[Ruck] Diving on an emerging ball coming out of ruck

breako


Referees in Ireland
Joined
Sep 11, 2006
Messages
310
Post Likes
2
England V France VI Nations Saturday 4th Feb 2017 . At 33 mins, ball is coming out of Ruck.
Ref says: "It's out". Then England number 7 dives on it.
Ref pings him says "can't dive on emerging ball" -This is correct,
England ask: "But, you said it was out".
Ref says: it has to be clearly out.
England ask: "So what are we supposed to do?"
Ref says: "Stand on your feet and pick it up?"

So relevant law is 16.5.e:
A player must not fall on or over the ball as it is coming out of a ruck.
Sanction: Penalty kick


Me thinks, ref got it wrong and shouldn't have said "It's out". I don't think you should ever say that because you leave yourself open. Unless you are 100% sure all ok.

Thoughts...
 

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
12,035
Post Likes
1,775
check England v France thread. Already being debated there

didds
 

Pegleg

Rugby Expert
Joined
Sep 3, 2014
Messages
3,330
Post Likes
536
Current Referee grade:
Level 3
You are splitting hairs (Coming out / out) . Ask why the law is there. I would guess that the powers that be want the ball to not be stuck in a messy pile up. The might want a game of rugby to break out instead.
 

OB..


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
22,981
Post Likes
1,838
I think the law is there because when it was introduced in 1998, scrum halves were being penalised for picking the ball up in the ruck. Now that they are not, we no longer need that bit of law.

I would hazard a guess that he had been pulled up previously for not penalising it (probably under different circumstances eg ball coming out unexpectedly).
 

Paule23


Referees in Scotland
Joined
Oct 29, 2014
Messages
394
Post Likes
153
Current Referee grade:
Level 7
This was just a cock up/brain freeze from the referee. No-one so far is suggesting this was the right decision, the ball was clearly already out (not 'emerging) from the ruck and was touched by another player before Wood dived on it.

i have no problem with the law, if a ball squirts out from a ruck its better for the game if people don't dive on it, but it was incorrectly applied this time.
 

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
12,035
Post Likes
1,775
well Im not convinced that the game would dissolve into a turgid affair of players diving on balls that continually squeeze out of rucks.

But then what do I know - I only called the non engagement at the lineout non-maul thing and was roundly poo-pooed for the idea... years before the Italians did it against England...

;-)

didds
 

DocY


Referees in England
Joined
Dec 10, 2015
Messages
1,809
Post Likes
421
I wouldn't say he was wrong, but if he hadn't blown nobody would be talking about it.

And how many of us will get players quoting this law to us next Saturday when we'd rather get on with the game?
 

Camquin

Rugby Expert
Joined
Mar 8, 2011
Messages
1,653
Post Likes
310
OB
I stupidly thought that we have a laws sub-committee that met regularly and soberly discussed the wording in the law book to ensure it was clear, consistent, contained all issued clarifications and coped with the latest playing styles
 

OB..


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
22,981
Post Likes
1,838
OB
I stupidly thought that we have a laws sub-committee that met regularly and soberly discussed the wording in the law book to ensure it was clear, consistent, contained all issued clarifications and coped with the latest playing styles
There is a full re-write of the laws from time to time (last one 2000) but it is a time-consuming process. In between they respond to problems, insert patches/clarifications, and dabble in ELVs. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
 

Pinky


Referees in Scotland
Joined
Apr 9, 2010
Messages
1,521
Post Likes
192
This was IIRC something we were told about refereeing rucks, ie that the ball had to be >1m away before we should allow someone to dive on it. I think AG was clear why he gave the PK as he said to DH who asked what Wood should have done "picked it up"
 

Not Kurt Weaver


Referees in America
Joined
Sep 11, 2008
Messages
2,285
Post Likes
159
This was IIRC something we were told about refereeing rucks, ie that the ball had to be >1m away before we should allow someone to dive on it. I think AG was clear why he gave the PK as he said to DH who asked what Wood should have done "picked it up"

You know >1m is a foolish statement. what if the >1m is in in-goal. IIRC gave ya bad advice.

I think we all know "coming out of a ruck" is still in a ruck.
 

Dickie E


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
14,106
Post Likes
2,131
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
You know >1m is a foolish statement. what if the >1m is in in-goal. IIRC gave ya bad advice.

I think we all know "coming out of a ruck" is still in a ruck.

I agree with Pinky on this. The idea is to stop clutter around the edge of the ruck. Clearly, if the ball is still in the ruck, you can't dive on it. And you can't dive on it either around the fringe. 1m sounds like a reasonable rule of thumb.

If you're "coming out of the closet" you're not still in the closet.
 

DocY


Referees in England
Joined
Dec 10, 2015
Messages
1,809
Post Likes
421
You know >1m is a foolish statement. what if the >1m is in in-goal.

I don't think anyone's suggesting penalising someone trying to minor the ball here. You need to think about what the law is trying to prevent - in this case rucks turning into even bigger piles of bodies.
 

SimonSmith


Referees in Australia
Staff member
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
9,336
Post Likes
1,440
You know >1m is a foolish statement. what if the >1m is in in-goal. IIRC gave ya bad advice.

I think we all know "coming out of a ruck" is still in a ruck.

This is unlikely as a ruck can only take place in the field of play and not in-goal.
 

Not Kurt Weaver


Referees in America
Joined
Sep 11, 2008
Messages
2,285
Post Likes
159
This is unlikely as a ruck can only take place in the field of play and not in-goal.

Unlikely, yes Most rucks near in goal on field of play are played expeditiously.

A ball squirting out a ruck adjacent to in goal on field of play does not meet the >1m rule if ball ends up just within in goal.

This is not a ruck in in goal
 

Pegleg

Rugby Expert
Joined
Sep 3, 2014
Messages
3,330
Post Likes
536
Current Referee grade:
Level 3
There is a full re-write of the laws from time to time (last one 2000) but it is a time-consuming process. In between they respond to problems, insert patches/clarifications, and dabble in ELVs. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

They fiddle with the laws regularly. Instead of doing so perhaps the time should be spent on a proper review. The scrum mess is a good example whe've had several re-writes and yet still we have issues (at the top level).
 
Last edited:

OB..


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
22,981
Post Likes
1,838
They fiddle with the laws regularly. Instead of doing so perhaps the time should be spent on a proper review. The scrum mess is a good example whe've had several re-writes and yet still we have issues (at the top level).
"Fiddling", as you put it, involves trying to fix one particular law. A full re-write involves much more than that. Moreover a re-write would not deal with the next stages in the evolution of the game since we don't yet know what they will be.
 

Pegleg

Rugby Expert
Joined
Sep 3, 2014
Messages
3,330
Post Likes
536
Current Referee grade:
Level 3
Obviously that is the case. So let's do nothing. Or rather "fix" the scrum and fail to sort it every time.
 

Paule23


Referees in Scotland
Joined
Oct 29, 2014
Messages
394
Post Likes
153
Current Referee grade:
Level 7
They fiddle with the laws regularly. Instead of doing so perhaps the time should be spent on a proper review. The scrum mess is a good example whe've had several re-writes and yet still we have issues (at the top level).

but that's an issue with the players and how they are refereed than the laws. If it works at a lower level it can/should work higher up the game.
 

Pegleg

Rugby Expert
Joined
Sep 3, 2014
Messages
3,330
Post Likes
536
Current Referee grade:
Level 3
but that's an issue with the players and how they are refereed than the laws. If it works at a lower level it can/should work higher up the game.

So why fiddle with / change the laws? Just enforce them. You've really supported the point. There are laws that need re writing and the laws , such as the scrum, are fine yet they keep gettign altered. So here's an off the wall suggestion:

Leave the laws that are ok alone - Jutst enforce them. Tidy up the ambiguities instead.
 
Top