hands in the ruck

[dacian]

Hi guys

Ulster-Leicester 24.01.15

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wGRy7afcej4

time of the game 27:55 of the 1st Half. (replay at 28:33)

no. 1 white tackles green (brings green to ground)
no. 2 white on his feet gets his hands on the ball seemingly before he is engaged by green players and a ruck is formed
referee blows hands in the ruck!

I have watched the replay a couple of times and to me it is obvious that the tackled green player is not releasing the ball yet the referee blows Hands in the ruck! I understand that at the ruck white player only hgets one chance to play the ball and probably a limited time window in doing so, but to me it is obvious the tackled player is not releasing and preventing white to play the ball.

Am I missing something?

thank you

 

[RobLev]

Hi guys

Ulster-Leicester 24.01.15

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wGRy7afcej4

time of the game 27:55 of the 1st Half. (replay at 28:33)

no. 1 white tackles green (brings green to ground)
no. 2 white on his feet gets his hands on the ball seemingly before he is engaged by green players and a ruck is formed
referee blows hands in the ruck!

I have watched the replay a couple of times and to me it is obvious that the tackled green player is not releasing the ball yet the referee blows Hands in the ruck! I understand that at the ruck white player only hgets one chance to play the ball and probably a limited time window in doing so, but to me it is obvious the tackled player is not releasing and preventing white to play the ball.

Am I missing something?

thank you

For me: W2 is tackle assist; he never properly releases the tackled player after he hits the ground, simply shifts his grip from shoulder to ball. Before he gets his hand on the ball he is contacted by the first arriving Green (#1?) - so ruck then formed; while G1 then slides down and ends up around W2's legs, another arriving Green player contacts him - certainly before he starts to try to pull the ball clear, possibly even before he gets his hand on the ball.

So I disagree; he never gets his hands on the ball before the ruck forms, and the ref had a choice; he could have pinged him either for not releasing, or for hands in the ruck.

 

[dacian]

For me: W2 is tackle assist; he never properly releases the tackled player after he hits the ground, simply shifts his grip from shoulder to ball. Before he gets his hand on the ball he is contacted by the first arriving Green (#1?) - so ruck then formed; while G1 then slides down and ends up around W2's legs, another arriving Green player contacts him - certainly before he starts to try to pull the ball clear, possibly even before he gets his hand on the ball.

So I disagree; he never gets his hands on the ball before the ruck forms, and the ref had a choice; he could have pinged him either for not releasing, or for hands in the ruck.

Well I was quite sure W2 had his hands on the ball even before green #1 engaged him....but we are talking nano seconds here and I admit it can be difficult for the referee to judge that in real time.

However, assuming the referee thought W2 had his hands on the ball after ruck is formed why did he allow W2 a couple of seconds - WITHOUT calling advantage green - to wrestle/rip the ball off the tackled player's hands before verbally asking the player to leave the ball?

I think referee got it wrong, he either should have blown penalty right away or advantage green if that was an infringement (hands on ball after ruck is formed). the fact he allowed seconds before verbally asking no hands and only after that blow penalty makes me think he probably thought W2 was no longer playing ball on his feet but that was only because tackled green did not release on time and allowed green 1 and 2 to throw W1 off balance and have his weight supported by another player (G1).

 

[Pegleg]

I think RobLev is correct in that there was never a clear release by the "tackle assist" before he goes back in for the ball. So there's the offence. I think the ref calls the wrong offence but the outcome is correct PK against white.

Tight call but no issue with the PK.

 

[dacian]

I think RobLev is correct in that there was never a clear release by the "tackle assist" before he goes back in for the ball. So there's the offence. I think the ref calls the wrong offence but the outcome is correct PK against white.

Tight call but no issue with the PK.

I would have had no problem had the referee called PK for no clear release of tackler but he clearly called for hands in the ruck therefore I was trying to find out what his reason was, and I think he got it wrong actually.

although if we are to judge by the spirit of the law, even if TA release was not clear, the tackled player was in no way prevented by tackle assist to release/pass the ball once he was brought to ground

 

[Pegleg]

Clearly he was. By virtue of the non release.

 

[The Fat]

For me: W2 is tackle assist; he never properly releases the tackled player after he hits the ground, simply shifts his grip from shoulder to ball. Before he gets his hand on the ball he is contacted by the first arriving Green (#1?) - so ruck then formed; while G1 then slides down and ends up around W2's legs, another arriving Green player contacts him - certainly before he starts to try to pull the ball clear, possibly even before he gets his hand on the ball.

So I disagree; he never gets his hands on the ball before the ruck forms, and the ref had a choice; he could have pinged him either for not releasing, or for hands in the ruck.

This bit in bold is spot on IMO.
Ref is saying the ruck has formed before white 2 gets hands on which can only be seen from the ref's position. The camera angle doesn't show when white 2 actually gets his hands on the ball.

 

[Browner]

I think W2 can consider himself unlucky , up to a point......
Unlucky to ...
A) be deemed as TA , cos it wasn't C&O to me that he hadn't released
B) be adjudged as not having hands on the ball , prior to the ruck forming.
C) have survived the clearout attempts of two players & having had such a strong grip on the ball

However, he wasn't unlucky when he ignored the clear instruction from the referee ( assuming he could hear !)

However, IMHO jackalling turnovers are becoming increasingly rarer, & showbiz game flow demands might make them extinct one day, I hope not, coz then the R.L.ist influencers will have ruined our code further !

 

[RobLev]

I think W2 can consider himself unlucky , up to a point......
Unlucky to ...
A) be deemed as TA , cos it wasn't C&O to me that he hadn't released

To avoid offending, doesn't he have to release C&O - hence the "release, clap hands, then go back in" mantra?

B) be adjudged as not having hands on the ball , prior to the ruck forming.

Conversely, doesn't he have to have his hands on the ball C&O before the ruck forms to avoid offending?

He was of course to one side of the tackled player when the tackle was completed, and (arguably) also when the first clearout made contact. If he had already got his hands (back) on the ball at that point, he had not played the ball "from directly behind the tackled player".

C) have survived the clearout attempts of two players & having had such a strong grip on the ball

However, he wasn't unlucky when he ignored the clear instruction from the referee ( assuming he could hear !)

However, IMHO jackalling turnovers are becoming increasingly rarer, & showbiz game flow demands might make them extinct one day, I hope not, coz then the R.L.ist influencers will have ruined our code further !

You can see this as either a rightful turnover denied, or as a cynical move designed to prevent quick ball; I think he knew exactly what he was doing.

 

[Browner]

I accept the release perhaps wasn't C&O 'enough' at showbiz , but my eye says it still occurred.

Unlucky W2.

Wonder what would have happened, if the referee had been interested in the arrival 'direction' of all on feet players?!?! Maybe the ruck formation might have been slightly slower!

 

[menace]

To avoid offending, doesn't he have to release C&O - hence the "release, clap hands, then go back in" mantra?



Conversely, doesn't he have to have his hands on the ball C&O before the ruck forms to avoid offending?

He was of course to one side of the tackled player when the tackle was completed, and (arguably) also when the first clearout made contact. If he had already got his hands (back) on the ball at that point, he had not played the ball "from directly behind the tackled player".



You can see this as either a rightful turnover denied, or as a cynical move designed to prevent quick ball; I think he knew exactly what he was doing.

I'm with Browner on this one when it comes to W2.
His assist tackle was to 'throw the player' down to the ground, not grab him. When the green BC hits the deck I'd adjudge W2 as compliant to go back on the ball ( as there was clear release and he does not need to clap his hands). Not only does he do that before the ruck is formed, but he remains in a strong position and survives the attempted cleans outs. Ordinarily I'd reward him for that dominance. He deserved that reward.

Where it comes unstuck for white, was W1, he did not release and roll immediately and had an impact to prevent Green BC his options (although I doubt he would have done so as W2 was quick on it. In the end IMO the PK was to the right team, just the wrong offence signalled.

 

[RobLev]

I'm with Browner on this one when it comes to W2.
His assist tackle was to 'throw the player' down to the ground, not grab him. When the green BC hits the deck I'd adjudge W2 as compliant to go back on the ball ( as there was clear release and he does not need to clap his hands). Not only does he do that before the ruck is formed, but he remains in a strong position and survives the attempted cleans outs. Ordinarily I'd reward him for that dominance. He deserved that reward.

For me he had hands on the BC all the way down; and from there he simply shifts his grip. I think your view is that he let go part way down? I can see what you mean, but disagree.

Watching from a little before, and after, it becomes apparent that White were doing everything they could, largely illegally, to slow down Green's ball; the lineout immediately prior to the incident was from a Green PK awarded for a player going off his feet to snuff out a dangerous counter-attack.

Where it comes unstuck for white, was W1, he did not release and roll immediately and had an impact to prevent Green BC his options (although I doubt he would have done so as W2 was quick on it. In the end IMO the PK was to the right team, just the wrong offence signalled.

What I smiled at was W1's reaction to the call of "No hands" from the ref; he immediately released the BC's legs, put his hands in the air and his body language screamed "Wot, me, ref?". It's only after he's let go that he realises that the ref wasn't talking to him...

 

[dacian]

I'm with Browner on this one when it comes to W2.
His assist tackle was to 'throw the player' down to the ground, not grab him. When the green BC hits the deck I'd adjudge W2 as compliant to go back on the ball ( as there was clear release and he does not need to clap his hands). Not only does he do that before the ruck is formed, but he remains in a strong position and survives the attempted cleans outs. Ordinarily I'd reward him for that dominance. He deserved that reward.

Where it comes unstuck for white, was W1, he did not release and roll immediately and had an impact to prevent Green BC his options (although I doubt he would have done so as W2 was quick on it. In the end IMO the PK was to the right team, just the wrong offence signalled.

Menace, finally someone to see my point
I think jackalling is so rare in the games that whenever the chance occurs the referees should allow it for the sake of the game.. it becomes more intresting exciting when every ruck presents itself with the real chance of a turnover and in this case I saw no reason whatsoever to not reward the w2 for having survived 2 clearout attempts on his feet.


especially since there are so many clear instances in the game where tacklers get away with not rolling away and tackled players fail to release the ball immediately and are not penalized. I maintain that game should also be judged by the Spirit of the Law which has as key principle the Contest of possesion of the ball and Continuity.

 

[menace]

For me he had hands on the BC all the way down; and from there he simply shifts his grip. I think your view is that he let go part way down? I can see what you mean, but disagree.

Watching from a little before, and after, it becomes apparent that White were doing everything they could, largely illegally, to slow down Green's ball; the lineout immediately prior to the incident was from a Green PK awarded for a player going off his feet to snuff out a dangerous counter-attack.



What I smiled at was W1's reaction to the call of "No hands" from the ref; he immediately released the BC's legs, put his hands in the air and his body language screamed "Wot, me, ref?". It's only after he's let go that he realises that the ref wasn't talking to him...

I too can see how you may have judged that he kept his hands on it..but I didnt view it that way. This freeze frame tends to show no hands on the BC by W2. But I concede it's not the best angle or quality, but I'm convinced he took his hands away as BC was going to deck.
View attachment 3167

For me this comes down to a 50/50 call when it comes to the jackler and ruling him ok or too late with the ruck forming. Ironically I raised this exact question with a super 15 rugby referee at a recent presentation, and I asked who should we reward when there's a split second difference between hands on the ball and ruck formed. The answer was basically if it's that close then 'play on' and see what happens next Ie Let the jackler continue to compete for the ball (does he survive, or not, clean out from BC support players) and the BC must use his options.

As for W1, during live action my estimate watching the clock was that he took 2-3 seconds to release the BC, and at this level I would not say that is 'immediate'. (At this level they're saying the ball should be available to play within 3 seconds). I've seen 4th grade and 14 yo release quicker than that. For mine, I'd say he's deliberately held on too long and prevented the BC his options, but then again I don't know what precedence was set in the previous 27mins of that game, so if guazere was consistent then that's all you can ask. You see it differently and that's fine with me.

 

[Browner]

[LAWS][FONT=fs_blakeregular](c)
[/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular]Players in opposition to the ball carrier who remain on their feet who bring the ball carrier to ground so that the player is tackled must release the ball and the ball carrier. Those players may then play the ball providing they are on their feet and do so from behind the ball and from directly behind the tackled player or a tackler closest to those players’ goal line.[/FONT][/LAWS]

In the clip, I don't think W2 'brought' the BC to ground, I think the "bring to ground" was solely being done by the shin wrap of W1.

Its a subtle and misunderstood difference IMHO.

W2 merely helped him get there quicker, by a push/nudge that expedited & (IMO) helped W2 pinpoint & get in a great jackalling position.
:clap:

 

[Browner]

looking again at this clip, the more I decide that: arrival direction , brought to ground , hands on ball, ruck formation

are all somewhat marginal/fine line calls .... So other than W1 not rolling away quickly, then Green not making the ball available through his ' holding on' was the most C & most Obvious

 

[dacian]

looking again at this clip, the more I decide that: arrival direction , brought to ground , hands on ball, ruck formation

are all somewhat marginal/fine line calls .... So other than W1 not rolling away quickly, then Green not making the ball available through his ' holding on' was the most C & most Obvious

thank you guys all for your feedback!