Law 16.4(a)

[Huck2Spit]

White player is tackled and a clean ruck forms with two defenders and three attackers. White wins the ball and it emerges past the last foot. Then another white player joins the ruck and ball is under him... in the ruck again and play on?
Or FK returning ball into ruck.

 

[talbazar]

That's an interesting one...

I'd say ball is out and manage it...

But step by step:
White player doesn't kick the ball back inside the ruck, so I don't see a case for a FK

To me, best case scenario would be something like:
Before the white player goes over the ball say "ball's out"
And see what happens, if the game continues, then maybe just play on and have a word with white.

If it becomes too messy, your way out is a scrum to opposition (red? not-white?) for accidental offside.

My two cents (and happy to receive other ideas).

Cheers,
Pierre.

 

[RobLev]

White player is tackled and a clean ruck forms with two defenders and three attackers. White wins the ball and it emerges past the last foot. Then another white player joins the ruck and ball is under him... in the ruck again and play on?
Or FK returning ball into ruck.

The ruck has ended successfully (Law 16.6) when White #N+1 arrives:

[LAWS]A ruck ends successfully when the ball leaves the ruck, or when the ball is on or over the goal line.[/LAWS]

so he can't be FK 'dfor returning the ball to the (now non-existent) ruck. A new ruck has possibly formed - if so, see whether the ball comes out. If not, then 16.7(a); scrum, with put in dependent on which team was moving forward when the ball became unplayable/moving forward before the ruck/attacking team.

 

[Huck2Spit]

OK then, this all happened in at most half a second. Defenders didn't even notice/ react to ball being out.
If First ruck ended can a new ruck start with same engaged ruckers ahead of the ball? Or are they put offsides by the player joining behind them/ binding onto them? If is indeed a new ruck.

How/when would 16.4(a) ever occur? How could you put a ball back into a ruck if said ruck is nonexistent once the ball leaves the ruck?
Is this a scrumhalf specific/exclusive offense.

 

[crossref]

Mostly when you see this it's a forward blithely going about his business, ball pops out just before he arrives, and a FK would be harsh.

Every so often you see some one do it deliberately.. A forward standing off the ruck sees that the ball has out prematurely, and quickly binds over it in order the get it back in the ruck. That's the FK moment...

 

[Taff]

Mostly when you see this it's a forward blithely going about his business, ball pops out just before he arrives, and a FK would be harsh.

Agree, a FK would seem a bit harsh.

Personally, I think I would just call "Use it" and get on with the game.

 

[RobLev]

OK then, this all happened in at most half a second. Defenders didn't even notice/ react to ball being out.
If First ruck ended can a new ruck start with same engaged ruckers ahead of the ball? Or are they put offsides by the player joining behind them/ binding onto them? If is indeed a new ruck.

How/when would 16.4(a) ever occur? How could you put a ball back into a ruck if said ruck is nonexistent once the ball leaves the ruck?
Is this a scrumhalf specific/exclusive offense.

Borrowing from the roundball game; ball to ruck, FK; ruck to ball, new ruck, no offence?

 

[Pegleg]

The ruck has ended successfully (Law 16.6) when White #N+1 arrives:

[LAWS]A ruck ends successfully when the ball leaves the ruck, or when the ball is on or over the goal line.[/LAWS]

so he can't be FK 'dfor returning the ball to the (now non-existent) ruck.

If that is so, then how can Law 16.4.(a) exist? Unless the ball has left a ruck it can't possibly be returned to it.

 

[OB..]

If that is so, then how can Law 16.4.(a) exist? Unless the ball has left a ruck it can't possibly be returned to it.

Let's stop trying to be legalistic about the wording and look at possible situations.

1. The tackled player tries to lay the ball back as the ruck forms, loses control and it shoots out at the side, A rucker uses his hand to pull the ball back in. Worth a FK?

2. The scrum half is not ready to play the ball as it comes out, so uses his boot to knock it back in. FK? Scrum for accidental offside?

3. etc - think up your own. I think the ball should be left alone once it has left a ruck, and would rather have this bit of rather illogical law than leave the referee to sort out which offence it might be under other laws.

 

[Pegleg]

My point is, OB, that you can't say the ball can't be returned to a ruck because one no longer exists, when a law is there specifically dealing with that point.

Clearly there is a reason for having the law against returning the ball to the ruck. It does exist so we must make sense of it. Acting like the proverbial ostrich serves no point.


And I know that ostriches do not act like the proverbial one!

 

[RobLev]

My point is, OB, that you can't say the ball can't be returned to a ruck because one no longer exists, when a law is there specifically dealing with that point.

Clearly there is a reason for having the law against returning the ball to the ruck. It does exist so we must make sense of it. Acting like the proverbial ostrich serves no point.


And I know that ostriches do not act like the proverbial one!

Hence my suggested distinction. Penalising putting the ball back where it came from at least has the merit of some logic, since you're putting it back where the ruck (in Law) physically was, and where the former constituent parts still are. Penalising binding onto that former ruck doesn't even have that logic.

 

[OB..]

My point is, OB, that you can't say the ball can't be returned to a ruck because one no longer exists, when a law is there specifically dealing with that point.

Yes, you said that before.

Clearly there is a reason for having the law against returning the ball to the ruck. It does exist so we must make sense of it.

Exactly my point. That is what I tried to do. I don't see that ostriches have anything to do with it, proverbial or not. For me the word "ruck" in that context should be construed as referring to the group of players from whom the ball had just escaped.

 

[Pegleg]

Guys try asking yourselves: "WHY this particular law is there?" Might help with context.

 

[talbazar]

Guys try asking yourselves: "WHY this particular law is there?" Might help with context.

Or rather, "What does that situation in that game call for?"
That's the critical question for me...

Whatever happens, is there an impact on the game?
Yes: find the law that allows to apply the LOTG with fairness and empathy.
No: play on
No but could have: play on and a word to ensure it doesn't happen again

In the original post:
- It happens once with no defender coming for the ball, play on
- It happens twice and may seem coached: word with the captain
- It happens once and impact the defence players: chose the law and sanction the most appropriate (probably players in the "former ruck" accidentally offside - scrum defenders)
- It happens a third time after your word with captain: FK for getting the ball back inside the ruck or PK for taking the p*ss. Your call!

Am I being to simplistic here?
Cheers,
Pierre.

 

[Shelflife]

Personally I would free kick it. The ball is out, why should you reward a team for failing to control the ball.

If someone questioned me with the ruck no longer exists theory then i would agree and give a Pen for obstruction as once the arriving player binds onto to those in front they are obstructing the opposition in front of the ball.

Technically and legally the ruck is over and no longer exists, practically we all know it does in this instance.

 

[crossref]

I have given a FK for this, I think it was start of this season, or perhaps tail end of last one.

The ball came out of the back of a blue ruck
- a red player noticed and started forward to come round to pick it up
- blue forward a metre or two back from the ruck saw what was happening
- but the blue player, instead of competing for the ball, bound over it as described, with the effect of returning it into the ruck, and also potentially hoping for a PK against red, who was left stranded well in front of the back foot (and who retired)

This was all very clear, and I gave the FK against blue, and can't see why I wouldn't do so again. Blue didn't demur

 

[Pegleg]

Shound fair Crossref.

AS I see it the point of the law is to get the ball away and avoid contrived FKs / PKs. Here you prefectly describe a player effectively "dummying" the opposition into coming offside. Don't let him get away with it.

 

[ChrisR]

Ruck ended, new ruck formed. Play on! Allow players who may have advanced to retire without penalty.

I didn't give this much thought but don't see a need for a FK. I don't see it happening as some tactical ploy.

 

[OB..]

Ruck ended, new ruck formed. Play on! Allow players who may have advanced to retire without penalty.

I didn't give this much thought but don't see a need for a FK. I don't see it happening as some tactical ploy.

I think that would cause confusion. If a scrum half thinks he is about to get caught with the ball he simply binds on to the ex-ruck and the defenders have to retreat, despite having been legally past the offside line. He unbinds to pick up the ball, and they advance again. Hokey-cokey anyone?

This only becomes a problem on the legalistic argument that there is no ruck to put the ball back into. However we know that a ruck does not always fit all the criteria necessary for forming it - WR has said that if all the defenders withdraw, the ruck still exists. Much the simplest thing is to award the FK and stop players creating chaos.

 

[The Fat]

Ruck ended, new ruck formed.

Simply, NO.