NZ v Argentina : A question

[crossref]

Idont ever expect law to prescribe an exhaustive list of all gamesmanship events, which remain gamesmanship on my "in the spirit" barometer.

it doesn't tip my barometer -- I don't see it as any different from avoiding a quick throw in by ensuring your kick for touch goes into the crowd.

 

[Ian_Cook]

On the "swinging around the ruck" issue. When McCaw forms the ruck with his (correct) entry, the ruck is formed over the ball with the subsequent gate defined - that being McCaw's body. He is counter-rucked back and then shifts to left (on the pitch, right as we look on the replay) but the ball stays in the same position since it hasn't been touched yet.

So I would say that he is already entering from the side. I have a question about the position of the #6 who picks up the ball, he didn't come from the back foot either.

Hang on. You say it was a "correct" entry, and I agree. It was directly behind the ball and parallel to the touchlines, exactly what we all like to see. However, he remained bound to the the player he initially bound to as he swung (was swung?) around to face his own goal-line. So long as he remains bound, he has not left the ruck, so how can he then be "side entering" a ruck he is already in?

(Keep in mind that Laws 16.6 and 16.7 are specific about how a ruck ends. When a team begins to "counter-ruck" it ss not one of the criteria for ending the initial ruck.)

 

[Crucial]

An aside to this as you are looking at the ruck in question, I find it interesting that no one has mentioned the player grappling MCCaw around the head/neck. Considering he is also being lifted at the time the whole situation is one that has potential to go badly wrong.

There are other safety aspects of the game that are ruled very strictly. Use of feet at rucks, accidental collisions in the air, marginal high tackles, innocuous dust ups etc yet we often see players playing the head at rucks and mauls with no consequence. As a player the scariest thing on a rugby field is having an arm around your neck while someone else is taking control of your legs/body.

It seems that this is something that one day will go horribly wrong and then will be stamped on but until that sad moment no one even recognises it.

The other dangerous act that gets ignored, even after repeated viewings is players sliding in feet/ knees first in an attempt to stop a try. For some players it has become a habit.

I'm not looking to sanitise an already santised game just find it interesting that playing at the head is hardly ever deemed dangerous play when things like raking a player on the wrong side of a ruck is now deemed a heinous crime.

 

[Browner]

it doesn't tip my barometer -- I don't see it as any different from avoiding a quick throw in by ensuring your kick for touch goes into the crowd.

The differences are Obvious to me & include timing Crossref,

One is executed whilst within the FoP and never gives the opposition a QTI opportunity, the second is executed outside the FoP and is unlawful under 19.2(i) [LAWS]. If a player carrying the ball is forced into touch, that player must release the ball to an opposition player so that there can be a quick throw-in. [/LAWS]

Creating the condition to promote quick throws seems to be the intention of this Law and its sanction against those that do anything to deny that opportunity.

Ps...If they wanted to include the kick into row Z into sanction , then Law would do ....... & they likely never will.

 

[crossref]

well it's NOT unlawful under 19.2(i) which applies to s situation when a ball is carried into touch, which is different from a loose ball in touch.

What you are saying is that you consider the situation is analogous to 19.2(i).
Possibly it is.

But on the other hand there are many situations where ball carriers have different responsibilities and rights from non ball-carriers.

 

[crossref]

Here's Stuart Berry's view on this from SA Referees

Question: We know from 19.2 (i) that a ball carrier who is forced into touch must release the ball, to enable a quick throw in. But what about when a ball is kicked into touch and is loose beyond the touchline - would you penalise an (onside) player who handled it so as to remove the quick throw in option?

Stuart Berry: Hi Steve, most certainly. Depriving an attacking team of the opportunity to play with the ball is a hot topic, and any player on the field who does this is liable to sanction

 

[ChrisR]

I disagree with that. If a chaser gets to the ball first and handles it then he is in his rights unless he does something else to delay the throw like kick it away.

 

[Browner]

I disagree with that. If a chaser gets to the ball first and handles it then he is in his rights unless he does something else to delay the throw like kick it away.

What rights are these?
If the ball is already clearly out of play, then your chaser has no right to the ball ( unless bonafide doubt exists as to who put it there, False claims dismissed! ) any intervention on his part is part of a ' denying' gamesmanship .... Rid the game of this , gets my vote.

 

[SimonSmith]

Christ. Agreeing twice with Browner in one week.

if anyone needs me I'll be in a dark room taking the magic pills.

 

[The Fat]

Christ. Agreeing twice with Browner in one week.

if anyone needs me I'll be in a dark room taking the magic pills.

Must be a virus. It's spreading.

 

[Crucial]

SA Referees website has dealt with both 'swinging around the side' cases ruled by Joubert and, like the previous one, can't provide an answer.

http://www.sareferees.com/laws/view/2830676/

http://www.sareferees.com/laws/view/2830677/

 

[Browner]

This may not be ' the' answer, but here goes anyway..........

The action of using feet to disrupt the oppo SH is a modern coached technique, its not a positive act it vactu in. Ruck law as originally drafted expects players to be bound over the ball and then engage in a shoving contest for possession. Instead this deliberately negative aspect of ruck play has developed quiet recently, and its seen as contrary to game flow.

My best guess is that the Elite referees have agreed to remove this negative/disrupti byng aspect of play from the game, I suspect the IRB are aware of this development, and all we are seeing is an advanced screening of a soon to be released ruck law modification/clarification etc...

Remember we saw Yes9 being dropped by referees long before it was officially ditched.

My 2p guess.

 

[Ian_Cook]

SA Referees website has dealt with both 'swinging around the side' cases ruled by Joubert and, like the previous one, can't provide an answer.

http://www.sareferees.com/laws/view/2830676/

http://www.sareferees.com/laws/view/2830677/

I honestly don't have a problem with this action being penalised.

Rightly or wrongly, elite referees seem to consider that when a team has won the ruck they have WON the ball. When players compete for the ball at the ruck, I expect to see them drive over the ball or come through the middle of the ruck in order to WIN the ruck (and thereby possession), not try to skirt around the corner simply to DISRUPT possession. There is no way that McCaw, in the position he was in, was every going to win possession of the ball.

Its not in the Laws, but the Laws are only a framework. You won't find everything that referees rule on laid down in black and white. There are many grey areas.

 

[Crucial]

Ian, that's all well and good for accepted and known refereeing interpretations. Ones that have been conveyed to players. If you expect players to play the game within the Laws then you simply must have those same Laws available to them as knowledge.

If you don't then at least don't make them a possible points scoring infringement, use the free kick instead. Deciding a match on a ruling that doesn't exist shouldn't be part of the game.

The Laws are not a framework as you describe them. They are THE Laws of the game. As Laws they are open to interpretation and rulings. If the police arrested you and charged you with something that doesn't exist in the Laws of our country, you would no doubt have your lawyer go to town on them. You simply can't make up new Laws to suit yourself.

I understand that adjudicating our sport is an ever shifting beast as tactics change and coaches look for advantages within the framework but processes for introducing new rulings exist and shouldn't be simply pulled out on unsuspecting players.

Browner, you may be correct but it would be a much better look if all stakeholders (players, coaches, spectators, commentators) were made aware of the situation. Elite Referees shouldn't be dictating to the sport how it should be played. If they have an idea (and I'm not saying this isn't a good one) then take it to the game's stakeholders for approval first.

 

[menace]

SA Referees website has dealt with both 'swinging around the side' cases ruled by Joubert and, like the previous one, can't provide an answer.

http://www.sareferees.com/laws/view/2830676/

http://www.sareferees.com/laws/view/2830677/

I actually think they do provide an answer? They think Joubert was wrong and the action is legal.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Ian, that's all well and good for accepted and known refereeing interpretations.

And how do you think that "accepted and known refereeing interpretations" come about. You can be sure that they aren't created out of whole cloth.

At one time, there was no such thing as a "tackle gate" or a "tackle assist", there was no lifting in the line-outs, the referee had nothing to do with the scrum engagement, players rucked for the ball with their feet, and this included rucking players out of the way.

The Law requires tackled player to release the ball; it also requires the tackler to release the tackled player, but it is absolutely silent on which player, if any, is expected to comply first. It is only interpretation that the tackler must release first which allows us to have anything other than total impasse at the tackle.

The Laws, and indeed the game itself, evolves.

Ones that have been conveyed to players. If you expect players to play the game within the Laws then you simply must have those same Laws available to them as knowledge.

If you don't then at least don't make them a possible points scoring infringement, use the free kick instead. Deciding a match on a ruling that doesn't exist shouldn't be part of the game

How do we know that elite players have not already been made aware that swinging their legs around the ruck is regarded as illegal if they lose their bind or go off their feet.

[LAWS]16.3 RUCKING
(a) Players in a ruck must endeavour to stay on their feet.
Sanction: Penalty kick

16.2 JOINING A RUCK

(b) A player joining a ruck must bind on a team-mate or an opponent, using the whole arm. The bind must either precede, or be simultaneous with, contact with any other part of the body of the player joining the ruck.
Sanction: Penalty kick
(c) Placing a hand on another player in the ruck does not constitute binding.
Sanction: Penalty kick
(d) All players forming, joining or taking part in a ruck must be on their feet.
Sanction: Penalty kick
[/LAWS]

IMO, it is impossible to do what any of these players (either McCaw or Fernandez-Lobbe) have done while still remaining bound from hand to armpit as well as remain on their feet. Hanging off the side of the ruck by your hands is not bound and not on your feet, and if you are parallel to the ground, you are definitely not on your feet.

The Laws are not a framework as you describe them. They are THE Laws of the game. As Laws they are open to interpretation and rulings. If the police arrested you and charged you with something that doesn't exist in the Laws of our country, you would no doubt have your lawyer go to town on them. You simply can't make up new Laws to suit yourself.

I understand that adjudicating our sport is an ever shifting beast as tactics change and coaches look for advantages within the framework but processes for introducing new rulings exist and shouldn't be simply pulled out on unsuspecting players.

You shouldn't confuse the Laws of the Land and the Laws of the Game. The former is written in legalese, the latter in plain language. In many cases the Laws of rugby are conflicting and ambiguous. To steal an expression from OB.. (the wise sage of rugbyrefs.com). "The referee has to make sense of the Laws"

 

[didds]

This may not be ' the' answer, but here goes anyway..........


My best guess is that the Elite referees have agreed to remove this negative/disrupti byng aspect of play from the game,.

Of course, if they chose to actually prevent players from just flopping over the ball then the ability to actually have a shoving competition might occur...

didds

 

[OB..]

The idea that "deliberate disruption" is necessarily bad would seem to undermine any defensive tactic.

 

[RobLev]

Of course, if they chose to actually prevent players from just flopping over the ball then the ability to actually have a shoving competition might occur...

didds

Perhaps they could pass a Law against it; that would do the trick, wouldn't it?

 

[ChrisR]

Crucial, I 'liked' your post because, as a coach, I study the laws because they tell me, as a player, what I must do, what I must not do and sometimes what I may do.

Not every scenario or action is spelled out in law. (Note the recent thread re. grounding by a defender not in the playing area). A coach who can 'read between the lines' is often regarded in this forum as "just trying to be clever" and is admonished for "not sticking to the basics". I agree that this can well be the case but in my experience any innovation will be met with "it didn't look right" and a whistle.

Ian questions whether McCaw stays bound or is off his feet. Valid points but the bigger question is whether the action of swinging around to get at the ball is, in and of itself, illegal. Conventional thinking always sees the rucker driving forward to win the ball but that is convention, not law.

If we don't want this as part of the game then we need a law inoculation before the disease spreads.