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

[DocY]

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.

In that case, how would a ruck ever legally form? Or how would you deal with a jackler?

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

It is universally accepted that you can't pull a Scrum half into a ruck or maul as you are playing a man without the ball.
The scum half ids not there to join just to move the ball away.
All the same thing really

 

[DocY]

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.

TBH, I think this is the case for most people and we'd almost all agree on the legality of forming a ruck in any given situation.

But trying to come up with rigid wording describing what you can and cannot do is, yet again, problematic (and probably not really helpful).

 

[ChuckieB]

In that case, how would a ruck ever legally form? Or how would you deal with a jackler?

To clarify, my response to Taff was about grabbing a player who is without the ball.

.....A jackler should be attacking the ball and so in contact with the ball, within the tackle laws. These have their own sequence and so if a player form the tackled player's side enters the tackle area within those laws I think we wouldn't preclude the formation of a ruck as a natural consequence. i.e. player contact, on feet, intent and closing around the ball on ground


.....let me go just figure!

 

[ChrisR]

From KML1: "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."

Then he isn't going to get pulled in, is he?

The real scenario is a player who invades the tackle area with intent and you're going to give him a free pass to be there and disallow the man over the ball from grabbing him and so forming the ruck.

Encouraging the defender to encroach on the tackle area may be an application of law but it will create a problem area and does a disservice to the game.

 

[KML1]

From KML1: "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."

Then he isn't going to get pulled in, is he?

The real scenario is a player who invades the tackle area with intent and you're going to give him a free pass to be there and disallow the man over the ball from grabbing him and so forming the ruck.

Encouraging the defender to encroach on the tackle area may be an application of law but it will create a problem area and does a disservice to the game.

Exactly what I was referring to - he's there to get involved and therefore is there to get the ball and be an active participant in creating the ruck.

You have perfectly completed my mental picture of the different actions of players which leads to different outcomes.

Mine - he cannot be pulled into something just because he is standing there minding his own business as per Law 10

Yours - he has intent to be there, is a willing participant in that tackle-to-ruck phase and therefore can be bound onto forming the ruck.

Pleasure doing business with you

 

[ChuckieB]

Exactly what I was referring to - he's there to get involved and therefore is there to get the ball and be an active participant in creating the ruck.

You have perfectly completed my mental picture of the different actions of players which leads to different outcomes.

Mine - he cannot be pulled into something just because he is standing there minding his own business as per Law 10

Yours - he has intent to be there, is a willing participant in that tackle-to-ruck phase and therefore can be bound onto forming the ruck.

Pleasure doing business with you

A point very well made. You may be minding your own business but it is a contact game so if you are not a willing participant you have to get out! No distance need be specified. If you are within reach you are fair game! Time for the lawmakers to reconsider perhaps?

 

[Pinky]

A point very well made. You may be minding your own business but it is a contact game so if you are not a willing participant you have to get out! No distance need be specified. If you are within reach you are fair game! Time for the lawmakers to reconsider perhaps?

I do not agree with this - you might be standing as a potential pillar/guard with no intention of getting involved in the ruck so you can tackle the player sniping round the edges? Also unless the ref polices binding to the ruck properly, you could be grabbed nearly 2m away and dragged in.

 

[VM75]

hi all
1st RR post. this is a very hot topic for us at the moment (and many others by the look of it!) so here goes

Surely the biggest clue to how to referee this subject the fairest way is contained (bold by me) in here
[FONT=fs_blakeregular]A ruck is a phase of play where one or more players from each team, who are on their feet, in physical contact, close around the ball on the ground. Open play has ended.[/FONT]
[FONT=fs_blakeregular]Players are rucking when they are in a ruck and using their feet to try to win or keep possession of the ball, without being guilty of foul play.[/FONT]


If a defender is holding his position trying to remain a distance away from the ball, then doesn't it makes sense to consider that he isn't closing around the ball? The pictures of Ruckers all show players engaged in grappling/wrestling/shoving over the ball on the floor which suggests they all want to be there & all want to contest for that particular possession.

If it's obvious that a defender hasn't approached over the ball (i.e. he's conceded the possession contest) then pulling him toward it (he might actually also resist being pulled) shouldn't work against him surely.

It makes sense if ref's didn't allow pulling-in, hopefully this subject will be managed by all ref's in the same way as that.

thanks

 

[VM75]

it didnt print !

Definition: ... close around the ball on the ground ....

 

[Pinky]

hi all
1st RR post. this is a very hot topic for us at the moment (and many others by the look of it!) so here goes

Surely the biggest clue to how to referee this subject the fairest way is contained (bold by me) in here
[FONT=fs_blakeregular]A ruck is a phase of play where one or more players from each team, who are on their feet, in physical contact, close around the ball on the ground. Open play has ended.[/FONT]
[FONT=fs_blakeregular]Players are rucking when they are in a ruck and using their feet to try to win or keep possession of the ball, without being guilty of foul play.[/FONT]


If a defender is holding his position trying to remain a distance away from the ball, then doesn't it makes sense to consider that he isn't closing around the ball? The pictures of Ruckers all show players engaged in grappling/wrestling/shoving over the ball on the floor which suggests they all want to be there & all want to contest for that particular possession.

If it's obvious that a defender hasn't approached over the ball (i.e. he's conceded the possession contest) then pulling him toward it (he might actually also resist being pulled) shouldn't work against him surely.

It makes sense if ref's didn't allow pulling-in, hopefully this subject will be managed by all ref's in the same way as that.

thanks

VM75, welcome to the forum. I do think your analysis is helpful

 

[ChrisR]

If the defender doesn't want to convert the tackle into a ruck then he should stay more than an arms length away from the tackle area. Then you'll have a much cleaner tackle area to referee and the SH won't be under pressure.

Let's see how this plays out. I suspet some of you will have interesting weekends.