In at the side revisited

[OB..]

Originally Posted by Ian_Cook

Point by point I agree 100% with your analysis, especially your very last statement.

The angle at which the player comes in is of no consequence. He can come in legally at 45° or more, as long as he proceeded from behind the offside line.

... as long as he entered the ruck from behind the offside line.

If he crosses the offside line before joining the ruck he is offside. Law 16.5 (c).

It looks as if the blue arrow for your #5 would take him past the hindmost foot first.

[Rit Hinners]

This footage is from a rugby match isn't it?

The big Blu lug was standing inches away from a tackle wasn't he?

Am I mistaken? Is this actually footage of a mugging in the park? The guy with the ball is getting his wallet lifted and the guy in the blue jersey just an innocent bystander?

With the ball on the ground the Green players do what any rugger would do, bind to your mates and drive over. Is it incumbant upon them to ask the opposition weather he is going to play the game or stand there like a deer in the headlights?

Has the game gotten to the point that you have to send out invitations to a ruck and wait for the RSVP before you can have one?

They bound together, bent at the waist and even offered an arm to bind the blue player. It is not their fault that he declined to compete for the ball. They did make contact with him which is all they needed to create the ruck.

[MikeG]

"If it looks wrong: it probably is!" "K I S S"
Blue 2 played the SH without the ball.
PK
Simple

[Dixie]

Originally Posted by MikeG

"If it looks wrong: it probably is!" "K I S S"
Blue 2 played the SH without the ball.
PK
Simple

Mike, if you go through life penalising the second offence, or whistling without being able to articulate why, you'll spend a lot of time at L.13.

The issue is not so much whether he played the SH without the ball (he obviously did), as whether there was a ruck (SA Refs say no), whether any tackle was over, whether a SH can be considered a SH at the tackle, or simply just another player; whether there were offside lines and if so whether Blue 2 was in front of them.

While the ref did indeed seem to say "it looks wrong so I pinged it", there is merit in trying to research whether that was, in fact, the right thing to do.

[MikeG]

Fair point Dixie!
At the tackle, the tackler has released the ball carrier and moved away, the ball carrier has released the ball but not moved away, arguably using his body to shield the ball. (PK?)
Pod of 3 clear out but no ruck formed over the ball. "2" comes from an onside position: if he plays the ball: play on. but he plays the player at the SH position, no attempt to bind onto him, ball nowhere near them: PK as given.
I can't see where the ruck law would come into effect.

[OB..]

Originally Posted by Dixie

The issue is not so much whether he played the SH without the ball (he obviously did),

Which is a penalty offence.

as whether there was a ruck (SA Refs say no),

Why would that justify playing a player without the ball?

whether any tackle was over,

If the tackle was over you may be left with a ruck and its consequential offside line. But you still cannot knock an opponent away from the ball unless you form a ruck. No sign of that to me - no attempt to bind, and he bypassed the ball.

whether a SH can be considered a SH at the tackle, or simply just another player;

No, but it doesn't matter. It is only at a scrum that the scrum half is defined, and at a lineout where we have a receiver. In both cases you are allowed only one. There can be more than one player at the base of a ruck or tackle.

whether there were offside lines and if so whether Blue 2 was in front of them.

Still doesn't allow him to play a player without the ball.

While the ref did indeed seem to say "it looks wrong so I pinged it", there is merit in trying to research whether that was, in fact, the right thing to do.

There is a common tendency to grab the scrum half to pull him into the scrum. You can't play him until he has the ball (exception for forming a ruck, but very rare). It wasn't the best choice of phrase, but I doubt if anyone was confused.

[Dixie]

UNLESS he's forming a ruck. It's not normally possible to form a ruck without playing the man without the ball.

It's the issue of how a ruck may be started. The attackers were the first to bosh players out of the way. SA Refs website concludes there did not seem to be a ruck. If the act of boshing a defender out of the way did not create an attacking ruck, then it would seem to be an act of playing the defender without the ball. 1st offence to be penalised. Why ignore it in favour of penalising the defender's second offence (which is a lesser example of the same offence).

Originally Posted by Dixie

While the ref did indeed seem to say "it looks wrong so I pinged it", there is merit in trying to research whether that was, in fact, the right thing to do.

My point here is to suggest that we treat the defenders differently to the attackers. I see very little difference between the actions of the two attacking clear-out merchants and the defender, except that the latter was more gentle in what he did. What was his offence? Possibilities are: in at the side of the tackle; offside at the ruck; playing the man without the ball. Even with the benefit of a video clip for multiple replay, there's serious doubt about each one. But it "looks wrong" so we ping him. There will be instances where going with the gut in this way becomes a critical incident.

Originally Posted by OB..

But you still cannot knock an opponent away from the ball unless you form a ruck. No sign of that to me - no attempt to bind, and he bypassed the ball.

An example of people seeing what they want to see. He didn't bypass the ball. The still picture here shows the defender straddling the ball with right foot in front of it, left foot behind it as he makes contact with the #9, and if you lifted the ball you'd castrate the guy. You can't get a much clearer example of a player making contact with another player over the ball.

Where is the requirement to bind when setting up a ruck? All that is required is that two players are in contact above the ball. Let's not make up rules as we go along. Starting a ruck is anomalous behaviour - you have to play the man without the ball. As there is no ruck until you do, there's no requirement to bind, or to join from a particular direction. I suggest that in a fourth team game, if the ball is on the ground and two opponents above ir are waving their arms at each other in girlie fashion with their heads turned away, if they grab each other's arms, the ref should treat the ruck as formed, even though there is no bind. What's the alternative?