Dan Coles 5s error

[didds]

and there are right royal stuff ups.

"Use it" or not, that doesn'tlook like a ball in a ruck when Cole plays it. "Usee it" is not some magic spell that means a ruck is still in existence if the ball is OUT of it.

I've just checked that iplayer footgae so i could get the lead in. RP calls use it when the players are already in the youtube clip formation. there are NO players bound together over the ball at that juncture. Quyite frankly, RP totally ballsed up. that was NOT a ruck by ANY definition, the ball C&O out of whatever ruck HAD already existed, and it was a "BALL OUT" call not a "use it" call. I doubt ANY grassroots ref would have made that call.

IF that is deemed scrum half protection - its pants.

IF that was actually a horrible and awful critical moment for RP, then it was a very, very poor mistake by a referee at that level.

There are no other plausible explanations. Yes Cole should play to the ref's instructions - but the refs instructions made absolutely no sense in that scenario whatsoever.

If any of you agree to disagree then so be it. But I dare to suggest then that I am calling out the emperor's new clothes.

didds




didds

 

[RobLev]

I'mI'm happy that hogg continued running a bonafide support line, without C&O deviation, and although he was well aware that his positioning impinged defenders attempts to cover tackle, his line didn't offend IMO.

What "support" can he offer from in front of the ball-carrier - apart of course from obstructing potential tacklers?

 

[didds]

This is the second such blocking run commented on in this 6N. Now twice in 12 games isn;t much I appreciate - but its two kore than this stage last year.

Is it becoming a trend?

And dress it up how you like - the "supporting" runner is IN FRONT OF A TEAMMATE CARRYING THE BALL. If that is not C&O I don't know what is. Whatever he may arguably be doing there he is offside AND CANNOT INFLUENCE PLAY. It's "running interference"

didds

 

[Dixie]

The ball is clearly out of the ruck, even when the referee calls to use it -- because there are no players on their feet contesting the ball on the ground.

I'm afraid this thinking does not hold water. Ruling 3 of 2007 helps us to follow the concept, though the fact pattern was different. In that ruling, the scenario was a ruck formed, but the defenders all then stepped away. Did the ruck persist? iRB held (rightly IMO) that having formed, the ruck must then end either successfully or unsuccessfully. Both endings are clearly defined in law, and make no reference to lacking members of one team. As the ruck has not ended, it must therefore still persist.

Apply this rationale to the current situation. Does the law on successful or unsuccessful ends to the ruck mention the lack of standing players? It does not. The ruck therefore persists, even though there are no players on their feet. There are Scottish feet behind the ball, which is thus potentially still "in" on account of that. The only question remaining is whether the ball has come out the side. As there are oppo ruckers 1m either side of it, I think that would have been a very controversial call!

 

[didds]

=== There are Scottish feet behind the ball, ===

What - like the number 15?

didds

 

[Browner]

What "support" can he offer from in front of the ball-carrier - apart of course from obstructing potential tacklers?

I agree he was offside, but all players that pass backwards are then so, does he then have to slow down to let the receiver overtake him, or it it normal to continue running expecting the reicever to pass by .... On reflection, I think you've definately more of a case than I, but at game speed AND without a C&O change of direction from 15 then I'm letting this 11.1.(b) offence slide.

Shame Scots didn't score because we could have seen how RP/ TMO system would've reviewed "Obstruction 15 du joueur sur la route de marquer"

 

[Browner]

I'm afraid this thinking does not hold water. Ruling 3 of 2007 helps us to follow the concept, though the fact pattern was different. In that ruling, the scenario was a ruck formed, but the defenders all then stepped away. Did the ruck persist? iRB held (rightly IMO) that having formed, the ruck must then end either successfully or unsuccessfully. Both endings are clearly defined in law, and make no reference to lacking members of one team. As the ruck has not ended, it must therefore still persist.

Apply this rationale to the current situation. Does the law on successful or unsuccessful ends to the ruck mention the lack of standing players? It does not. The ruck therefore persists, even though there are no players on their feet. There are Scottish feet behind the ball, which is thus potentially still "in" on account of that. The only question remaining is whether the ball has come out the side. As there are oppo ruckers 1m either side of it, I think that would have been a very controversial call!

So, if additional Scottish players had joined on the periphery of this shallow arc ruck and then led down at 179° from the ruck ( effectively extending the width of this ruck , then the ball is still in it within the wide wide wide umbrella arc protection? . sorry Dixie, I can't see that as credible, that ruck had ended buy most stretches of most imaginations except importantly RPs.

We'll await to see if 3-2007 is cited as justification as the post mortem analysis unravels.

 

[liversedge]

I'm afraid this thinking does not hold water. Ruling 3 of 2007 helps us to follow the concept, though the fact pattern was different. In that ruling, the scenario was a ruck formed, but the defenders all then stepped away. Did the ruck persist? iRB held (rightly IMO) that having formed, the ruck must then end either successfully or unsuccessfully. Both endings are clearly defined in law, and make no reference to lacking members of one team. As the ruck has not ended, it must therefore still persist.

That is totally different in my opinion. A defending team could gain an advantage by retreating from a ruck to remove offside lines, that is not equitable. In this case the ruck was over as both teams were off there feet AND the attacking team evacuated the ball area (to make space for the 9 by the looks of it).

I really don't see how this is anything other than open play; 16.6 successful end to ruck: [FONT=fs_blakeregular]A ruck ends successfully when the ball leaves the ruck, or when the ball is on or over the goal line[/FONT]

Mark

 

[FlipFlop]

The blocking runner in front of the ball carrier is specfically an infringement (foul play). We have seen a lot of this recently.

[LAWS]10.1 (b) Running in front of a ball carrier. A player must not intentionally move or stand in front of a team-mate carrying the ball thereby preventing opponents from tackling the current ball carrier or the opportunity to tackle potential ball carriers when they gain possession.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/LAWS]

 

[Dixie]

That is totally different in my opinion. A defending team could gain an advantage by retreating from a ruck to remove offside lines, that is not equitable. In this case the ruck was over as both teams were off there feet AND the attacking team evacuated the ball area (to make space for the 9 by the looks of it).

I really don't see how this is anything other than open play; 16.6 successful end to ruck: [FONT=fs_blakeregular]A ruck ends successfully when the ball leaves the ruck, or when the ball is on or over the goal line[/FONT]

Mark

Well, you've had my law references. Can you supply any for the following contentions?

a) ruck ends when all players are off their feet (is it a successful, unsuccessful or "other" end to a ruck?); and
b)ruck ends when the attacking team evacuate the area around the ball.

Having argued that the ruck was over due to these circumstances, you then adopt a different line: the ruck was over because the ball was "out". If you mean it was out because the ruck had ceased to exist due to the reasoning above, fair enough. We disagree, but your argument is consistent. But if you are offering an alternative, then in this case there were feet of Blue ruckers behind the ball. The ball itself was behind White ruckers, and there were ruckers on both sides of the ball. The ball itself was so close to a white rucker as to be pretty much touching him. So it's ahead of the last feet, it's not come out the side and it's in intimate proximity to a rucker. That's not out.

 

[didds]

and i would suggest... that is madness... in reality.

It really is emperor's new convoluted thinking.

didds

 

[liversedge]

Well, you've had my law references. Can you supply any for the following contentions?

Your clarification reference does not apply since the defending team didn't leave the ruck a very specific ploy that is not equitable.

a) ruck ends when all players are off their feet (is it a successful, unsuccessful or "other" end to a ruck?); and
b)ruck ends when the attacking team evacuate the area around the ball.

Having argued that the ruck was over due to these circumstances, you then adopt a different line: the ruck was over because the ball was "out". If you mean it was out because the ruck had ceased to exist due to the reasoning above, fair enough. We disagree, but your argument is consistent. But if you are offering an alternative, then in this case there were feet of Blue ruckers behind the ball. The ball itself was behind White ruckers, and there were ruckers on both sides of the ball. The ball itself was so close to a white rucker as to be pretty much touching him. So it's ahead of the last feet, it's not come out the side and it's in intimate proximity to a rucker. That's not out.

My argument is simple; the ball was not in a ruck (regardless of whether you think the pile of bodies it was lying behind is a ruck in law or not). Hence 16.6.

 

[liversedge]

Here is a pic:

 

[SimonSmith]

That's in

Draw an arc around the the appropriate limbs and you'll find the ball inside the arc

 

[Wedgie]

That's in

Draw an arc around the the appropriate limbs and you'll find the ball inside the arc

Agree. And by RP saying "use it" Occam's Razor says that he also thinks it was still in.

 

[crossref]

That's in

Draw an arc around the the appropriate limbs and you'll find the ball inside the arc

which as a definition of 'in' is not unreasonable, but neither is it an official definition.

 

[didds]

whethger RP called it in or not is not the issue at debate.

its whether RP was RIGHT to say its in.

with respect to the draw an arc... i'd accept that if SOMEBODY, SOMEWHERE was actually part of a ruck witrh the ball clear but "in an elactic band".

Look at the picture. NOBODY is bound into the pile of bodies that may have constututed a ruck at some time. You have one player ready to latchj onto laidlaw if he picks and goes, and two players to their left ready for a pop and drive, one ready to latch onto the other.

They are in no senhsible way a part of any notional ruck - they are part of the next bit that follows the previous ruck. Otherwise you may as well say the flyhalf anfd blindside winger are "in the ruck" and draw an arc around them.

THE BALL IS C&O OUT.

Anything else is emperor's new clothes - or just 100% wrong.

didds


didds

 

[OB..]

They are in no senhsible way a part of any notional ruck - they are part of the next bit that follows the previous ruck.

It is sometimes referred to as a pile-up - a phrase which does not occur in the laws and so is not covered by them.

Yet again we are trying to argue from the wording, rather than the game.

We know that a ruck can continue to exist even if the opponents withdraw. I have no problem with accepting that a ruck continues to exist until the ball is out even if no players are on their feet.

The question of when the ball is out is a contentious one. It would be nice to have further guidance, but meanwhile the players have no option but to go with the referee on the day (Law 6.A.4 (a)).

 

[didds]

the claim was that there were ruck players in the ruck that one could draw an arc around.

That is clearly not the case. The players in the picyture shown are not players that-were-in-the-ruck-and-now-are-not ... the are C&O set up for the NEXT phase of play.

Any claim that they are still part of the recently extinct ruck is pure lunacy.

I appreciate the WR has some bizarre notion that somehow they are still in the ruck, but that frankly its pants logic. They are no more part of the ruck than the full back is. The best I can proffer is that RWs clarifcation (HA!) mesans players layiong on the floor having fallen off the ruck. Not players that were in it, are on their feet and ready for the next phase. Otherwise a tackled full back that is now 30 metres away would "still be in the ruck".

It IS the emporer's new clothes.

didds

 

[Phil E]

the claim was that there were ruck players in the ruck that one could draw an arc around.

That is clearly not the case. The players in the picyture shown are not players that-were-in-the-ruck-and-now-are-not ... the are C&O set up for the NEXT phase of play............................

Yada, yada, yada

......................It IS the emporer's new clothes.

didds

There was a ruck.
The ruck doesn't end just because all the participants end up on the floor.
So all the players lying on the "pile up" are still part of the ruck.
The ball is within the boundary of those players.

Therefore the ball was IN!!

View attachment 3200