RobLev, you have conveniently skipped step 3, "Jackler lifts ball off ground". Until the 'lift' no=one is doubting that ruck law is still in force.
The question is: "Does lifting the ball end the ruck?"
If the jackler gets the ball off the deck before he is engaged then he is liable to be tackled as a BC.
If he is bound onto a teammate and an opponent with the ball in his hands then we now have a maul.
You are hanging your analysis on the absence of the scenario being covered in 'end of ruck law'.
I have already said that if he gets it off the ground before he's engaged it's (at that moment) open play; how could it be anything else? He can be tackled (and rinse and repeat...) - or if players from either side bind on it becomes a maul.
If he doesn't get it off the ground before engagement, then there's a ruck.
I am indeed saying that the law sets out the circumstances in which a ruck ends; and that simply lifting the ball in the ruck is not one of those prescribed circumstances. As there is a comprehensive code, I can't see the justification for adding to it; particularly where there is a Law specifically entitling a player to
handle the ball
in the ruck, and that Law does not restrict the way in which he handles it, or say that his handling it in a specific way has the consequence of changing the phase of play.
The effect of refereeing it this way is simply that the ruck is over quicker; either because, since the jackler is allowed to handle the ball, he can get it to his SH quicker or, because the ball has clearly been won, the clock for blowing it unplayable starts quicker. He gets the turnover, but in place.
Allowing the jackler to create a maul simply by picking the ball up gives his side the advantage not of a turnover in place, but the opportunity to pass the ball to the back of the maul and trundle off upfield with the ball uncontestable. That, it seems to me, gives the jackler far too much advantage.
