Handling in a Ruck?

[Browner]

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=I9eViktuWyQ

Maul, dropped ball onto ground, ruck now exists , ball picked up by ruck participant ........ Why not a PK for handling in ruck ?

 

[The Fat]

Agree.
Nothing accidental about that. Guy picking up tried to recreate the maul

 

[chrismtl]

To me it followed the definition of a successful end to a maul. The maul is formed, and then the ball hits the ground.

[LAWS] 17.5 Successful end to a maul
A maul ends successfully when :

• the ball or a player with the ball leaves the maul
• the ball is on the ground
• the ball is on or over the goal line.

[/LAWS]

The player at the back picked it up and essentially was running into his own man already; accidental offside, or if the ref sees fit, obstruction.

Agree.
Nothing accidental about that. Guy picking up tried to recreate the maul

If you think it was intentional, then it should be an obstruction penalty as the ball was not in a ruck, it was in open play.

 

[viper492]

Why not a PK for handling in ruck ?

Maul formed, ball lost to ground, last man in the former maul, now ruck, picks it up.

If it wasn't the last man in this now ruck, I'd go penalty for hands.

In this case I would go for PK for obstruction as he has picked up the ball and has just gone straight back into the back of the ruck - at Super Rugby level, they know they can't do this and it's definitely not unintentional; therefore not accidental offside.

 

[crossref]

when the ball was dropped, and didn't come out immediately, it's an unsuccessful end to a maul. So a turnover

 

[The Fat]

Two interesting opinions there.

1) From Chrismtl
"If you think it was intentional, then it should be an obstruction penalty as the ball was not in a ruck, it was in open play".

and

2) From crossref
"when the ball was dropped, and didn't come out immediately, it's an unsuccessful end to a maul. So a turnover"


Chrismtl and crossref respectively, please consider the following.

Extract from Law Clarification 2 - 2011:
There is a further variable to be taken into account when the ball goes to ground at a collapsed maul and there are players from both sides on their feet bound over the ball so that Law 16 – Ruck becomes applicable.

and

17.5 Successful end to a maul
A maul ends successfully when :

the ball or a player with the ball leaves the maul
the ball is on the ground
the ball is on or over the goal line.

 

[viper492]

Extract from Law Clarification 2 - 2011:
There is a further variable to be taken into account when the ball goes to ground at a collapsed maul and there are players from both sides on their feet bound over the ball so that Law 16 – Ruck becomes applicable.
17.5 Successful end to a maul

the ball is on the ground

We agree that the maul is successfully over, therefore the Law Clarification is irrelevant because we have reached the conclusion that the maul is not collapsed.

The question is: at what point is the ruck formed?

[LAWS]16.1 FORMING A RUCK
(a) Where can a ruck take place. A ruck can take place only in the field of play.
(b) How can a ruck form. Players are on their feet. At least one player must be in physical
contact with an opponent. The ball must be on the ground. If the ball is off the ground for
any reason, the ruck is not formed.[/LAWS]

This suggests to me that the ruck is formed the immediately when that maul become over - am I missing something???

 

[didds]

in the circumstances desceribed that would seem to be the only logical conculsion.

I suppose there is a sort of "no state" while ball is lost from the grasp before it hits the ground... but that is likely milli seconds

didds

 

[ChrisR]

when the ball was dropped, and didn't come out immediately, it's an unsuccessful end to a maul. So a turnover

You are mixing your metaphors. 17.5: ball on the ground = successful end to maul. No requirement for "immediately available." That's a requirement if the BC in a maul goes to ground.

Gentlemen, we have a ruck and ruck law applies.

Did player disengage before picking up ball?
No? Then handling in ruck.
Yes? Play on ... Oooops, ran into own player? Unintentional offsides or obstruction.

 

[The Fat]

We agree that the maul is successfully over, therefore the Law Clarification is irrelevant because we have reached the conclusion that the maul is not collapsed.

Perhaps I should have gone into more detail.
I posted the extract from Clarification 2-2011 to show that when the ball is on the ground and there are still players on their feet and bound over it, we transition from maul to ruck. The reference to a collapsed maul was specific to the question asked by the ARU back in 2011 and not the OP of this thread.

 

[The Fat]

Anyone want to suggest that there may have been a knock-on in there as the first infringement? Granted it is difficult to confirm from camera angle even though it looks like Glen Jackson has a good view of it.

 

[viper492]

Perhaps I should have gone into more detail.
I posted the extract from Clarification 2-2011 to show that when the ball is on the ground and there are still players on their feet and bound over it, we transition from maul to ruck. The reference to a collapsed maul was specific to the question asked by the ARU back in 2011 and not the OP of this thread.

Ah ok - relevance makes a lot more sense now. I had only seen that extract from it - should've done my homework and read the whole thing! :chin:

 

[Browner]

Ah ok - relevance makes a lot more sense now. I had only seen that extract from it - should've done my homework and read the whole thing! :chin:

Caution, its been known for a clarification to 'appear' relevant & current, when in fact they've been overridden & a contrary law position now exists. IRB dont always indicate outdated clarifications !

 

[viper492]

Caution, its been known for a clarification to 'appear' relevant & current, when in fact they've been overridden & a contrary law position now exists. IRB dont always indicate outdated clarifications !

And also read every single thing ever made that could be pertaining to it epper:

 

[Toby Warren]

If you gave a PK for that there would be 30 very confused players.

I'm sure there was a knock on.........

 

[irishref]

I'll concur with the commentator on this one:

"it was, as you say, sloppy"

Scrum the right outcome in my humble wee one.

 

[The umpire]

If you gave a PK for that there would be 30 very confused players.

I have given a penalty for just that sort of offence (ignoring the KO which must have come first) and there were indeed a number of confused players, but not for the reasons you might have thought.
Me 'Peep'-"penalty - handling in the ruck"
Penalised skipper - "but I thought you had to have bodies on the ground off their feet for a ruck! :frown: