[Ruck] Are no 1's actions now illegal with new ruck definition?

[Caniscot]

This is my first post and I'd like to start it by thanking you all for the many thought provoking discussions I've read on this site over the last few years. I've finally decided to put my head above the parapet so here goes.

In the Women's World Cup Final, which was played under the "old" laws, the actions of the New Zealand player (no 1) that can be seen from 5:00 min in on the video at http://www.rwcwomens.com/video/276309 are perfectly legal. She is tackled, no English player engages with her team mates around her to form a ruck, so after she places the ball on the ground and gets to her feet, she is entitled to pick the ball up and carry on.

However what would be the legality of her actions under the new "one person" ruck law? The new law states that

A ruck commences when at least one player is on their feet and over the ball which is on the ground (tackled player, tackler).

My thoughts are that in this clip the actions and resulting position of the New Zealand no 8 are such that she creates a ruck under the terms of the new definition. Have I interpreted the new law correctly?

If a ruck has been formed, what does this mean for the actions of the tackled player?

I've got two conflicting views on this. The first is that her actions are now illegal as she has not entered the ruck as required by Law 16.5 (c)

A player joining a ruck must do so from behind the foot of the hindmost team-mate in the ruck.

To be legal under the new laws, no 1 would have to take a backward step to get behind no 8 and then a forward step to enter the ruck before picking up the ball.

The second is that the actions are legal due to the position that no 8 took up. The video replay shows that the legs of no 1 are behind the rear most foot of no 8, so the position could be taken that no 1 is already behind no 8 and so by just by standing up has entered the ruck legally.

What do others think is the correct call?

 

[Ian_Cook]

A belated welcome to rugbyrefs.com.... and that is a bloody good question!

I'll have to think about this a bit more, but on the face of it, this action would no longer be legal. Once the ruck is "formed", offside lines appear and hands are no longer allowed, so a tackled player releasing will no longer be able to stand up and pick up the ball like they can now.

I cannot see any way around that.

I'll be insterested to see what others think about this.

 

[crossref]

I agree : NZ supporting players form a ruck , so enter from the back , and no hands (so actually none of them can pick the ball up)

 

[didds]

If #1 can;t now pick up the ball having complied with everything else in this situation then this law is an ass.

If she was 1cm from the try line ais this law intended to stop her scoring now?

This isn't what this law was intended for IMO. It was to set offsides for defenders, not come up with a reason not to be able to play the ball as the tackled player showing skill and dexterity.

A French player did this similarly in an earlier game. Arguable she DID handle in a (old fashioned) ruck anyway - LOL.

didds

 

[Rich_NL]

Under the new laws, I understand that you can pick up the ball as long as there is no contact with an opponent.

[h=2]Law 16: Amended Ruck Law[/h][FONT=fs_blakeregular]A ruck commences when at least one player is on their feet and over 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.[/FONT]

 

[crossref]

But

A player on their feet may use their hands to pick up the ball as long as this is immediate

 

[Rich_NL]

The 12-year-old law drafter strikes again!

Fair point. The guidance I had the other evening from a senior ref was that contact was the guiding principle: as soon as the ball is off the ground, the ruck is over, so that has to happen before contact is made. But we didn't explicitly cover long pauses.

 

[crossref]

The way I understand the Law there are three possibilities
1 arriving player picks up the ball without stopping . this means bno ruck was formed no offside lines
2 arriving player stops, so is over the ball, ruck fomed, offside lines . He picks it up immediately. Ruck over

3 . Arriving player stops, ruck forms , he doesn't pick up the ball immediately .. so now he can't pick it up at all. ruck means no hands

 

[Rich_NL]

It also occurs to me that if we allow the 9 to fish the ball out of a won ruck with hands for continuity's sake, it would be weird to start penalising it in uncontested rucks.

 

[Ian_Cook]

But

A player on their feet may use their hands to pick up the ball as long as this is immediate

OK, so she releases & gets to he feet all in one motions, and then immediately plays the ball.

Legal under the trailed Law? I'd like to think that is the intention.

 

[Phil E]

If you penalise that play, then you are killing the game.
All looks legal to me, new or old laws.

 

[crossref]

But she was in the ground when the ruck formed , she wasn't part of the ruck, so she has to join from the back

It's a great question

 

[Phil E]

But she was in the ground when the ruck formed , she wasn't part of the ruck, so she has to join from the back

It's a great question

She was the tackled player....how can she not be part of the ruck?

 

[crossref]

Is the tackled player part of the ruck?
She's off her feet, so obviously she's out of the game (we all agree with that :wink so I don't think is part of the ruck until she gets up and joins it

 

[didds]

But tghe ruck exists only in a theoretical manner at that juncture - a ruck exists by law but there is no contest for the ball occurring. it is madness to now require her to "step away" to just pick the blinking thing up that the opposition haven;t yet been able to create a competition for.

Do we want to play the game or stop it.?

didds

 

[Phil E]

Do we want to play the game or stop it.?

Exactly.

Find reasons NOT to blow your whistle.

 

[didds]

3 . Arriving player stops, ruck forms , he doesn't pick up the ball immediately .. so now he can't pick it up at all. ruck means no hands

well now we are in the same realms as the "quick" throw in debate, having potentially introduced a totally subjective time restraint. Isn;t it just easier to say if its there to be picked up, it can be picked up?

didds

 

[Rich_NL]

I suspect the twelve-year-old meant "immediately" in the sense of "before the expected contest occurs", rather than that of "tackled player must place the ball immediately". And even then, would you penalise a tackled player for being leisurely if no defenders were present to contest?

 

[ChrisR]

Y'all are missing a critical point. The law is intended to apply to arriving players, not the tackled player. If a tackled player releases the ball, gets up and picks up the ball before contact is made with an arriving opponent then no ruck has formed.

The law may be poorly worded but it's not incomprehensible.

 

[Rich_NL]

If a player stands over the tackled player, a ruck is formed regardless of contact - that's the point of the new law under discussion. Aforementioned law only talks about a player on their feet - which includes the newly-standing tackled player.