[Ruck] Kicking ball out of a ruck. Is this illegal?

[CrouchTPEngage]

I can't now find where this was discussed but I've been questioned by players in 2 recent games which suggests I may not be consistent with other refs. Basically, I allow a defending team to kick at a ball in a ruck, providing the following:
1)it is not near the 9s hands or dangerous (e.g near anyone's head)
2) it is thru the middle and not around the side of the ruck

Players tell me things like 'last week's ref penalised this!'
Whereas I think of a ruck as players competing for the ball which is on the ground and using their feet only (I. E. No hands)

Am I wrong?

 

[Paule23]

There is no problem per se with kicking the ball out of a ruck subject to the items you highlighted. The main issue is it is very difficult for someone to be in a position to kick the ball out of the ruck AND be legally bound at the same time. If people are ont their feet competing over the ball this is more possible, but in a static ruck with someon trying to come through the middle over/around grounder players, they are likely to be pretty upright and therefore not correctly bound, and it is usually the binding laws that they contravene.

As you noted they also need to be very careful about other player, the kicking player takes full responsibility for their actions, so any impact on a head during a kick attempt, even accidental, should be a RC.

 

[beckett50]

Is the player who kicked the ball out part of the Ruck? If so, not a problem. If he is not part of the ruck, did he so do from the side, in which case he has entered not from behind the hindmost foot )

Hope this helps

 

[Ian_Cook]

A player can only play the ball in a ruck with his feet (which is essentially what kicking the ball is) if he is part of the ruck. He must either be

a. one of the first two players who actually formed the ruck (in which case he needs only to be in close physical contact with his opponent - Law 16.1 (b), or

b. if he joined the ruck, bound into it by other players binding on him, or by him binding to other players in the ruck - Law 16.2 (b)

Players who simply walk through the ruck without binding, and then kick the ball, are offside when they step ahead of the HMF. - Law 16.5 (d)

 

[CrouchTPEngage]

Thanks! So these players claim that you can only hook it backwards and not kick it forwards are mistaken?

 

[didds]

I was B in a taranaki grand final in 1992. Can I have that PK back please?

didds

 

[menace]

Yes. "We" formally pardon you for your actions. :biggrin:

 

[beckett50]

Thanks! So these players claim that you can only hook it backwards and not kick it forwards are mistaken?

Yes, they are reading Urban myth #113

 

[VM75]

Current Law Trial Ends now overrides this thread [UFN!]

	Law 16.4 : Other RuckOffences	A player must not kick the ball out of a ruck. Sanction: Penalty kick The player can only hook it in a backwards motion.

I suggest the guidance might have been improved if extended to say
The player can only;
* hook or drag it
or
* step beyond & push or heel it
in backwards motion.

Urban myth #113. = R.I.P.

 

[didds]

what if you are facing towards your own DBL in the ruck somehow? can you now heel it out of the ruck towards the opponents DBL?

didds

 

[Dan_A]

You can do whatever you like with your heel, as that is not defined as kicking the ball, right??

Definitions
Kick: A kick is made by hitting the ball with any part of the leg or foot, except the heel,
from the toe to the knee but not including the knee; a kick must move the ball a visible
distance out of the hand, or along the ground.

 

[didds]

absolutely dan!

didds

 

[OB..]

Do you have to face the wrong way when you bind onto somebody in order to achieve the required heeling direction?

 

[ChrisR]

Let's see . . . . note to self: Must practice entering the ruck backwards and heeling the ball out to the opponent.

Clearly this is a prohibition on fly-hacking when bodies are likely to be around the ball. Safety move at no cost to the game. :clap::clap:

 

[VM75]

You can do whatever you like with your heel, as that is not defined as kicking the ball, right??

Not quite IMO,

I'd say that the word 'Backwards' is key in this Law trial, meaning that you may still hook/heel/push the ball backwards toward your own dead ball line, but that the days of kicking/toeing/heeling it forwards out of a ruck to disrupt clean possession [ie..into 9's face!] are now gone.

 

[OB..]

Not quite IMO,

I'd say that the word 'Backwards' is key in this Law trial, meaning that you may still hook/heel/push the ball backwards toward your own dead ball line, but that the days of kicking/toeing/heeling it forwards out of a ruck to disrupt clean possession [ie..into 9's face!] are now gone.

That is far too sensible! (Just when everyone is having fun, too.)

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

Not quite IMO,

I'd say that the word 'Backwards' is key in this Law trial, meaning that you may still hook/heel/push the ball backwards toward your own dead ball line, but that the days of kicking/toeing/heeling it forwards out of a ruck to disrupt clean possession [ie..into 9's face!] are now gone.

Also gone is the ability/option/tactic of the team in possession at the ruck to advance the ball with a kick forward. Perhaps a strategy/counter to the non engaging Italiy style ruck.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

Does anyone find it odd that we have amendments that take away a players choices when he/she plays?

The simple coaching guideline for preventing an opponent from kicking out in a ruck is don't get tackled. Let's improve skill and tactical move to reduce tackles.

Another not so unreasonable tactic to avoid/prevent opponent from kicking out in a ruck would be rucking. Rucking well, rucking with intent.

I just do not see how taking away a players or coaches liberties will help. Seems like over regulation of what should be a simple game.

Let's hold the players hand instead of letting them themselves (pun intended)

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

Let's hold the players hand instead of letting them play themselves (pun intended)

corrected

 

[didds]

Does anyone find it odd that we have amendments that take away a players choices when he/she plays?

Frankly - no. Its been the history of law changes since the early 90s at least.

didds