Coming to you from World Rugby

[SimonSmith]

This was issued by the Refs Dept at Mothership Colorado. They had requested a clarification from WR on this issue, and this was what was received:

KICKING THE BALL IN A RUCK:

1. If a player is part of the ruck he may attempt to kick the ball:
   1. If he makes contact with a player on the ground which results in foul play, the sanction is a PK and possibly suspension/red card.
   2. If he kicks the ball out of the scrumhalf's hands the sanction is a PK and possibly suspension/red card.
2. If a player is not part of the ruck and then steps over or comes around the side of the ruck and kicks the ball:
   1. PK and possibly suspension.
   2. If he makes contact with a player on the ground which results in foul play, the sanction is a PK and possibly suspension/red card.
   3. If he kicks the ball out of the scrumhalf's hands the sanction is a PK and possibly suspension/red card.

​

 

[Phil E]

I don't get it. Isn't that all obvious?
Is there something missing from the large blank space?

 

[Pinky]

I don't get it. Isn't that all obvious?
Is there something missing from the large blank space?

You got a large blank space too, but this is not news to me either.

 

[Taff]

I don't get it. Isn't that all obvious?
Is there something missing from the large blank space?

Just what I was thinking.

 

[Camquin]

As far as I can see the clarification say
1) Those in a ruck may ruck, provided they do so legally and if they infringe they should be punished as set out in the laws.
2) Those offside should be punished as set out in the laws.

 

[Phil E]

As far as I can see the clarification say
1) Those in a ruck may ruck, provided they do so legally and if they infringe they should be punished as set out in the laws.
2) Those offside should be punished as set out in the laws.

They must have a degree in stating the bleeding obvious!
I'm surprised World Rugby even bothered replying :chin:

 

[Ian_Cook]

Here's the bit I find important Phil

"If a player is not part of the ruck and then steps over"

We have seen some of this going on in SR this season; players "joining" a ruck (really just entering and not really binding to anyone) and referees have been letting it go saying things like "He's OK, came through the middle".

Hopefully, the clarification will put an end to the practice!!

 

[crossref]

They must have a degree in stating the bleeding obvious!
I'm surprised World Rugby even bothered replying :chin:

It might make more sense if we knew what the question was (often the WR answers seem to be slightly tangential to the purpose of the question)

the question might have been to clear up an area where there is sometimes some myth/uncertainty --
after all, look who asked, here on this site back in 2009, whether it's OK to kick the ball out of a ruck ...
http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?7350-Kicking-the-ball-out-of-a-ruck


However - I'd hazard a guess the question arose from this incident
http://www.the42.ie/mike-brown-conor-murray-kicking-rucks-2633203-Feb2016/
and whether MB's actions were dangerous/legal ... to which the answer was: RTFM

 

[DocY]

However - I'd hazard a guess the question arose from this incident
http://www.the42.ie/mike-brown-conor-murray-kicking-rucks-2633203-Feb2016/
and whether MB's actions were dangerous/legal ... to which the answer was: RTFM

If it was this incident that prompted it, I'm surprised.

I was expecting any clarification arising from this to be along the lines of "you can use your feet to control the ball and drag it back, but if you're trying to kick it forwards, you're probably being a dick".

I expect Ian is right, but it would have been clearer if they'd just said "No, if you're not bound into the ruck, don't kick the bloody ball!"

 

[crossref]

it's rugby-refs.com version of Jeopardy : here's WR's answer to a question : guess the question.

the possibilities are infinite!

 

[Ian_Cook]

it's rugby-refs.com version of Jeopardy : here's WR's answer to a question : guess the question.

the possibilities are infinite!

Well, it is really obvious what the question was.... 'what is 6 x 9?

 

[OB..]

it's rugby-refs.com version of Jeopardy : here's WR's answer to a question : guess the question.

the possibilities are infinite!

9W.....

 

[Pegleg]

It might make more sense if we knew what the question was (often the WR answers seem to be slightly tangential to the purpose of the question)

the question might have been to clear up an area where there is sometimes some myth/uncertainty --
after all, look who asked, here on this site back in 2009, whether it's OK to kick the ball out of a ruck ...
http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?7350-Kicking-the-ball-out-of-a-ruck


However - I'd hazard a guess the question arose from this incident
http://www.the42.ie/mike-brown-conor-murray-kicking-rucks-2633203-Feb2016/
and whether MB's actions were dangerous/legal ... to which the answer was: RTFM

I was about to post a similar thought.

 

[The Fat]

It might make more sense if we knew what the question was (often the WR answers seem to be slightly tangential to the purpose of the question)

You want a vague response from WR? Read Law Clarification 1-2016

 

[The Fat]

Here's the bit I find important Phil

"If a player is not part of the ruck and then steps over"

We have seen some of this going on in SR this season; players "joining" a ruck (really just entering and not really binding to anyone) and referees have been letting it go saying things like "He's OK, came through the middle".

Hopefully, the clarification will put an end to the practice!!

Agree. Only a few refs correctly pinging for offside. Not sure why others are not following the same guidelines