Going off feet at a ruck.

[damo]

In the Bledisloe Cup game in the weekend there were two decisions that left me scratching my head at the time. After watching them again, I was still left a bit unsure of whether they were right or not. In fact I am so unsure about them I tried to make a video of the incidents to discuss with you fine gentleman. (It was my first attempt at making a video and it didn't quite come out right, but it is good enough to see the incidents in question.)

The two decisions occur when the All Blacks had solid forward momentum at a ruck, and they blew past the Wallaby players in the ruck and then the ruck collapsed on the ground well past the ball. The referee penalised for players going off their feet. I felt that these decisions were a little harsh because in both cases the players had attempted to stay on their feet, and they only fell over once the opposition had been blown away. I think this is particularly true in the second case.

Now to quote the relevant laws as I see it:

16.2 JOINING A RUCK

(d) All players forming, joining or taking part in a ruck must be on their feet.
Sanction: Penalty kick


16.3 RUCKING

(a) Players in a ruck must endeavour to stay on their feet.
Sanction: Penalty kick

(c) A player must not intentionally collapse a ruck. This is dangerous play.
Sanction: Penalty kick



I submit that the players in both instances did not breach any of these laws. When the joined the ruck they were on their feet. I do not think in either instance they went off their feet intentionally; rather what happened was a natural result of the opposition being blown away. I say that both were instances of positive play where the intention was to drive past the ball and win it. From my point of view if we penalise these actions we come dangerously close to shutting off the contest at ruck time because players falling over is often an inevitable result of winning a ruck.

I think the second one is particularly bad, since in the first one the halfback picked the ball up while he was arguably part of a ruck.

I am genuinely interested in hearing what people think.

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

I think you're right. I can't watch the youtube but if I recall they were both in the first half. First was near the aus line and the other was in middle. Certainly I though NZ were a bit hard done by on the second one.

 

[Ian_Cook]

I agree 100%, and they had me scratching my head at the time too.

In both cases, NZ simply blew Australia backwards, then effectively tripped over Australian players who actually went to ground first and were therefore technically the first offenders. Its hard to remain on your feet when you push against opponents who simply give up and fall over, letting you fall with them.

The first one was so wrong that even the Aussie skipper was laughing; they got their arses kicked at that breakdown, illegally went to ground themselves, and ended up being awarded a bonus PK and a "get out of jail free" card.

Again, these are technical offences that in both cases were immaterial. New Zealand had blown the Aussies over and won the ball, the contest was over.

You are right in your comments on the youtube video page. A SH referee wouldn't have PK'd those as they are two examples of excellent driving play. If anything, a SH referee would be more likely to have penalised Australia in those examples, for going to ground in an attempt to kill the ball

I have no doubt many of the NH referees here will see it differently.

 

[ddjamo]

not sure what the deal was there. in fact - my first referee reaction to the first was that OZ needed to get out of the way as the ball was won by black. the second - I have no idea what AR was thinking there. my guess is that he was briefed as to the usual AB antics and was a bit trigger happy. who knows. I went over this stuff with him in scotland...he must not have listened.

View attachment 2202

 

[Dixie]

I have no doubt many of the NH referees here will see it differently.

On the contrary - I doubt that there will be a robust defence of AR's judgement in these cases. While I think he got them both wrong, I think he is to be applauded for getting the location of the first PK correct. He awarded it 2.5m from the goal line in accordance with the wording of 21.2, even though many of us suspect that the iRB did not intend for there to be a 5m difference in the location of a PK depending on whether the offence was in-goal or not quite in-goal.

 

[woody]

In the first instance, after they blew over the ball, NZ did seem to go to ground awfully easy and providing a nice little block. NZ was already at such an advantage, about to score and all, that I don't think it made any difference.

No good idea on the second call.

 

[damo]

This is not the reaction that I was expecting. I thought Rolland's position might have gotten a few takers.

 

[TNT88]

The 2nd penalty looks wrong, my only thought is that maybe he was trying to be consistent. Or went into the game looking for an NZ tactic where they go past the ball and go down. (however i don't think that was the case)

As for the 1st call. The entry of #10 and #6 black was suspect*. I think Rolland saw all the events happen quickly and had a pretty good feeling something was wrong there. But just gave the wrong signal. At the end of the day it wasn't a perfect counter ruck. I can see why he would have hesitated to give a try there.

*I can see what DC was trying to do, I think he mis-timed it though.

 

[damo]

The 2nd penalty looks wrong, my only thought is that maybe he was trying to be consistent. Or went into the game looking for an NZ tactic where they go past the ball and go down. (however i don't think that was the case)

As for the 1st call. The entry of #10 and #6 black was suspect*. I think Rolland saw all the events happen quickly and had a pretty good feeling something was wrong there. But just gave the wrong signal. At the end of the day it wasn't a perfect counter ruck. I can see why he would have hesitated to give a try there.

*I can see what DC was trying to do, I think he mis-timed it though.

Well, Dan Carter was the tackler so he's OK (I think he gets up before going for the ball and he does so before a Wallaby arrives to form a ruck).

I also can't buy that there is anything wrong with Messam's entry - he was very deliberate in his going behind the last player on the ground (Nonu) and binding onto his own last player on his feet (Read).

I do accept that #4 who picks the ball up was involved in a ruck and should have used his feet to ruck to back rather than his hands, but that wasn't what the penalty was for. Rolland has already blown his whistle and says to Messam "I have an issue with 4 or 5 players ending up on the ground on the wrong side". From this (and the next penalty) I get the impression that Rolland thinks that if players ever lose their feet on the wrong side they are liable to penalty.

 

[TNT88]

I suppose I'm not looking at the big picture. Maybe play on was the correct call.

With Carter, I get annoyed at players who think touching a knee on the ground during a tackle makes them a tackler. He gets up to force AAC to ground and stays on his feet. In my view he is a tackle assist there. But that's all borderline semantics anyway.

 

[Phil E]

I get annoyed at players who think touching a knee on the ground during a tackle makes them a tackler.

Why? It does.

[LAWS]Opposition players who hold the ball carrier and bring that player to ground, and
who also go to ground, are known as tacklers.[/LAWS]

[LAWS]15.3 BROUGHT TO THE GROUND DEFINED
(a) If the ball carrier has one knee or both knees on the ground, that player has been ‘brought
to ground’.
(b) If the ball carrier is sitting on the ground, or on top of another player on the ground the ball
carrier has been ‘brought to ground’.[/LAWS]

I know this refers to the ball carrier, but it also defines "brought to ground" in general.


[LAWS](a) After a tackle, all other players must be on their feet when they play the ball. Players are on
their feet if no other part of their body is supported by the ground or players on the ground.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/LAWS]

 

[Ian_Cook]

Why? It does.

[LAWS]Opposition players who hold the ball carrier and bring that player to ground, and
who also go to ground, are known as tacklers.[/LAWS]

[LAWS]15.3 BROUGHT TO THE GROUND DEFINED
(a) If the ball carrier has one knee or both knees on the ground, that player has been ‘brought
to ground’.
(b) If the ball carrier is sitting on the ground, or on top of another player on the ground the ball
carrier has been ‘brought to ground’.[/LAWS]

I know this refers to the ball carrier, but it also defines "brought to ground" in general.


[LAWS](a) After a tackle, all other players must be on their feet when they play the ball. Players are on
their feet if no other part of their body is supported by the ground or players on the ground.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/LAWS]

I disagree.

All of those Law references refer to the ball carrier, and only to the ball carrier.

You can't simply take a Law that applies to player "A" and apply it to player "B" unless the Laws specifically say that you can do so, e.g. in a scrum, you cannot apply the Props binding Law to the No. 8, or in a ruck, you cannot apply the offside Law for players not involved in the ruck, to players that are bound into the ruck.

Also, the term "brought to ground" applies only to the ball carrier; Law 15.3 specifically defines that.

For mine, the tackler is on the ground when he is completely off his feet.

 

[damo]

I disagree.

All of those Law references refer to the ball carrier, and only to the ball carrier.

You can't simply take a Law that applies to player "A" and apply it to player "B" unless the Laws specifically say that you can do so, e.g. in a scrum, you cannot apply the Props binding Law to the No. 8, or in a ruck, you cannot apply the offside Law for players not involved in the ruck, to players that are bound into the ruck.

Also, the term "brought to ground" applies only to the ball carrier; Law 15.3 specifically defines that.

For mine, the tackler is on the ground when he is completely off his feet.

Alright, but why do you think this? I really don't see any justification for taking this view over that expressed above.

Personally I can't see why the term "brought to ground" when applied to a ball carrier means something totally different to the term "go to ground" which applies to a tackler.

 

[OB..]

Alright, but why do you think this? I really don't see any justification for taking this view over that expressed above.

Personally I can't see why the term "brought to ground" when applied to a ball carrier means something totally different to the term "go to ground" which applies to a tackler.

Agreed.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Alright, but why do you think this? I really don't see any justification for taking this view over that expressed above.

Personally I can't see why the term "brought to ground" when applied to a ball carrier means something totally different to the term "go to ground" which applies to a tackler.

I see a big difference.

It is important to define when a ball carrier is deemed to be on the ground, because THAT is the key moment, the point at which the tackle begins, and Law 15 comes into effect.

If the ball carrier manages to remain on his feet, while the would-be tacklers go to ground, that ain't a tackle, it just remains general play.


I certainly do not believe that a player who brings the ball carrier to ground should be regarded as a tackler if they only go down onto their knees. That will only serve to encourage players to "throw" the ball carrier (martial arts style) onto the ground.

 

[woody]

Watching the first bit again, NZ didn't simply blow AUS off. NZ#10 spun AUS #15 around, went to ground and pulled #15 on top. Seems like a good call, IF it was consistently called.

 

[Phil E]

II certainly do not believe that a player who brings the ball carrier to ground should be regarded as a tackler if they only go down onto their knees.

You are the only referee I know of who holds that view.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Watching the first bit again, NZ didn't simply blow AUS off. NZ#10 spun AUS #15 around, went to ground and pulled #15 on top. Seems like a good call, IF it was consistently called.

NZ #10 (Carter) wasn't anywhere near AUS #15 (Beale). Its AUS #14 (Ashley-Cooper) he pulls down... this is called a tackle!!

In any case none of those three players had anything to do with the PK. It was awarded against NZ #6 (Messam) for going to ground in the wrong side of the ball. AR even told him.

In fact, ball was in front of Messam. Clearly an incorrect call.

 

[Ian_Cook]

You are the only referee I know of who holds that view.

So what?

I know of plenty who hold that view

It doesn't seem right to me that a player who puts the Ball Carrier on the ground can gain all the advantages of being a tackler by the simple expedient of touching one knee momentarily on the ground.

 

[coonor]

In the first instance I would penalise Beale for going off his feet and in the second instance I would penalise Genia for ball carrier not releasing. In both cases it's clear Australia know they are in trouble and so illegally kill the break down competition.