New law clarification from WR

[Dave Elliott]

Law Clarifications | World Rugby Laws

Clarifications in law for the game of rugby union, as requested by unions or individuals.

www.world.rugby

 

[Balones]

No sanction indicated. Action should be ’discouraged’.!!
I can only assume that they assume we will know it is a penalty offence for being offside.
Half the job done again. They were asked a very simple direct question and didn’t answer it.

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

What part of your body has to be beyond the offside line to be offside?
Can you leave one foot behind the previous last foot?
Clear as mud!

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Seems clear. They have to go behind the hindmost foot. We know the sanction for being in front and this is what is being show,

 

[chbg]

Seems clear. They have to go behind the hindmost foot. We know the sanction for being in front and this is what is being show,

How can you behind yourself? Not getting at you but the WR statement: "He must return to be behind the hindmost foot before being able to be involved in play". If you are bound in the ruck you are by definition in front of the hindmost foot! They seem to saying that the ruck offside line remains after the ruck is over.

 

[crossref]

It's a confused and confusing clarification

 

[Zebra1922]

I think it’s pretty clear. Look at the videos, it’s where the ruck ‘train’ pivots to become parallel to the ruck rather than behind, then a player detaches to try and charge down. No offence until the player detaches, then he has to get back onside before he can take part in the game.

 

[crossref]

what surprises me is that WR is defending the despised caterpillar ruck...

i infer that the WR like the caterpillar. Presumably because it 'creates space'

 

[didds]

I cant see a single thing in that clarification that promotes or defends a caterpillar ruck.

 

[crossref]

I cant see a single thing in that clarification that promotes or defends a caterpillar ruck.

The twist was a method of countering the caterpillar.

in banning the twist, they've defended the caterpillar .

 

[didds]

ah - gotcha.

well... i dont really see an _problem_ with the caterpillar (aside from what the scrumhalf dowes when technically offside etc but given so much other stuff gets ignored at these levels it hardly a biggy). I think its a tad daft, and woudnt use it myself, but I figure if teams want to lose a few metres' territory by using it thats their issue.

I thibhnk the game has far bigger issues to sort out than the caterpillar ruck TBH

 

[Phil E]

It would have been easy in the clarification to say anyone in front of the back foot of the caterpillar is offside...including the scrum half!

 

[Balones]

So the ‘twister’ must let the s/h box kick happen or be played away (passed?) from the ruck. And if the s/h decides to run with the ball when can he be tackled by anyone in the ruck?

 

[didds]

its an arms race of taking the p1ss basically.

meanwhile if you are part of the caterpillar you are part of the ruck... so being part of the caterpillar makes you onside.

 

[crossref]

ah - gotcha.

well... i dont really see an _problem_ with the caterpillar (aside from what the scrumhalf dowes when technically offside etc but given so much other stuff gets ignored at these levels it hardly a biggy). I think its a tad daft, and woudnt use it myself, but I figure if teams want to lose a few metres' territory by using it thats their issue.

I thibhnk the game has far bigger issues to sort out than the caterpillar ruck TBH

Yes, it was a good opportunity to say nothing , but if they had to say something, I wish they had depowered the caterpillar

 

[Blackberry]

I am seeing it as a rucker cannot join the play until he's gone back to the hindmost foot, so the ruck has to break up from the back, so if a twister is nearest to the opposing scrum half he cannot sack the scrum half until his team mates behind him (who haven't twisted or have been twisted into the hindmost position by the twister) have broken and gone forward.
So, I'd ref it this way: the twister will be pinged for offside if he joins play before the ruckers behind him have gone in front. This would give twisters no incentive to twist. Have I read that right? And happy Christmas. Don't forget at Midnight to wind your bathroom scales back 10kg.

 

[menace]

So by extension, IMO that would mean any defending player bound in the ruck that wasn't intentionally 'crabbing' also now cannot "play on" and defend when the ruck ends purely because they're now in front of the hindmost feet and would be offside??? That can't be right but that's what the clarification will result as a consequence.
Could this clarification be any more contradictory, confusing and ridiculous?

Why WR had to do anything is beyond me?
As I see it the only way crabbing can be effective a
while player stays bound is if it is slow ball? That's usually only happening if the team in possession for eg is dicking around with caterpillar rucks and taking an age to set up for a box kick.
IMO, I bet if they let crabbing go, which IMO is perfeclty legal by the current laws as writ, then teams in possession will start to clear the ball from the ruck quicker so there won't be time to crab? Wouldn't that be a good thing to get ball back into play quicker?
And if they still want to create slow ball for themselves then they will lose space with legal crabbing?
I reckon they should just leave it alone and see if this strategy will stick or not rather than issuing clarifications about legal plays.

 

[tewdric]

The twist was a method of countering the caterpillar.

in banning the twist, they've defended the caterpillar .

I prefer calling this tactic the U bend…

 

[didds]

So by extension, IMO that would mean any defending player bound in the ruck that wasn't intentionally 'crabbing' also now cannot "play on" and defend when the ruck ends purely because they're now in front of the hindmost feet and would be offside??? That can't be right but that's what the clarification will result as a consequence.

I agree. Thats entirely what the clarification "means" in effect.

back to 12 year olds and the law review committee fitting their meeting inbetween the soup and the fish course

 

[tim White]

I'm still not sure what law we are supposed to penalise under; is it Offside?-but if the ball is out (played by scrum half is clearly out) then the ruck is over surely, and thus ruck laws no longer apply -specifically back foot offside line and no binding required. Or are they suggesting swinging to the side is not fully bound? Or are they suggesting the swingers are no longer part of the active ruck?

VERY POOR WORDING.