PDA

View Full Version : [Ruck] Pulling a player forward



ChrisR
25-05-17, 11:05
Red ball carrier tackled by Blue. Ball is placed back and Red support player arrives and crouches over the ball.

Blue player arrives, grasps the Red player over the ball and pulls him forward so that the ball is now in the clear behind the Red player.

1. When the Blue player grasps the Red player with just his hands does this constitute binding and has a ruck formed?

2. Is it fair play to pull an opponent forward out of a ruck?

3. If the Red player, pulled forward, goes to ground is that collapsing the ruck?

4. Has the ruck ended when the ball is clear of the hind foot even though the ball didn't move?

Pinky
25-05-17, 12:05
1. grasping with a hand is not binding, but I would need to see it to determine if I thought the problem was failing to bind rather than not forming a ruck. I would tend towards assuming the ruck had been formed, and let it breathe to see if there is a need to blow up.

2. maul law specifically rules out dragging out of the maul, but not so ruck. However there is no general permission to pull an opponent, so I would accept a pushing clearout, but probably not a blatant pull. Also a pull forward may be seen as a high tackle as the contact tends to start over the head, but not in every situation

3 sorry, but again that depends. Players have to try and stay on their feet, so it depends why you think red went off his feet. If you think he did it deliberately then PK to Blue, but if you think Blue pulled him off his feet, then PK to Red.

4 Yes.

ChuckieB
25-05-17, 13:05
Game I was recently watching recently, although situation not entirely similar:

Red support player went to ground after a "helping" hand" from blue pulling him which the referee allowed. Ruck formation laws do not require a bind just contact. Binding laws come in for players joining thereafter.

Blue at least then chooses to come through the resulting "hole" and from within the gate to attack the ball which I recall was just sitting there like a cherry!

That for me was fine.

Might have not been fine is if he or another player, as you often see, had approached from outside the gate, perhaps incorrectly assuming the ball was out. Might depend whether the payer in the tackle was still in contact with the ball and how close it was to him, shortened or extended arm and then how quickly the play was developing. i.e. was tackled player trying to avoid releasing the ball?

For me a situation where it is often difficult determine consensus as to what is constitutes the ball being considered "out". Note the "debate" around the USA VS SA 7's game in another thread relatively recently.

OB..
25-05-17, 15:05
1. grasping with a hand is not binding, but I would need to see it to determine if I thought the problem was failing to bind rather than not forming a ruck. I would tend towards assuming the ruck had been formed, and let it breathe to see if there is a need to blow up.A ruck requires "physical contact", and NOT binding. Putting your hands on the player is sufficient.

didds
25-05-17, 16:05
>> Red ball carrier tackled by Blue.
>> Ball is placed back and Red support player arrives and crouches over the ball.
>> Blue player arrives, grasps the Red player over the ball and pulls him forward
>> so that the ball is now in the clear behind the Red player.

>>1. When the Blue player grasps the Red player with just his hands does this constitute binding and has a ruck formed?

Not a bind - not shoulder to wrist etc. All he has done is grab a player. The OP says red had not grasped the ball so arguably its playing a player without the ball.

>>2. Is it fair play to pull an opponent forward out of a ruck?
There is no ruck in the OP

>> 3. If the Red player, pulled forward, goes to ground is that collapsing the ruck?
There is no ruck in the OP

>>4. Has the ruck ended when the ball is clear of the hind foot even though the ball didn't move?
There was no ruck in the OP.

didds

didds
25-05-17, 16:05
A ruck requires "physical contact", and NOT binding. Putting your hands on the player is sufficient.


but if red is over the ball and blue grabs red by the short around the shouilders with just his hand - has blue really closed around the ball?


this is suspect is the crux

didds

ChuckieB
25-05-17, 17:05
but if red is over the ball and blue grabs red by the short around the shouilders with just his hand - has blue really closed around the ball?


this is suspect is the crux

didds

The conditions for a ruck being formed have been met and we go from there. Take yourselves back to the threads re the 6 nations and this was discussed over a number of pages..

didds
25-05-17, 17:05
so just to be sure - "closing around the ball" is redundant? being in contact with the player is sufficient?

didds

Elpablo73
25-05-17, 17:05
If we're not careful I can see another thread like EngVsIta and when is a ruck not a ruck!!

didds
25-05-17, 17:05
ah yes - I seem to recall the ref on the day wasn;t sure either if merely grabbing a player was sufficujent.

OK - don't restart the thread!

In which case in the OP a ruck is formed and collapsing the ruck has occurred, playing advantage to see if red claim the ball usefully with the ruck illegally having "ended" by being collapsed and now no ruck existing

except... the OP doesn't say the red player went to ground... so if bhe satys on his feet then ruck over ball clear, no collapse.

didds

ChuckieB
25-05-17, 17:05
ah yes - I seem to recall the ref on the day wasn;t sure either if merely grabbing a player was sufficujent.

OK - don't restart the thread!

In which case in the OP a ruck is formed and collapsing the ruck has occurred, playing advantage to see if red claim the ball usefully with the ruck illegally having "ended" by being collapsed and now no ruck existing

except... the OP doesn't say the red player went to ground... so if bhe satys on his feet then ruck over ball clear, no collapse.

didds

For me the laws are not sharp enough to differentiate a simultaneous formation and collapse scenario.

ChrisR
26-05-17, 12:05
I posed this question after binge watching the 7s circuit. As I see it:


Red ball carrier tackled by Blue. Ball is placed back and Red support player arrives and crouches over the ball.

Blue player arrives, grasps the Red player over the ball and pulls him forward so that the ball is now in the clear behind the Red player.

1. When the Blue player grasps the Red player with just his hands does this constitute binding and has a ruck formed?

Yes. 'Binding' not stipulated in law, only 'contact'.


2. Is it fair play to pull an opponent forward out of a ruck?

Yes. Not prohibited for rucks.


3. If the Red player, pulled forward, goes to ground is that collapsing the ruck?

When a player is pulled (or pushed) out/away from a ruck and goes to ground then this is not collapsing as that player is no longer part of the ruck.


4. Has the ruck ended when the ball is clear of the hind foot even though the ball didn't move?

Yes, the ruck has ended.

Taff
26-05-17, 14:05
1. When the Blue player grasps the Red player with just his hands does this constitute binding and has a ruck formed?
You only need "physical contact" to create a ruck.

VM75
26-05-17, 19:05
Red ball carrier tackled by Blue. Ball is placed back and Red support player arrives and crouches over the ball.

Blue player arrives, grasps the Red player over the ball and pulls him forward so that the ball is now in the clear behind the Red player.

1. When the Blue player grasps the Red player with just his hands does this constitute binding and has a ruck formed?cmere Contact=ruck, so yes.

2. Is it fair play to pull an opponent forward out of a ruck? Has equal status to saddle rolling, i.e. it's collapsed the ruck, fair no, ignored nowadays - yes.

3. If the Red player, pulled forward, goes to ground is that collapsing the ruck? Yes, but the pro game [15's] mainly ignores that nowadays

4. Has the ruck ended when the ball is clear of the hind foot even though the ball didn't move? Yes, for the same reasoning as above

my 2p worth above

Paule23
29-05-17, 20:05
I see this as a ruck has been formed (players in contact over the ball). Pulling a player forward and out of the ruck is either collapsing a ruck, or certainly illegal contact and I'm penalising this. I've seen it a few times on TV (yes, different game, different rules!) but I don't like it and if it happens in a game I'm refereeing it's getting penalised.

ChrisR
30-05-17, 20:05
Interesting. I have a different take on pulling a player forward out of the ruck. I think of 'collapsing the ruck' as making the ball unplayable or preventing access to it by an opponent.

I see pulling a player forward as a means of clearing the player out of the ruck.

To me the 'saddle roll/croc roll' is a violation of law 16.3(a) Players in a ruck must endeavor to stay on their feet.

winchesterref
30-05-17, 21:05
Interesting. I have a different take on pulling a player forward out of the ruck. I think of 'collapsing the ruck' as making the ball unplayable or preventing access to it by an opponent.

I see pulling a player forward as a means of clearing the player out of the ruck.

To me the 'saddle roll/croc roll' is a violation of law 16.3(a) Players in a ruck must endeavor to stay on their feet.


I would agree with most of this. If you are pulling someone OUT of a ruck, then how can you collapsing them IN a ruck?

The saddle roll is ok with me if they take them clear/out of the sides, and not directly down.

SimonSmith
30-05-17, 23:05
USA R have been pretty clear about the saddle roll:
Only to be done on players who have their hands on the ball.
Rolling a player who doesn't have his hands on the ball should be penalized.

OB..
31-05-17, 01:05
If you are pulling someone OUT of a ruck, then how can you collapsing them IN a ruck?
Out? In?
16.3 (b) A player must not intentionally collapse a ruck.

ChrisR
31-05-17, 11:05
I can see 'collapsing the ruck' if the pulled player goes to ground over the ball but what about:

. . . if the player is pulled out of the ruck but doesn't go to ground?

. . . and if the player is clear of the ruck before he goes to ground?

As for USA Rugby and the saddle roll that just muddies the water.

Pita
09-07-17, 05:07
In going to ask for participation on my game yesterday as it may clarify above.

Several players on both sides of good ruck. Arriving defending gorilla reaches in and hauls a player from the attacking side over their own defending player and tosses the attacking player who was legally bound to the ruck to the side and behind said gorilla. Gorilla then binds into and drives their own defending player at front of ruck into hole created.

Attacking 9 got ball away so I didn't have to do anything, but my take on it is the defending player PULLED AN OPPONENT OFF THEIR FEET. This is a penalty for causing a player to be off their feet OR dangerous play, your choice. OR am I wrong?

didds
09-07-17, 09:07
Same sanction whatever you choose isn't out? Take your pick?

Didds

ChrisR
09-07-17, 11:07
16.3 (c) A player must not intentionally collapse a ruck. This is dangerous play.Sanction: Penalty kick

If said gorilla pulls the player down over the ball then he is in violation of 16.3(c) above.

Pulling the opponent out of the ruck is not prohibited, even if they go off their feet.

Camquin
09-07-17, 11:07
If they lift and drop their opponent then 10.4(j) applies.

ChrisR
09-07-17, 11:07
If they lift and drop their opponent then 10.4(j) applies.

10.4 (j) Lifting a player from the ground and dropping or driving that player into the ground whilst that player’s feet are still off the ground such that the player’s head and/or upper body come into contact with the ground is dangerous play.
Sanction: Penalty kick

Only if above.

belhysys
03-10-17, 10:10
I was looking for this thread exactly :)

1- blue is above the ball with hands on the ball (legally), and red is pulling toward the red try line. Blue lose his footing and put hands on the floor sealing the ball. Based on the thread I am not sure if

16.3.c - collapsing the ruck? Blue PK
10.4.j - force upper body on the floor (are hands upper body?) - Blue PK
Blue is sealing - Red PK
just play on as the sealing is due to the clearing and not blue player. - Nothing


2 : if it is collapsing , what is the difference between clearing and collapsing. (away from the ball ? ) but can not find anything about this in the laws :(

thanks

Rich_NL
03-10-17, 10:10
I'd call the first option - collapsing the ruck.

irishref
03-10-17, 10:10
If we're ever asked for suggestions about improving or updating law verbiage, I would suggest to World Rugby that some text be added to law 16 that states players in a ruck can only push opponents, not pull nor roll them away to the side.

ChrisR
03-10-17, 12:10
Belhyssys, welcome to the forum.

You will find a variety of views in this forum and some will be diametrically opposed. We are not spokespersons for World Rugby so if you are a referee our advice should not supersede that from your society.

As to your question 1: If Blue was in a legal stance and Red pulls him down over the ball then 'collapsing' is a fair call.

Question 2: As no specific law prohibits pulling an opponent forward then the difference between 'clearing' and 'collapsing' becomes access to the ball. See my post #23 above.

Elpablo73
03-10-17, 13:10
If we're ever asked for suggestions about improving or updating law verbiage, I would suggest to World Rugby that some text be added to law 16 that states players in a ruck can only push opponents, not pull nor roll them away to the side.

I've never been a fan of the action of rolling an opponent to the side in a ruck.

belhysys
03-10-17, 13:10
thanks Chris.

Completely agree on all your points :P

winchesterref
03-10-17, 13:10
I've never been a fan of the action of rolling an opponent to the side in a ruck.

I think it stems from referees not rigidly enforcing players "endeavouring to stay on their feet" and 16.2 a/d as well. Players are so low down that a proper clear out becomes so much harder.

Christy
03-10-17, 14:10
I was looking for this thread exactly :)

1- blue is above the ball with hands on the ball (legally), and red is pulling toward the red try line. Blue lose his footing and put hands on the floor sealing the ball. Based on the thread I am not sure if

16.3.c - collapsing the ruck? Blue PK
10.4.j - force upper body on the floor (are hands upper body?) - Blue PK
Blue is sealing - Red PK
just play on as the sealing is due to the clearing and not blue player. - Nothing


2 : if it is collapsing , what is the difference between clearing and collapsing. (away from the ball ? ) but can not find anything about this in the laws :(

thanks


hi belshy .
depending on age grade & how safe /unsafe situation has become .
i would look at playing advantage if ball is available . { at lower age grade i wouldnt , unless really safe & we on try line }
otherwise i agree , red collapsing ruck , blue penalty

ChuckieB
08-10-17, 09:10
Not directly dealing with the OP but it comes under the banner of ruck clear outs generally!

RSA V NZ, as compelling as it was to watch, in hindsight I am thinking that this was a game that demonstrated much that could be deemed wrong with the ruck laws.

ruck is effectively collapsed, if it ever formed , and time after time players were diving in headfirst with no attempt even to contact the player other than barge the player off with the shoulder, arms flailing behind.

Was the pace of the game a factor or was Jerome Garces just being a bit lenient after his last experiences with the AB's. There seems to have been much missed with hands in, some attempted neck rolls, and I can't help but think it went beyond what I would deem as being acceptable as far as the laws, silent as they are, allow?

Dixpat
10-10-17, 06:10
Not directly dealing with the OP but it comes under the banner of ruck clear outs generally!

RSA V NZ, as compelling as it was to watch, in hindsight I am thinking that this was a game that demonstrated much that could be deemed wrong with the ruck laws.

ruck is effectively collapsed, if it ever formed , and time after time players were diving in headfirst with no attempt even to contact the player other than barge the player off with the shoulder, arms flailing behind.

Was the pace of the game a factor or was Jerome Garces just being a bit lenient after his last experiences with the AB's. There seems to have been much missed with hands in, some attempted neck rolls, and I can't help but think it went beyond what I would deem as being acceptable as far as the laws, silent as they are, allow?

I agree with all of your comments

The divebombing into the rucks was laughable and even dangerous as were the twisting of bodies out of the rucks which were as close to neck rolls as you would see.

In my view JG appeared to be a ref without confidence and was more like a possum in the headlights.

The first NZ try was very problematic and I am sure he disagreed with the TMO but didn’t have the confidence to overrule him

Pegleg
12-10-17, 08:10
If player are entering from the correct angles I find it diffucult to see how you can pull someone out of a ruck without pulling them on top of the ruck as you are pulling them from their side to yours over the bodies on the floor. I agree ther may be some legitimate chances but in general It is probable that the action will cause a collapse.