[Ruck] Pulling a player forward

[ChrisR]

Red ball carrier tackled by Blue. Ball is placed back and Red support player arrives and crouches over the ball.

Blue player arrives, grasps the Red player over the ball and pulls him forward so that the ball is now in the clear behind the Red player.

1. When the Blue player grasps the Red player with just his hands does this constitute binding and has a ruck formed?

2. Is it fair play to pull an opponent forward out of a ruck?

3. If the Red player, pulled forward, goes to ground is that collapsing the ruck?

4. Has the ruck ended when the ball is clear of the hind foot even though the ball didn't move?

 

[Pinky]

1. grasping with a hand is not binding, but I would need to see it to determine if I thought the problem was failing to bind rather than not forming a ruck. I would tend towards assuming the ruck had been formed, and let it breathe to see if there is a need to blow up.

2. maul law specifically rules out dragging out of the maul, but not so ruck. However there is no general permission to pull an opponent, so I would accept a pushing clearout, but probably not a blatant pull. Also a pull forward may be seen as a high tackle as the contact tends to start over the head, but not in every situation

3 sorry, but again that depends. Players have to try and stay on their feet, so it depends why you think red went off his feet. If you think he did it deliberately then PK to Blue, but if you think Blue pulled him off his feet, then PK to Red.

4 Yes.

 

[ChuckieB]

Game I was recently watching recently, although situation not entirely similar:

Red support player went to ground after a "helping" hand" from blue pulling him which the referee allowed. Ruck formation laws do not require a bind just contact. Binding laws come in for players joining thereafter.

Blue at least then chooses to come through the resulting "hole" and from within the gate to attack the ball which I recall was just sitting there like a cherry!

That for me was fine.

Might have not been fine is if he or another player, as you often see, had approached from outside the gate, perhaps incorrectly assuming the ball was out. Might depend whether the payer in the tackle was still in contact with the ball and how close it was to him, shortened or extended arm and then how quickly the play was developing. i.e. was tackled player trying to avoid releasing the ball?

For me a situation where it is often difficult determine consensus as to what is constitutes the ball being considered "out". Note the "debate" around the USA VS SA 7's game in another thread relatively recently.

 

[OB..]

1. grasping with a hand is not binding, but I would need to see it to determine if I thought the problem was failing to bind rather than not forming a ruck. I would tend towards assuming the ruck had been formed, and let it breathe to see if there is a need to blow up.

A ruck requires "physical contact", and NOT binding. Putting your hands on the player is sufficient.

 

[didds]

>> Red ball carrier tackled by Blue.
>> Ball is placed back and Red support player arrives and crouches over the ball.
>> Blue player arrives, grasps the Red player over the ball and pulls him forward
>> so that the ball is now in the clear behind the Red player.

>>1. When the Blue player grasps the Red player with just his hands does this constitute binding and has a ruck formed?

Not a bind - not shoulder to wrist etc. All he has done is grab a player. The OP says red had not grasped the ball so arguably its playing a player without the ball.

>>2. Is it fair play to pull an opponent forward out of a ruck?
There is no ruck in the OP

>> 3. If the Red player, pulled forward, goes to ground is that collapsing the ruck?
There is no ruck in the OP

>>4. Has the ruck ended when the ball is clear of the hind foot even though the ball didn't move?
There was no ruck in the OP.

didds

 

[didds]

A ruck requires "physical contact", and NOT binding. Putting your hands on the player is sufficient.

but if red is over the ball and blue grabs red by the short around the shouilders with just his hand - has blue really closed around the ball?


this is suspect is the crux

didds

 

[ChuckieB]

but if red is over the ball and blue grabs red by the short around the shouilders with just his hand - has blue really closed around the ball?


this is suspect is the crux

didds

The conditions for a ruck being formed have been met and we go from there. Take yourselves back to the threads re the 6 nations and this was discussed over a number of pages..

 

[didds]

so just to be sure - "closing around the ball" is redundant? being in contact with the player is sufficient?

didds

 

[Elpablo73]

If we're not careful I can see another thread like EngVsIta and when is a ruck not a ruck!!

 

[didds]

ah yes - I seem to recall the ref on the day wasn;t sure either if merely grabbing a player was sufficujent.

OK - don't restart the thread!

In which case in the OP a ruck is formed and collapsing the ruck has occurred, playing advantage to see if red claim the ball usefully with the ruck illegally having "ended" by being collapsed and now no ruck existing

except... the OP doesn't say the red player went to ground... so if bhe satys on his feet then ruck over ball clear, no collapse.

didds

 

[ChuckieB]

ah yes - I seem to recall the ref on the day wasn;t sure either if merely grabbing a player was sufficujent.

OK - don't restart the thread!

In which case in the OP a ruck is formed and collapsing the ruck has occurred, playing advantage to see if red claim the ball usefully with the ruck illegally having "ended" by being collapsed and now no ruck existing

except... the OP doesn't say the red player went to ground... so if bhe satys on his feet then ruck over ball clear, no collapse.

didds

For me the laws are not sharp enough to differentiate a simultaneous formation and collapse scenario.

 

[ChrisR]

I posed this question after binge watching the 7s circuit. As I see it:

Red ball carrier tackled by Blue. Ball is placed back and Red support player arrives and crouches over the ball.

Blue player arrives, grasps the Red player over the ball and pulls him forward so that the ball is now in the clear behind the Red player.

1. When the Blue player grasps the Red player with just his hands does this constitute binding and has a ruck formed?

Yes. 'Binding' not stipulated in law, only 'contact'.

2. Is it fair play to pull an opponent forward out of a ruck?

Yes. Not prohibited for rucks.

3. If the Red player, pulled forward, goes to ground is that collapsing the ruck?

When a player is pulled (or pushed) out/away from a ruck and goes to ground then this is not collapsing as that player is no longer part of the ruck.

4. Has the ruck ended when the ball is clear of the hind foot even though the ball didn't move?

Yes, the ruck has ended.

 

[Taff]

1. When the Blue player grasps the Red player with just his hands does this constitute binding and has a ruck formed?

You only need "physical contact" to create a ruck.

 

[VM75]

Red ball carrier tackled by Blue. Ball is placed back and Red support player arrives and crouches over the ball.

Blue player arrives, grasps the Red player over the ball and pulls him forward so that the ball is now in the clear behind the Red player.

1. When the Blue player grasps the Red player with just his hands does this constitute binding and has a ruck formed?cmere Contact=ruck, so yes.

2. Is it fair play to pull an opponent forward out of a ruck? Has equal status to saddle rolling, i.e. it's collapsed the ruck, fair no, ignored nowadays - yes.

3. If the Red player, pulled forward, goes to ground is that collapsing the ruck? Yes, but the pro game [15's] mainly ignores that nowadays

4. Has the ruck ended when the ball is clear of the hind foot even though the ball didn't move? Yes, for the same reasoning as above

my 2p worth above

 

[Paule23]

I see this as a ruck has been formed (players in contact over the ball). Pulling a player forward and out of the ruck is either collapsing a ruck, or certainly illegal contact and I'm penalising this. I've seen it a few times on TV (yes, different game, different rules!) but I don't like it and if it happens in a game I'm refereeing it's getting penalised.

 

[ChrisR]

Interesting. I have a different take on pulling a player forward out of the ruck. I think of 'collapsing the ruck' as making the ball unplayable or preventing access to it by an opponent.

I see pulling a player forward as a means of clearing the player out of the ruck.

To me the 'saddle roll/croc roll' is a violation of law 16.3(a) Players in a ruck must endeavor to stay on their feet.

 

[winchesterref]

Interesting. I have a different take on pulling a player forward out of the ruck. I think of 'collapsing the ruck' as making the ball unplayable or preventing access to it by an opponent.

I see pulling a player forward as a means of clearing the player out of the ruck.

To me the 'saddle roll/croc roll' is a violation of law 16.3(a) Players in a ruck must endeavor to stay on their feet.

I would agree with most of this. If you are pulling someone OUT of a ruck, then how can you collapsing them IN a ruck?

The saddle roll is ok with me if they take them clear/out of the sides, and not directly down.

 

[SimonSmith]

USA R have been pretty clear about the saddle roll:
Only to be done on players who have their hands on the ball.
Rolling a player who doesn't have his hands on the ball should be penalized.

 

[OB..]

If you are pulling someone OUT of a ruck, then how can you collapsing them IN a ruck?

Out? In?
[LAWS]16.3 (b) [FONT=fs_blakeregular]A player must not intentionally collapse a ruck.[/FONT] [/LAWS]

 

[ChrisR]

I can see 'collapsing the ruck' if the pulled player goes to ground over the ball but what about:

. . . if the player is pulled out of the ruck but doesn't go to ground?

. . . and if the player is clear of the ruck before he goes to ground?

As for USA Rugby and the saddle roll that just muddies the water.