PDA

View Full Version : Hands in the ruck?



menace
20-03-19, 04:03
Looking at the ruck at 4:05 (video time) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmdKqbe3m20

Is anyone awarding that try?

Surely the player that picks up the ball is part of the ruck? (he's not last feet/man). Although the other 2 behind him are not technically bound - I'd judge they have still joined the ruck.
For me that's hands in the ruck.

(add to that the player that picks up the ball has to shove his own plyer in front of him aside to get the ball down - so also obstruction).

What am I missing that this try could have been awarded?

didds
20-03-19, 08:03
I suppose part of the answer is another question... had that been on the half way line would at leasts the initial pick up of the ball be pinged as hands in the ruck at this level ? I suspect not - though that doesn't make menace's queries generally valid.

wrt to the actual consequent score - that action wouldn't happen on half way (no point etc)... Im not that sure he shoves his team mate out of the way (but only seen it once) but potentially its on a par with a "proper ruck" and proper receiver dotting down between team mates legs if the line is there and available I guess.

I(m not "defending" the play in p[articular, just having a stab at why it may be allowed

Update: on a second viewing if he doesn't so much shove his team mate out of the way he does at least go burying underneath his team mate. But again, this is what you get when players are allowed to flop all over the place rather than stay on their feet in entirety. It becomes an unholy mess of flesh through which to try and make some sort of rugby work at some time, some how.


didds

Rich_NL
20-03-19, 09:03
I wouldn't call it hands in the ruck, as the teammates aren't bound and are behind the back foot... but it's absurd to let players in front of the ball flop over the in-goal area to clear a space for dotting down. The question is then, what do you call it? Can an off-feet player be both out of the game and offside? I think the choices are

10.1.c Offside - in front of a teammate and preventing the opposition from playing the ball once the ball is picked up
10.5 Accidental offside - ball carrier makes contact with a player in front
13.3 Off feet, preventing opponents from getting to the ball
15.15 off feet, not moving away from the ball in the ruck

Given it's not (IMO) cynical, I think in practice I'd be tempted to go with accidental offside, defending scrum 5.

Phil E
20-03-19, 13:03
Looking at the ruck at 4:05 (video time)
Is anyone awarding that try?

Nope.

The player who scores is buried in the middle of the ruck and off his feet when he picks the ball up.

Decorily
20-03-19, 13:03
Not convinced that he was off his feet (by showbiz rugby standards ) and assuming he wasn't, does the fact that both his feet were behind the ball not entitle him to pick it up?

Pinky
20-03-19, 15:03
For me, I am not too worried about the players behind the try scorer as they are not bound. He seemed to be on his feet when he initally go hands on the ball, so OK there, but I am not too happy with the player in front of him shifting, being shifted to make way for the ball to be grounded. So for me. no try and back for the penalty (15 red tackling 4 white without the ball)

crossref
20-03-19, 17:03
If the ball isn't in a ruck , then could the defenders have come round d and got it ?

Jz558
21-03-19, 11:03
I think to allow the try on the grounds that 17 and 5 White aren’t fully bound on the scorer (16 White) is somewhat disingenuous. 17 is definitely bound to 5 although it looks from the camera angle like 5 is using his hands to rest on 16’s backside. Red would be entitled to assume the Ref was happy otherwise he would surely call it and I suspect White 16 assumed they were bound behind him.

Either way though if the referee has decided that the formation is a ruck then the try can’t be allowed and penalty to Red for hands in the ruck. If he has decided it isn’t a ruck because 17 & 5 aren’t bound then it’s still a penalty to red under 15.13.

Maybe the Ref saw an easy way out as he was playing an offside advantage to White.

beckett50
21-03-19, 11:03
No try. Player was obstructed from making the tackle by the white player who had rolled the red player away from the tackle.

ChuckieB
21-03-19, 12:03
Surely some leeway around who is picking the ball from the ruck. The ball came back and he was acting in the half back capacity. That there were players in contact seeking to to prepare to bind on to him seems moot and whether him being bound in himself, disallowed him from picking the ball (I don't think so as he had to detach and was in my view still the hindmost payer), is perhaps a question.

To be argued weather he was on his feet at the time the ball was picked up (supporting his body weight with his head) but as he drove forward the referee may have seen the ball cross the plane (we don't know) and as such he would have been entitled to ground the ball in pretty much any way shape or form?

Easier to give in my view than disallow. Plays on and around the goal line don't always follow logic or the normal rules of the laws, case in point, the interpretation of an obstruction

Pinky
21-03-19, 12:03
If the ball isn't in a ruck , then could the defenders have come round d and got it ?

Probably not as it is almost certainly then a TWOL.

Pinky
21-03-19, 12:03
I think to allow the try on the grounds that 17 and 5 White aren’t fully bound on the scorer (16 White) is somewhat disingenuous. 17 is definitely bound to 5 although it looks from the camera angle like 5 is using his hands to rest on 16’s backside. Red would be entitled to assume the Ref was happy otherwise he would surely call it and I suspect White 16 assumed they were bound behind him.

Either way though if the referee has decided that the formation is a ruck then the try can’t be allowed and penalty to Red for hands in the ruck. If he has decided it isn’t a ruck because 17 & 5 aren’t bound then it’s still a penalty to red under 15.13.

Maybe the Ref saw an easy way out as he was playing an offside advantage to White.

I think the point about 17 and 5 not being bound was that meant 16 was the rear player in the TRM and could detach and pick up the ball. Not sure what you think the ref "was happy otherwise he would surely call it", though. If they are not bound, they are not part of the ruck and not offside if behind the rearmost foot.

crossref
21-03-19, 13:03
Probably not as it is almost certainly then a TWOL.

But then if it's a TWOL then they are allowed to pick the ball up anyway. ... You can use your hands in a tackle (if you are on your feet etc)

Jz558
21-03-19, 13:03
I think the point about 17 and 5 not being bound was that meant 16 was the rear player in the TRM and could detach and pick up the ball. Not sure what you think the ref "was happy otherwise he would surely call it", though. If they are not bound, they are not part of the ruck and not offside if behind the rearmost foot.

I understand that if 17 & 5 aren’t bound then 16 is the rear player and entitled to play the ball.

Whether fully bound or not, 5 is in contact with 16 and taking an active part therefore the defending side would be entitled to assume that both he and 17 are part of the ruck and as the hindmost players those are the potential ball carriers they would be targeting when the ball emerges, not the fellow in the ‘second row’.

If the player is in contact and taking part but not bound on to a team mate he is liable to sanction:

15.7 Joining a ruck – A player must bind onto a team-mate or an opposition player etc etc
15.13 During a ruck - All players in a ruck must be caught in or bound to it not just alongside it.
Sanction Penalty.

5 did neither of these (although 17 binds fully onto 5) .

I have no problem with 17 & 5 cuddling behind the ruck leaving 16 as the hindmost player but that’s not what happened.

As Didds says though if you continually ignore ruck laws this is the mess you end up with.