play. If in the OP circumstances you thought that too harsh, then simply blow for unplayable and give the put-in to red as they had possession when the ruck was formed and were presumably going forward. If blue were pulling them over the rusk then they cannot claim they were going forward in the ruck.

Ian_Cook
09-02-17, 19:02
that's fair enough Ian.
So if the tackled player throws the ball away wildly - say 15m - nobody call dive on it subsequently - under 15.6?

I am merely checking


didds

Nope. If the tackler throws the ball away 15m, the ball isn't "near" the tackle, its a loose ball in open play so Law 14 applies, anyone can fall on it.

Dickie E
09-02-17, 21:02
I did say "unless it becomes material".



I acknowledge that. My point is that 90% of the time it will be material.

Dickie E
09-02-17, 21:02
From the OP:



First blue defender arrives, stops sharply about a half-metre short of red support, does not bind to create a formal ruck, but puts one hand on red's collar and pulls him forward.
Red, expecting impact and a ruck, has his bodyweight forward and so tumbles over easily.
Blue then steps in to breakdown as if to ruck, and he and arriving blue 9 begin complaining about red being off their feet


Although collapsing the ruck is a legit call I would consider the parts in red bring into play the following:

10.2 Unfair Play

(d) A player must not commit any act that may lead the match officials to consider that that player was subject to foul play or any other type of infringement committed by an opponent.
Sanction: Penalty kick

10.2(d) is an important and potent law and should take precedence over a technical violation.

I'd suggest that this is a misinterpretation of 10.2(d).

beckett50
09-02-17, 21:02
Which player is being positive here?

I would argue that the Red player is being positive because he has supported his own weight and is defending the ball. the Blue player is acting negatively by pulling over the Red player.

IMO you can manage this with a quick call of "Leave it Blue!" and allow the Red #9 to play the ball away from the breakdown.

ChrisR
09-02-17, 21:02
I'd suggest that this is a misinterpretation of 10.2(d).

I don't agree. I think the Blue player intentionally caused the Red player to breach the law by pulling him forward off his feet over the ball and then appealed to the referee. If this isn't counter to 10.2(d) what is?

Dickie E
10-02-17, 00:02
If this isn't counter to 10.2(d) what is?

It's to stop what you may call the flop & fake:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcEz4z9Byvo

and this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LC-H2wXK4T4

and:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aud1W093f68

Ian_Cook
10-02-17, 02:02
It's to stop what you may call the flop & fake:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcEz4z9Byvo



This one is hilarious, and expertly handled by the referee.

ChrisR
10-02-17, 11:02
When I read 10.2(d) I see two parts.

(d) A player must not commit any act that may lead the match officials to consider that that player was subject to foul play or any other type of infringement committed by an opponent.

I read the second that as "the". Not too far fetched considering the 11-years old editor.

If it were so then intentionally causing an opponent to break the law would be covered, such as fake pass from scrum. Otherwise we're left with 10.4(m) which is very broad.