Legal diving over the ruck?

[jdeagro]

https://www.reddit.com/r/rugbyunion/comments/189rvnf
Ok, to be fair this isn't diving over the ruck in a traditional sense, but is there something illegal about this in the law book? Something somewhere about a player leaving their feet maybe? I can't recall exactly.

 

[Decorily]

I don't think it's illegal....but if he had contacted a defender dangerously in the act then that would be a separate issue.

 

[Volun-selected]

I seem to recall similar conversations about diving to avoid a tackle often boiled down to if you thought it was dangerous since “Players must not do anything that is reckless or dangerous to others including leading with the elbow or forearm, or jumping into, or over, a tackler.”

 

[irishref]

From 2:27 on this clip. Any thoughts on this airborn try?

 

[didds]

i think this is in another thread somewhere so maybe admins can merge it.

I'll let you guys argue debate the laws around this but from a playing/coaching perspective - aside from "don't be in that position in the first place" how is a side to defend that? You can put a defender immediately behind the "ruck" in order to defend against the jumping player - but now you are tackling a player clearly in the air and it is predominantly a jump at the time he clears the ruck rather than a dive for the line [1] - I also apprecite this may be semantics. There's also a high degree of potential head clash trying to stop a player in the air at that initial height

[1] CF a jump for a kick pass landing in goal - attacker jumps and catches and just falls to the ground to score .
Im unconfirtable though with an outright "no diving over a ruck" type approach cos in another example the ruck may only be 1 foot high with no defenders near it at all etc ...

 

[irishref]

I see there may be an issue with the youtube clip.

Scenario: LaR atracking maul on the Perpignan goal-line. LaR player sees the Perpignan defenders pan out either side to defend the next phase, picks up the ball and dives over the ruck into the in-goal and grounds the ball.

Thoughts entering my mind: rugby is a game played by players on their feet and how do you defend and airborn player?

 

[crossref]

For me diving over a ruck is dangerous, but convention seems to be to allow it m. So follow convention
(But haven't been able to see this particular video)

 

[Phil E]

Two threads on this, they have been merged.
Mod

 

[didds]

Thoughts entering my mind: rugby is a game played by players on their feet and how do you defend and airborn player?

WRT players on their feet ... If that was the case then nobody could ever jump to catch a ball - including a lineout - or dive to score (a normal dive!).

WRT defending an airborn player - the laws are already clear in this. You cannot - playing a player in the air. Hence my point above above the ruck creating an potentially unfair advantage here.

 

[crossref]

in England the current Law Variations adopted by the RFU do make this explicitly illegal

9.11.(a)

Players must not do anything that is reckless or dangerous to others including leading with the head, shoulder, elbow or forearm, or jumping into, or over a tackler an opponent

(I would not be surprised if this was exactly the scenario the RFU had in mind when they made this change)

so in my game - in England - I would apply that and PK to defenders.

 

[jdeagro]

in England the current Law Variations adopted by the RFU do make this explicitly illegal

9.11.(a)

Players must not do anything that is reckless or dangerous to others including leading with the head, shoulder, elbow or forearm, or jumping into, or over a tackler an opponent

I think this is a sensible law amendment. Overall, I'm torn though. I love the field awareness and in-the-moment decision making that leads to creative outcomes with high rewards like this. But I do think safety is important here.

 

[Dixpat]

in England the current Law Variations adopted by the RFU do make this explicitly illegal

9.11.(a)

Players must not do anything that is reckless or dangerous to others including leading with the head, shoulder, elbow or forearm, or jumping into, or over a tackler an opponent

(I would not be surprised if this was exactly the scenario the RFU had in mind when they made this change)

so in my game - in England - I would apply that and PK to defenders.

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

 

[crossref]

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

In England, I think the Law is now simple : it's illegal to jump over an opponent.

In other jurisdictions, yes its about making a judgement on whether it's dangerous or not.

 

[Dixpat]

In England, I think the Law is now simple : it's illegal to jump over an opponent.

In other jurisdictions, yes its about making a judgement on whether it's dangerous or not.

So you are saying that in England 9.11(a) is to be read "arse about face" in that the words after "including" take precedence without regard to whether or not the action was reckless or dangerous to others.

If that is the case would you

PK me if as a fullback I had a running style where I tuck my forearm across my body in a bumper bar style and start running out from the goal line with no one around me?

or

Would you wait until I was charging into a defender before you awarded the PK?

 

[crossref]

My reading is as above : the new Law just means what it says, you can't jump over an opponent

What's your view, @Dixpat ? What were the RFU getting at when they changed the wording on the Law?

They must have intended something to change, what was it ?

 

[Dixpat]

My reading is as above : the new Law just means what it says, you can't jump over an opponent

What's your view, @Dixpat ? What were the RFU getting at when they changed the wording on the Law?

They must have intended something to change, what was it ?

My view is that as no one was in danger then 9.11 (a) has no bearing.

What is your view of my hypothetical?

 

[crossref]

I don't understand the point of your hypothetical, @Dixpat but for the record

No, I wouldn't PK a runner who looked like might smash into someone further down the pitch


But neither would I PK someone who looked like he might jump over someone further down the pitch

Wait until the event happens
But then you knew that

 

[Dixpat]

I don't understand the point of your hypothetical, dixpat! but for the record

No, I wouldn't PK a runner who looked like might smash into someone further down the pitch

But neither would I PK someone who looked like he might jump over someone further down the pitch

Wait until the event happens
But then you knew that

What happened to your thinking from following convention (post 7) to PK (post 10)

 

[crossref]

What happened to your thinking from following convention (post 7) to PK (post 10)

In post 7 I had forgotten that the RFU had introduced a new Law this season that covers this ! and then I remembered

So
outside of England (which the OP incident was I think) I reckon post 7 is the answer

in England post 10 is the answer

 

[jdeagro]

If that is the case would you

PK me if as a fullback I had a running style where I tuck my forearm across my body in a bumper bar style and start running out from the goal line with no one around me?

or

Would you wait until I was charging into a defender before you awarded the PK?

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.