[Ruck] Obstruction at a ruck

[Paule23]

Hello all

I constantly see on TV (a different game I know but bear with me) forwards standing at the side of the ruck, with one arm on another player, usually with the espress purpose of making the ruck wider and preventing the opposition reaching the scrum half to tackle or block the kick.

I also see this in games I referee. I know I can penalise for not being bound, or obstruction, or if relevant coming in from the side, but I would like to know how everyone deals with this. I am assuming management, I,e, have a word and if it persists ping, or do you ignore it (not material) or ping (obvious obstruction/not bound)?

Paul

 

[Phil E]

....but I would like to know how everyone deals with this. I am assuming management, I,e, have a word and if it persists ping

Exactly how I deal with it.

Using language they understand, something like "No Pillars, Back Foot".

I assume you mean something like this from Green 3......

 

[The Fat]

Hello all

I constantly see on TV (a different game I know but bear with me) forwards standing at the side of the ruck, with one arm on another player, usually with the espress purpose of making the ruck wider and preventing the opposition reaching the scrum half to tackle or block the kick.

I also see this in games I referee. I know I can penalise for not being bound, or obstruction, or if relevant coming in from the side, but I would like to know how everyone deals with this. I am assuming management, I,e, have a word and if it persists ping, or do you ignore it (not material) or ping (obvious obstruction/not bound)?

Paul

They are offside so the management is along the lines of Phil E's post. "Back foot"

 

[crossref]

good picture.

So green #3 has a couple of options
- he could bind just a little bit tighter and he'd be part of the ruck and he'd be OK
- he could let go, stand up and retire just a tiny distance and he'd be behind the back foot and be OK

In fact, as pink aren't contesting his position isn't really material

 

[Phil E]

In fact, as pink aren't contesting his position isn't really material

Agreed, but even so we don't just ignore it, we let them know we have seen it, and that we won't tolerate it, so they need to stop doing it.

Coaches will now say that it is material and that pink are not competing because he is there....chicken and egg.

 

[Camquin]

Surely as there is no ruck, that is just obstruction in general play.
Even if there had been a ruck, the ball is now out - and pink have every right to advance.

However, the green players presumably came in to clear the pink player, who has since released, rolled away and retreated.
But given no other pink player contested the ruck failed to form - though they could have simply picked up the uncontested ball and advanced it themselves.

So we do not penalise them for attempting to play rugby as we understand it.

With 5 at the breakdown and no pink, green is short of numbers as it is.

 

[didds]

good picture.

So green #3 has a couple of options
- he could bind just a little bit tighter and he'd be part of the ruck and he'd be OK
- he could let go, stand up and retire just a tiny distance and he'd be behind the back foot and be OK

In fact, as pink aren't contesting his position isn't really material

??

There is no ruck. There is no pink rucker ie player bound over the ball. There is no offside line to stand behind.

there is no ruck to bind to.

Maybe the OP had a different scenario in mind as he referred to a ruck, rather than a potentially obstructed tackle area.

??

didds

 

[didds]

Coaches will now say that it is material and that pink are not competing because he is there....chicken and egg.

Well, that IS a possibility n'est-ce pas?

(even though its not a ruck in that picture)

didds

 

[Phil E]

Surely as there is no ruck, that is just obstruction in general play.
Even if there had been a ruck, the ball is now out - and pink have every right to advance.

However, the green players presumably came in to clear the pink player, who has since released, rolled away and retreated.
But given no other pink player contested the ruck failed to form - though they could have simply picked up the uncontested ball and advanced it themselves.

So we do not penalise them for attempting to play rugby as we understand it.

With 5 at the breakdown and no pink, green is short of numbers as it is.

The picture was just for illustrative purposes. Assume the ruck formed and Pink then retired. It's still a ruck as the criteria for an end to the ruck has not been fulfilled.

 

[Pegleg]

good picture.

So green #3 has a couple of options
- he could bind just a little bit tighter and he'd be part of the ruck and he'd be OK
- he could let go, stand up and retire just a tiny distance and he'd be behind the back foot and be OK


In fact, as pink aren't contesting his position isn't really material

Firstly, what ruck? Unless pink has left the ruck there aint one! In fact all three green players standing there are offside.

However let's assume that a ruck did form and all the pink players left it:


3's offense in not material, except in the fact that the route to the 9 is made longer so 9 gets protection from an offside player. Off course it is material.

Ask yourself: "WHY is 3 standing there if it is not to materially impact on the game?" That answer should clearly indicate he is succeding in his aim. Warning him and ping him. He could achive the same effect by standing a little further back so: Why does he not do so?

Could he actually bind as you suggest to "correct" his offence? Well no as he must join along side the hindmost foot not at the side.

Also there's no full arm bind on the other pair of green "ruckers" either.

 

[crossref]

it's true there is no ruck, but for the purpose of the question, I was treating it as if it was a ruck

as indeed are pink, as they have all retired behind an imaginary offside line
If it's not a ruck there is nothing to stop them moving up and standing in their opponents' faces, or in between the green scrum half and the first receiver (just being careful not to approach the tackle from the wrong side of course)

 

[didds]

defences treat non rucks as rucks for tactical/ alignment purposes as previously discussed. Though "spot" defenders standing behind the scrum half / between 9 and 10 have also been discussed.

didds

 

[Pegleg]

it's true there is no ruck, but for the purpose of the question, I was treating it as if it was a ruck

as indeed are pink, as they have all retired behind an imaginary offside line
If it's not a ruck there is nothing to stop them moving up and standing in their opponents' faces, or in between the green scrum half and the first receiver (just being careful not to approach the tackle from the wrong side of course)

Ok I said let's assume it is a "Ruck"

1: How can he join at the side? As you suggest.

2: How on earth is his blocking of the path to the 9 not material?

3; What about the bind on the onthe two players in the "Ruck"?

 

[crossref]

Ok I said let's assume it is a "Ruck"

1: How can he join at the side? As you suggest.

2: How on earth is his blocking of the path to the 9 not material?

3; What about the bind on the onthe two players in the "Ruck"?

1 - we didn't see how he got there.. he could have arrived legitimately and now has unbound
2 - because pink have decided not to compete (I do acknowledge the chicken/egg argument, which is why we manage it out). Green are going to pass. If green #9 makes a run then #3 is definitely in line for being penalised if he gets in the way of a tackler
3 - it's not enough, is it? But it's quite marginal, he doesn't have to be very much more tightly bound to be legal

 

[crossref]

defences treat non rucks as rucks for tactical/ alignment purposes as previously discussed.

didds

yes which makes perfect sense, but it would also make perfect sense for the wider players to push up in front of the non-ruck, forming a sort of shallow arc across the pitch (like they try to when it is a ruck, if the referee isn't looking !)

 

[didds]

yep, granted... but it would be pretty shallow so as not to be compromised by a reset offside line from a pick and go... and the wide players need to cover the possible wiper kick as well.

didds

 

[Pegleg]

1 - we didn't see how he got there.. he could have arrived legitimately and now has unbound
2 - because pink have decided not to compete (I do acknowledge the chicken/egg argument, which is why we manage it out). Green are going to pass. If green #9 makes a run then #3 is definitely in line for being penalised if he gets in the way of a tackler
3 - it's not enough, is it? But it's quite marginal, he doesn't have to be very much more tightly bound to be legal

1: So he now must go back and rejoin legally. he can't rebind from an illegal position.

2: It's not the lack of competition although the chicken and egg situation if material! Green are preventing Pink from getting to the 9. That is material whether he passes or not. If green were legal then Pink may beable to disrupt the pass or stop his run. The offence is material. And Green is positioned there for that very reason. Ask his coach why he is there!

3: Agreed it is very marginal but it is not a full bind. so wh have a pseudo ruck where NO player is legaly bound. How can that possibly be a ruck.

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck it probably is a duck. This one looks like a bull and I can smell something!

 

[Pegleg]

To many top class referees (and others lower down it must be said) are far to liberal with "materiality" and indeed "ATP".

As soon as I have to reconsider my options because of a illegal action by the oposition there has already been a material effect.

Coaches tell players "don't release until the ref tells you to release, ignore the "ruck" call. Players find out how many "goes" they get and adjust down.

Ask - In the changing room. ""I'll call T/R/M. Do you know what you're required to do?" Reply "YES ref!"- DONE!

Tell - "TACKLE" / "RUCK" / "MAUL"

PING - First time and set your standards early!

As soon as we tell a player "back foot" or hands off after calling ruck - THE FIRST TIME let alone the third fourth of fifth time! - the player has achieve the point of the offence. And we smile and say No material effect.

We are deluding ourselves every time.

 

[beckett50]

Surely as there is no ruck, that is just obstruction in general play.
Even if there had been a ruck, the ball is now out - and pink have every right to advance.

However, the green players presumably came in to clear the pink player, who has since released, rolled away and retreated.
But given no other pink player contested the ruck failed to form - though they could have simply picked up the uncontested ball and advanced it themselves.

So we do not penalise them for attempting to play rugby as we understand it.

With 5 at the breakdown and no pink, green is short of numbers as it is.

There may have initially been a ruck and the pink players have decided that as the ball has been secured by Green that there is no point in contesting further and therefore have broken off, creating the picture that we see. :=

However, as a general rule we need to understand the motives for what the players are trying to achieve, as this governs their actions. "Sentries" are there to protect the scrum half in his efforts to get the ball away to the stand-off or first receiver. The wider is this line of players the less able are the defence to counter the passing/next attacking phase.

As long as the players are either correctly bound or stood behind the hindmost foot then all is OK.

 

[Decorily]

Exactly how I deal with it.

Using language they understand, something like "No Pillars, Back Foot".

I wouldn't use the "no pillars" bit..... pillars means different things to different people, some of which are perfectly legal!