PDA

View Full Version : [Ruck] Can you create a ruck by PULLING in an opponent?



didds
28-02-17, 11:02
WRT the no-ruck tactic.

Red 10 is tackled by Blue 6, and presents the ball correctly and legally towards his own side.
Blue 6 releases.
Red 8 stands over the ball

Blues all stand back from the tackle and refuse to engage red 8 to create a ruck.

Can red 8 grab a nearby blue player (ie less than arms length, so less that 1m from the ball) pull him onto himself and thus create a ruck?

(I'm not wanting to restart the excellent debate we have had regarding Italy and England's approach here) Ive read conflicting answers to this point ... Poite seemed to think "No" but other refs albeit not international ones have opined a different viewpoint.

didds

Phil E
28-02-17, 11:02
I would have said Yes...until Poite said No.
Now I just don't know which is right.

beckett50
28-02-17, 11:02
No. There is nothing in Law that allows this.

The Maul Law makes specific reference to players bound or caught in.

Ruck is all about players in contact, and therefore you cannot force this contact since that would mean, by logical conclusion, that you would also have to make the players bind to each other

DocY
28-02-17, 11:02
I'd say "it depends"

If a player is clearly intentionally not joining the ruck, then pulling him in would be playing him without the ball.

But if he was intentionally joining the ruck (or proto ruck) and he was given a pull (for whatever reason) I don't see the sense in penalising it.

didds
28-02-17, 12:02
So there was nothing to prevent Italy placing "post" defenders immediately to the side of the tackle to prevent the pick and drive?

(because they weren't!)

didds

DocY
28-02-17, 12:02
So there was nothing to prevent Italy placing "post" defenders immediately to the side of the tackle to prevent the pick and drive?

(because they weren't!)

didds

As I'm picturing it, if they're immediately to the side of the tackle contact could be made without them being pulled in (and they might look like they're entering from the side) so they'd have to leave at least a bit of a gap.

ChrisR
28-02-17, 12:02
Yes, you can. If a player is within arms reach then is within the tackle zone and subject being pulled into and forming a ruck. Otherwise the referee is in the unwelcome position of determining whether a player is joining voluntarily.

FlipFlop
28-02-17, 12:02
I think you can, and should be allowed to. Clearly Poite thought differently. It would have been nice to have had an England player pose an intelligent question to Poite about that: Along the lines of: "The law says we only need contact near the ball to have a ruck - so why is that pulling in (or just touching the defender) not allowed? "

There is of course and argument about playing the man without the ball.

OB..
28-02-17, 12:02
If you pull an opponent into a ruck, the odds are that he will be "joining" in front of the hindmost foot - a PK offence.

It cannot be right that you can force an opponent to commit an offence.

crossref
28-02-17, 13:02
a sensible answer seems to me to depend on how far away the opponent is, when pulled.

- grabbing an opponent who is 50cm from you seems to me to form a ruck.
- stretching out sideways to grab someone who is standing 1.5m back, and suceeeding in hauling them in against their will seems to me to not to form a ruck (it's playing man without the ball)


(a typically unhelpful referee sort of answer ! 'it depends')

didds
28-02-17, 13:02
Good call CR - in my head it was more the "opponent within an armlength's easy reach" scenario. Which for a 2nd row could well be a metre.

didds

Paule23
28-02-17, 13:02
I would say no. Although you would have players in contact over the ball, firstly an element of choice has been removed by the attacking team, and the defender is unlikely to be bound properly. Do we now ping them for an incorrect bind if they go into compete or win the ball?

didds
28-02-17, 14:02
You dont; need to be bound to CREATE a ruck, only to join it.



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

16.1 (b) How can a ruck form. Players are on their feet. At least one player must be in physical contact with an opponent



my bold.

didds

ChuckieB
28-02-17, 14:02
I am with RP on his decision and statement that you can't do it.

You can't pull someone out of a maul and it is, conversely, logical and equitable, that you can't go pulling someone in, to a ruck in this instance, unless it it is expressly permitted within the laws.

Balones
28-02-17, 14:02
If you pull an opponent into a ruck, the odds are that he will be "joining" in front of the hindmost foot - a PK offence.

It cannot be right that you can force an opponent to commit an offence.
Totally and utterly agree. You are playing a man without the ball. The laws clearly state how you should join a maul. Any referee that allows this is letting themselves open to a 'conflict' situation which could escalate. Any referee not stopping this or preventing this would be censured in any report I wrote.
RP was 100% correct and I am amazed that anyone should take an opposite opinion on this matter. Other matters I can understand.

ChuckieB
28-02-17, 14:02
....does it then become a sanctionable offence which would then presumably have to be included within the laws as not likely covered elsewhere?

Balones
28-02-17, 14:02
....does it then become a sanctionable offence which would then presumably have to be included within the laws as not likely covered elsewhere?
Playing a player without the ball is already sanctionable.

Phil E
28-02-17, 14:02
Playing a player without the ball is already sanctionable.

So how do we ever get a ruck?

Balones
28-02-17, 14:02
So how do we ever get a ruck?
It is an action that is precisely covered in the laws.

DocY
28-02-17, 14:02
I think there may be two parts to this: can you pull an opponent in to form a ruck? and can you pull an opponent into an already-existing ruck?

For the first, I think it's quite clear - a ruck is formed by two players coming together over the ball. To me that strongly implies a measure of intent from both parties and "come together" is quite different to "be pulled together".

The question about pulling opponents into an already-existing ruck is, I think, more arguable, but I'd still say that in general it shouldn't be allowed.

ChuckieB
28-02-17, 14:02
So the poll then moves on perhaps to ask how many might in reality chose to actually penalise an offender?

Balones
28-02-17, 14:02
So the poll then moves on perhaps to ask how many might in reality chose to actually penalise an offender?
If it is managed quickly and you show that you are not going to permit it then play on. Repeat it and I would expect penalisation.

DocY
28-02-17, 15:02
So the poll then moves on perhaps to ask how many might in reality chose to actually penalise an offender?Well if a ruck hasn't already formed then it's open play, so no different to Webb pulling Seymour back on Saturday.

But as Balones says, if you can get away with a stern word, do that in the first instance.

OB..
28-02-17, 16:02
Law 16.1 Forming a Ruck
Law 16.2 Joining a a Ruck.

They are different.

didds
28-02-17, 16:02
RP was 100% correct and I am amazed that anyone should take an opposite opinion on this matter. Other matters I can understand.

well 5 out of 13 members of this forum currently disagree with you. hardly a meaningful sample size I agree, but nonetheless amongst active referees etc here there are clearly those that disagree. (I haven't voted)

FTR I am with you and OB as I suspect it would create bigger problems. But in a parallel universe where I am coaching this specific area now I would need to have an idea whether deliberately creating a ruck is feasible - hence my query. At the moment I can;t tell. Maybe WR need to clarify?!

In the past when discussing non contested tackle areas people have asked why wouldn't the defenders flood the opposition backline and shut down all activity. the answer given - and not to my recollection disagreed with - is that the attackers woiuld just pick and drive and create a ruck to put them all offside. But... if a ruck can only be voluntarily created by the defenders that can;t the case then. Not that I think a full flooding will work anyway cos of constant pick and drives :-)

didds

didds
28-02-17, 16:02
I think there may be two parts to this: can you pull an opponent in to form a ruck? and can you pull an opponent into an already-existing ruck?



Not really wrt to the thread entitled "Can you create a ruck by PULLING in an opponent?"

:D

you could create another poll ;-)

didds

davidlandy
28-02-17, 17:02
With all due respect to all here, isn't Balones rather senior level in the refereeing hierarchy, being a Panel Match Observer and all? (I'm not sure how these things work so please correct me if I'm wrong.)

And here's my 2p worth... is this at all relevant?


7.1 Playing a match
A match is started by a kick-off.
After the kick-off, any player who is onside may take the ball and run with it.
Any player may throw it or kick it.
Any player may give the ball to another player.
Any player may tackle, hold or push an opponent holding the ball.
Any player may fall on the ball.
Any player may take part in a scrum, ruck, maul or lineout.
Any player may ground the ball in in-goal.
A ball carrier may hand-off an opponent.
Whatever a player does must be in accordance with the Laws of the Game.
http://laws.worldrugby.org/index.php?law=7&language=EN


It does not say you may pull an opponent into a ruck, nor that a player may be made to take part in a ruck. It says you may take part in one, but taking part requires active participation.

The laws of the game pertaining to rucks do not say you can pull an opponent into one, and it's not something sanctioned in 7.1, therefore you are not allowed to do it.

ChrisR
28-02-17, 17:02
If you pull an opponent into a ruck, the odds are that he will be "joining" in front of the hindmost foot - a PK offence.

It cannot be right that you can force an opponent to commit an offence.

The question relates to 'forming a ruck' so at the point that the player would be pulled in there isn't a 'hind foot' of his team.

ChrisR
28-02-17, 18:02
In the context of this thread consider this:Red BC tackled by Blue. Blue rolls away, Red BC goes to place the ball back, Blue support arrives and enters the tackle area through the gate to poach the ball, Red support arrives over the ball and grasps Blue support to form a ruck. Blue did not wish to be in the ruck, he wanted the ball.In support of my "yes" vote I say again that if you enter the tackle area you are fair game to be grasped and a ruck will form.

Taff
28-02-17, 18:02
If you pull an opponent into a ruck, the odds are that he will be "joining" in front of the hindmost foot - a PK offence. It cannot be right that you can force an opponent to commit an offence.
I think Didds' point is can a player at a tackle, grab an opponent to create a ruck - more than can a player pull an opponent into a ruck which already existed?


So how do we ever get a ruck?
Voluntarily?


... The question about pulling opponents into an already-existing ruck is, I think, more arguable, but I'd still say that in general it shouldn't be allowed.
If we penalise players in a ruck for grabbing the SH, why should players get away with grabbing anybody else? What's the difference?

As we type, I'm sure there are coaches (in conjunction with friendly Refs) working on how to get round this. I may even have a suggestion myself. :biggrin:

Balones
28-02-17, 20:02
In the context of this thread consider this:Red BC tackled by Blue. Blue rolls away, Red BC goes to place the ball back, Blue support arrives and enters the tackle area through the gate to poach the ball, Red support arrives over the ball and grasps Blue support to form a ruck. Blue did not wish to be in the ruck, he wanted the ball.In support of my "yes" vote I say again that if you enter the tackle area you are fair game to be grasped and a ruck will form.

'Grasped' is not the same as bound onto. Once the ruck has been formed (16.1) everyone else must bind.(16.2) By pulling a player in you are not binding as as such open to sanction.
Any referee that doesn't penalise the action that you advocate will not progress far.

You don't stop players from not competing at a lineout or a maul so why stop them from not competing at a ruck?

OB..
28-02-17, 20:02
Yellow makes a tackle on purple, so yellow are the team wanting to avoid a ruck.Purple may send in a would-be rucker to prevent yellow stealing the ball. Where are the opponents he might pull in to force a ruck (if legal)? The only possibility is grabbing any tacklers as they try to move away. However that does not form a ruck unless the yellow player is on his feet, so if yellow rolls away before getting up, you can't play him.

What is the scenario where it might be legal to pull an opponent in to form (as opposed to join) a ruck?

ChuckieB
28-02-17, 21:02
In the context of this thread consider this:Red BC tackled by Blue. Blue rolls away, Red BC goes to place the ball back, Blue support arrives and enters the tackle area through the gate to poach the ball, Red support arrives over the ball and grasps Blue support to form a ruck. Blue did not wish to be in the ruck, he wanted the ball.In support of my "yes" vote I say again that if you enter the tackle area you are fair game to be grasped and a ruck will form.

As Blue's coach I would be pretty annoyed that he is in there to poach the ball and doesn't do so and waits for a clever red opponent to come and nick it again from in front of him (or wherever) instead of red trying to engage him in a ruck. So not a scenario I can readily visualise....until it happens of course!

Ian_Cook
01-03-17, 02:03
It seems to me the that the simplest way to form a ruck with unwilling opponents is a quick pick and drive with a tail gunner. White ball carrier drives directly towards a Blue opponent who tackles him. The moment the Blue tackler makes contact, the White ball carrier drops to the ground and the White tail gunner immediately grabs the Blue tackler before he has a chance to back away (or jackle). Ruck formed (two opponents in close physical contact over the ball on the ground) so offside lines appear.

Of course, if the Blue tackler's unwillingness extends to not tackling, I'm sure that will be just fine with the White ball carrier!

didds
01-03-17, 08:03
As Blue's coach I would be pretty annoyed that he is in there to poach the ball and doesn't do so and waits for a clever red opponent to come and nick it again from in front of him (or wherever) instead of red trying to engage him in a ruck. So not a scenario I can readily visualise....until it happens of course!

Well you'd have to ask Connor O'shea why he wasn't annoyed.

The question is clearly in the context of the Italian no-ruck tactic.

Didds

didds
01-03-17, 08:03
Surely blue tackler ends up off his feet though Ian? On the ground?

Didds

Pegleg
01-03-17, 09:03
'Grasped' is not the same as bound onto. Once the ruck has been formed (16.1) everyone else must bind.(16.2) By pulling a player in you are not binding as as such open to sanction.
Any referee that doesn't penalise the action that you advocate will not progress far.


Except to FORM the ruck you only need two player (one from both sides) "in physical contact" (16.1). No bind is required to FORM it. Once formed then yes 16.2 comes into play.

The question asked by Chris R was about forming a ruck: "... Red support arrives over the ball and grasps Blue support to form a ruck...". He is not asking about joining (binding onto) a formed ruck.




You don't stop players from not competing at a lineout or a maul so why stop them from not competing at a ruck?

Agreed players have the right to play the game in any legaly way they choose.

DocY
01-03-17, 09:03
Surely blue tackler ends up off his feet though Ian? On the ground?

DiddsThe image I had is of a classic tackle pad drill: BC hits the defender with his shoulder and immediately drops, so not actually a tackle, then the supporting player immediately cleans him out.

FlipFlop
01-03-17, 11:03
And let us look at the definition of the ruck forming. It only needs physcial contact. It doesn't say that 2 players need to be in mutually consenting contact.

There are lots of examples of players trying to NOT form a ruck, but it being called. If you look at http://www.the42.ie/italy-tackle-only-england-france-ireland-owens-3261610-Feb2017/ with the Nigel Owens call, French #8 clearly doesn't want to be in a ruck. The contact was not mutually consenting.

So all this "if the defender doesn't want to be in the ruck" stuff is BS. Pulling a player is potentially over the top (but makes the contact clear). But if they are in the zone where you would allow the clear out, then you should allow the pulling in, or the contact, to form the ruck.

If the defenders don't want to be pulled in, then step back out of arms reach, and hand that space over to the attack.

A good example is the one where Launchbury pulls the Italian #12 in. I have lots of issues with this. Firstly the #12 has his hands on the back of Dan Cole (so #12 initiates contact = ruck). Secondly (ignoring the contact on Cole) - you would allow Launchbury to clear out the #12, and he is within 1m. He is fair game to be "contacted" to form the ruck.

Ian_Cook
01-03-17, 11:03
Surely blue tackler ends up off his feet though Ian? On the ground?

Didds

No, the whole Idea of doing it that way is for the ball carrier to voluntarily drop to the ground the moment contact is made, and for the tail-gunner to grasp the opponent, keeping him upright, before he has a chance to do anything.

didds
01-03-17, 12:03
Gotcha

ChrisR
01-03-17, 12:03
By allowing a player 'over the ball' to reach out and grasp an opponent you are effectively enforcing the '1 meter' rule for defining the tackle area. If you're not in arms reach then you're not in the tackle area.

Prohibit players over the ball from grasping an opponent to form a ruck and you are back to mentally measuring that '1 meter' that defines the tackle area.

That is going to create some very messy tackle areas as defenders, after entering the area legally, will be able to position themselves alongside the player over the ball with impunity.

This is one of those cases where it is better to allow the players to create the situation you want (clear space around the tackle) than to enforce it with the whistle.

FlipFlop
01-03-17, 13:03
It has become quite clear that WR have told the tops refs that you CAN'T pull someone in. Has this been cascaded, or clarification issued - of course not. Why have everyone on the same page?

Perhaps the law committee should look at this and issue a clarification. (Maybe top refs have been told wrong).

I am arguing for what I believe is the right outcome - that you should be allowed to pull someone in (or hold onto) to form a ruck

didds
01-03-17, 13:03
I'm not bothered either way - I just want to know what to expect in the community game next week when the oppo do it to us!

didds

ChuckieB
01-03-17, 13:03
Well you'd have to ask Connor O'shea why he wasn't annoyed.

The question is clearly in the context of the Italian no-ruck tactic.

Didds

In this scenario Blue had entered the tackle area and not engaged, the Italians had stood off totally.

The only reason to enter the tackle area is to pick the ball or at least compete for it and would allow red to more easily induce a legitimate ruck opportunity. You wouldn't be pulling a player in such a scenario . Hence blue looks a bit of a chump!

ChuckieB
01-03-17, 13:03
And let us look at the definition of the ruck forming. It only needs physcial contact. It doesn't say that 2 players need to be in mutually consenting contact.

......A good example is the one where Launchbury pulls the Italian #12 in. I have lots of issues with this. Firstly the #12 has his hands on the back of Dan Cole (so #12 initiates contact = ruck). Secondly (ignoring the contact on Cole) - you would allow Launchbury to clear out the #12, and he is within 1m. He is fair game to be "contacted" to form the ruck.

In another post I suggested for the Piccamoles and Launcbury incidents, both were minimal contact. NO clearly saw the contact and am prepared to accept that RP perhaps didn't . If this was the case then you can understand the correctness of NO's decision and perhaps at least understand RP's view of the world that it wasn't a ruck. This helps us to at least maintain a constant view of our clarified understanding that you cannot pull a man into a situation which is not a ruck.

didds
01-03-17, 14:03
The Italians defended the fringes of the no-ruck really poorly.

I had wondered if its because they felt if they got too close to the tackle itself - which could mean standing in a totally legal position as if to come through the gate which etc etc etc - they could get grabbed and thus create a ruck which would circumvent what they trying to do. By standing further away this was not possible - but it left blinking great holes to exploit by a pick and drive.

BUT - if you cannot grab an opponent and pull him into contact to create a ruck then this concern is redundant. you can stand pretty close to the tackle and cannot be pulled into contact but remain there for the next phase of defensive duties. In which case "The only reason to enter the tackle area is to pick the ball or at least compete for it" is not entirely correct.

didds

Rich_NL
01-03-17, 15:03
I think what's most important at grassroots is that it's clear and consistent what's being reffed, and that you've prepared your (clear and consistent) answer for the pre-match (or in-match) questions.

ChuckieB
01-03-17, 15:03
In another post I suggested for the Piccamoles and Launcbury incidents, both were minimal contact. NO clearly saw the contact and am prepared to accept that RP perhaps didn't . If this was the case then you can understand the correctness of NO's decision and perhaps at least understand RP's view of the world that it wasn't a ruck (eventhough with the benefit of hindsight we can see it was). This helps us to at least maintain a constant view of our clarified understanding that you cannot pull a man into a situation which is not a ruck.

......or to clarify:

You just can't do it under any circumstances anyway!;

You are playing a man without the ball (overriding law)(thereby providing support for the of notion of protection for the scrum half position in and around the various breakdown situations before the ball is taken by him.

and the perhaps in the false expectation that by doing so, you might induce him to cause his own infringement, e.g. the generation of an offside line and infringement by one of his own team

ChuckieB
01-03-17, 15:03
The Italians defended the fringes of the no-ruck really poorly.

I had wondered if its because they felt if they got too close to the tackle itself - which could mean standing in a totally legal position as if to come through the gate which etc etc etc - they could get grabbed and thus create a ruck which would circumvent what they trying to do. By standing further away this was not possible - but it left blinking great holes to exploit by a pick and drive.

BUT - if you cannot grab an opponent and pull him into contact to create a ruck then this concern is redundant. you can stand pretty close to the tackle and cannot be pulled into contact but remain there for the next phase of defensive duties. In which case "The only reason to enter the tackle area is to pick the ball or at least compete for it" is not entirely correct.

didds

I think the only sensible reason to enter the tackle area is to do just that.

It was a fine line for them, i.e. being able to impede the wider channels without leaving to much space around the breakdown.

The JL penalty decision (wrong though it was based on my view of what RP didn't see or was unsighted by) was probably an added bonus for them!

ChrisR
01-03-17, 15:03
I predict that prohibiting players from grasping an opponent who has entered the tackle area (ie. less than an arms length from the tackle) is going to cause more problems that it solves.

Let's see how it plays out and hope that WR doesn't pull more stupid stuff like they did with the non-maul from a line-out.

WR, if you're listening: Take a breath and see where it's going, please.

DocY
01-03-17, 16:03
I predict that prohibiting players from grasping an opponent who has entered the tackle area (ie. less than an arms length from the tackle) is going to cause more problems that it solves.

Let's see how it plays out and hope that WR doesn't pull more stupid stuff like they did with the non-maul from a line-out.

WR, if you're listening: Take a breath and see where it's going, please.I'm not sure - it depends how they word it. Simply saying you can't grasp an opponent who's entered the tackle area would, I agree, be ridiculous (though I'm sure flankers would love it), but there must be a way of wording it to make it sensible.

Perhaps something like "forcing a player who isn't competing for the ball to enter a ruck"

didds
01-03-17, 16:03
Perhaps something like "forcing a player who isn't competing for the ball to enter a ruck"

WADR its woolly subjective stuff that that that leads to issues later. This requires a referee to second guess the intentions of a player approaching the ball.

didds

didds
01-03-17, 16:03
......or to clarify:

You just can't do it under any circumstances anyway!;

You are playing a man without the ball (overriding law)


I don;t actually disagree but there is already one clear time when it is perfectly legal to play a man without the ball - when creating a ruck :-)

didds

ChuckieB
01-03-17, 16:03
We seem to be running the same debate in 2 different threads! A discussion about an aspect of the game and then this poll thread.

Can we get ourselves to the one same place? One seems to be less certain and at a place advocating seeing how this is going to play out and the other is coming to some firm conclusion it has been contrary to the laws all along.

I am an advocate for the latter.

.......whichever thread that is!

didds
01-03-17, 16:03
well I had intended this be mereoly the poll and not discussion...

didds

ChuckieB
01-03-17, 17:03
I don;t actually disagree but there is already one clear time when it is perfectly legal to play a man without the ball - when creating a ruck :-)

didds

Playing an opponent without the ball. Except in a scrum, ruck or maul, a player who is not in possession of the ball must not hold, push or obstruct an opponent not carrying the ball

Without express permissions within in the ruck formation laws, pretty brief as they are, for such a technical part of the game, it is easy to see how the above will be treated as the overarching law.

ChuckieB
01-03-17, 17:03
well I had intended this be mereoly the poll and not discussion...

didds

No disrespect intended. It started to confuse the hell out of me. flitting back and forth.

didds
01-03-17, 17:03
both the above fair points ChuckieB :)

didds

thepercy
01-03-17, 21:03
Why grab the opponent, and maybe or maybe not form a ruck, when you could "clear out" an opponent in the tackle zone, creating a ruck?

ChrisR
01-03-17, 22:03
That would be a good idea if there was an opponent in the tackle zone to begin with.

But .... the scenario is when the support of the tackled player arrive at the tackle but the opponents have retreated and don't engage to form the ruck. Instead they by-pass the tackle and advance into the passing lanes of the ops to disrupt the next phase.

The question is: if an opponent wanders into range of a player in the non-ruck and is grabbed by that player does that form a ruck or is it an offense?

Taff
01-03-17, 22:03
... The question is: if an opponent wanders into range of a player in the non-ruck and is grabbed by that player does that form a ruck or is it an offense?
I've been thinking at this; my logic is if an opponent is inside the tackle zone (1m - or within "range" as you call it) he is fair game. If he is outside the tackle zone, grabbing him would be playing the man without the ball.

I suspect the Italians are thinking the same, as they nearly always made sure there was a decent gap between them and the tackle zone. :chin:

L'irlandais
01-03-17, 22:03
Isn't this similar to not contesting the lineout maul.
Would you allow a player to "rope" an opponent into the non-maul so they could get some go forward?
https://youtu.be/nz_E5PJANik

KML1
01-03-17, 23:03
To me, this is crystal clear. There is a tackle. There is not a ruck. There is nothing in 16.1 (forming a ruck) or 16.2 (joining a ruck) that makes any difference. Therefore Foul Play Law is only law in play and that is black and white clear. You cannot grab someone without holding them first.


10.4f Playing an opponent without the ball. Except in a scrum, ruck or maul, a player who is not in possession of the ball must not hold, push or obstruct an opponent not carrying the ball. Sanction: Penalty kick:

Camquin
02-03-17, 01:03
If I am nowhere near the ball I must not play a man without the ball.
But if the ball is on the floor and I am standing over it I can grasp an opponent to form a ruck.
If I am over the ball and an grasp them, they are likely to be within a metre of the ball.

ChrisR
02-03-17, 01:03
To me, this is crystal clear. There is a tackle. There is not a ruck. There is nothing in 16.1 (forming a ruck) or 16.2 (joining a ruck) that makes any difference. Therefore Foul Play Law is only law in play and that is black and white clear. You cannot grab someone without holding them first.

???????

ChuckieB
02-03-17, 02:03
Isn't this similar to not contesting the lineout maul.
Would you allow a player to "rope" an opponent into the non-maul so they could get some go forward?
https://youtu.be/nz_E5PJANik

No is your simple answer.

Just to reiterate - "Playing an opponent without the ball. Except in a scrum, ruck or maul, a player who is not in possession of the ball must not hold, push or obstruct an opponent not carrying the ball"

Just to clarify your wording. It is an "uncontested lineout" and not an uncontested lineout maul" (as no maul exists).

We have been trying to converge on an understanding that these situations have not developed into rucks or malls as they do not fit the necessary criteria.

As such you can then simplify the statement to:

"....a player who is not in possession of the ball must not hold, push or obstruct an opponent not carrying the ball"

Pulling them implies "holding".

It then becomes very simple.

FlipFlop
02-03-17, 09:03
Let me pose another question.

Let say there is a tackle, and I am standing over the ball. The opposition run up to take up the "offside" position next to my scrumhalf. As they are going past me, I put out an arm, and then run through the arm. There is contact, but he runs into my arm.

Ruck? Or has he played the man without the ball? Or have I played the man without the ball?

And as for quoting 10.4 f. If that always applies - how do you form a ruck then? As you have to initially play a man without the ball in order to form a ruck. So outlawing the deliberate playing of someone in the tackle zone to create a ruck, under 10.4f means all people who form rucks should be pinged.

Balones
02-03-17, 09:03
Let me pose another question.

Let say there is a tackle, and I am standing over the ball. The opposition run up to take up the "offside" position next to my scrumhalf. As they are going past me, I put out an arm, and then run through the arm. There is contact, but he runs into my arm.

Ruck? Or has he played the man without the ball? Or have I played the man without the ball?

And as for quoting 10.4 f. If that always applies - how do you form a ruck then? As you have to initially play a man without the ball in order to form a ruck. So outlawing the deliberate playing of someone in the tackle zone to create a ruck, under 10.4f means all people who form rucks should be pinged.

The circumstances for FORMING a ruck are specifically dealt with in the laws and provide for the exception.

FlipFlop
02-03-17, 10:03
The circumstances for FORMING a ruck are specifically dealt with in the laws and provide for the exception.

I am aware of that, hence my belief that in forming a ruck, the playing the man with out the ball law does not apply. So why is KML1 quoting it.

The entire crux of this is: When are you allowed to form a ruck? KLM1 seems to be saying that after a tackle, you can't play a man without the ball. Which in my logic means that you can never have a ruck, without an offence occuring first. But I disagree with his premise that you only have the foul play laws after a tackle. For me the tackle laws apply, and the ruck laws POTENTIALLY apply as well - namely the 16.1 forming a ruck.

WE are basically debating what you can do to trigger 16.1. What is "contact" and what can you do to initiate contact?

Balones
02-03-17, 10:03
Contact, I would suggest, is any form of contact OVER the ball. At the same time I would suggest that it involves a willingness by both parties to make contact over the ball. What you can't do is force somebody by pulling them in to make contact.

KML1
02-03-17, 10:03
A grab just isnt enough - the law talks of binding which is then defined.

The 2009 clarification recognises that creating a ruck isnt a perfect science. I know in my mind what someone is doing when they're in that space (1m away or not) - theyre are either there to get involved in the ruck so therefore can be bound in occurs and a ruck can be formed, or they arent and therefore cant be grabbed just in order to create a ruck. I mentioned that because I thought others were using it as a justification for allowing it.

didds
02-03-17, 10:03
Let me pose another question.

Let say there is a tackle, and I am standing over the ball. The opposition run up to take up the "offside" position next to my scrumhalf. As they are going past me, I put out an arm, and then run through the arm. There is contact, but he runs into my arm.

Ruck? Or has he played the man without the ball? Or have I played the man without the ball?

And as for quoting 10.4 f. If that always applies - how do you form a ruck then? As you have to initially play a man without the ball in order to form a ruck. So outlawing the deliberate playing of someone in the tackle zone to create a ruck, under 10.4f means all people who form rucks should be pinged.

my immediate tyhought is that yes contact has been made - but its not over the ball if you are over it and he has attempted to "run past" you.

?

didds

Phil E
02-03-17, 11:03
A grab just isnt enough - the law talks of binding which is then defined.

The 2009 clarification recognises that creating a ruck isnt a perfect science. I know in my mind what someone is doing when they're in that space (1m away or not) - theyre are either there to get involved in the ruck so therefore can be bound in occurs and a ruck can be formed, or they arent and therefore cant be grabbed just in order to create a ruck. I mentioned that because I thought others were using it as a justification for allowing it.

Keith

The law does not stipulate "Binding" to form a ruck, only to join an already formed ruck.

What people are asking is can you grab an opponent to "form" a ruck?

16.1 FORMING A RUCK
(a) Where can a ruck take place. A ruck can take place only in the field of play.
(b) How can a ruck form. Players are on their feet. At least one player must be in physical
contact with an opponent. The ball must be on the ground. If the ball is off the ground for
any reason, the ruck is not formed.

FlipFlop
02-03-17, 11:03
A grab just isnt enough - the law talks of binding which is then defined.

The 2009 clarification recognises that creating a ruck isnt a perfect science. I know in my mind what someone is doing when they're in that space (1m away or not) - theyre are either there to get involved in the ruck so therefore can be bound in occurs and a ruck can be formed, or they arent and therefore cant be grabbed just in order to create a ruck. I mentioned that because I thought others were using it as a justification for allowing it.

So to take an example from the England v Italy game. In the example (links on here somewhere) where Launchbury grabs the Italian #12.
1) Cole is over the ball. Italian #12 makes contact with Cole. Ruck or not? If not - why not, the criteria for a ruck are met.

2) Ignoring contact with Cole, then:
Launchbury then makes contact with Italian #12. Italian #12 is in the tackle zone. Is this a ruck or not? If not - why not, the criteria for a ruck are met.

3)In same link there is Nigel calling a ruck against France. French #8 clearly doesn't want to ruck, and is not bound. How does this differ from above?

ChrisR
02-03-17, 12:03
The Law of Unintended Consequences is about to come into play.

If you prevent a player over the ball, at a tackle, from grabbing an opponent, within arms reach, to form a ruck you will get some very messy tackle areas.

How do you think players and coaches are going to respond? They will come through "the gate", sidestep the player over the ball and park themselves next to the SH digging for the ball. Or they will kick the ball out.

Now you have to clean up this mess by nit-picking the laws. Good luck!

Instead, if you want a tidy(-er) tackle area, let the player(s) over the ball keep the area clear of infiltrators.

Complain about being drawn in? Easy answer: "If you don't want to be part of the ruck then stay out of the tackle area"

ChuckieB
02-03-17, 13:03
The circumstances for FORMING a ruck are specifically dealt with in the laws and provide for the exception.

I think the laws do cater for this easily. There is no obvious intent and he is not obviously closing in around the ball.

These laws, in the main, have proven to be clever!

ChuckieB
02-03-17, 13:03
So to take an example from the England v Italy game. In the example (links on here somewhere) where Launchbury grabs the Italian #12.
1) Cole is over the ball. Italian #12 makes contact with Cole. Ruck or not? If not - why not, the criteria for a ruck are met.

2) Ignoring contact with Cole, then:
Launchbury then makes contact with Italian #12. Italian #12 is in the tackle zone. Is this a ruck or not? If not - why not, the criteria for a ruck are met.

3)In same link there is Nigel calling a ruck against France. French #8 clearly doesn't want to ruck, and is not bound. How does this differ from above?

This is one where I genuinely think RP didn't see the contact by LM. He looked to be at least partially unsighted at that moment. Hence you could reasonably understand his call which would have been correct under the circumstances. JL playing a payer without the ball.

Clearly NO did see LP!

ChuckieB
02-03-17, 13:03
I've been thinking at this; my logic is if an opponent is inside the tackle zone (1m - or within "range" as you call it) he is fair game. If he is outside the tackle zone, grabbing him would be playing the man without the ball.

:chin:


He would only be fair game for the referee to rightly penalise under 10(f).

Outside the zone becomes irrelevant.

Think of it that way and life becomes much simpler. It removes all doubt.

KML1
02-03-17, 14:03
Keith

The law does not stipulate "Binding" to form a ruck, only to join an already formed ruck.

What people are asking is can you grab an opponent to "form" a ruck?

16.1 FORMING A RUCK
(a) Where can a ruck take place. A ruck can take place only in the field of play.
(b) How can a ruck form. Players are on their feet. At least one player must be in physical
contact with an opponent. The ball must be on the ground. If the ball is off the ground for
any reason, the ruck is not formed.

Sure Phil - understand the question and Ive already explained in law why I believe it's not allowed. We're talking about a player standing on the field of play, minding his own business, not engaging in the tackle or making any moves at all to be an active part of the tackle zone. Law 10 says he cannot be grabbed/engaged as he doesn't have the ball and there is no ruck/maul or scrum. Some people are suggesting that by virtue of being 90cm away from it, he can be engaged. I disagree.

All the rest to me is (and I don't mean this disparrangingly at all) trying to see round and through what's written. I prefer to stick to the facts as I see then in law or my experience tells me is happening in front of my eyes.

I get the point about the grey area around the instant act of creating a ruck - to me, my eyes and brain tell me whether he is there to be part of it or not and therefore can be in physical contact with it.

DocY
02-03-17, 14:03
He would only be fair game for the referee to rightly penalise under 10(f).

Outside the zone becomes irrelevant.

Think of it that way and life becomes much simpler. It removes all doubt.

In that case, how would a ruck ever legally form? Or how would you deal with a jackler?

ctrainor
02-03-17, 14:03
It is universally accepted that you can't pull a Scrum half into a ruck or maul as you are playing a man without the ball.
The scum half ids not there to join just to move the ball away.
All the same thing really :-)

DocY
02-03-17, 14:03
to me, my eyes and brain tell me whether he is there to be part of it or not and therefore can be in physical contact with it.

TBH, I think this is the case for most people and we'd almost all agree on the legality of forming a ruck in any given situation.

But trying to come up with rigid wording describing what you can and cannot do is, yet again, problematic (and probably not really helpful).

ChuckieB
02-03-17, 15:03
In that case, how would a ruck ever legally form? Or how would you deal with a jackler?

To clarify, my response to Taff was about grabbing a player who is without the ball.

.....A jackler should be attacking the ball and so in contact with the ball, within the tackle laws. These have their own sequence and so if a player form the tackled player's side enters the tackle area within those laws I think we wouldn't preclude the formation of a ruck as a natural consequence. i.e. player contact, on feet, intent and closing around the ball on ground


.....let me go just figure!

ChrisR
02-03-17, 16:03
From KML1: "We're talking about a player standing on the field of play, minding his own business, not engaging in the tackle or making any moves at all to be an active part of the tackle zone."

Then he isn't going to get pulled in, is he?

The real scenario is a player who invades the tackle area with intent and you're going to give him a free pass to be there and disallow the man over the ball from grabbing him and so forming the ruck.

Encouraging the defender to encroach on the tackle area may be an application of law but it will create a problem area and does a disservice to the game.

KML1
02-03-17, 16:03
From KML1: "We're talking about a player standing on the field of play, minding his own business, not engaging in the tackle or making any moves at all to be an active part of the tackle zone."

Then he isn't going to get pulled in, is he?

The real scenario is a player who invades the tackle area with intent and you're going to give him a free pass to be there and disallow the man over the ball from grabbing him and so forming the ruck.

Encouraging the defender to encroach on the tackle area may be an application of law but it will create a problem area and does a disservice to the game.

Exactly what I was referring to - he's there to get involved and therefore is there to get the ball and be an active participant in creating the ruck.

You have perfectly completed my mental picture of the different actions of players which leads to different outcomes.

Mine - he cannot be pulled into something just because he is standing there minding his own business as per Law 10

Yours - he has intent to be there, is a willing participant in that tackle-to-ruck phase and therefore can be bound onto forming the ruck.

Pleasure doing business with you

ChuckieB
04-03-17, 00:03
Exactly what I was referring to - he's there to get involved and therefore is there to get the ball and be an active participant in creating the ruck.

You have perfectly completed my mental picture of the different actions of players which leads to different outcomes.

Mine - he cannot be pulled into something just because he is standing there minding his own business as per Law 10

Yours - he has intent to be there, is a willing participant in that tackle-to-ruck phase and therefore can be bound onto forming the ruck.

Pleasure doing business with you

A point very well made. You may be minding your own business but it is a contact game so if you are not a willing participant you have to get out! No distance need be specified. If you are within reach you are fair game! Time for the lawmakers to reconsider perhaps?

Pinky
06-03-17, 22:03
A point very well made. You may be minding your own business but it is a contact game so if you are not a willing participant you have to get out! No distance need be specified. If you are within reach you are fair game! Time for the lawmakers to reconsider perhaps?

I do not agree with this - you might be standing as a potential pillar/guard with no intention of getting involved in the ruck so you can tackle the player sniping round the edges? Also unless the ref polices binding to the ruck properly, you could be grabbed nearly 2m away and dragged in.

VM75
07-03-17, 21:03
hi all
1st RR post. this is a very hot topic for us at the moment (and many others by the look of it!) so here goes

Surely the biggest clue to how to referee this subject the fairest way is contained (bold by me) in here
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.
Players are rucking when they are in a ruck and using their feet to try to win or keep possession of the ball, without being guilty of foul play.


If a defender is holding his position trying to remain a distance away from the ball, then doesn't it makes sense to consider that he isn't closing around the ball? The pictures of Ruckers all show players engaged in grappling/wrestling/shoving over the ball on the floor which suggests they all want to be there & all want to contest for that particular possession.

If it's obvious that a defender hasn't approached over the ball (i.e. he's conceded the possession contest) then pulling him toward it (he might actually also resist being pulled) shouldn't work against him surely.

It makes sense if ref's didn't allow pulling-in, hopefully this subject will be managed by all ref's in the same way as that.

thanks

VM75
07-03-17, 21:03
it didnt print !

Definition: ... close around the ball on the ground ....

Pinky
08-03-17, 00:03
hi all
1st RR post. this is a very hot topic for us at the moment (and many others by the look of it!) so here goes

Surely the biggest clue to how to referee this subject the fairest way is contained (bold by me) in here
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.
Players are rucking when they are in a ruck and using their feet to try to win or keep possession of the ball, without being guilty of foul play.


If a defender is holding his position trying to remain a distance away from the ball, then doesn't it makes sense to consider that he isn't closing around the ball? The pictures of Ruckers all show players engaged in grappling/wrestling/shoving over the ball on the floor which suggests they all want to be there & all want to contest for that particular possession.

If it's obvious that a defender hasn't approached over the ball (i.e. he's conceded the possession contest) then pulling him toward it (he might actually also resist being pulled) shouldn't work against him surely.

It makes sense if ref's didn't allow pulling-in, hopefully this subject will be managed by all ref's in the same way as that.

thanks

VM75, welcome to the forum. I do think your analysis is helpful

ChrisR
08-03-17, 00:03
If the defender doesn't want to convert the tackle into a ruck then he should stay more than an arms length away from the tackle area. Then you'll have a much cleaner tackle area to referee and the SH won't be under pressure.

Let's see how this plays out. I suspet some of you will have interesting weekends.