player drives through ruck

[Dickie E]

Ruck formed with ball at feet of hindmost Red player.

Blue #3 drives through middle of ruck legally and emerges on Red side of ruck with ball still in ruck.

As Red SH picks up ball he is tackled by Blue #3 who is now basically standing alongside him.

Was Blue #3 offside or OK to tackle Red SH?

 

[crossref]

Ruck formed with ball at feet of hindmost Red player.

Blue #3 drives through middle of ruck legally and emerges on Red side of ruck with ball still in ruck.

As Red SH picks up ball he is tackled by Blue #3 who is now basically standing alongside him.

Was Blue #3 offside or OK to tackle Red SH?

once he has left the ruck, if there still is a ruck, then he's offside and should get back behind the back foot, surely.

 

[Phil E]

Sounds like offside to me.

As an aside, I have never understood this "he came through the middle" thing?

Surely all that matters is that the person is bound on and driving, not sliding or charging?

 

[crossref]

I understand it to mean that if he joins the ruck correctly, binds and pushes right through the middle, he's not going to get pinged for offside the moment he emerges, as long as he then makes himself onside again.

Contrast this with a player who runs around the ruck to get to the same place, he's going to get pinged just for being there.

 

[Browner]

once he has left the ruck, if there still is a ruck, then he's offside and should get back behind the back foot, surely.

Law didnt expect Rucks to be things that you 'drove through' and exited the other side, it was likely envisaged that they were pushing contests over the ball, possession being reclaimed one way or the other .

CR +1

 

[ddjamo]

did he comply with ruck law? did he even bind or did he swim through the ruck?

 

[Shelflife]

If he is still in the ruck he can play the ball with his feet, if he tackles the Sh while still in the ruck then he is off side as he must come from behind the hindmost foot, if hes the only blue player in the ruck he cant come from behind himself so hes offside.

 

[SimonSmith]

did he comply with ruck law? did he even bind or did he swim through the ruck?

You see Joubert not exactly helping us out with his ruck interpretation on Saturday?

 

[ddjamo]

You see Joubert not exactly helping us out with his ruck interpretation on Saturday?

here we go...I wouldn't expect any less from CJ

 

[Ian_Cook]

I understand it to mean that if he joins the ruck correctly, binds and pushes right through the middle, he's not going to get pinged for offside the moment he emerges, as long as he then makes himself onside again.

Contrast this with a player who runs around the ruck to get to the same place, he's going to get pinged just for being there.

Yep. This is the nub of it for mine.

 

[Dickie E]

thanks guy. As I thought

 

[Blackberry]

Help me out here. If there's a bona fide ruck going on, but a player mashed his way tjrough the middle to drive over the ball which is on the other team's side, is he legit? You will hear his supporters and team mates crying "He's come through the middle!" but who is he bound onto? Doesn't that make him illegal? You have to bound onto players in a ruck.

What would you give?

 

[didds]

I understand it to mean that if he joins the ruck correctly, binds and pushes right through the middle, he's not going to get pinged for offside the moment he emerges, as long as he then makes himself onside again..

But if he is bound onto the ruck and drives "though the miiddle" he will not appear on the far side, lion-witch-and-the-wardrobe-style on the other aside ... _alone_

He is offside in the OP's description.

didds

 

[Ian_Cook]

But if he is bound onto the ruck and drives "though the miiddle" he will not appear on the far side, lion-witch-and-the-wardrobe-style on the other aside ... _alone_

He is offside in the OP's description.

didds

Law 11 -
Offside means that a player is temporarily out of the game. Such players are liable
to be penalised if they take part in the game.

"A player who is in an offside position is not automatically penalised."

or if you don't think these sentiments apply at the ruck.....

[LAWS]16.5 OFFSIDE AT THE RUCK
(b) Players must either join a ruck, or retire behind the offside line immediately. If a player
loiters at the side of a ruck, the player is offside.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/LAWS]

For the purposes if this, we can read "at the side" as anywhere ahead of the ruck offside line and not bound.

The way this Law is worded, it appears that the player in this position is NOT offside so long as he retires and does not take part in play.

IMO, in DickieE's example, Blue #3 was offside because he tackled an opponent (i.e. took part in play) but he would have been OK if he had immediately retired to the offside line instead.

IMO

 

[didds]

So a solitary moving player in front of the rear foot is not offside? (Not necessarily to be penalised of course)

nahhh....


didds

 

[Ian_Cook]

So a solitary moving player in front of the rear foot is not offside? (Not necessarily to be penalised of course)

nahhh....


didds

Well the way the Law is actually worded, yes, but I think its just poorly worded (nothing new there then)

How about a player cleaning out at a tackle, and a ruck forms behind him. Would you pull the trigger immediately for offside before he had a chance to retire? No? Then why would you if he drives through a ruck, or a maul for that matter?


The reality is that a player who finds himself offside...

1. Is not immediately PK
2. Must retire immediately or he will be liable to PK
3. Must not take part in play or he will be PK

 

[Browner]

Help me out here. If there's a bona fide ruck going on, but a player mashed his way tjrough the middle to drive over the ball which is on the other team's side, is he legit? You will hear his supporters and team mates crying "He's come through the middle!" but who is he bound onto? Doesn't that make him illegal? You have to bound onto players in a ruck.

What would you give?

I wouldve given a PK for "rucking without having a bind" , but reading law16 again i'm now self questioning this...?

Presumably we all agree that you have to be bound to join a ruck, and whilst law prescribes the player binding, it doesnt make clear whether or not an opponent can provide that ' joined status' if the opponent binds onto the Player IF the player is not similarly bound onto the player ( ie binding onto each other)

Modern interpretation seems to accept that 'one of the two' players can effect the bind onto a player and thus create a Ruck, so on that basis and using this 'qualification' then is the player who comes through the middle 'without himself maintaining a bind' legal IF his opponent still maintains some bind on him? You'd have to say yes.

There is also the question of ..... If the JOIN by BINDING requirement has been satisfied , are you then still required to maintain a bind ( continuously is another debate entirely) to continue participating?

Ps...One thing is apparent, rucks rarely look like those depicted in the pictures in the lawbook, shoving opposition off the ball was the likely expectation of this aspect of play.

Law could then read
[LAWS]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.A player or an opponent must maintain a bind in order for the player to be considered as remaining part of the ruck. [/LAWS]. ?

Or maybe it would be better if all participants must 'maintain' a bind ( except the pre ruck jackler who is exercising his ' handing' rights of course.) ????

 

[ddjamo]

if you allow that sort of fringe/pseudo "contest" the issues will multiply and you will have more to contend with; retaliation, cheap shots, "hey ref - you let them do it!", and so on.

 

[Blackberry]

Can we take a straw poll? What does each of us do if a player drives through the middle of a ruck but is not bound on?

 

[Ian_Cook]

Can we take a straw poll? What does each of us do if a player drives through the middle of a ruck but is not bound on?

I don't see how that is possible, unless the opponents in the maul choose to unbind from their team-mates and step aside to let him through.

A player does not have to remain bound himself to a maul, he only has to be "bound in" by other players. How do you think players in the maul can have two hands on the ball carrier at the back of the opponent's side of the maul and still remain legal?

ETA: Oops, I was sure you said maul! I was discussing mauls on another forum.