Diving Over The Ruck

[Ciaran Trainor]

Watched highlights of Cardiff v Glasgow yesterday and asw the Glasgow Scrum half dive over a ruck on the line to score a try.
Try was given straight away but is it Legal?
If this was in midfield and a scrum half was about to get the ball away with ball in the air and in two hands I'm sure a defender would be penalised if he dived over and tackled the scrum half.

Law 16(d) A player must not jump on top of a ruck.
Sanction: Penalty kick

Its very unlikely that a player Diving over a ruck does not touch anybody.
Thoughts any body

 

[Blackberry]

If the ruck had moved over the line then it would have been ceased to exist?

 

[crossref]

We had a whole thread about that not long ago. Ian spent a lot of effort showing its not defined as dangerous per se, so scoring a try like this is fine

 

[Ian_Cook]

There is no Law of the game that this contravenes.

Ask yourself these questions

1. The player diving over the top has the ball in his hands, therefore, the ruck over, so does any of Law 16 still apply?

2. If the try scorer dived, and took exactly the same arc except that the ex-ruck wasn't there, would it be dangerous play?

Despite what some people will try to tell you, jumping over an ex-ruck is not the same as jumping on top of a ruck.

Here is what crossref was talking about

http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?19182-Japan-v-Scotland&p=303904&viewfull=1#post303904

 

[Taff]

If the ruck had moved over the line then it would have been ceased to exist?

True, but surely what the Ref is penalising is the dangerous part. Eg collapsing a maul in the FoP is a PK (because it's dangerous - that's why the IRB scrapped the trial allowing mauls to be collapsed) so if a player collapses a maul like thing in-goal, it's still just as dangerous - but it isn't a maul.

Fine; penalise it under Foul Play laws rather than Maul laws then. The sanction is the same.

 

[Ian_Cook]

True, but surely what the Ref is penalising is the dangerous part. Eg collapsing a maul in the FoP is a PK (because it's dangerous - that's why the IRB scrapped the trial allowing mauls to be collapsed) so if a player collapses a maul like thing in-goal, it's still just as dangerous - but it isn't a maul.

Fine; penalise it under Foul Play laws rather than Maul laws then. The sanction is the same.

But diving over an ex-ruck/ex-maul is NOT foul play or dangerous play in and of itself, in the same way that diving where there is no ex-ruck or ex-maul would be. You can't simply make Laws up just because you have a personal bias against something that a player does. Sure, if the player does something dangerous in the act of diving over the ex-maul, such as elbowing a tackler in the face, then PK for that.

 

[Taff]

Then why is jumping onto a ruck banned?

 

[Dickie E]

Then why is jumping onto a ruck banned?

... and jumping to avoid a tackle?

 

[Ian_Cook]

Then why is jumping onto a ruck banned?

Because it is illegal rucking.

As I see it, a player jumping on top of a ruck is joining ahead of the hindmost foot, is off his feet and is offside. If it wasn't illegal then players would jump on rucks all the time to get themselves legally in the wrong side. It is interesting to note that the Law forbidding jumping on top of a maul is listed under 17.2 JOINING A MAUL. Jumping over a ruck is also illegal, because it will make you offside. However, there is nothing inherently dangerous in doing either of these.

Most especially, when the ball has left the ruck IT IS NO LONGER A RUCK (by definition), so a player with the ball in his hands who jumps over an ex-ruck to score a try has done nothing wrong. If you PK him and disallow the try, you are making up your own laws to suit yourself.

 

[menace]

Then why is jumping onto a ruck banned?

As well as what Ian says...

But going out on a limb here and just taking a stab as I don't really know if true and that is the reason; however I guess that once upon a time when rucks were with players on their feet rucking for the ball (unlike today when rucks are more on the ground than on feet) and you're not permitted to collapse a ruck so I would presume that someone jumping on the top of a ruck is more likely to result in it collapsing? Same goes with a maul. (Collapsing not only prevents the ball from coming out but is also inherently a bit dangerous to those being collapsed on? )
So I'm guessing they outlawed jumping on the ruck or maul is to somewhat protect it from potential collapsing and it was also not seen as a means of contesting for the ball?

Has it always been in the laws since day dot? Maybe the historians can advise? OB?

 

[Ian_Cook]

As well as what Ian says...

But going out on a limb here and just taking a stab as I don't really know if true and that is the reason; however I guess that once upon a time when rucks were with players on their feet rucking for the ball (unlike today when rucks are more on the ground than on feet) and you're not permitted to collapse a ruck so I would presume that someone jumping on the top of a ruck is more likely to result in it collapsing? Same goes with a maul. (Collapsing not only prevents the ball from coming out but is also inherently a bit dangerous to those being collapsed on? )
So I'm guessing they outlawed jumping on the ruck or maul is to somewhat protect it from potential collapsing and it was also not seen as a means of contesting for the ball?

Has it always been in the laws since day dot? Maybe the historians can advise? OB?

My Law books only go back to 1996 (which is about the time that the IRFB started to try to get rucking with the feet out of the game

It was in there, but it was worded slightly differently



[LAWS]LAW 21: RUCK
(2) A player must not:-

(e) jump on top of other players in the ruck
[/LAWS]

 

[Dixie]

Most especially, when the ball has left the ruck IT IS NO LONGER A RUCK (by definition), so a player with the ball in his hands who jumps over an ex-ruck to score a try has done nothing wrong. If you PK him and disallow the try, you are making up your own laws to suit yourself.

I don't disagree with that, but there's a BUT ....

[LAWS]Ruling 8-2006

Union / HP Ref Manager

FFR

Law Reference: 16

Date: 29 November 2006

Request: The FFR has requested a ruling with regard to Law 16 Ruck

Question:
1. ... (not relevant here)
2. Can the referee allow a defender coming from his side to intervene on the ball as soon as it emerges from the ruck, by diving over the players on the ground in front of him?
3. Can the referee allow a player coming from his side to hit the arm of the opponent as this opponent has the ball in his hands, by diving over the players on the ground in front of him?
4. Can the referee allow a player coming from his side to hit the arm of the opponent as this opponent has the ball in his hands, by staying on his feet but being in contact with players on the ground in front of him?


Ruling in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee

1. ... (not relevant here)
2. No. See Laws 16.2(d) and 16.3(d). reference to ruck laws, even though the ruck has clearly ended
3. No. See Laws 16.2(d) and 16.3(d). reference to ruck laws, even though the ruck has clearly ended
4. Yes. If the player was on his feet and came from an onside position.[/LAWS]

 

[OB..]

Has it always been in the laws since day dot? Maybe the historians can advise? OB?

In teh nineteenth century they had a "maul-in-goal" but that was abolished in 1892. In the early days a scrum started when the ball was put on the ground and the players gathered round to start pushing, but from 1892 the players had to form up before another player put the ball in. In 1905 the definitions implied a distiction between a looese scrum(=ruck) and a set scrum

A Scrummage, which can only take place in the field-of-play, is formed by one or more players from each side closing round the ball when it is on the ground, or by their closing up in readiness to allow the ball to be put on the ground between them.

The terms "ruck" and "maul" seem to date from 1964 -I have a note that the offside lines were established then. The prohibition on jumping on players in a ruck or maul was certainly in the laws from 1974.

A friend of my father's was a prison officer in the local gaol, and he had the bright idea of allowing prisoners to let off steam by playing a form of rugby in the prison yard. One inmate delighted in jumping on top of "rucks", but one day he missed and landed badly, needing time in the prison hospital, so the games were banned. I don't imagine that was what the law was aimed at.

 

[Ian_Cook]

I don't disagree with that, but there's a BUT ....

[LAWS]Ruling 8-2006

Union / HP Ref Manager

FFR

Law Reference: 16

Date: 29 November 2006

Request: The FFR has requested a ruling with regard to Law 16 Ruck

Question:
1. ... (not relevant here)
2. Can the referee allow a defender coming from his side to intervene on the ball as soon as it emerges from the ruck, by diving over the players on the ground in front of him?
3. Can the referee allow a player coming from his side to hit the arm of the opponent as this opponent has the ball in his hands, by diving over the players on the ground in front of him?
4. Can the referee allow a player coming from his side to hit the arm of the opponent as this opponent has the ball in his hands, by staying on his feet but being in contact with players on the ground in front of him?


Ruling in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee

1. ... (not relevant here)
2. No. See Laws 16.2(d) and 16.3(d). reference to ruck laws, even though the ruck has clearly ended
3. No. See Laws 16.2(d) and 16.3(d). reference to ruck laws, even though the ruck has clearly ended
4. Yes. If the player was on his feet and came from an onside position.[/LAWS]

Not really relevant. This is no different to the ruck offside Law still applying after the ruck has ended to players who were offside before the ruck ended.

The ruck laws might still apply when the ball is emerging, but they certainly do NOT apply when the ball is in the hands of the player doing the diving.

 

[Camquin]

Thinking this through.

The players in the ruck are offside - so if he does not clear the ruck and touches one of his own players, I would be looking at least scrum for accidental offside.

If he lands on the opposition - definitite PK for dangerous play.

If he completely clear the ruck, you still need to be certain in this case that it was not reckless and that he gained no advantage from the offside players preventing a tackle - if both of those hold I would award the try.

But in real time does it look right - if it does try. If not - choose a decision and sell it.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Thinking this through.

The players in the ruck are offside - so if he does not clear the ruck and touches one of his own players, I would be looking at least scrum for accidental offside.

Agree, but it would have to be a substantial contact, or one that prevented an opponent from tackling or otherwise stopping him. Since this is no longer a ruck, it is offside in General Play.

[LAWS]11.1 OFFSIDE IN GENERAL PLAY
(a) A player who is in an offside position is liable to sanction only if the player does one of three
things:
• Interferes with play or,
• Moves forward, towards the ball or
• Fails to comply with the 10-Metre Law (Law 11.4).

A player who is in an offside position is not automatically penalised.
A player who receives an unintentional throw forward is not offside.
A player can be offside in the in-goal.
[/LAWS]

If the ball carrier merely brushes against a team mate and there is no material effect, then PK is manifestly unfair and inconsistent with the Laws.

If he lands on the opposition - definite PK for dangerous play.

Why?

Do you always prejudge players' actions?

Would you also PK a ball carrier for dangerous play if he dived for the line and landed on an opponent trying to get under him to prevent a try being scored?

If he completely clear the ruck, you still need to be certain in this case that it was not reckless and that he gained no advantage from the offside players preventing a tackle - if both of those hold I would award the try.

But in real time does it look right - if it does try. If not - choose a decision and sell it.

Even here, it seems to me that you are trying to find a way not to award the try, rather than trying not to blow the whistle. You seem to be applying criteria that you might not apply anywhere else on the field.

I would award the try unless the player did something actually dangerous e.g. forearm or elbow to the head of a would-be tackler, trying to hurdle the ex-ruck (rather than dive roll over it) and sprigging an opponent.

Merely landing on an opponent is not inherently dangerous play.

 

[chesref]

Is diving over a ruck really in the spirit of the game?

Obstruction?
You are using the players in front of you to prevent the opposition from tackling you

Penalty try if not grounded?
If the opposition try to stop you are they not playing you in the air?

Difference diving for the try line to score is you are not diving at the same height if diving over a ruck, as the players in the former ruck should be on their feet.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Is diving over a ruck really in the spirit of the game?

IMO, yes.

What if no ruck had actually formed and it was still a tackle? Would diving over a former tackle zone be against the spirit of the game?

Obstruction?
You are using the players in front of you to prevent the opposition from tackling you

You could make the same argument about the ball carrier in a maul.

What if his team-mates are all on the ground, and the opponents are the only ones on their feet? Still obstruction?

Penalty try if not grounded?
If the opposition try to stop you are they not playing you in the air?

Would you penalise a player for tacking an opponent that has dived for a try when no former ruckers are there?

Difference diving for the try line to score is you are not diving at the same height if diving over a ruck,

You think height of a ball carrier off the ground is a determining factor as to whether or not the tackler is PK? Do you have a Law reference for that?

as the players in the former ruck should be on their feet.

What makes you think that all the former ruckers should be on their feet? What about those who have been cleaned out, saddle rolled etc?

 

[Dixie]

I don't disagree with that, but there's a BUT ....

[LAWS]Ruling 8-2006

Union / HP Ref Manager

FFR

Law Reference: 16

Date: 29 November 2006

Request: The FFR has requested a ruling with regard to Law 16 Ruck

Question:
3. Can the referee allow a player coming from his side to hit the arm of the opponent as this opponent has the ball in his hands, by diving over the players on the ground in front of him?

Ruling in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee

3. No. See Laws 16.2(d) and 16.3(d). reference to ruck laws, even though the ruck has clearly ended
[/LAWS]

Not really relevant. This is no different to the ruck offside Law still applying after the ruck has ended to players who were offside before the ruck ended.

The ruck laws ... certainly do NOT apply when the ball is in the hands of the player doing the diving.

I am struggling to see why ruck laws are over and done with if the player with the ball in his hands is doing the diving, but they are still in force if another player wants to dive towards the ball carrier. Your views so far on this thread have been very consistent with mine - which is to say we are looking for reasons not to blow the whistle, and for consistency with other scenarios elsewhere on the field. Either Point 3 in the FFR question applies in both directions, or in neither. Personally, I believe the latter to be the case, but that brings me up against the authority of the WR youth trainee. I lose.

Is diving over a ruck really in the spirit of the game?

No more than trying to avoid any other obstruction or group of fallen bodies.

 

[Ian_Cook]

I am struggling to see why ruck laws are over and done with if the player with the ball in his hands is doing the diving, but they are still in force if another player wants to dive towards the ball carrier. Your views so far on this thread have been very consistent with mine - which is to say we are looking for reasons not to blow the whistle, and for consistency with other scenarios elsewhere on the field. Either Point 3 in the FFR question applies in both directions, or in neither. Personally, I believe the latter to be the case, but that brings me up against the authority of the WR youth trainee. I lose.

No more than trying to avoid any other obstruction or group of fallen bodies.

Dixie, I think these are two different issues.

A player offside at the time of the ruck, and remaining offside after the ruck ends is not an example of ruck laws still applying beyond the end of the ruck. Law 16.5 OFFSIDE AT THE RUCK makes no mention of this, presumably because the issue is dealt with under the Offside Law...

[LAWS]11.8 PUTTING ONSIDE A PLAYER RETIRING DURING A RUCK, MAUL, SCRUM OR LINEOUT
When a ruck, maul, scrum or lineout forms, a player who is offside and is retiring as required by Law remains offside even when the opposing team wins possession and the ruck, maul, scrum or lineout has ended. The player is put onside by retiring behind the applicable offside line. No other action of the offside player and no action of that player’s team mates can put the offside player onside. If the player remains offside the player can be put onside only by the action of the opposing team. There are two such actions:
Opponent runs 5 metres with ball. When an opponent carrying the ball has run 5 metres, the offside player is put onside. An offside player is not put onside when an opponent passes the ball. Even if the opponents pass the ball several times, their action does not put the offside player onside.

Opponent kicks. When an opponent kicks the ball, the offside player is put onside.[/LAWS]

I maintain this is not an application of the ruck Laws after the ruck has ended. While the Ruck still exists, any offside players are offside under Law 16.5. As soon as the ruck ends, those players are now offside under Law 11.8.