Kicking out of ruck

[Davet]

If 5 came at the angle that is shown in the picture I know I would.

Then you would be wrong

"Side Entry" is shorthand for joining forward of the hindmost player. If Blue 5 binds on behind or alongside Blue 7 he is fine.

And based on Ian's diagram you would tell Blue 6 and 4 to get back, and ping them for offside if they failed to do so

 

[menace]

But if 8 joined and bound onto back of 7 and thus became hindmost foot and then 5 joins to 7 from that angle then wouldn't it be incorrect joining/entry?

 

[Davet]

Yes.

If 8 joined on and became the hindmost player, then if 5 joined by binding on 7 - i.e. in front of 8 - then 5 is guilty of side entry and would be pinged for offside.

 

[Pinky]

For me the key thing is how far player moves once he is in an offside position before he binds on, so at the angle shown for 8, he steps over the offside line and with the next step (probably) he binds on 7. All fine.

No 5 at a more obtuse angle would need to cross the offside line a bit futher away from the ruck and as long as he did not make too many steps or charge in at the obtuse angle that could knock the ruck over, then I would be wondering if he joined the ruck from an onside position alongside the rear player.

 

[Ian_Cook]

But if 8 joined and bound onto back of 7 and thus became hindmost foot and then 5 joins to 7 from that angle then wouldn't it be incorrect joining/entry?

Yes. If 8 joined on and became the hindmost player, then if 5 joined by binding on 7 - i.e. in front of 8 - then 5 is guilty of side entry and would be pinged for offside.

Actually, 5 would be guilty of illegal entry to the ruck even if he went along the direction of the white arrow and joined onto 7 (ahead of 8 who is now hindmost).

[LAWS]A player may join alongside this hindmost player. If a player joins the ruck from the opponents’ side, or in front of the hindmost teammate, the player is offside.[/LAWS]

For me the key thing is how far player moves once he is in an offside position before he binds on, so at the angle shown for 8, he steps over the offside line and with the next step (probably) he binds on 7. All fine.

No 5 at a more obtuse angle would need to cross the offside line a bit futher away from the ruck and as long as he did not make too many steps or charge in at the obtuse angle that could knock the ruck over, then I would be wondering if he joined the ruck from an onside position alongside the rear player.

So you would be happy to PK a player for offside because YOU weren't aware of where he was before he joined the ruck?

 

[Dickie E]

Ian, would you put any expectations on Blue 5's running line? Does it need to be straight (as per the blue arrow) or can he meander in with a pause or 2 on the way?

 

[Davet]

Answering for Ian, though I bet he can answer for himself anyway...

If he joins the ruck he must do from behind the hindmost foot.

If he oversteps that offside line and does not join the ruck but has a pause and then joins he has not joined from behind.

I know that the Jesuitically inclined can make a specious arguement to allow it - but I would have no truck with such nonsense.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Ian, would you put any expectations on Blue 5's running line? Does it need to be straight (as per the blue arrow) or can he meander in with a pause or 2 on the way?

Answering for Ian, though I bet he can answer for himself anyway...

If he joins the ruck he must do from behind the hindmost foot.

If he oversteps that offside line and does not join the ruck but has a pause and then joins he has not joined from behind.

I know that the Jesuitically inclined can make a specious arguement to allow it - but I would have no truck with such nonsense.

Yep, no messing about!

If he oversteps the line, I expect him to have done so for the purpose of joining, then I expect him to go straight in and join alongside the HM player.

If he overstep the line, and then stops, I expect him to go back behind the line (he has about 5 milliseconds to decide) and then take another run at it.

If he is trying to make up his mind whether or not to join, he must do so while still on-side.


From the point of view of getting a better game, I would not want to discourage onside players who are a few metres either side of the ruck from joining it, by being jobsworth about the precise angle they join at, so long as they comply with 16.5 (c) and (d).

The more players there are in the ruck, the less clutter there is in the back-lines

 

[Pinky]

For me the key thing is how far player moves once he is in an offside position before he binds on, so at the angle shown for 8, he steps over the offside line and with the next step (probably) he binds on 7. All fine.

No 5 at a more obtuse angle would need to cross the offside line a bit futher away from the ruck and as long as he did not make too many steps or charge in at the obtuse angle that could knock the ruck over, then OK, otherwise I would be thinking he came in at the side and was liable for penalty unless not material.

OK, that better?

 

[Drift]

Ok, if a player has joined the ruck from an onside position, binds correctly and drives through and on his way through the ruck he kicks the ball out is it legal? I just got asked my a mate and I went blank on laws. I have looked in the law book but can't see anything illegal about it however I would probably penalise because it looks wrong.

 

[menace]

by your description, as wrong as it looks, what secondary signal would you give?

(Edit: i did assume "incorrect entry" - but i could see how that would aggrieve the player)

 

[didds]

If a player is bound on legally, how can he then "drive through the middle" - presumably his bind must slip to allow this ?

(I can see some chopper like scenario of windmilling arms and refreshing binds, but its unlikely...)

didds

 

[Davet]

If there is a ruck without a load of bodies of the floor clogging things up, I know - I know, but bear with me, then player legally in the ruck may well be able to reach the ball with a foot.

If he does so and kicks the ball through and out of the ruck on his opponents' side, perhaps with the (pre-planned) idea that his onside team-mate just behind the back foot can then run onto the ball after is has come out of the ruck, then what is the problem?

No Law has been broken.

 

[Dixie]

Ok, if a player has joined the ruck from an onside position, binds correctly and drives through and on his way through the ruck he kicks the ball out is it legal? I just got asked my a mate and I went blank on laws. I have looked in the law book but can't see anything illegal about it however I would probably penalise because it looks wrong.

No Law has been broken.

I'm with Davet. It is perfectly legal in a ruck to play the ball with your feet - in fact, it is the prescibed method. If you are legally in the ruck and can kick the ball, feel free to do so.

Didds asks how you can drive through the middle. I accept that it might be difficult for a new joiner to a 15-man ruck to do so, but if the ruck comprises three oppo (one on each side and one in the middle), then a bind to his centrally located team mate and a combined drive against the central opponent would surely succeed. If all the bodies are on the floor, then I accept that the new arrival has no-one to bind to - if he clambered gingerly through the pile of bodies to get "through the middle" from the absolute rear of his side I'd be giving loud preventative calls - which he may ignore in his belief that he's legal. If he does, we just have to agree to disagree - but he can't argue that he wasn't a ware of my alleged "misapprehension" as to the relevant law.

 

[didds]

Both understood, and I concur that if a player is legally in the ruck and can reach the ball with his foot then I see no issues whatsoever.

Maybe the ref in the Taranaki Senior 3rds final at New Plymouth in 1992 might have done well to understand that instead of PKing me!

didds

 

[Browner]

Is it possible the SH had his hands on or very close to the ball, and the Ref thought it was dangerous? :chin:

I was told it was ok to kick the ball out of the ruck provided there were no hands on or near it.

If there were hands on it (or close to it) it's a PK for Dangerous Play.

I agree, this sounds like a combination of 'swing foot dangerousness' with perhaps a bit of 'not bound onto a teammate properly' thrown in ..... but then I wasn't there, and none of us know the competency level of 'Sir'

 

[Browner]

I'm with Davet. It is perfectly legal in a ruck to play the ball with your feet - in fact, it is the presrcibed method. If you are legally in the ruck and can kick the ball, feel free to do so.

I can't see that all players engaging in swinging kicks at / toward the ball in a ruck is desirable, it would have to be very cleanly delivered to escape a 'dangerous' charge ..... big risk/flashpoint potential IMO

 

[Account Deleted]

About 9/10 years ago I saw a referee (TV Game and the mic picked his words up clearly!) in a game between The Ospreys and Connacht penalise AND yellow card a Connacht player for this offence. The Connacht player was bound and kicked the ball through the ruck, which was close to the Connacht line, out on the Ospreys' side of the ruck. It then went towards the touch line.

The Referee (from North of the Border) said you made no attempt to win the ball and brandished the card. I did not understand it then. However, having not discovered RRF then, I accepted the call.

 

[Davet]

The Referee (from North of the Border) said you made no attempt to win the ball

Law says players attempt to win possession by using their feet in a ruck. But it doesn't say you have to win it it by getting it back to your side, that is simply the usual way, not the only way.

The answer from the player (in the bar after the game) would be - I was trying to win the ball for my side, I wanted to give my on-side teammate a chance to run onto a ball going forward, did you think my intention was to present the opposition the ball on a plate, and why do you think my doing so would then disadvantage them to such a degree that you penalise and card me?