[Ruck] Kings v Dragaons. PLaying the 9 at a ruck ?

[CrouchTPEngage]

Take a look at this ruck from the Kings v Dragons game on 4th March 2018.
(~ Apologies as I cannot test if video link works outside UK )

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/43281165

Scroll to 1min 52 secs of the video.
You will see a ruck where the ball at the back, about to be played by the Dragons 9.
The ball is actually on the back of the Dragons ankle(so off the ground technically).
Kings' no. 8 counter rucks someone out of the ruck then comes through and takes the 9 ( who has still not played the ball, as far as I can tell )
Would you have allowed this or awarded penalty for playing the 9 ( who has not yet played the ball )
Just looks wrong to me.
Cheers

 

[VM75]

PK, playing the 9.

 

[chbg]

PK, playing the 9.

Law? msf

 

[L'irlandais]

The video is available outside the UK. I am inclined to think it is
[LAWS]15.6 A player may join alongside but not in front of the hindmost player.[/LAWS]Although as Black 8 joins the ruck, he pushes his teammate Black 5 onto the pile of players lying on the ground. He then joins in front of his teammate (Black 13) who simultaneously go off his feet, under the weight of the falling Black5. As the hindmost player at the moment of joining the ruck, shouldn’t he have bound to Black 13 and drove thru’ the middle from there?.

 

[Taff]

Law?

DANGEROUS PLAY
A player must not tackle an opponent who is not in possession of the ball.

... Would you have allowed this or awarded penalty for playing the 9 ( who has not yet played the ball ). Just looks wrong to me.

You're not alone, it didn't look right to Jonathan Davies etc either.

 

[ChuckieB]

Bizarre to say the least, based on written laws and also the expectation that 9 is afforded some additional protection as he is not part of the ruck.

 

[chbg]

DANGEROUS PLAY
A player must not tackle an opponent who is not in possession of the ball.

How does a ruck ever form then?

The SH was not actually 'tackled', but rather grappled around the upper arms and pushed backwards. The contention would be that this was a continuation of the ruck, as the ball was on the ground between two players in contact on their feet.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

DANGEROUS PLAY
A player must not tackle an opponent who is not in possession of the ball.

.

Black did not tackle SH

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

There is a principle of the game that The game is played only by players who are on their feet.

If that is the case, the ball is no longer in the ruck as All players(once in ruck) were on the ground. The ball therefore emerged. Ruck over.

#8 creates a new ruck with red #9 over the ball. red 9 is rucked off the ball.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

DANGEROUS PLAY
]


... it didn't look right to Jonathan Davies etc either.

Probably was OK then. Jiffy is usually wrong! :buttkick:

 

[DocY]

Am I misreading something, or are some people really saying that you're generally fine to play the scrum half? 'Cause that's what it sounds like.

 

[Phil E]

So many offences.

Playing the 9
Not bound in the ruck
Coming round the side (both players)
Reckless use of boot on players on the floor

PK all day long, just take your pick which signal you use.

 

[Thunderhorse1986]

So many offences.

Playing the 9
Not bound in the ruck
Coming round the side (both players)
Reckless use of boot on players on the floor

PK all day long, just take your pick which signal you use.

I'd be thinking side entry. He comes in ahead of his backfoot then walks around before driving across the back feet of the red players. Or ping the player who picks it up as it doesn't look like it is "out" - not clearly past the back foot of the hindmost red player.

I hesitate to give "playing the 9" as I don't think I've ever seen a law reference and there are occasions when players legitimately ruck through, bound on to others and drive through the player standing at the 9 position, so it gets confusing for me.

 

[DocY]

I hesitate to give "playing the 9" as I don't think I've ever seen a law reference and there are occasions when players legitimately ruck through, bound on to others and drive through the player standing at the 9 position, so it gets confusing for me.

I think tackling the player without the ball covers it. And if anyone says that it technically wasn't a tackle because he wasn't brought to ground (or because he didn't have the ball) they're somewhat missing the point.

But if you're still properly bound into the ruck and the 9 doesn't get out of the way, that's a different thing.

 

[SimonSmith]

Probably was OK then. Jiffy is usually wrong! :buttkick:

Not true . Sometimes it really does HAVE TO GO WIDE. WHY DIDN'T HE GO WIDE?

TV needs a JiffyGizmo that reduces the volume and the treble when he's getting agitated

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

I guess I need to recalibrate

all I see is a player in pink skirt awaiting the status quo and a #8 who wants to play rugby

play on

 

[CrouchTPEngage]

In trying to credit the ref I looked a little harder. I wonder if his thought processes included the following :
There was a ruck ( ball on the ground ), the ball then goes off the ground and is balanced/held on the top of the hind most calf muscle. Hence ruck has ended. The Kings 8 then attempts to form a new ruck by engaging the Dragons 9 "over or near" the ball ?
The new mono-ruck doesnt apply at this 2nd ruck because a tackle did not start it. i.e. he has to engage another player in order for a new ruck to commence.
Something like that maybe ?
Yes- I know. Straws have been clutched a bit.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

In trying to credit the ref I looked a little harder. I wonder if his thought processes included the following :
There was a ruck ( ball on the ground ), the ball then goes off the ground and is balanced/held on the top of the hind most calf muscle. Hence ruck has ended. The Kings 8 then attempts to form a new ruck by engaging the Dragons 9 "over or near" the ball ?
The new mono-ruck doesnt apply at this 2nd ruck because a tackle did not start it. i.e. he has to engage another player in order for a new ruck to commence.
Something like that maybe ?
Yes- I know. Straws have been clutched a bit.

CTPE a tackle is not necess. to form a ruck

 

[Phil E]

CTPE a tackle is not necess. to form a ruck

It is to form a one man (mono) ruck, which is what CTPE said (you put it in bold yourself).

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

It is to form a one man (mono) ruck, which is what CTPE said (you put it in bold yourself).

you are correct, thx