Non immediate tackler turnovers

[CrouchTPEngage]

If WB was right, then the 9 pressing on the back of Horwill must have been considered "ruck formed" AND this had "formed" before Horwill has bent down to get the ball. Hence WB was right - here I paste in the law book's definitions of a ruck:
16.1 Forming a ruck
(a) Where can a ruck take place. A ruck can take place only in the field of play.
(b)How can a ruck form. Players are on their feet. At least one player must be in physical contact with an opponent. The ball must be on the ground. If the ball is off the ground for any reason, the ruck is not formed.

Which, of course, implies that all the supporting attacking players have to do is ensure they get there in time to be able to "be in physical contact" with any would-be stealers.

 

[Account Deleted]

Penalty was because a ruck had formed. Can anyone who thinks the PK to be correct tell me who were the two players, from opposite sides, that were bound over the ball?

 

[winchesterref]

In the match video on page 1 what time is the incident?

 

[winchesterref]

Penalty was because a ruck had formed. Can anyone who thinks the PK to be correct tell me who were the two players, from opposite sides, that were bound over the ball?

I haven't seen it yet but remember they don't need to be bound, just in contact. Does that change things?

 

[Account Deleted]

Not according to the diagram in the definitions and 16.2 All players must be bound.

 

[Browner]

Penalty was because a ruck had formed. Can anyone who thinks the PK to be correct tell me who were the two players, from opposite sides, that were bound over the ball?

but didn't WB mention something about the 'timing' ???? , I took that to mean that JH's right to challenge for possession had ended a split second beforehand, isn't that the thrust of the OP ?

 

[Account Deleted]

You may well be right. I'd still say he was wrong. But it's his interpretation that counts and not mine.

 

[FlipFlop]

Not according to the diagram in the definitions and 16.2 All players must be bound.

Wrong.

The law, both the definitions and 16.1 (forming a ruck) just mention being in physical contact with an opponent. There is NO mention of binding.

Law 16.2 deals with joining (not forming) a ruck. Players who join a ruck MUST bind (to team mate or opponent).

 

[Account Deleted]

The diagram shows a bind. And It is inconsistent to have all but 2 players bound in the ruck. Or can they form it without binding but them they must bind as soon as others join. Just asking for problems if you go down that line.

 

[FlipFlop]

True - the diagram shows a bind, which is one of many ways to be in contact. Would you say it was a ruck if Player A binds to the waist of Player B (but B does not bind to A)? This case isn't shown.

the law is clear - to form a ruck CONTACT is all that is required. Why change this to suit your belief this is wrong?

Take an example:
Player A (red) and Player B (blue) both arrive at a ball on the ground. Both players reach down both arms to pick up the ball. Before either player touches the ball, they "engage" each other shoulder to shoulder. There is no bind (arms down reaching for ball), so you say no ruck?

or

Player A reaches down, B binds on. Both players are not bound to each other - B has bound to A, A has not bound to B. Ruck or not?

 

[Account Deleted]

But that did not happen. One player put a hand on the other. That's no ruck. Sorry.

So do these two players have to bind after the ruck is formed or can they continue to play pat? Does the ref have to remember which are the two players that don't have to bind as they formed the ruck so they don't get pinged for not binding. Of course this all could be avoided if we stopped referring to the post tackle mess as a ruck until it actually becomes one. IE players on their feet.