[Ruck] Can you create a ruck by PULLING in an opponent?

[ChrisR]

That would be a good idea if there was an opponent in the tackle zone to begin with.

But .... the scenario is when the support of the tackled player arrive at the tackle but the opponents have retreated and don't engage to form the ruck. Instead they by-pass the tackle and advance into the passing lanes of the ops to disrupt the next phase.

The question is: if an opponent wanders into range of a player in the non-ruck and is grabbed by that player does that form a ruck or is it an offense?

 

[Taff]

... The question is: if an opponent wanders into range of a player in the non-ruck and is grabbed by that player does that form a ruck or is it an offense?

I've been thinking at this; my logic is if an opponent is inside the tackle zone (1m - or within "range" as you call it) he is fair game. If he is outside the tackle zone, grabbing him would be playing the man without the ball.

I suspect the Italians are thinking the same, as they nearly always made sure there was a decent gap between them and the tackle zone. :chin:

 

[L'irlandais]

Isn't this similar to not contesting the lineout maul.
Would you allow a player to "rope" an opponent into the non-maul so they could get some go forward?

 

[KML1]

To me, this is crystal clear. There is a tackle. There is not a ruck. There is nothing in 16.1 (forming a ruck) or 16.2 (joining a ruck) that makes any difference. Therefore Foul Play Law is only law in play and that is black and white clear. You cannot grab someone without holding them first.

10.4f Playing an opponent without the ball. Except in a scrum, ruck or maul, a player who is not in possession of the ball must not hold, push or obstruct an opponent not carrying the ball. Sanction: Penalty kick:

 

[Camquin]

If I am nowhere near the ball I must not play a man without the ball.
But if the ball is on the floor and I am standing over it I can grasp an opponent to form a ruck.
If I am over the ball and an grasp them, they are likely to be within a metre of the ball.

 

[ChrisR]

To me, this is crystal clear. There is a tackle. There is not a ruck. There is nothing in 16.1 (forming a ruck) or 16.2 (joining a ruck) that makes any difference. Therefore Foul Play Law is only law in play and that is black and white clear. You cannot grab someone without holding them first.

???????

 

[ChuckieB]

Isn't this similar to not contesting the lineout maul.
Would you allow a player to "rope" an opponent into the non-maul so they could get some go forward?

No is your simple answer.

Just to reiterate - "Playing an opponent without the ball. Except in a scrum, ruck or maul, a player who is not in possession of the ball must not hold, push or obstruct an opponent not carrying the ball"

Just to clarify your wording. It is an "uncontested lineout" and not an uncontested lineout maul" (as no maul exists).

We have been trying to converge on an understanding that these situations have not developed into rucks or malls as they do not fit the necessary criteria.

As such you can then simplify the statement to:

"....a player who is not in possession of the ball must not hold, push or obstruct an opponent not carrying the ball"

Pulling them implies "holding".

It then becomes very simple.

 

[FlipFlop]

Let me pose another question.

Let say there is a tackle, and I am standing over the ball. The opposition run up to take up the "offside" position next to my scrumhalf. As they are going past me, I put out an arm, and then run through the arm. There is contact, but he runs into my arm.

Ruck? Or has he played the man without the ball? Or have I played the man without the ball?

And as for quoting 10.4 f. If that always applies - how do you form a ruck then? As you have to initially play a man without the ball in order to form a ruck. So outlawing the deliberate playing of someone in the tackle zone to create a ruck, under 10.4f means all people who form rucks should be pinged.

 

[Balones]

Let me pose another question.

Let say there is a tackle, and I am standing over the ball. The opposition run up to take up the "offside" position next to my scrumhalf. As they are going past me, I put out an arm, and then run through the arm. There is contact, but he runs into my arm.

Ruck? Or has he played the man without the ball? Or have I played the man without the ball?

And as for quoting 10.4 f. If that always applies - how do you form a ruck then? As you have to initially play a man without the ball in order to form a ruck. So outlawing the deliberate playing of someone in the tackle zone to create a ruck, under 10.4f means all people who form rucks should be pinged.

The circumstances for FORMING a ruck are specifically dealt with in the laws and provide for the exception.

 

[FlipFlop]

The circumstances for FORMING a ruck are specifically dealt with in the laws and provide for the exception.

I am aware of that, hence my belief that in forming a ruck, the playing the man with out the ball law does not apply. So why is KML1 quoting it.

The entire crux of this is: When are you allowed to form a ruck? KLM1 seems to be saying that after a tackle, you can't play a man without the ball. Which in my logic means that you can never have a ruck, without an offence occuring first. But I disagree with his premise that you only have the foul play laws after a tackle. For me the tackle laws apply, and the ruck laws POTENTIALLY apply as well - namely the 16.1 forming a ruck.

WE are basically debating what you can do to trigger 16.1. What is "contact" and what can you do to initiate contact?

 

[Balones]

Contact, I would suggest, is any form of contact OVER the ball. At the same time I would suggest that it involves a willingness by both parties to make contact over the ball. What you can't do is force somebody by pulling them in to make contact.

 

[KML1]

A grab just isnt enough - the law talks of binding which is then defined.

The 2009 clarification recognises that creating a ruck isnt a perfect science. I know in my mind what someone is doing when they're in that space (1m away or not) - theyre are either there to get involved in the ruck so therefore can be bound in occurs and a ruck can be formed, or they arent and therefore cant be grabbed just in order to create a ruck. I mentioned that because I thought others were using it as a justification for allowing it.

 

[didds]

Let me pose another question.

Let say there is a tackle, and I am standing over the ball. The opposition run up to take up the "offside" position next to my scrumhalf. As they are going past me, I put out an arm, and then run through the arm. There is contact, but he runs into my arm.

Ruck? Or has he played the man without the ball? Or have I played the man without the ball?

And as for quoting 10.4 f. If that always applies - how do you form a ruck then? As you have to initially play a man without the ball in order to form a ruck. So outlawing the deliberate playing of someone in the tackle zone to create a ruck, under 10.4f means all people who form rucks should be pinged.

my immediate tyhought is that yes contact has been made - but its not over the ball if you are over it and he has attempted to "run past" you.

?

didds

 

[Phil E]

A grab just isnt enough - the law talks of binding which is then defined.

The 2009 clarification recognises that creating a ruck isnt a perfect science. I know in my mind what someone is doing when they're in that space (1m away or not) - theyre are either there to get involved in the ruck so therefore can be bound in occurs and a ruck can be formed, or they arent and therefore cant be grabbed just in order to create a ruck. I mentioned that because I thought others were using it as a justification for allowing it.

Keith

The law does not stipulate "Binding" to form a ruck, only to join an already formed ruck.

What people are asking is can you grab an opponent to "form" a ruck?

[LAWS]16.1 FORMING A RUCK
(a) Where can a ruck take place. A ruck can take place only in the field of play.
(b) How can a ruck form. Players are on their feet. At least one player must be in physical
contact with an opponent. The ball must be on the ground. If the ball is off the ground for
any reason, the ruck is not formed.[/LAWS]

 

[FlipFlop]

A grab just isnt enough - the law talks of binding which is then defined.

The 2009 clarification recognises that creating a ruck isnt a perfect science. I know in my mind what someone is doing when they're in that space (1m away or not) - theyre are either there to get involved in the ruck so therefore can be bound in occurs and a ruck can be formed, or they arent and therefore cant be grabbed just in order to create a ruck. I mentioned that because I thought others were using it as a justification for allowing it.

So to take an example from the England v Italy game. In the example (links on here somewhere) where Launchbury grabs the Italian #12.
1) Cole is over the ball. Italian #12 makes contact with Cole. Ruck or not? If not - why not, the criteria for a ruck are met.

2) Ignoring contact with Cole, then:
Launchbury then makes contact with Italian #12. Italian #12 is in the tackle zone. Is this a ruck or not? If not - why not, the criteria for a ruck are met.

3)In same link there is Nigel calling a ruck against France. French #8 clearly doesn't want to ruck, and is not bound. How does this differ from above?

 

[ChrisR]

The Law of Unintended Consequences is about to come into play.

If you prevent a player over the ball, at a tackle, from grabbing an opponent, within arms reach, to form a ruck you will get some very messy tackle areas.

How do you think players and coaches are going to respond? They will come through "the gate", sidestep the player over the ball and park themselves next to the SH digging for the ball. Or they will kick the ball out.

Now you have to clean up this mess by nit-picking the laws. Good luck!

Instead, if you want a tidy(-er) tackle area, let the player(s) over the ball keep the area clear of infiltrators.

Complain about being drawn in? Easy answer: "If you don't want to be part of the ruck then stay out of the tackle area"

 

[ChuckieB]

The circumstances for FORMING a ruck are specifically dealt with in the laws and provide for the exception.

I think the laws do cater for this easily. There is no obvious intent and he is not obviously closing in around the ball.

These laws, in the main, have proven to be clever!

 

[ChuckieB]

So to take an example from the England v Italy game. In the example (links on here somewhere) where Launchbury grabs the Italian #12.
1) Cole is over the ball. Italian #12 makes contact with Cole. Ruck or not? If not - why not, the criteria for a ruck are met.

2) Ignoring contact with Cole, then:
Launchbury then makes contact with Italian #12. Italian #12 is in the tackle zone. Is this a ruck or not? If not - why not, the criteria for a ruck are met.

3)In same link there is Nigel calling a ruck against France. French #8 clearly doesn't want to ruck, and is not bound. How does this differ from above?

This is one where I genuinely think RP didn't see the contact by LM. He looked to be at least partially unsighted at that moment. Hence you could reasonably understand his call which would have been correct under the circumstances. JL playing a payer without the ball.

Clearly NO did see LP!

 

[ChuckieB]

I've been thinking at this; my logic is if an opponent is inside the tackle zone (1m - or within "range" as you call it) he is fair game. If he is outside the tackle zone, grabbing him would be playing the man without the ball.

:chin:

He would only be fair game for the referee to rightly penalise under 10(f).

Outside the zone becomes irrelevant.

Think of it that way and life becomes much simpler. It removes all doubt.

 

[KML1]

Keith

The law does not stipulate "Binding" to form a ruck, only to join an already formed ruck.

What people are asking is can you grab an opponent to "form" a ruck?

[LAWS]16.1 FORMING A RUCK
(a) Where can a ruck take place. A ruck can take place only in the field of play.
(b) How can a ruck form. Players are on their feet. At least one player must be in physical
contact with an opponent. The ball must be on the ground. If the ball is off the ground for
any reason, the ruck is not formed.[/LAWS]

Sure Phil - understand the question and Ive already explained in law why I believe it's not allowed. We're talking about a player standing on the field of play, minding his own business, not engaging in the tackle or making any moves at all to be an active part of the tackle zone. Law 10 says he cannot be grabbed/engaged as he doesn't have the ball and there is no ruck/maul or scrum. Some people are suggesting that by virtue of being 90cm away from it, he can be engaged. I disagree.

All the rest to me is (and I don't mean this disparrangingly at all) trying to see round and through what's written. I prefer to stick to the facts as I see then in law or my experience tells me is happening in front of my eyes.

I get the point about the grey area around the instant act of creating a ruck - to me, my eyes and brain tell me whether he is there to be part of it or not and therefore can be in physical contact with it.