player drives through ruck

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
12,164
Post Likes
1,846
Well the way the Law is actually worded, yes, but I think its just poorly worded (nothing new there then)

totally agree.

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?

you wouldn't necessarily ping him for offside because the laws make tio clear being offside in itself is not a PK offense.

However, the OP's description is not this case, but of a material act when in such an offside position. So its PK (advantage if possible but in this scenario unlikely probably).

didds
 

Ian_Cook


Referees in New Zealand
Staff member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
13,687
Post Likes
1,773
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
However, the OP's description is not this case, but of a material act when in such an offside position. So its PK (advantage if possible but in this scenario unlikely probably).


I think we all agree that is that case but the discussion has gone beyond the OP.

How is is a player driving though a ruck any different from a player skirting around the ruck? They both end up offside on the wrong side of the ruck, so why do we treat them differently?

I think the answer has to be one of intent. A player skirting the ruck is intending nothing other that to gain an advantage from his offending, however, a player driving through the ruck is likely to be legitimately trying to counter-ruck and contest for possession while remaining on his feet. He is acting within the spirit of the Law. So long as he retires onside immediately, and takes no part in the game, I wouldn't PK him.
 

Wedgie


Referees in England
Joined
Oct 11, 2011
Messages
210
Post Likes
30
...... so why do we treat them differently?

I think the answer has to be one of intent. A player skirting the ruck is intending nothing other that to gain an advantage from his offending, however, a player driving through the ruck is likely to be legitimately trying to counter-ruck and contest for possession while remaining on his feet. He is acting within the spirit of the Law.

Agree.

The key word in the OP is 'emerge' by which I take to mean comes through so far that he cannot be considered to still be part of the ruck. If the same ruck still exists, by definition he will be in front of the ball and therefore liable to sanction if he interferes with play i.e. tackles the SH as in the OP.

If he comes through and does not emerge, i.e. is still in the ruck, whether bound or not I would not ping him. As soon as the SH picks up the ball the ruck ends and the come-through-the-middle player would be free to make the tackle.
 
Top