Leaning over the ruck to jackal

[number11]

I've seen this a few times.

A red player is tackled, and a red player binds on the tackled player.

A blue player standing in the gate leans over the red player on their feet, and wins the ball.

What is the rationale on this? Has no ruck been formed? I guess that as no bind between red and blue was made then it can't be a ruck? Personally as soon as an attacker has bound on, I don't allow jackaling and expect them to drive the attacker off the ball.

I saw Faletau do it on Saturday (Wales v England, at 5:32 on the match clock). In this case there was a tackle, a red player goes in but taken out by white and both are on the floor/BC, Faletau leans over and has hands on. Play on says Raynal and red have the ball.

Here's a video

https://imgur.com/FWs45UO

And another example. Again in this one the question is: has the ruck been formed?

 

[DocP]

I'm with you on this. Basically a ruck has been formed. The one in the clip may have some mitigation though. Itoje was the first England player there and he came in from the side. As Falatou got on the ball there was no materiality so MR played on, Joué!

Edit:
Also as you say they are straight of their feet and Falatou still wins the ball. Let play continue rather than ping them for it. Probably what the elite refs have been encouraged to do

 

[Phil E]

Ruck forms.
Player leaning over is not bound.
Player leaning over is illegal under Law 15.16
Players must not :
b. Intentionally collapse a ruck or jump on top of it.

Just another law to add to the list of the ones ignored at TV level.

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

1st one I'd let TF have that.

2nd one I'd do Gilchrist for not moving

 

[Decorily]

Referees at this level seem to be allowing this action because the other players are off their feet and therefore not rucking.

As discussed previously in another thread players on their feet over a ball on the ground do not need to be 'bound' to form a ruck.

 

[menace]

I would say in those examples the jacklar is the first arriving player after the tackle and so has rights to pilfer the ball (even if they are the player that creates the ruck). I have no issue with that...the issue I have in those scenarios, as others have mentioned, is that the tacklers prevented the tackled players option (although it was quick so couldn't really roll). Probably unsighted by the refs.
I wouldn't allow those 2.

"I can't reward you when your tacklers just lies there!"

 

[Phil E]

As discussed previously in another thread players on their feet over a ball on the ground do not need to be 'bound' to form a ruck.

But players joining a ruck do. So only the first one from each side gets the "contact only" option.

 

[Decorily]

But players joining a ruck do. So only the first one from each side gets the "contact only" option.

Yes.

 

[Pinky2]

I think that in both the video clips Faletau and Schoeman were the first players at each breakdown who could be considered to be on their feet, and the both got hands on the ball before other attackers arrived on their feet to a create the ruck and b contest the ball. So I am in agreement with the referees that these were both good turnovers.

 

[Stu10]

Law 15.2: A ruck is formed when at least one player from each team are in contact, on their feet and over the ball which is on the ground.
Law 15.11: Once a ruck has formed, no player may handle the ball unless they were able to get their hands on the ball before the ruck formed and stay on their feet.

Looking at the first one, tackle is made, MO goes off his feet (and in at the side, penalty?) before contact with TF, TF is on his feet and goes for the ball, OL then engages TF to form the ruck, but law 15.11 says TF can still handle the ball because he got hands on before the ruck formed.

However, I'm not sure I would think quickly enough to reach this conclusion if it happened on the pitch in front of me... I would have tole TF to get hands out (unless I have already penalised MO).

The second one happens really fast, but again, Blue get hands on before Gold engages, and blue clearly gets a lift.

Here's a new angle to consider in the second one... the ball carrier does actually release the ball immediately, and blue takes the ball... then Gold 8 arrives to compete for the ball that is off the ground and stays on his feet (he puts a knee down after the whistle, so immaterial)... why was the penalty awarded?

 

[BikingBud]

First incident I would offer that Ken Owens was first in to seal it off, Itjoe then from the side and then TF over the top.

Second incident who really knows? This appears to be a symptom of capturing stats such as ruck speed, problem is they are not rucks!

Clearly 15.2 is not being met:

• Law 15.2: A ruck is formed when at least one player from each team are in contact, on their feet and over the ball which is on the ground.

The laws even include a great picture:


When did you last see something like that?

Instead we get

• Players who are not on their feet - a variety of flops, crazy angles, sliding round the side, not coming from the hindmost foot and various blocks but definitely not on their feet.
• Players who are not over the ball - Over the ball requires that the ball is beneath them, clearly the ball is not as they are reaching, not lifting. This is extremely common, reach out, hands or elbows on the floor and try to collect the ball and the referees decision as they pull back.

I would like to see "over the ball" actually defined as literally stood over the ball, you must step beyond the ball, hold a strong position and dominate and have control of that space and are therefore entitled to lift.

If you do not gain this position and try to lift or are off your feet in any way, penalty.

If you miss that chance to get the dominant position and the ruck is formed, then no amount of flopping, gesticulating or shouting brings that back. Counter rucking by other players all on their feet is the contest that should be encouraged.