Playing the 9

[FightOrFlight]

In a recent game there was an issue with "playing the 9".

Blue v Red There was a tackle. Blue player clears over but past the ball and is pulled or falls away leaving nobody "guarding the gate". Blue 9 is arriving to play the ball but as he arrives on the scene he is engaged and cleared out by a Red player. Red player drives him away and another red player picks and carries away.
Howls from the 9 and sideline about them "playing the 9". It should be said that they made a piss poor job of clearing out their ball much to the time in the game and later in the game a very similar situation arose but it was the number 6 not the 9 involved. Not a word this time.

My question is really two pronged:

1) Does having a 9 on your back allow you to receive special treatment around rucks?(in law....obviously any 9 will tell you it does...)

2) In this incidence is the 9 just a player arriving to secure the ball and so liable to be cleared out? There were no players in front of him so it could be argued the ruck was over but again had he been a 7 it would not have raised an issue.

 

[Phil E]

I would say that in your example, if the 9 arrives on his own and is engaged by the opposition, then we now have a ruck and the 9 is part of it. No problem.

I would say that when a ruck has formed and the 9 is looking to play the ball, he can't be pulled into the ruck because he is not part of it (not bound on).

1) No
2) Yes

 

[Simon Thomas]

No and yes from me - and that is from an ex-9

 

[FightOrFlight]

I would say that in your example, if the 9 arrives on his own and is engaged by the opposition, then we now have a ruck and the 9 is part of it. No problem.

I would say that when a ruck has formed and the 9 is looking to play the ball, he can't be pulled into the ruck because he is not part of it (not bound on).

1) No
2) Yes

In my example the tackle was made and a previous blue player had cleared out the tackler/opposition on the tackle area and then they exited the tackle area together. This left the gate open in a manner of speaking. The 9 was arriving perhaps to play the ball or perhaps to clear over and protect(most likely to play the ball though) and was cleared out through this "open gate" by an opposition player.

I agree that if it was a ruck and they pulled the 9 in that is a PK but for me if the 9 is there and is unprotected he can be driven away as with any player at a ruck.

 

[chrismtl]

In my example the tackle was made and a previous blue player had cleared out the tackler/opposition on the tackle area and then they exited the tackle area together. This left the gate open in a manner of speaking. The 9 was arriving perhaps to play the ball or perhaps to clear over and protect(most likely to play the ball though) and was cleared out through this "open gate" by an opposition player.

I agree that if it was a ruck and they pulled the 9 in that is a PK but for me if the 9 is there and is unprotected he can be driven away as with any player at a ruck.

According to me, after the clear out occurred, the ruck is over, and now the ball is out. This would mean that players would now have to play the ball, and not an arriving player. It's possible I misunderstood your scenario, but the way I understand it, ruck is over, ball is in open play. Then red plays the blue 9 without the ball. Should have nothing to do with whether it was a 9 or not. Onc ethe ruck is over, you can't re-form a ruck over the ball again. Both players should have been going for the ball, and the player playing a man over the ball should be penalized accordingly.

 

[ChrisR]

This is the same scenario that Ian raised in another thread.

Ruck forms then 'something happens' and there are no more bodies over the ball, but the ball remains where it was in the ruck.

Question 1. Has the ruck ended as it no longer meets the definition? Or is it ongoing as it hasn't met either definition of ending? To my mind it's over as the ball can leave the ruck or the ruck can leave the ball. So now we're in 'general play'.

Question 2. If the ball is in 'general play' can a player engage another over the ball to form a ruck. If you refer to definition section of Law 16 the second sentence of the first definition is "Open play has ended". That implies that a ruck can form in open play. Therefore I'm thinking that a player going for the ball in open play can be driven away by forming a ruck even tho it violates the "playing the man without the ball" principle.

Question 3. Do number 9s have special privileges? Hell no, anymore than they have 'special powers'.

 

[Nigib]

Why can't another ruck be formed - if the ball is on the ground, and two players, one from each side, come into contact over it, then surely that is a ruck and there is no issue?

 

[RobLev]

Why can't another ruck be formed - if the ball is on the ground, and two players, one from each side, come into contact over it, then surely that is a ruck and there is no issue?

Playing the man without the ball in general play?

 

[Ian_Cook]

Playing the man without the ball in general play?

Yes, a ruck is only formed after a tackle or a Law 14 situation, although the exception that allows players to obstruct an opponent near the ball at a tackle, doesn't technically apply to Law 14 as it contains no equivalent to this...

[LAWS]LAW 15.7 FORBIDDEN PRACTICES
(d) Players on their feet must not charge or obstruct an opponent who is not near the ball.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/LAWS]

...commonsense says that we should. To repeat OB's mantra, "the referee has to make sense of the Laws"

However, a ball on the ground in General Play should be picked up, kicked or fallen on. If the ball is on the ground, and Blue 12 goes to pick it up, Gold 13 cannot obstruct or grab him until he touches or plays the ball.



Ball rolling alo

 

[Browner]

Slight tangent , thoughts ?
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=trpwt2FTetE

 

[menace]

Yes, a ruck is only formed after a tackle or a Law 14 situation,

Sorry Ian but where does it say that in the laws?

 

[The Fat]

Slight tangent , thoughts ?
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=trpwt2FTetE

Offside & interfering with the 9. PK against Dickson

 

[Ian_Cook]

Sorry Ian but where does it say that in the laws?

It doesn't, but logically, how else can a ruck form?

Here is the scenario I outlined earlier

1. The ball is on the ground in General Play

2. Blue 12 goes to pick it up

3. Gold 13 pushes him or grabs him before he touches the ball

4 Technically, we now have the basis for a ruck, two opponents in close contact over the ball

But can you say in all honesty that you would call "ruck"

Why would you not PK Gold 13 at Step 3?

Offside & interfering with the 9. PK against Dickson

100%

 

[menace]

It doesn't, but logically, how else can a ruck form?

Here is the scenario I outlined earlier

1. The ball is on the ground in General Play

2. Blue 12 goes to pick it up

3. Gold 13 pushes him or grabs him before he touches the ball

4 Technically, we now have the basis for a ruck, two opponents in close contact over the ball

But can you say in all honesty that you would call "ruck"

Why would you not PK Gold 13 at Step 3?

I agree. Im not disputing that scenario, but surely there will be scenarios where there is open play and a ruck can form without a preceding illegal action?

I've had a situation (open play but just after a ruck so ball had not gone far) where neither player was attempting to grab the ball but both players voluntarily engaged each other over the ball. It wasn't a situation where either had obstructed the other so I had no reason to PK either player so I let it play out as a ruck. I called it as such and support players duly bound on and from there they rucked for the ball with their feet.
Perhaps I was wrong, but for mine it met the definitions of a ruck that developed in open play. Was I wrong?

 

[Ian_Cook]

I've had a situation (open play but just after a ruck so ball had not gone far) where neither player was attempting to grab the ball but both players voluntarily engaged each other over the ball. It wasn't a situation where either had obstructed the other so I had no reason to PK either player so I let it play out as a ruck. I called it as such and support players duly bound on and from there they rucked for the ball with their feet.
Perhaps I was wrong, but for mine it met the definitions of a ruck that developed in open play. Was I wrong?

You'll probably find that neither player thought the ruck was over!

 

[The Fat]

I agree. Im not disputing that scenario, but surely there will be scenarios where there is open play and a ruck can form without a preceding illegal action?

I've had a situation (open play but just after a ruck so ball had not gone far) where neither player was attempting to grab the ball but both players voluntarily engaged each other over the ball. It wasn't a situation where either had obstructed the other so I had no reason to PK either player so I let it play out as a ruck. I called it as such and support players duly bound on and from there they rucked for the ball with their feet.
Perhaps I was wrong, but for mine it met the definitions of a ruck that developed in open play. Was I wrong?

Correct call.
If not, which player do you ping for playing the man without the ball?

 

[menace]

You'll probably find that neither player thought the ruck was over!

As I see it, that's irrelevant in the context that you declared a ruck can only occur after a tackle or law 14. It also is not a decent rebuttal to my claim that a ruck can form in open play?

 

[Ian_Cook]

As I see it, that's irrelevant in the context that you declared a ruck can only occur after a tackle or law 14. It also is not a decent rebuttal to my claim that a ruck can form in open play?

Fair enough, but really, how often to do you see this? Rucks formed in General Play without first having a Law 14 situation or a Law 15 tackle would be as rare as rocking-horse shit. Personally, I have never seen a case where a ball on the ground in General Play wasn't picked up, kicked, fallen on or rolled out of play.

 

[menace]

Yes, I agree that may be true, but you can't create a law interpretation because something might be rare. We can't look for a PK that isn't there.

 

[Stuartg]

Slight tangent , thoughts ?
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=trpwt2FTetE

How did he get away with that? He's offside clearly in front of the back foot. Essentially he's cheating.