In at the side revisited

[Dixie]

A clip from SA Refs got me wondering. The webpage is here:

Tackle takes place in the centres. The tackled player immediately pushes (not places) the ball back towards the SH, who is arriving fast. There's no ruck at this point. As the ball nears the SH, and a gap opens up between the ball and the tackle, an opponent arrives from a 45 degree angle to clear out the SH. Has an offence been committed?

The SA Ref's discussion is confused.

Does the position of the ball in this clip mean the tackle is over? If it is a tackle - and it was a tackle - Liebenberg is approaching from the side.

The referee's penalty for playing the man without the ball is a fair one.

it's not at all clear what the alleged offence was. Options are: entering the tackle zone from the side; and playing the man without the ball.

I'd argue that it's not normally possible to create a ruck without playing the man without the ball. In order to have two players in physical contact above the ball on the ground, one must have "played" the other before he had the ball. This is the justification for the clear-out, which I view as perfectly legal if the initial contact is not dangerous. From my perspective, the opponent was clearing out a player in close proximity to the ball. No offence.

entering the tackle zone from the side doesn't wash. SA Refs discuss this in the context of whether the tackle was over, which is interesting but not determinative. If the tackle persisted at the time of the clearout, there has been no offence.

Entering from the side is only an offence if the side-enterer then goes on to play the ball.

15.6(d) At a tackle or near to a tackle, other players who play the ball must do so from behind the ball and from directly behind the tackled player or the tackler closest to those players’ goal line.
Sanction: Penalty kick

There is no prohibition in law against a player who does not play the ball entering from the side. In this case, the side-enterer ignored the ball, and put in a fairly ineffective clear- out of the man. So where was the offence?

I fear we are moving to the sort of protection for a SH that a soccer goalie receives. Look askance at him and expect a penalty for unnnecessary roughness.

[Davet]

hmm.

Have to say that when I looked at it it seemed like a clear in-at-the-side offence.

You are of course right, he didn't play the ball, but then again neither did he form a ruck, he simply shoved the half-back way then retreated himself. So does that make it playing the man without the ball rather than forming a ruck? Now it may be a ruck formed for an instant, though I am not sure they were actually "over the ball", but do we not think of a ruck as more long-lived thing than a quick wham bang, thankyou ma'am?

I suspect, in the heat of battle, 98% of refs would have reacted as the one in the clip did.

Would we have been right?

[OB..]

Originally Posted by Dixie

The SA Ref's discussion is confused. it's not at all clear what the alleged offence was. Options are: entering the tackle zone from the side; and playing the man without the ball.

Surely that was the point - to consider the various possibilities?

I'd argue that it's not normally possible to create a ruck without playing the man without the ball. In order to have two players in physical contact above the ball on the ground, one must have "played" the other before he had the ball. This is the justification for the clear-out, which I view as perfectly legal if the initial contact is not dangerous. From my perspective, the opponent was clearing out a player in close proximity to the ball. No offence.

The law says "close around the ball", not "in close proximity".

entering the tackle zone from the side doesn't wash. SA Refs discuss this in the context of whether the tackle was over, which is interesting but not determinative. If the tackle persisted at the time of the clearout, there has been no offence.

If the tackle still persisted he came in at the side and played a player without the ball. You cannot run round a tackle and claim you were not coming in at the side

Entering from the side is only an offence if the side-enterer then goes on to play the ball.

A literal interpretation of Law 15.6 (d) might suggest that he could come in from the opposition side of the tackle as long as he did not play the ball. However we would all expect to see that penalised.

If a player is not coming into the tackle to play the ball, what are his alternatives? Play the player on the ground? Law 15.6. Form a ruck? Law 16. Play a player without the ball? Law 10.4 (f).

There is no prohibition in law against a player who does not play the ball entering from the side.

You might want to argue that in a court of law, but I sugest you do not try to apply it on the rugby pitch.

In this case, the side-enterer ignored the ball, and put in a fairly ineffective clear- out of the man. So where was the offence?

Law 10.4 (f).

I fear we are moving to the sort of protection for a SH that a soccer goalie receives. Look askance at him and expect a penalty for unnnecessary roughness.

I fear you are exaggerating, and spitting into the wind at the same time.

[David J.]

White 2 didn't have a whole lot of options in entering the tackle zone. There was a green player blocking, weight on the ground, blocking him from coming in directly. I think White 2 does a fair job coming into the tackle from behind, coming as close to the Gray 4 as he could (stepping over his leg even).

If White 2 has made an effort to bind onto Gray 9, I think it would have be a legal play. As it was he basically shoulder charged the 9.

Unfortunately, the referee said, "You can't play the scrumhalf." That's a poor choice of words implying the SH is somehow inviolate.

[Rit Hinners]

I agree that Blue2 had no business playing Green 9. Not because the ball was out but because he was offisdes.

This is what I see.

1)A tackle.
It's a clean and efficient wrap-sweep move going from knees to ankles.

2)A ruck.
Green 3 and 2 bind to each other and make contact a blue player (unknown #) at a position I consider to be close enough to "over the ball" to be considered so. Green 4 binds to 3 and 2 from behind and between.
SNAPSHOT.
At this point in time a ruck exists. Said ruck is 3 players deep. This creates 2 offsides lines approximately 5 feet apart. Blue 2 is standing about 1 foot in front of his team's offsides line at this point.
The Green players drive the one defender away from the ball so quickly that Green 4 has to disengage his bind to avoid trampling the players in the tackle. This has shortened the distance between the offsides lines but, due to the drive, said lines have moved closer to the Blue DBL putting Blue 2's position to some 3 feet in front of his line.

3)Green 9 is prevented from playing the ball by Blue 2 who was never onsides at the previous ruck.

His approach angle should have no bearing on the call. Where he came from is the problem.

[Ian_Cook]

Originally Posted by Rit Hinners

I agree that Blue2 had no business playing Green 9. Not because the ball was out but because he was offisdes.

This is what I see.

1)A tackle.
It's a clean and efficient wrap-sweep move going from knees to ankles.

2)A ruck.
Green 3 and 2 bind to each other and make contact a blue player (unknown #) at a position I consider to be close enough to "over the ball" to be considered so. Green 4 binds to 3 and 2 from behind and between.
SNAPSHOT.
At this point in time a ruck exists. Said ruck is 3 players deep. This creates 2 offsides lines approximately 5 feet apart. Blue 2 is standing about 1 foot in front of his team's offsides line at this point.
The Green players drive the one defender away from the ball so quickly that Green 4 has to disengage his bind to avoid trampling the players in the tackle. This has shortened the distance between the offsides lines but, due to the drive, said lines have moved closer to the Blue DBL putting Blue 2's position to some 3 feet in front of his line.

3)Green 9 is prevented from playing the ball by Blue 2 who was never onsides at the previous ruck.

His approach angle should have no bearing on the call. Where he came from is the problem.

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.

[Dixie]

V. harsh analysis from Rit and Ian.

My own view is that a celar-out DOES create a ruck, even when it is so rapid and short-lived. However, at the time of the clearout, the eventual intervener is level at best, arguably behind the defender being cleared out.

The defender is cleared backwards at a rate of knots. If we agree that the contact for the celar-out forms the ruck, we have to ask when it finishes? Answer: when the ball emerges from it. Actually, the clean-out took place ahead of the ball, whick was never in front of the rear foot of any rucker. So the ruck ended at the moment it formed, as the ball was no longer [never] in it.

There are those on here who argue that a clear-out is too quick to be deemed a true ruck; that's not my view, but I respect it as a rational and possible approach. But a clear-out that takes place ahead of the ball, so that the ball us never "within" the ruck? While I'd argue that the practicalities of a fast-moving and dynamic game require us to consider that the ruck is momentarily formed, surely it takes things too far to treat it though it was the normal beast? Here, we see a player onside at the mement of formation, and an instant de-formation. The ball was available behind the back foot, and he went for it. To ping him in those circumstances seems to be favouring the attack for no other reason than they are on the attack.

Gerald Davis in today's Times argues that recent research (he doesn't specify it) demonstrates that there are significant periods where 100% of the penalties go to the side in possession, and characterises that as "too obvious a bias in the judgement". I think he's on shaky ground in the absence of detail, which is required in spades if he's going to make that sort of accusation; but my gut instinct is that his point warrants proper scrutiny. I wouldn't be surprised to find (as here) that the defence is being pinged for alleged offences that can only be justified, if at all, by the sort of micro-millimetre judgement that is impossible for the referee to achieve in real life.

[OB..]

A clear out can create a ruck. If two players are both going for the ball, and one drives the other back away from the ball, they formed a ruck over the ball which ended when they moved away from it. Anybody offside when the ruck formed has to get back onside.

The other sort of clear out usually occurs when a player drives into an opponent who is not part of the tackle or ruck. To me that is blatantly illegal as it constitutes playing a player without the ball. This is the case whether or not a ruck formed, as the clip shows. Arguments about the gate or offside are irrelevant.

[Dixie]

So Ian and Rit say ruck, PK against the defender. OB says playing the man without the ball, PK against the attackers; Ref on the day said the SH was inviolate, PK against the defender; SA Refs website said no ruck, tackle not over, in at the side (despite wording of LoTG), PK against defenders. Dixie says play on.

Is it any wonder that top rank coaches are fearful of the breakdown lottery?

[Ian_Cook]

Dixie

If we agree that the contact for the celar-out forms the ruck, we have to ask when it finishes? Answer: when the ball emerges from it.

If you are going to argue that the ruck was over when the ball came out, that is fine, but that ball is NOT allowed to be played by any player who was not bound and ahead of the offside line when the ball emerged. Only a player who was behind the offside line is entitled to come forward, but even he is not entitled to play the SH without the ball. Blue 2 was always ahead of the ruck offside line.

Personally, I regard opponents coming together in the clean-out to be forming ruck if they are close to the ball. How close is down to the referee's judgment, but I always regard them as "close enough" if they are within reach of kicking or playing the ball without taking a step; i.e., close enough to stick a foot out and kick the ball.

In fact, I do not like the clean-out. We should leave the taking out of players without he ball to the code where players wear helmets, shoulder pads and ballet tights!!