PDA

View Full Version : [Ruck] no more 1 man ruck ?? thoughts



Christy
02-05-18, 13:05
Clarification in Law by the Designated Members of Rugby Committee
Clarification
2 – 2018
Union
ARU
Law Reference
Law 15 – Amended Ruck Law (Trial from Jan, 2018)
Date
April 17, 2018
Request
I refer to your recent correspondence with Rugby AU General Counsel Mr. Patrick Eyers regarding Rugby AU’s request for clarification of World Rugby’s Law Variation Trial with respect to Law 16, Amended Ruck Law (Law 15 as of 1 January 2018): “A ruck commences when at least one player is on their feet andover the ball which is on the ground (tackled player, tackler). At this point the offside line is created. A player on their feet may use their hands to pick up the ball as long as this is immediate. As soon as an opposition player arrives no hands can be used.”
Specifically, Rugby AU is seeking clarity on its understanding that the Law creating offside lines when the first arriving player gets over the ball was intended solely to address the “no offside lines at a tackle” issue, and that it wasnot intended to modify the way the ball was contested at the breakdown. That is:


•the first arriving player from the defending team can always go directlyfor the ball with hands if there is a window to do so; and
•(b) if the player has to drive an attacking player away first in order toaccess the ball, then no hands can be used.


Rugby Australia is seeking a formal World Rugby Law clarification on the above to help aid a broader understanding of this trial law and its application across the game.



Clarification of the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee
Your assumptions in all three questions are correct ie:
1)The Law creating offside lines when the first arriving player gets over the ball wasintended solely to address the “no offside lines at a tackle” issue, and that it wasnot intended to modify the way the ball was contested at the breakdown
2)The first arriving player from the defending team can always go directly for theball with hands if there is a window to do so
3)If the player has to drive an attacking player away first in order to access the ball,then no hands can be used.
Addendum


The Fifteens Law Review Group met on Monday 16 April and agreed to bring the Ruck law trial into full law. They also agreed on the following simplified and more logical wording of the law:
Offside lines are created when at least one player is on their feet and over the ball, which is on the ground. A ruck is formed when at least one player from each team are in contact, on their feet and over the ball which is on the ground.
It is hoped that this revised wording will help resolve the questions that you raise.

Phil E
02-05-18, 14:05
Seems sensible; and it's how most people referee it.

crossref
02-05-18, 14:05
Seems sensible; and it's how most people referee it.

Hmmmm.. in your post 28 here , it wasn't how you reffed it .. you reffed it as a ruck , didn't you ?
(In accordance with RFU guideline which said that )
http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?20787-New-Ruck-Law&highlight=Mono+ruck

Phil E
02-05-18, 14:05
Hmmmm.. in your post 28 here , it wasn't how you reffed it .. you reffed it as a ruck , didn't you ?
(In accordance with RFU guideline which said that )
http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?20787-New-Ruck-Law&highlight=Mono+ruck

Being divisive as usual CR :chin:

In that thread all I did was quote the RFU guidelines. I made no statement about how I or anyone else referees it.

Stop putting words into people mouths to try and score points :nono:

crossref
02-05-18, 14:05
The guidance I quoted was sent out by the RFU so I would suggest all RFU Referees follow this.

In your own words

Phil E
02-05-18, 15:05
In your own words

Yawn.

crossref
02-05-18, 15:05
Ok well perhaps I misread you but

- Clarification 2018/2 contradicts RFU guidelines you quoted
- so I think it's unlikely that 2/18 represents the way most referees reffed it, at least not in England , where one imagines most refs followed RFU guidelines

(I am unclear whether you were or were not following the guidelines yourself. I thought you were , happy to be corrected)

Phil E
02-05-18, 15:05
The guidance given by the RFU was the same as the guidance notes from World Rugby.

The clarification from WR seems at odds with their own guidance notes issued at the time the trial was started.

However, practically the clarification is how most people seemed to end up reffing it, including at Premiership level. Or perhaps it's how the players ended up playing it? As a tackle with offside lines? Which negated the need to referee it at all apart form monitoring the offside lines and entry through the gate.

crossref
02-05-18, 15:05
I agree with that summary.
But then I am confused as to why you advised everyone to follow the guidelines, which no one was any longer following.

Anyway it's all moot now . We have a new clarification

Phil E
02-05-18, 16:05
I agree with that summary.
But then I am confused as to why you advised everyone to follow the guidelines, which no one was any longer following.

Anyway it's all moot now . We have a new clarification

Why would I advise people to NOT follow RFU Guidelines?

crossref
02-05-18, 16:05
Why would I advise people to NOT follow RFU Guidelines?

When they are old, and accepted practice has moved on ?

And now, of course , when WR change the laws

OB..
02-05-18, 16:05
Offside lines are created when at least one player is on their feet and over the ball, which is on the ground. A ruck is formed when at least one player from each team are in contact, on their feet and over the ball which is on the ground.
It has been claimed that the first player to arrive must step over the ball in order to set the offside lines. However since it is not realistic for two competing players to both step over the ball (second usage above) it seems to me the phrase merely means something like "above the ball" - and not necessarily even directly above.

Christy
02-05-18, 20:05
I think the wording , when it gets into new law books is now a more clear picture of , how to create an off side line following tackle / tackled player . ( and more importantly the message is just that IT CREATES AN OFF SIDE LINE ONLY ,,,,,,BUT IT NOW DOES NOT CREATE A RUCK My understanding is that you still need to step over ball , if you want to create an off side line . But where as this use to form a 1 MAN RUCK ,,,,IT NOW DOES NOT ..This will help players & refs realise that you can still jackle ball & not get pinged because a 1MAN RUCK HAD FORMED ..I agree with phil e ,,this is how most players & refs played it out . But there has also been a lot of confusion around same by coaches / players & some refs

crossref
02-05-18, 21:05
Why would I advise people to NOT follow RFU Guidelines?

also - in post 31 I said I was pretty sure we had guidance to treat it not as a ruck, but as a tackle with offside lines


Indeed, but I feel sure we also had cascaded something along the lines of #11


We know now that - like me - you also ref it as a tackle with offside lines

As you say on this thread so does everyone else

Seems sensible; and it's how most people referee it.


But back in march you kept shtum and said you didn't know anything about that


If that is the case I don't have any record of it in my 2017 law trials folder.



I don't understand how that was helpful....

Ian_Cook
02-05-18, 21:05
I think the wording , when it gets into new law books is now a more clear picture of , how to create an off side line following tackle / tackled player . ( and more importantly the message is just that IT CREATES AN OFF SIDE LINE ONLY ,,,,,,BUT IT NOW DOES NOT CREATE A RUCK My understanding is that you still need to step over ball , if you want to create an off side line . But where as this use to form a 1 MAN RUCK ,,,,IT NOW DOES NOT ..This will help players & refs realise that you can still jackle ball & not get pinged because a 1MAN RUCK HAD FORMED ..I agree with phil e ,,this is how most players & refs played it out . But there has also been a lot of confusion around same by coaches / players & some refs


also - in post 31 I said I was pretty sure we had guidance to treat it not as a ruck, but as a tackle with offside lines

We know now that - like me - you also ref it as a tackle with offside lines

As you say on this thread so does everyone else

But back in march you kept shtum and said you didn't know anything about that

I don't understand how that was helpful....

https://www.dropbox.com/s/9iv8tdnndord98o/shatnerWTF.gif?raw=1

"Over the ball" does NOT mean you MUST have stepped over the ball in ANY sense in the English language. If you are on the ground and I am standing over you, does that necessarily mean I must have stepped over you? Of course it doesn't!!

Its precisely this kind of miring of discussion in meaningless trivia that has driven me to not bother posting here as often as I used to. I just can't be arsed getting involved in the endless, tedious discussion of irrelevant minutiae, indulged in by some of the newer members here. Nor can I be bothered with the way some members continually look for ways reinterpret laws make them mean things that were never intended.

Taff
02-05-18, 21:05
Clarify something something for me.

If the first man at the scene gets his hands on the ball (creating offside lines but no Ruck) is he allowed to keep his hands on the ball once there is an opponent in physical contact ie once a Ruck has formed?

It used to be that a Jackler could keep his hands on the ball as long as he got his hands on the ball before the Ruck was formed. Has this now been dropped? :chin:

Ian_Cook
02-05-18, 21:05
Clarify something something for me.

If the first man at the scene gets his hands on the ball (creating offside lines but no Ruck) is he allowed to keep his hands on the ball once there is an opponent in physical contact ie once a Ruck has formed?

It used to be that a Jackler could keep his hands on the ball as long as he got his hands on the ball before the Ruck was formed. Has this now been dropped? :chin:

LAW 15 RUCK

11. Once a ruck has formed, no player may handle the ball unless they were able to get their
hands on the ball before the ruck formed and stay on their feet.

Breakdown turnovers are difficult enough to get now. Without this, they would be impossible!

Christy
02-05-18, 21:05
https://www.dropbox.com/s/9iv8tdnndord98o/shatnerWTF.gif?raw=1

"Over the ball" does NOT mean you MUST have stepped over the ball in ANY sense in the English language. If you are on the ground and I am standing over you, does that necessarily mean I must have stepped over you? Of course it doesn't!!

Its precisely this kind of miring of discussion in meaningless trivia that has driven me to not bother posting here as often as I used to. I just can't be arsed getting involved in the endless, tedious discussion of irrelevant minutiae, indulged in by some of the newer members here. Nor can I be bothered with the way some members continually look for ways reinterpret laws make them mean things that were never intended.

Hi ian ..my post just to be clear is not at all antagonistic or do i seek to make any meaningless comments ...im surprised & disappointed if you have taken them on board that way ..


I see you are in new zealand ,,im in ireland .
I put up post in a positive scripture with view of concurring that the law re wording , for me any way is a welcome ..

In irfu land , we have been pushed to watch the alain rowland new laws video .( have you seen it ,,as its an official world rugby video )
Of which the new 1 man ruck was only created & off side lines are only created if a player steps over the tackle area , which is the ball ....he even goes on to say that if you dont step over the ball ,,there is in fact no off side line acheived .

Quoting english language is not necessary relevant to quoting rugby laws ..
Im not sure where your going with same ..

Ill not take your post personally ,,so please dont take mine as anything else as than a member simply looking to reach out ..
Take care now ..

crossref
02-05-18, 22:05
https://www.dropbox.com/s/9iv8tdnndord98o/shatnerWTF.gif?raw=1

"Over the ball" does NOT mean you MUST have stepped over the ball in ANY sense in the English language. If you are on the ground and I am standing over you, does that necessarily mean I must have stepped over you? Of course it doesn't!!

Its precisely this kind of miring of discussion in meaningless trivia that has driven me to not bother posting here as often as I used to. I just can't be arsed getting involved in the endless, tedious discussion of irrelevant minutiae, indulged in by some of the newer members here. Nor can I be bothered with the way some members continually look for ways reinterpret laws make them mean things that were never intended.

was that supposed to be directed at me ? I have hardly posted about stepping over the ball, apart from to say that Alain Rollands video is (as I understand it) regarded as going off piste

it's generally been a lot less angry while you were away !

Ian_Cook
02-05-18, 22:05
was that supposed to be directed at me ? I have hardly posted about stepping over the ball, apart from to say that Alain Rollands video is (as I understand it) regarded as going off piste

Its directed generally.... you just happened to post at the wrong time

Your tit-for-tat attack on PhilE over who said what is exactly the sort of trivial points-scoring "trying to win the internet" crap I'm talking about... It was unnecessary and it achieved nothing.


it's generally been a lot less angry while you were away !

Perhaps that's because you don't have anyone here to hold discussion up to the standards required. I hope you realise that we have lost a LOT of excellent contributors and/or very experienced referees such as Simon Thomas, Deeps, ex-Lucy, DaveT, DrStu, SimonGriffiths and Bryan from this forum, and I have a fairly good idea why. These losses have immensely diminished the value of this forum .

Perhaps I'll just stay away, and then you can have free reign to do whatever you like.

Dickie E
03-05-18, 00:05
this is from our GMGs:

3753

the interesting bit is:

An arriving player can either create an offside line by being on feet and over the ball, or they may use their hands to pick up the ball as long as this is immediate.

so it's either/or. If a player arrives and goes for the ball, he isn't creating an offside line.

Is that how this is universally applied?

OB..
03-05-18, 11:05
Perhaps I'll just stay away, and then you can have free reign to do whatever you like.
I'd rather you didn't. Your input has often been very valuable.

crossref
03-05-18, 11:05
this is from our GMGs:

3753

the interesting bit is:

An arriving player can either create an offside line by being on feet and over the ball, or they may use their hands to pick up the ball as long as this is immediate.

so it's either/or. If a player arrives and goes for the ball, he isn't creating an offside line.

Is that how this is universally applied?

For me that's my understanding.
Of course either way it's still a tackle so people coming in to contest have to come through gate

didds
03-05-18, 12:05
LAW 15 RUCK

11. Once a ruck has formed, no player may handle the ball unless they were able to get their
hands on the ball before the ruck formed and stay on their feet.

Breakdown turnovers are difficult enough to get now. Without this, they would be impossible!

Whilst I do agree with Ian., a totally radical alternative might be to actually drive the opponents backwards and leave the ball behind oneself?

didds

Elpablo73
03-05-18, 17:05
I think I need to get a new computer and internet connection, because I can't see this clarification on the World Rugby Site as all!!:confused:

Could one of you fine chaps send me the link?

crossref
03-05-18, 19:05
It's not on the website yet, I am guessing that it has been distributed only by secret email

Rich_NL
07-05-18, 08:05
Asking for advice from the more experienced: how do you let the players know the offside lines are formed? I've found shouting "offsides" to alert defenders to offside lines can be misconstrued by the attackers that they have a penalty advantage, and "ruck" is also potentially misleading.

Dickie E
07-05-18, 09:05
Asking for advice from the more experienced: how do you let the players know the offside lines are formed? I've found shouting "offsides" to alert defenders to offside lines can be misconstrued by the attackers that they have a penalty advantage, and "ruck" is also potentially misleading.

I certainly wouldn't call "offsides".

"Ruck" or "ruck formed" would be my suggestion. Why is this potentially misleading?

Further, I wouldn't call anything unless I saw a need to do so (eg an Italian loitering with intent).

didds
07-05-18, 09:05
"Ruck" or "ruck formed" would be my suggestion. Why is this potentially misleading?



Because if I've understood the above correctly its not a ruck - so players can stiull try and play the ball (from an onside position).

???

didds

crossref
07-05-18, 09:05
I certainly wouldn't call "offsides".

"Ruck" or "ruck formed" would be my suggestion. Why is this potentially misleading?

Further, I wouldn't call anything unless I saw a need to do so (eg an Italian loitering with intent).

But the point of the clarification is that one person on his own DOESNT form a ruck. Only an offside line.
So it would be misleading to shout ruck, when there isn't one

Dickie E
07-05-18, 09:05
Because if I've understood the above correctly its not a ruck - so players can stiull try and play the ball (from an onside position).

???

didds

OK - I've caught up.

I wouldn't see this as a big issue. Either it is a dynamic situation and very quickly turns into a ruck (most of the time) or it doesn't. If it doesn't, ref needs to scan and ensure offside lines are being adhered to.

Maybe "offsides" is the right call :(:holysheep:

didds
07-05-18, 10:05
from the others posts, which I generally concur with, shouring "offsides" to illustrate offside lines are in place could easily be misheard as "offside" by the ball carrying team who then treat the next phase or so as a "free play" (for want of a better description) ie their subsequent action is a response to what they think you called.

I don;t have any easy answers either, and whatever it is needs to be pretty universal for obvious reasons.

here's a stab (which is rubbish!) - "LINES" ?



didds

ChrisR
07-05-18, 11:05
I think it best to let the players figure it out and if a player looks to be encroaching then address him.

I still have some questions on this.

If the attacking support player arrives first with chest over the ball can he then move the ball back with his hand to be under his foot? Seems OK until contact with an opponent.

If the attacking support player arrives first with chest over the ball and pauses (slow count to three) can he then pick up the ball if the opponents don't contest? Also seems OK but doesn't fit 'immediately'.

If the defending support arrives first, gets hands on the ball but not lifted, if the opponents engage to form standard ruck does he have to release the ball? This requirement was in first law trial doc but seems to be omitted since.

If the defending support arrives first, gets hands on the ball and lifts it, has the ruck ended? If he then places the ball back on the ground (his side of the tackled player) can he then engage incoming attacking support players to form a new ruck?

thepercy
07-05-18, 18:05
"Back"

"Last Foot"

OB..
07-05-18, 18:05
"Stay onside"?

chbg
08-05-18, 13:05
I think it best to let the players figure it out and if a player looks to be encroaching then address him.


This. Let those that have eyes see for themselves.

Flish
08-05-18, 14:05
"Back Foot" is the call I tend to use, kids and adults, it seems to mostly remind them of where I need them to be

Taff
08-05-18, 15:05
.... If the defending support arrives first, gets hands on the ball and lifts it, has the ruck ended? If he then places the ball back on the ground (his side of the tackled player) can he then engage incoming attacking support players to form a new ruck?
Isn't that effectively bringing the ball back into a Ruck though? :chin:

ChrisR
08-05-18, 23:05
. . . and that's the $64K question. If the first defender lifts the ball over the body of the tackled player and places it between his feet has he ended the ruck? Would he then be obstructing or has he iniated a new ruck? Or is it the same ruck?

I think it's the same ruck and he's OK.

didds
09-05-18, 08:05
In the interests of simplicity I agree with ChrisR, otherwise the world becomes more convoluted.

2ndary Q: if the jackler lifts the ball in what is otherwise a ruck but holds on to it - is it still a ruck or is it now a maul?

didds

thepercy
09-05-18, 15:05
Do we allow ruck players to use their hands in clearly won rucks?

didds
09-05-18, 16:05
this has drifted away from U10 regs now, but from what I was told last week

- jackler gets hands on
- oppo makes contact
- ruck formed
- jackler doesn;t have to remove hands

irrespective of whether jackler has lifted the ball or not at the moment of contact and ruck formed

So the simple answer to the percy's question is "Yes".

Flish
09-05-18, 18:05
For U10 it’s simpler as we’re trying to promote best practice, so if there’s hands on first, and they make an attempt to use it positively then well done and that should be encouraged (and explained after if appropriate), thankfully at that age they haven’t been corrupted enough to try and leave hands on and milk a penalty!

Taff
15-06-18, 17:06
.... Addendum
The Fifteens Law Review Group met on Monday 16 April and agreed to bring the Ruck law trial into full law. They also agreed on the following simplified and more logical wording of the law:
Offside lines are created when at least one player is on their feet and over the ball, which is on the ground. A ruck is formed when at least one player from each team are in contact, on their feet and over the ball which is on the ground.
So from what I can see, we can have a "Mono Ruck" with 1 player over the ball (and he can handle the ball) or we have a conventional Ruck with 2 opposing players in physical contact over the ball and nobody can handle the ball.

crossref
15-06-18, 18:06
I think that's the terminology they want to avoid

We have either
1 a tackle, where players on their feet can use their hands Or
2 a ruck where they can't

The tackle may or may not have offside lines , but the offside lines are a red herring , they only affect players a distance away from the tackle

Players actually entering any tackle zone , offisde line or not, have to come through the gate and can use their hands (unless of course a ruck is formed)

Taff
15-06-18, 20:06
I think that's the terminology they want to avoid

We have either
1 a tackle, where players on their feet can use their hands Or
2 a ruck where they can't
Fair enough; but WR themselves were calling it a Ruck only a few weeks ago.

crossref
15-06-18, 20:06
Fair enough; but WR themselves were calling it a Ruck only a few weeks ago.

Indeed they were !

Christy
15-06-18, 21:06
This is why i put up this post originally .
The new wording is going to be below

The Fifteens Law Review Group met on Monday 16 April and agreed to bring the Ruck law trial into full law. They also agreed on the following simplified and more logical wording of the law:
Offside lines are created when at least one player is on their feet and over the ball, which is on the ground. A ruck is formed when at least one player from each team are in contact, on their feet and over the ball which is on the ground.
It is hoped that this revised wording will help resolve the questions that you raise

on # 13 ,, this is why i wrote , that to me it spells the end of a mono ruck .
Which i feel is a good thing ..

It is my understanding that at a tackle only there is no off side line & no ruck .
1 player if he wishes to stand over the ball ,,will now only create an off side line but not a ruck .

For a ruck to form , we will now be back to as was before ,, 1 player minimum will be needed from each team
I think it will clear up this area for players , refs & spectators .
The tackle area will still have gate entry requirements .
A jackler can still jackle & keep hands on ball if he was there 1st ,,even if he gets cleaned out of same .

crossref
15-06-18, 23:06
I am curious, Christy , where did you get this clarification from .. it's not on the WR website

didds
16-06-18, 08:06
So from what I can see, we can have a "Mono Ruck" with 1 player over the ball (and he can handle the ball) or we have a conventional Ruck with 2 opposing players in physical contact over the ball and nobody can handle the ball.

yep - though personally I think the use of the word "ruck" in the former is potentially confusing. Not that I have a better suggestion! :-)

didds