[Ruck] Advancing Ruck Line

[Rich_NL]

Watching the ENG-NZ game yesterday answering questions from a friend who is new to rugby, there was one I couldn't really answer...

Red tackles blue, blue get men over the ball, red don't contest after the first contact that sets the ruck. Blue players pile in to the back, as they do to protect the box kicker.

Is there anything stopping the players at the front marching forward, as long as players at the back keep the ball in the ruck (or form a conga line) - thereby driving the offside line back a few metres? I can't think of a reason why not.

 

[PeteTheMeat]

I've just looked through tackle laws and can't find any reason why this can't happen (theoretically anyway).
Incidentally, the "conga line" in question would not be a ruck as RED have not engaged, but a supported tackle as defined in 14.10.

[FONT=fs_blakeregular]Offside lines are created at a tackle when at least one player is on their feet and over the ball, which is on the ground. Each team’s offside line runs parallel to the goal line through the hindmost point of any player in the tackle or on their feet over the ball. If that point is on or behind the goal line, the offside line for that team is the goal line.[/FONT]

Pete

 

[crossref]

In the op red formed the ruck, but then withdrew , so it's still a ruck

If it's a ruck I don't see why blue couldn't move forward, bound as a ruck, dribbling the ball

On the other hand if it's a tackle with offside lines that might be judged as obstruction (?)

 

[Rich_NL]

Good point, that's not clear. I suppose once your back foot is past the tackled player you're past the last BC.

I was thinking the conga line approach more to defend the box kick or mitigate a rush defence with an extra metre or two than to dribble upfield - you protect your 9 and drive the defensive line back.

 

[crossref]

So like, you leave the ball where it is, and advance forward, pushing the oppo offside line back... With more players joining at the back to make sure the ball doesn't become exposed

Interesting

 

[Flish]

Difficult one, I assume blue ball carrier has released and rolled away and is completely out of there (leaving multiple blue players on feet)? Else you could argue as they march the 'not ruck / tackle thing upfield) a penalty to red for not rolling / releasing as needed.

Next question is does the 'tackle area' move with the blue players? If not (and why would it) then if the ball moves forward with the conga line you could argue tackle over as ball has left the tackle area (and then potentially obstruction).

I think you'd we wanting a large cry of 'use it now' (similar to the non engaging non maul at a line out scenario) and trust they comply, else what? Obstruction (Justification in Law?)? Or maybe unplayable so Scrum Blue? Either way we're reaching and nit picking.

Scrum Blue and interesting discussion in the bar for me probably!

 

[Pinky]

In the op red formed the ruck, but then withdrew , so it's still a ruck

If it's a ruck I don't see why blue couldn't move forward, bound as a ruck, dribbling the ball

On the other hand if it's a tackle with offside lines that might be judged as obstruction (?)

This is not now allowed as kicking the ball in the ruck is forbidden, you must heel it. A bit strange for us older players as what is now a ruck used to be called a loose scrum and Scotland in particular had a style of play that involved said group of players kicking and chasing the ball to the cries of "feet, feet, Scotland!" Nowadays most rucks have so many folk off their feet the chance of moving forward with the ball is limited or non-existent.

 

[crossref]

Good point.
Is it illegal to kick the ball in the ruck, or to kick it out of the ruck

 

[CrouchTPEngage]

Good point.
Is it illegal to kick the ball in the ruck, or to kick it out of the ruck

Good question - laws say
[LAWS]Players must not: Kick, or attempt to kick, the ball out of a ruck. [/LAWS]

So a dribble doesnt really count as "attempting to kick the ball out of the ruck" does it ?

If its not near a player on the ground, this means it cannot be dangerous so should we allow a dribble here ?

 

[crossref]

I don't think could allow a moving, dribbling, tackle , could we
Although the Law doesn't seem to prohibit it .
Hmm .. maybe we could !

On balance I think that the best answer is to treat it similar to the scenario where the oppo at a lineout take care to not create a mail .. and hope that WR soon issue a guideline to that effect

 

[VM75]

So like, you leave the ball where it is, and advance forward, pushing the oppo offside line back... With more players joining at the back to make sure the ball doesn't become exposed

Interesting

yes very interesting CR

Which is kinda how Lawes got caught!

The offside line was established & several england players [including CL] players lined up 'onside' then just as the ball was about to be picked up by NZ9 the NZ player at the front of the ruck took a stride forward and in that split instant made Lawes 'technically offside'

Hmmnn.... Conceptually a team could add x4 players onto the tail of the original player/s parked over the ball , and then trundle forward 4metres to mean the front man shifts the offiside line 4m further upfield - just before the ball is lifted, and insodoing render all defensive linemen 'technically' offiside.

I'm not saying the NZAB contrived the CL offside in that way, [but they've a deserved reputation for being creatively cute so who knows ) but IMO once the defence arent contesting at the front of the ruck then the frontman cant be allowed to reposition the offisde by merely walking forwards.

Mauls are significantly different as the BC is on his feet & Maul can therefore be expected to move, but Rucks require the Ball to be on the ground [ish!] so by definition the Ruck isn't supposed to be advancing upfield

WR have another issue to resolve IMHO. Mr Monoruck creator & his tail joining mates v offside line movement & rdefence.

FWIW the TMO was 'technically' correct, but it's such a harsh harsh interpretation & some form of materiality & context needed to be applied.

 

[ChrisR]

First, as previously stated, the tackled player needs to get out of the way else this discussion is moot.

As the ball is not "kicked out of the ruck" then the dribble forward at a tackle must surely be legal.

That might be a good tactic as the ops would then have to commit players to stop it and so reduce any number advantage.

Great question!

 

[Rich_NL]

As soon as you dribble away from the tackle area you're in open play and most likely offside.

What I'd not considered: now kicking out of the ruck is illegal, dribbling in a ruck carries the risk of a penalty against for a minor mistake, rather than just ruck over and open play. Probably not worth it.

 

[crossref]

Does every 9 repositioning the ball with his foot risk a PK ?

 

[Rich_NL]

No, because that's usually hooking/using the sole and keeping it in the ruck. If they kick it forwards and out, then yes. If they kick it forwards and back into a ruck, it's a FK.

 

[didds]

As soon as you dribble away from the tackle area you're in open play and most likely offside.

What I'd not considered: now kicking out of the ruck is illegal, dribbling in a ruck carries the risk of a penalty against for a minor mistake, rather than just ruck over and open play. Probably not worth it.

hmmm. but is dribbling a ball that squirts out of the ruck actually kicking it out of the ruck? what is the INTENTION of that law versus the INTENTION of the dribbler?

If the sole or heel of the boot was used (contortionist!) - that isn't a kick - is it? (see kick definitions elsewhere - is that shoe horning a law from one place into another?)

didds

 

[DarrenJones]

The sevens scrum law states you can't kick the ball through the scrum, does that mean you aren't allowed to have a driving scrum in sevens? I don't think I've ever seen one but I feel that has more to do with the difficulty of the front 3 keeping it in and driving than law. So if a sevens scrum can drive forward, why can't a ruck? I've heard the ruck called a loose or natural scrum.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

THe law of unintended consequence.

Rucks (theoretically) involve people on their feet. The interpretation has move to describe a Pile-Up as a ruck. As a result a ruck no longer is a dynamic contest for the ball. With more bodies on the floor than on their feet the idea of players being able to safely use their feet in a ruck has become a nonsense. Law 15.15 is not followed at all (once "ruck" is called).

There is, of course, no legal prevention to dribbling ( kicking a ball in a ruck) only to kicking it out of the ruck. There is no reason to dribble the ball any more, due to the pile up on the floor.

 

[Treadmore]

Does every 9 repositioning the ball with his foot risk a PK ?

The many TV 9s that stand metres in front of the hindmost foot whilst they roll it backwards should be pk'd!