Halfback kicks ball into the ruck, players on ground

[scrumpox2]

One of my pet annoyances witnessed at the base of a slow ruck, scrum half thinks the ball may come out so deliberately kicks the ball into the ruck, buying himself time.

Accidentally offside?

 

[Pablo]

FK according to the good book:

16.4 OTHER RUCK OFFENCES
(a) Players must not return the ball into a ruck.
Sanction: Free Kick

 

[Dixie]

There's a bit of an issue with the problem statement. If the SH thinks it MAY come out, it's not out - so all he's doing is nudging it forward in the ruck with his foot. I don't think that can possibly be offside. On the other hand, if it's already out and he returns it to (or kicks it into) the ruck, then ping him - perhaps after a warning.

 

[tim White]

If its not out -and he's not bound on.......:chin:

 

[beckett50]

If its not out -and he's not bound on.......:chin:

He's the scrum half, so why would he be bound on?

If all he is doing is using his foot to ensure that the ball doesn't emerge past the hindmost foot, then I see nothing wrong in Law. I grant that it may be contrary to the spirit of the game, but there is nothing we can do about that.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

There's a bit of an issue with the problem statement. If the SH thinks it MAY come out, it's not out - so all he's doing is nudging it forward in the ruck with his foot. I don't think that can possibly be offside. See Below On the other hand, if it's already out and he returns it to (or kicks it into) the ruck, then ping him - perhaps after a warning.Agree, this a easy way to avoid explaining that the SH is offside although a reduction from PK to FK

He's the scrum half, so why would he be bound on?

If all he is doing is using his foot to ensure that the ball doesn't emerge past the hindmost foot, then I see nothing wrong in Law. I grant that it may be contrary to the spirit of the game, but there is nothing we can do about that.

Beckett and Dix, If his foot is within the ruck he is in front of the offside line SH or not. 16.5 d I think covers it.

We do of course allow the SH to step in front of said line to retrieve the ball. I think that falls under "materiality" We also allow aSH to handle that ball while it is within the ruck sometimes both feet are behind the offside line/ sometimes not.

 

[didds]

presumably if he can handle in the ruck to retrieve the ball, he could drag it out with his foot for the same reason?

what happens then if he tries to do so but "oops, the ball went further in cos I was a numpty, ref" ?

didds

 

[OB..]

presumably if he can handle in the ruck to retrieve the ball, he could drag it out with his foot for the same reason?

what happens then if he tries to do so but "oops, the ball went further in cos I was a numpty, ref" ?

didds

What happens if a player tries to catch the ball but knocks it on?

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

presumably if he can handle in the ruck to retrieve the ball, he could drag it out with his foot for the same reason? Cept with the latter he quite possibly has oversteped the offside line and contacted the ball and interfered with play.
what happens then if he tries to do so but "oops, the ball went further in cos I was a numpty, ref" ? A numpty ref would be playing advantage

didds

What happens if a player tries to catch the ball but knocks it on?

I assume you mean the ball is within a ruck. I would apply advantage/ scrum for a knock forward.

 

[OB..]

Actually, I was simply pointing out that if a player is clumsy, that does not stop the referee from sanctioning the infringement.

 

[didds]

What happens if a player tries to catch the ball but knocks it on?

accepted OB,... but... there is nothing that prevents a player from kciking the ball fiorward, accidental kicks forward in a ruck that hit a team mate in front of the ball are notr (official blind eye/) called for accidental offisde, and there isn;t really anything that stops a s/h putting his feet inside a ruck (more official blind eyes?). Are you suggesting refs ping every s/h every time they dig out with a foot and the ball doesn;t come clear when the foot disengages, whether gone forward or back.

That's not to say the point you make isn't valid in itself, just that I do not believe the analogy is valid. As refs you must decide whether you will permit s/h feet in the ruck or not, and accept the consequences of allowing/disallowing that or I suggest WADR you are introducing too many grey areas (where the laws arguably require you to have to make far too many of these already, as oft debated here)


"Yes, you can put your foot in the ruck s/h but

* the ball must come out 1st time
* the ball can only go backwards
* you can only do it once cos otherwise it looks a deliberate policy
* but I may allow you a foot movement to give you better hand access
* maybe"

I suppose the s/h could always bind, kick it forwards then unbind of course.

And what would the difference be?

W/out meaning to be ornery, it seems a pedantic area to get into when you as refs have enough already to concern yourself with. Especially given the amount of times it is likely to happen in a season, let alone a game.

didds

 

[Simon Thomas]

This whole area for me needs to be sorted out by the players and the coaches !

All this lifting and moving of legs, readjustment of where the ball is (by hand and foot) and then a staged deliberate reach down & pass - yawn.

If the players stay on their feet you get rid of the leg moving stuff and having to 'dig it out'.
If the ball is placed backwards and between legs no readjustment is needed.
If modern scrum halves learnt to 'snap' pass (wrists used as well as arms) and get the ball away quicker, to keep the game dynamic, we should all benefit.

 

[OB..]

what happens then if he tries to do so but "oops, the ball went further in cos I was a numpty, ref" ?

didds

The implication was that the player was doing it deliberately, but trying to persuade the ref it was an accident. If you judged a knock-on to be a "deliberate accident",you would use your judgement. Same here. Though I agree the whole thing is a mess.

 

[scrumpox2]

Didds - if you watch French rugby you'll have seen this several times per game for the past 2 or 3 seasons, and it has now crept over the channel.

Make no mistake, this is a deliberate act to slow down an already slow ruck ball to allow half back to scan and for his team to set a pod in order to try to create fast ball at the next phase. But it also allows the defending team time to reset. The crowd yawns - it's a blight on the game.

I think this needs to have a wider sense of ownership than simply expecting it to be sorted out by players and coaches.

In Junior rugby here you cannot keep a ball at 8's feet at scrum time, the ball should be played without delay.
At the maul, when the forward momentum has been lost a second time, the ref is able to call "use it". The reasoning and the implications are understood by all.

So why not introduce the same kind of "use it" call when the ball is both visible and playable at the base of a ruck? Failure to use it is negative play and deliberately delaying, result scrum to team not in possession. For deliberately kicking a visible and playable ball further into the ruck, free kick to team not in possession.

 

[FlipFlop]

If the ball that was kicked forward was stopped by a player lying on the ground (normally same side as SH kicking forward) then I'll PK the player on the ground for failing to roll away.

As they prevented the ball from coming out the other side, they have had a material effect on the game.

I do the same when the defending side try to pull the ball back with their feet and the tackled player is preventing them from winning it.

We don't enforce the law that requires the tackled player to roll away. If we did, then the ruck would be a lot cleaner etc.

 

[Simon Thomas]

So why not introduce the same kind of "use it" call when the ball is both visible and playable at the base of a ruck? Failure to use it is negative play and deliberately delaying, result scrum to team not in possession.

I have used the "use it" or "get on with it" call at ruck and scrum as well as maul for the last 10 years, when there is no movement or positive play going on. I regard it as positive management.

 

[ex-lucy]

I have used the "use it" or "get on with it" call at ruck and scrum as well as maul for the last 10 years, when there is no movement or positive play going on. I regard it as positive management.

so do i ST ... then one day an assessor criticised me for calling that out... "only in junior matches .. not in Adult rugby, pls .."

 

[Simon Thomas]

so do i ST ... then one day an assessor criticised me for calling that out... "only in junior matches .. not in Adult rugby, pls .."

Depends what the situation was, and it is not a big issue.

Remember like referees, assessors are graded and some are not as good or experienced as others, and some don't go to all the Society or Assessors meetings so may be out of date, inconsistent with the rest, etc.

I would have no problem with it being used as a positive management tool by the referee in the right circumstances. Such as SH just standing looking around for ages with ball just inside a back foot, and repeat efforts at counter rucking getting nowhere against blockers - you have got a flashpoint coming !

 

[Ian_Cook]

A lot of these sound like "angels on a pinhead" arguments

In the real world, if the ball is

1. on the ground,and
2. in a ruck, and
3. not touching anything.

then how is it ever going to come out of the ruck without being picked up or raked back?

 

[scrumpox2]

how is it ever going to come out of the ruck without being picked up or raked back?

Agreed, but the question is about the ball being kicked back in.

I like ST's way of managing it but if it's left to management by the ref the players will have a very different approach from one week to the next.