Legal diving over the ruck?

[Locke]

Considering the law and World Rugby’s law clarification here, I do not see that the player in the OP video is in contravention of any law, including 9.11. Try awarded for me.
If a defender was there on his feet, then penalty awarded.

 

[crossref]

Considering the law and World Rugby’s law clarification here, I do not see that the player in the OP video is in contravention of any law, including 9.11. Try awarded for me.
If a defender was there on his feet, then penalty awarded.

If it was in England, with our Law variation, what would you say ? (Just out of interest)

 

[Zebra1922]

In the video being discussed who were the "others" that were put in danger?

To PK that action in the circumstances viewed is pedantic

There may be circumstances where an opponent is put in danger but not in the video above

I disagree, just because there was no contact doesn't mean there wasn't any danger. I’d say all the players in the ruck were in danger.

 

[Stu10]

I'll respond to your hypothetical with a hypothetical, would you not card a player who took a swing at another player, if his punch didn't make any contact? Hypotheticals are silly in rugby, since situations are very contextual and fact specific when analyzing what laws apply.

In the original video, there is a little bit of elevation in danger (aka a potential safety issue) with someone diving over a ruck for a try like that. Had a defensive player disengaged from the ruck unknowingly to the attacking player diving over, he would've got cleaned out, perhaps kicked in the head at best and head on head contact at worst (depending on the timing).

Deciding to penalize something like this (even when it didn't end up hurting anyone this time) is a way to discourage it from happening again in the future and preventing someone from eventually getting hurt. Or conversely, not penalizing it results in encouragement that such an action is permissable. Again, I'm a little torn on which way to lean on what's actually right here.

I agree... how would this have played out if a defender from the ruck had stood up while he was diving over, resulting in contact in the air... what if the diving player then lands on his head or neck as a result of that contact? Preventative action is better than reactive action --> do not allow players to dive over other players like this.

 

[jdeagro]

Considering the law and World Rugby’s law clarification here, I do not see that the player in the OP video is in contravention of any law, including 9.11. Try awarded for me.
If a defender was there on his feet, then penalty awarded.

What if the ball carrier started diving and then a defender disengaged from the ruck without realizing and the players collided with each other?

 

[Locke]

If it was in England, with our Law variation, what would you say ? (Just out of interest)

PK. The RFU law variation is clear (and probably a wise decision).

I disagree, just because there was no contact doesn't mean there wasn't any danger. I’d say all the players in the ruck were in danger.

I don’t see any noteworthy danger to the defenders laying on the ground in the collapsed ruck.

What if the ball carrier started diving and then a defender disengaged from the ruck without realizing and the players collided with each other?

They are all laying on the ground. This doesn’t seem plausible to me.


To be clear, I think I prefer RFUs law variation. But under standard WR law wording and in this specific situation, I don’t see sufficient danger to anyone to penalize the ball carrier or do anything other than award the try.

 

[jdeagro]

They are all laying on the ground. This doesn’t seem plausible to me.


To be clear, I think I prefer RFUs law variation. But under standard WR law wording and in this specific situation, I don’t see sufficient danger to anyone to penalize the ball carrier or do anything other than award the try.

In the original video, it didn't happen, but your post I replied to made it sound like what can happen is binary. So I'm presenting a situation that could happen, and curious how'd you rule? Surely the defender couldn't be penalized for disengaging from a ruck, or standing up from the ground in a collapsed ruck, when getting cleaned out by the ball carrier diving in the air. And nothing the ball carrier can do to stop themselves now. Dangerous situation? Play on anyway?

 

[didds]

in a parallel universe

BC dives
defender stands up, not fully aware of BC diving forwards
BC collides with D

CF Biggar v Russell .

 

[jdeagro]

in a parallel universe

BC dives
defender stands up, not fully aware of BC diving forwards
BC collides with D

CF Biggar v Russell .

I think the ref got this one wrong too, IMO. Red BC should've been penalized, if any penalty was coming from this. He jumped forward and over the blue defender. But I'm a little hard-pressed to give any penalty here, certainly not a card.

Personally, I think I would've stopped play, ensured no one was seriously injured, gave a little bit of a warning to both players involved (separately) in hopes it'll manage itself moving forward, and restarted with a scrum to red for being the last team moving forward.

 

[Phil E]

I am a bit conflicted as the RFU DLV clearly doesn't allow this.
However, the DLV doesn't apply in the act of scoring/close to the goal line.

 

[crossref]

I am a bit conflicted as the RFU DLV clearly doesn't allow this.
However, the DLV doesn't apply in the act of scoring/close to the goal line.

I think it's specifically sternum height tackling part that doesn't apply close to the line..

 

[Flish]

I am a bit conflicted as the RFU DLV clearly doesn't allow this.
However, the DLV doesn't apply in the act of scoring/close to the goal line.

I think it's specifically sternum height tackling part that doesn't apply close to the line..

However, does the foot note from the original clarification not still apply, see https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/clarification/2022/3/

In principle, in a try scoring situation, if the action is deemed to be a dive forward for a try, then it should be permitted. If a player is deemed to have left the ground to avoid a tackle; or to jump, or hurdle a potential tackler, then this is dangerous play and should be sanctioned accordingly.

I would suggest it probably does?

 

[jdeagro]

However, does the foot note from the original clarification not still apply, see https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/clarification/2022/3/

If a player is deemed to have left the ground to avoid a tackle; or to jump, or hurdle a potential tackler, then this is dangerous play and should be sanctioned accordingly.

I would suggest it probably does?

One could ask, when is a player considered a potential tackler?...any opposition player who realistically has a chance to make an attempt at a tackle? Can a nearby opposition player exiting a ruck be considered a potential tackler?

 

[crossref]

However, does the foot note from the original clarification not still apply, see https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/clarification/2022/3/



I would suggest it probably does?

this is all about jumping over tacklers (or potential tacklers) and in a tackle situation I think it would still apply.

However in the England the RFU specifically widened 9.11 to cover jumping over any opponent - not just tacklers.

What sort of situation did they have in mind? It must have been to proscribe jumping over breakdowns and rucks. I can't think of anything else really.

 

[didds]

I think the ref got this one wrong too, IMO. Red BC should've been penalized, if any penalty was coming from this. He jumped forward and over the blue defender. But I'm a little hard-pressed to give any penalty here, certainly not a card.

As you probably know, Russell got a card for tackling Biggar in the air for that one...

 

[jdeagro]

As you probably know, Russell got a card for tackling Biggar in the air for that one...

Despite not making a tackle at all and trying to avoid getting pummeled at the last second by a dangerous play from Biggar lol

 

[Flish]

What sort of situation did they have in mind? It must have been to proscribe jumping over breakdowns and rucks. I can't think of anything else really.

Maybe, but this example was about diving over a ruck to score a try, and WR have shown in a number of cases that the act of scoring a try gives you a free pass for actions that are otherwise illegal elsewhere on the pitch

 

[crossref]

Maybe, but this example was about diving over a ruck to score a try, and WR have shown in a number of cases that the act of scoring a try gives you a free pass for actions that are otherwise illegal elsewhere on the pitch

Very true.
BUT in England RFU have created a deliberate variation to WR Laws, so they must want to do something specifically different to what WR want

Also this isn't diving in, it's jumping over

however it was a Law change that was somewhat smuggled in. I haven't seen any explanation of it

 

[didds]

Despite not making a tackle at all and trying to avoid getting pummeled at the last second by a dangerous play from Biggar lol

Exactly.

And nothing like that could EVER happen with somebody diving over a ruck OBVIOUSLY!!! ;-)

 

[didds]

however it was a Law change that was somewhat smuggled in. I haven't seen any explanation of it

Maybe the 12 year old had to get home for his tea ?