How deep do you let the scrum half dig?

[Guyseep]

I know there won't be a definite answer but I wanted to get an idea of how others would deal with this situation.

Blue vs Red, ball is loose on the ground, two players from each team make contact over the ball and a ruck forms. Several other players from each team join the ruck and the ball is quite deep in it. Red scrum half crouches down and starts digging for the ball, such that he's actually reaching past the midway point of the ruck onto the blue side of it and half his body is in the ruck although he is not technically bound to it. The ball is still contestable and could could have been worked back by using their feet. Do you let him dig or call him for having hands in?

I called "no #9 the ball is still contestable". That needed further explanation and at the next break I said that the ball hadn't been one, and that by digging that deep he is in the middle of the ruck and can't play it.

Thoughts?

 

[Phil E]

Yep, if its on your side and won, you can ease it back.
If you need to go coal mining to get it, no dice.

 

[Guyseep]

Yep, if its on your side and won, you can ease it back.
If you need to go coal mining to get it, no dice.

Do you penalize it if it happens? What do you penalize them for - hands in the ruck?

 

[Simon Thomas]

oh yes PK the scrummie, yes use of hands while contest still alive.

he is testing you and pushing his luck.

I used to do it all time, and look all angelic and say "oh sir, I thought it was at back-foot. What was wrong ?"

 

[Phil E]

Do you penalize it if it happens? What do you penalize them for - hands in the ruck?

No, I tell him to leave the bloody thing alone until its clearly won..................NB I may not use those exact words :wink:

 

[Browner]

The Law expects a ruck to be a pushing contest over the ball, & when the ball exits/leaves the ruck it has ended. If it doesn't then it's a unsuccessful ending. No-one is permitted to handle the ball in the ruck. Yet digging out has become one of those acceptable practices that universally escapes referee sanction. More interestingly some forum-ites protest zero tolerance on some issues, yet are happy to ignore other issues to facilitate game flow.... :shrug: The extent of permitted digging is clearly a referee by referee judgement, which of course adds to the inconsistency claims. Personally I'd permit any 'quick' dig that doesn't mean SH is risking a collapse of players on top of him, because I believe this is the expectation of everyone involved. Historically only psychotic SH's would venture in where the size 11's were still potentially active - which is why there were less JCB artists practicing such excavation!

 

[Robert Burns]

Tell him to leave it, if he doesn't PK.

 

[Dixie]

For me, digging out occurs when players in the ruck have fallen and their various limbs are partially covering the ball. The key elements are:

a) the ball is clearly on one side or the other;
b) it is obscured by the body parts of ruckers who are no longer on their feet;
c) it is being dug for by the scrum half on whose side the ball is lying;
d) in the absence of a dig-out, the referee would have to award a scrum for an unsuccessful end to the ruck.

In the situation described by the OP, the ruck is still active, in that it is still subject to contest by ruckers legally on their feet. In such circumstances I'd treat it as a scrum. No reaching in until the ball is at the base.

 

[Browner]

d) in the absence of a dig-out, the referee would have to award a scrum for an unsuccessful end to the ruck.

.

or in other words .... the ruck has already ended & it IS unsuccessful. However now follows a extra period of time [that varies per referee] where digging for the ball is going to be allowed because someone somewhere thought that this was a better solution than what 'Law' permits, ie ... a scrum ! these introducers likely weren't x-front rowers

 

[Rassie]

You can't use your hands. You can't use your feet cause there is a guy blocking the path. You can't clear out smaller guys as you would get binned for Botha rucking. Can anyone see why we have 200 rucks a game 200 tackles and more slow ball than anything else? I thought the IRB wants entertainment and wants tries?

I always apply a cause and effect to situations.

Scrumhalf digging is the effect as the ball is being slowed up in the ruck by something. But what is the cause of the slow ball that he needs to go digging? Shouldn't that be looked at rather to promote positive play?

 

[Browner]

You can't use your hands. You can't use your feet cause there is a guy blocking the path. You can't clear out smaller guys as you would get binned for Botha rucking. Can anyone see why we have 200 rucks a game 200 tackles and more slow ball than anything else? I thought the IRB wants entertainment and wants tries?

I always apply a cause and effect to situations.

Scrumhalf digging is the effect as the ball is being slowed up in the ruck by something. But what is the cause of the slow ball that he needs to go digging? Shouldn't that be looked at rather to promote positive play?

Rugby league awaits you ...... enjoy !

 

[Dickie E]

Scrumhalf digging is the effect as the ball is being slowed up in the ruck by something. But what is the cause of the slow ball that he needs to go digging? Shouldn't that be looked at rather to promote positive play?

Fair point. That is why unplayable rucks should ocuur no more than once or twice in a game. If more, the ref should be looking for naughty boys lying over/near the ball.

 

[Rassie]

Rugby league awaits you ...... enjoy !

You are English. The concept of quick ball is unknown to you.

 

[Dixie]

You are English. The concept of quick ball is unknown to you.

:biggrin: :clap: