[Ruck] Is the ball out?

[didds]

for me
- but for a tackled player : we generally tolerate it, by convention

I'd suggest the convention is there to stop clod hopping second rows from accidentally booting the ball away, keeping it tidy - but it shouldn't be there to prevent the oppo from claiming the ball legally.

But the game seems to have developed a nuance whereby its only becomes legally claimable once the conventionally permitted hand is actually removed. Ye gods!

didds

 

[crossref]

its gets more bizarre dunnit? Cos potentially it seems that if the tackled player keeps his hand on the ball, depsite it otherwise being clear - the oppo cannot advance towards it. And we can all just look at it until half/full time? Well actually not half/full time cos its not dead!

winner!

didds

the referee can always say : use it

oh, hang on, in a TWOL there is no 'use it'

 

[didds]

the referee can always say : use it

oh, hang on, in a TWOL there is no 'use it'

exactly



didds

- - - Updated - - -

Maybe this will become known as the "Italian Standoff"

 

[Wedgie]

the referee can always say : use it

oh, hang on, in a TWOL there is no 'use it'

Eventually some white player will touch the red players on their feet and over the ball, hence forming a ruck and allowing us to say "Use it". Whilst I am a fan of people using laws to their teams' advantage (c.f. Conor O'Shea!) we do our utmost to keep a game going so, if the Italian standoff occurs, then I would being saying "use it", regardless.

 

[crossref]

Eventually some white player will touch the red players on their feet and over the ball, hence forming a ruck and allowing us to say "Use it". Whilst I am a fan of people using laws to their teams' advantage (c.f. Conor O'Shea!) we do our utmost to keep a game going so, if the Italian standoff occurs, then I would being saying "use it", regardless.

this sort of thing doesn't happen in the community game, does it ? In my games forwards ALWAYS pile in and we ALWAYS get a ruck..

but in the pro game, my inclination is that ref shouldn't call 'use it' until white deign to contest for the ball and therefore a ruck is created

 

[Wedgie]

for me
- clearly it's illegal to be on the ground, with your hand on the ball (13.3, 18.11, 18.15, 14.7 )
- but for a tackled player : we generally tolerate it, by convention
- but if the ball is otherwise out, an illegal hand on it can't make it in

Would it be different if it were a foot rather than a hand? Or if the hand were hovering above the ball? One view could be that the red player is not holding the ball in the sense of he is not 'not releasing' it to any white player that is in a legal position to play the ball. Rather, he is extending the tackle area to maintain the offside line ?

 

[crossref]

He is on the ground so shouldn't be doing anything at all (other then releasing the ball, moving away etc.)

You can argue that his responsibility is slightly different in a ruck or a twol .. but 13.3 applies to both

But of course in practice we all allow him to have a hand on it .. but not , curiously his foot. We usually penalise that !

 

[didds]

what if thgere is no red player left on their feet to engage with and theyve both for nexample in the top pictures fallen to ground? Nobody to engage with = no ruck. Peyper has we know decided white cannot play the ball and presumably just running over it won;t acheive anything - except maybe a PK for offside. the waiting half back cant be cleared - he isn;t over the ball.

Italian standoff continues


???

didds

 

[didds]

Further to that - if white engage the red player with the red headguard - he isn;t over the ball anyway so its still not a ruck. In reality the non headguard red player ends up on the floor very shortly after that still. And he is way p[ast the ball by this stage now anyway.

didds

 

[crossref]

It would he helpful to know why, at the end of the trials, WR rejected the mono-ruck and replaced it with the TWOL .. what difference were they intending to achieve ?

It's hard to discern , especially as the next Law change was to make the two more similar (2019 changing the offside lines at a ruck to match the TWOL)

 

[Flish]

this sort of thing doesn't happen in the community game, does it ? In my games forwards ALWAYS pile in and we ALWAYS get a ruck..

but in the pro game, my inclination is that ref shouldn't call 'use it' until white deign to contest for the ball and therefore a ruck is created

Actually I quite often get the opposite, especially once players get tired. We get a TWOL with oppo forwards just in front but not engaged, then inevitably one decides to do some pointless should barge / lift dump thing at the exact second the ball is passed away and my eyes are elsewhere!

 

[Jz558]

This is in no way a criticism and It may just be a slip of the mouse finger but I am confused by the logic of the 1 voter who thinks A is out but B isn’t. Surely if you think A is out B must be also. Am I missing something?

 

[Wedgie]

what if there is no red player left on their feet to engage with and they've both for example in the top pictures fallen to ground? Nobody to engage with = no ruck. Peyper has we know decided white cannot play the ball and presumably just running over it won;t achieve anything - except maybe a PK for offside. the waiting half back cant be cleared - he isn't over the ball.

In that situation why can't white can enter the tackle area from the direction of their own goal line (through "the gate"), not creating a ruck - because there is no red player to create a ruck with, and freely pick up the ball?

In my view, Peyper penalised BV for doing exactly not that...

 

[didds]

In that situation why can't white can enter the tackle area from the direction of their own goal line (through "the gate"), not creating a ruck - because there is no red player to create a ruck with, and freely pick up the ball?

But if the ball isn't "out" in the eyes of the ref that doesn't work either?

Pretty much what Billy V did only he came around the edge of the heardguard player that wasnt actually over the ball to start with?

didds

 

[Pedro]

This is in no way a criticism and It may just be a slip of the mouse finger but I am confused by the logic of the 1 voter who thinks A is out but B isn’t. Surely if you think A is out B must be also. Am I missing something?

That was me - and it was a slip of the mouse, should have been option B
(On the grounds that - by the current laws - the ball isn't away from the tackle area in A.
I'm also pondering, what "away from the tackle area" means. If the ball hadn't "moved" in B - and was still in line with red player (Tipurics?) feet, (Which it just about is) would that be away from the tackle area?

 

[Jz558]

I appreciate your response Pedro and I genuinely was searching to see if I'd missed something in the laws. The point that you and others are making about what "away from the tackle area" means though is well founded. The re-write (simplification) of the laws was supposed to be one pillar in making rugby more accessible to those who maybe haven't been involved in the game before but if anything it has had the reverse affect. I move from breakdown to breakdown at the weekend calling ruck or tackle only and I genuinely get the impression that if I stopped the game and asked the 30 players on the field to explain the difference I'd be struggling to muster a team of 2 or 3 who might know what I was on about.

I'm also sure that once upon a time the laws were amended because there was a genuine feeling that the whole game could benefit. I am of the opinion now that the laws are revised/re-written only for the benefit of the TV/professional game.
Isn't it also a very poor indictment of the game that, in an admittedly very small sample pool, not one person agrees with the decision of the match referee’s decision?

 

[crossref]

This is NOT a rewrite issue

The TWOL was invented and added to the Law Book deliberately in Summer 2018 after the trials came to an end .

It is a change not a re write


Then the offside Law for rucks was changed in the 2019 Law Book

 

[didds]

So basically then we are agreed universally that Peyper got this glaringly wrong?

(not that it would have altered the overall result IMO!)

 

[Wedgie]

But if the ball isn't "out" in the eyes of the ref that doesn't work either?

I am not sure why "out" matters when there is a tacked player on the ground and no-one over him.

Pretty much what Billy V did only he came around the edge of the heardguard player that wasnt actually over the ball to start with?

didds

I think that is the point - he came around the edge and not through the middle.

- - - Updated - - -

So basically then we are agreed universally that Peyper got this glaringly wrong?

If I am in a minority of one, what am I missing..??

 

[crossref]

I think I am changing my mind

If it's a RUCK then
A it's out of the ruck
B it's out of the ruck

If it's a TWOL
A the ball is still in the tackle area
B the ball has left the tackle area

You can't tell from a still picture which it is (although it looks like a TWOL it could be a RUCK which people have left .. ie still a ruck )