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