How do 7s cheat?

[menace]

Or just outlaw the saddle roll and more rigorously enforce this

[LAWS]Players in a ruck must endeavour to stay on their feet.
[/LAWS]

:shrug:

 

[RobLev]

But the ball never left that ruck, it kinda remained in the same position that it occupied when the ruck formed over it, & that ruck never ended - it collapsed.

There is only one successful ending to a ruck (aside from over the goal line) as per 16.6, and collapsing isn't it.

At elite level the collapse might well be being ignored (!) But none of the conditions of 'leaving' have happened ..... Least this is the interpretation that was seemingly applied by WB.

How does the "classic" ruck, where the tackler and tackled player roll away, and two groups of players, remaining on their feet, contest the ball ending with one group pushing the other so far away that the ball, which has not moved throughout, is left behind, end? It seems to me that it must end when the ball no longer has any bodies over it - it has at that point left the ruck, even if it never moved.

Ignoring the illegality perpetrated by the Welsh, what you are suggesting is that the fact that various players are still on the floor around the ball changes the position. Why?

None of the conditions for an unsuccessful end to the ruck have occurred, or can occur now, either; the ball isn't unplayable, nor has it failed to emerge, nor has one team clearly won the ball.

On your interpretation, therefore, ignoring the illegality of the collapse, the ball is now in a state that it cannot be played by anyone unless and until opponents get together and push one another off the ball. What if the defenders decide that they won't engage? Are you really going to leave the ball sitting there in plain view until someone decides to cover it up again?

 

[Ian_Cook]

Or just outlaw the saddle roll and more rigorously enforce this

[LAWS]Players in a ruck must endeavour to stay on their feet.
[/LAWS]

:shrug:

This does not address the issue of there still being a ruck when the conditions for a ruck (two players over the ball in close contact) no longer exist.

On your interpretation, therefore, ignoring the illegality of the collapse, the ball is now in a state that it cannot be played by anyone unless and until opponents get together and push one another off the ball. What if the defenders decide that they won't engage? Are you really going to leave the ball sitting there in plain view until someone decides to cover it up again?

The only legal option open to either team here (and a risky one ) was to use feet. The problem in this case was that players were on the ground either side of the ball, which was also on the ground, so a player using their feet would somehow have to rake the ball back over top of the player in the ground. The chance of them not "tagging" the player on the ground would be very slim. One could argue that the player on the ground would then be PK for not rolling away, but why encourage this situation to develop when the easiest thing is have the ruck end and allow the quickest player to pick it up?

 

[menace]

This does not address the issue of there still being a ruck when the conditions for a ruck (two players over the ball in close contact) no longer exist.



The only legal option open to either team here (and a risky one ) was to use feet. The problem in this case was that players were on the ground either side of the ball, which was also on the ground, so a player using their feet would somehow have to rake the ball back over top of the player in the ground. The chance of them not "tagging" the player on the ground would be very slim. One could argue that the player on the ground would then be PK for not rolling away, but why encourage this situation to develop when the easiest thing is have the ruck end and allow the quickest player to pick it up?

I guess my point Ian was that if everyone stayed on their feet then it is more likely that there would be a ruck with players on their feet, and we wouldn't have to be concerned about a ruck without players on their feet. You're right it doesn't eliminate the issue entirely and it may still happen.

roblev - I can understand why you're struggling to understand the interpretation. But the laws are not clear enough to say that the ruck leaving the ball means the ruck is ended, only that the ball must leave the ruck. A bit like a maul continues to exist even if all defenders voluntarily leave the maul and so you don't have the same conditions as what started the maul. But it is said to still be a maul even though it doesn't look like a maul anymore. Hence this discussion, as Ian has suggested we need law clarity as to deal with the similar situation when everyone off their feet have left the ruck.

 

[RobLev]

...

roblev - I can understand why you're struggling to understand the interpretation. But the laws are not clear enough to say that the ruck leaving the ball means the ruck is ended, only that the ball must leave the ruck. A bit like a maul continues to exist even if all defenders voluntarily leave the maul and so you don't have the same conditions as what started the maul. But it is said to still be a maul even though it doesn't look like a maul anymore. Hence this discussion, as Ian has suggested we need law clarity as to deal with the similar situation when everyone off their feet have left the ruck.

I can see where you're coming from; but look at my comment#22 re the "classic" ruck. Why does the presence of random bodies scattered on the ground around the ball change the interpretation of 16.6; in both cases, the ruck has left the ball, but you seem to be saying that the "classic" ruck is different.

 

[menace]

Roblev - I guess I simply refer you back to my post #16. I don't think I am saying it's different for a 'classic' ruck ( but perhaps I'm thick today and not quite understanding what you are after?) . Please remember I also did say

"Of course what I suggested above is law, but in reality it is not instinct in the game to just leave a ball on the ground that you know you can grab and think about finding someone to bind on to. It's just not going to enter their brain to do that! Also it's not an obvious plain-as-day situation that looks like anyone should be penalised. It looks out to everyone on the sideline! So I think it's one of those situations where you can turn a blind eye on the law a bit and say 'ball is there for a contest, whoever gets it first can have it' and play on. "

Perhaps maybe is where you think I'm saying to treat the classic different? I think what I'm saying is that under the 'classic' ruck scenario you pose, that I believe it's still 'technically' a ruck, but could be treated as ruck ended because that's what it looks like. (And hence Ian's suggestion to simply make it clear in the laws that it should be treated as it's ended).

In essence this is a lottery for the player when this happens, as they may or may not be PKd for it. That's not a good situation.

 

[irishref]

I see lots of illegal activity from both flanks at scrumtime. Engaging with/pushing/pulling opponents, not fully bound, aiding & abetting the +90 degree wheel.

 

[Browner]

How does the "classic" ruck, where the tackler and tackled player roll away, and two groups of players, remaining on their feet, contest the ball ending with one group pushing the other so far away that the ball, which has not moved throughout, is left behind, end? It seems to me that it must end when the ball no longer has any bodies over it - it has at that point left the ruck, even if it never moved.

Ignoring the illegality perpetrated by the Welsh, what you are suggesting is that the fact that various players are still on the floor around the ball changes the position. Why?

None of the conditions for an unsuccessful end to the ruck have occurred, or can occur now, either; the ball isn't unplayable, nor has it failed to emerge, nor has one team clearly won the ball.

On your interpretation, therefore, ignoring the illegality of the collapse, the ball is now in a state that it cannot be played by anyone unless and until opponents get together and push one another off the ball. What if the defenders decide that they won't engage? Are you really going to leave the ball sitting there in plain view until someone decides to cover it up again?

The "CR" ends when the ball emerges ( 9s seemingly licensed to remove) but if its surrounded by bodies (that haven't moved away-PK?) Then its an unplayable ruck &16.7 applies.

I agree the ruck is looking a shambles because of the way supporting players willingly saddle roll or make no attempt to stay on feet, and its no surprise that ruck law (that before clarification 4\2014 !! - used to expect on feet contests) is struggling to deal with all eventualities caused by the current shambles.

Notwithstanding the above, if jackals 'supports' ..RMc ...can dive back/handle/restart grabbing the ball ( which presumably means that a new tackle can take place or a new maul develop) whilst the bodies are still on the ground all around the ball, then I forsee a new mess of a pile developing. So whilst WB interpretation isn't perfect, it's likely the best available at the moment , until the issue is resolved by WR law outlawing off feet rucking again!!

 

[Dixie]

[LAWS]16.3 (f) A player rucking for the ball must not intentionally ruck players on the ground. A player rucking for the ball must try to step over players on the ground and must not intentionally step on them. A player rucking must do so near the ball.[/LAWS]
Not good enough? How would you reword it?

I would eliminate the inherent conflict with the Definition, under which almost all ruckers in most games at all levels are not actually rucking:

Players are rucking when they are in a ruck and using their feet to try to win or keep possession of the ball, without being guilty of foul play.

So if I look at the two pictures (of the start of a ruck, and a mature ruck), none of the players involved are actually using their feet to address the ball - but while they thus fail to meet the definition, they are clearly rucking.

 

[Dixie]

In another thread there are several insinuations that 7s cheat. I'd like to hear the accusations in more detail. Why do you think they are cheaters? In what manner do they cheat?

Skilled operators are adept at most or all of the following:

a) jackalling for the ball with forearms on the ground (i.e. not supporting their weight on their feet) and/or shoulders below hips.
b) reversing into a tackle zone from the side, before impinging on the ball from what looks like an acceptable position (i.e. in front of the gate)
c) when tackle-assist, not fully releasing the tackled player before jackalling for the ball
d) entering a tackle zone as "plane landing" rather than "plane taking off", hitting the deck momentarily then "reloading" to take part in the ruck
e) having been saddle-rolled, or otherwise gone off their feet, retaining hold of the ball in the ruck until ref calls Hands Away
f) When the ball is lost at a scrum, relaxing the bind so it is no more than a hand on the lock (or prop!) while creeping forward toward the oppo hindmost foot
g) when wheeling an oppo scrum, grappling with the oppo flanker
h) after wheeling an oppo scrum, pivoting around his prop's shoulder to kick at the ball to disrupt the oppo #9

And that's not even to mention the flexible approach to the offside line! There are myriad other examples.

 

[OB..]

I would eliminate the inherent conflict with the Definition, under which almost all ruckers in most games at all levels are not actually rucking:

Players are rucking when they are in a ruck and using their feet to try to win or keep possession of the ball, without being guilty of foul play.

So if I look at the two pictures (of the start of a ruck, and a mature ruck), none of the players involved are actually using their feet to address the ball - but while they thus fail to meet the definition, they are clearly rucking.

The problem is simply that "ruck" as a verb has two senses: (1) to use the feet on the ball (legal) or a player (illegal); (2) to take part in a ruck (by binding on ).

 

[ChrisR]

Dixie, thanx for returning this thread to its original purpose. I wish that moderators would move the hi-jack content to appropriate parts of the forum. I think the situation described by Ian and the question of access to the ball in a disintegrated ruck is worthy of its own thread under the tackle/ruck section.

The reason I started the thread is because I think that 7s in general, and one in particular, get maligned as 'cheats' without the accuser identifying the crimes. I think that the spotlight falls on them because they, as flankers, are the principal actors in tackles/rucks. Are they more guilty of the sins you list (a thru e) than others? Methinks only because of greater opportunity and, this is critical, it is in their job description. They have to challenge for the ball.

The one frequent sin that is theirs alone is premature unbinding from the scrum. Not too subtle a form of cheating.

 

[Browner]

I did think the same thing at the time. I understood WB's reasoning and in fact when RC grabbed the ball there was some inner voice that said "that is seen as ruck still happening despite everyone has disappeared, so he'll get pinged". But I did then think... who else was going to be able to get the ball? I can only think that WB would have required somebody on their feet coming from behind the back foot (aka players on the floor) to walk over/past the ball for it to then become "ball out". ??

Obviously i have no direct link to WB's mind, so this is purely conjecture It was certainly bloody messy.

didds

Today, I spoke with one of the back rowers at leic tigers v wasps re: this subject, who was of this opinion........

IF the clearing out team decide to roll /drive the jackler off his feet, and in doing so go off their feet, then it's their tough luck that the jacklers '2nd to arrive' teammate then gets his hands on the ball.

When I the suggested that this '2nd' player might be then tackled or mauled and it could end up as a pile up mess, he could only shrug & dismiss the notion that it might happen, under the belief that he'd be too quick !

Not sure if this adds or detracts from the discussion, but I thought I'd share....