[Law] Pushing away a player picking up the ball from the ground

[cccref]

Hi everybody,

I have a doubt:

red player kicks the ball, ball stops on the ground, blue player reaches the ball (he's over it) and before he can pick it up, he's pushed away by a red player (who was in a regular postion).

Here's my doubt:
According to law 10.4 (f):

Playing an opponent without the ball. Except in a scrum, ruck or maul, a player who is not in possession of the ball must not hold, push or obstruct an opponent not carrying the ball.

But, to start a ruck, you have to "push" someone without the ball.

I think we have 2 scenarios:
1) the pushed red player resists and a ruck is formed
2) the pushed red player does not resist --> foul play by the blue? Or play on?

Thanks all

 

[Rich_NL]

A ruck is formed when two players close over the ball on the ground. To push, you first have to close; at that point, you're in a ruck.

If blue's not over the ball yet, he's protected. Once he's over the ball, he's subject to contest.

 

[chbg]

What do you mean by 'push'? Is it shoving the Blue player just the once with arms extended? Or is it engaging him with a bind and driving him backwards?

If the former, then a ruck has not formed with that single contact at distance and 10.4f applies.

If the latter then the ruck forms.

 

[cccref]

What do you mean by 'push'? Is it shoving the Blue player just the once with arms extended? Or is it engaging him with a bind and driving him backwards?

If the former, then a ruck has not formed with that single contact at distance and 10.4f applies.

If the latter then the ruck forms.

Both arms extended, not binding.
I thought players should be just in contact over the ball to form a ruck

A ruck is a phase of play where one or more players from each team, who are on their feet, in physical contact, close around the ball on the ground. Open play has ended.
Players are rucking when they are in a ruck and using their feet to try to win or keep possession of the ball, without being guilty of foul play.

physical contact: when can we call it physical contact? Just one hand, two hands, binding?

 

[ChuckieB]

We have been "closing in around" acceptance (forgive the pun) that ruck formation is subject about an intent and willingness on the part of two opposing payers. Blue is not a willing party. Also if opposing is "one against other" and not side by side or one behind the other facing in the same direction that cements the case that a ruck won't likely form until circumstances are changed.

Note - thread just in danger of becoming a ruck discussion!

Obstruction laws would be in play and in that case likely easier to call against red. He needs to go directly for the ball.

Perhaps if blue shifted his position slightly as red was close (but still going for the ball) so as to "nudge" him off then you might call against blue.

Further evidence;

Nature of eye contact, i.e. eyes on the ball or the man,
Blue giving a little look behind before moving or delaying picking up the ball

A dead give away in many circumstances!

 

[DocY]

It's an interesting question and, without seeing an example, I'd be inclined to say it's just two players going for the ball. As it's not the usual ruck scenario, I think there'd be more than a few raised eyebrows if you said one had formed.

 

[cccref]

We have been "closing in around" acceptance (forgive the pun) that ruck formation is subject about an intent and willingness on the part of two opposing payers. Blue is not a willing party. Also if opposing is "one against other" and not side by side or one behind the other facing in the same direction that cements the case that a ruck won't likely form until circumstances are changed.

Note - thread just in danger of becoming a ruck discussion!

Obstruction laws would be in play and in that case likely easier to call against red. He needs to go directly for the ball.

Perhaps if blue shifted his position slightly as red was close (but still going for the ball) so as to "nudge" him off then you might call against blue.

Further evidence;

Nature of eye contact, i.e. eyes on the ball or the man,
Blue giving a little look behind before moving or delaying picking up the ball

A dead give away in many circumstances!

I see what you are saying, my point is:
ball on the ground, if i am over it, can i "defend" it from an opponent instead of picking it up?

My answer would be: yes, ruck formed....but as i am writing: would be

 

[DocY]

As a twist on the OP - what if blue got there first, stood over the ball while leaning a long way forward, and grabbed red before he could get to the ball? I'm assuming red ran straight towards him here - no question of pulling him in as he tried to get past.

Would anyone consider that a ruck? It meets the definition, but seems wrong.

Edit: I typed this before seeing cccref's last post. We're thinking of the same thing.

 

[cccref]

It's an interesting question and, without seeing an example, I'd be inclined to say it's just two players going for the ball. As it's not the usual ruck scenario, I think there'd be more than a few raised eyebrows if you said one had formed.

i don't have an example, here's the simple situation.

Ball on the ground, i am over it, an opponent comes to fetch, i bind to my opponent....ruck or foul play?
If we can say it's a ruck, could some exploit this situation by saying "i wanted to form a ruck" ?

 

[DocY]

i don't have an example, here's the simple situation.

Ball on the ground, i am over it, an opponent comes to fetch, i bind to my opponent....ruck or foul play?
If we can say it's a ruck, could some exploit this situation by saying "i wanted to form a ruck" ?

I might be wrong in law, but I'd penalise it.

It would look wrong so not penalising it would lead to everyone else there thinking I don't know what I'm doing, which would undermine my ability to manage the game.

Sure, I could get out my law book in the club house later and show them that technically it might have been a ruck, but by then it'd be too late.

As a rule of thumb, if you make an unexpected decision and justify it by saying "well technically it's such and such..." you're probably making the wrong decision

 

[ChuckieB]

As a twist on the OP - what if blue got there first, stood over the ball while leaning a long way forward, and grabbed red before he could get to the ball? I'm assuming red ran straight towards him here - no question of pulling him in as he tried to get past.

Would anyone consider that a ruck? It meets the definition, but seems wrong.

Edit: I typed this before seeing cccref's last post. We're thinking of the same thing.

Playing man without the ball every day for me

 

[OB..]

Again we are over-complicating. Why try to define different types of physical contact? The law doesn't.

 

[chbg]

The ruck definition:

A ruck is a phase of play where one or more players from each team, who are on their feet, in physical contact, close around the ball on the ground. Open play has ended.

For me "close around the ball" (where 'close' is a verb of motion, not an adjective - near to) is as important as the other requirements. If the ball is stationary with a Blue player 'braced' over it, setting himself up for a ruck, then I would deem it a ruck if a Red player accepted the invitation and grappled him (trying to push him off the ball), or even bent over trying to pick up the ball and was held by Blue before he could do so. Equally Red could decline the invitation by e.g.: falling on the ball, kicking it away from Blue, picking it up before being held by Blue, none of which result in a ruck. What Red cannot do is push Blue in a striking motion, as Blue does not have possession of the ball.

But we are starting to discuss the size of a pin-head.

 

[L'irlandais]

i don't have an example, here's the simple situation.

Ball on the ground, i am over it, an opponent comes to fetch, i bind to my opponent....ruck or foul play?
If we can say it's a ruck, could some exploit this situation by saying "i wanted to form a ruck" ?

To answer cccref's question, #9
The player who gets to the ball first is not obliged to pick it up. If by attempting to pick the ball up he runs the risk of being immediately tackled in an off balance position, then he is perfectly'entitled to form a ruck with the opponent and attempt to win the ball with his feet.[LAWS]16.1 Forming a ruck (b) How can a ruck form. Players are on their feet. At least one player must be in physical contact with an opponent. The ball must be on the ground. If the ball is off the ground for any reason, the ruck is not formed.[/LAWS]To be honest, this one on one situation usually occurs with the full back chasing back, then dropping on the ball and rising straight back up with it. The risk of not picking the ball straight away is the opponent can kick the ball away, without letting you bind on him. By being static, you risk not only losing possession of the ball, but also being penalized for playing the man without the ball if you try to hold on to his jersey, as he tries to follow his kick through. If you get to the ball first, take advantage of winning the chase.

Doubled up with chbg's answer

 

[didds]

It's an interesting question and, without seeing an example, I'd be inclined to say it's just two players going for the ball. As it's not the usual ruck scenario, I think there'd be more than a few raised eyebrows if you said one had formed.

agreed. but i also think there'd be more than a few raised eyebrows if you then pinged somebody for playing a man without the ball.

sometimes the l;aws just can;t cover everything literally.

And we are frankly back at the Joe launchbury scenario.

didds

didds

- - - Updated - - -

Again we are over-complicating. Why try to define different types of physical contact? The law doesn't.

I totally agree. Except that events of last weekend suggest in reality, in some minds, there are. which is where the complications arise.

didds

 

[Ian_Cook]

To answer cccref's question, #9
The player who gets to the ball first is not obliged to pick it up. If by attempting to pick the ball up he runs the risk of being immediately tackled in an off balance position, then he is perfectly'entitled to form a ruck with the opponent and attempt to win the ball with his feet.[LAWS]16.1 Forming a ruck (b) How can a ruck form. Players are on their feet. At least one player must be in physical contact with an opponent. The ball must be on the ground. If the ball is off the ground for any reason, the ruck is not formed.[/LAWS]To be honest, this one on one situation usually occurs with the full back chasing back, then dropping on the ball and rising straight back up with it. The risk of not picking the ball straight away is the opponent can kick the ball away, without letting you bind on him. By being static, you risk not only losing possession of the ball, but also being penalized for playing the man without the ball if you try to hold on to his jersey, as he tries to follow his kick through. If you get to the ball first, take advantage of winning the chase.

Doubled up with chbg's answer

You can also see this situation when a ball carrier is ankle tapped and falls at the feet of an opponent (so no tackle, ball on ground). Before the opponent can grab the ball, a follow up team-mate of the ball carrier drives the opponent off the ball.

I'm happy to let that go because from the follow-up player's perspective, it looks like a tackle, and I think there will be 29 other guys on the field who would agree. If you penalise it, it will be a WTF moment for everyone except you.

 

[didds]

but also that is still one player from each side, in contact, over the ball -= ruck anyway?

I suppose its complicated if as it happens the fallen player exercises his option to get up with the ball!

didds

didds

 

[ChuckieB]

but also that is still one player from each side, in contact, over the ball -= ruck anyway?

I suppose its complicated if as it happens the fallen player exercises his option to get up with the ball!

didds

didds

Isn't it the reality that , if under pressure, he would instinctively fall on it with an expectation to gather it in. Why take the risk of being beaten to it? The laws then favour you as you must be allowed to get up.

Alternatively, hoof it!

Standing over it in the hopes of a bind and he'll likely have fallen on it making you look a right chump.

 

[crossref]

Isn't it the reality that , if under pressure, he would instinctively fall on it with an expectation to gather it in. Why take the risk of being beaten to it? The laws then favour you as you must be allowed to get up.

Alternatively, hoof it!

Standing over it in the hopes of a bind and he'll likely have fallen on it making you look a right chump.

You don't have to let him up!

 

[ChuckieB]

You don't have to let him up!

Yes. Poor wording on my part. He is at least afforded some safety as, if he is able to gather the ball, the opponent will have to remain on his feet (ignoring both trying to fall on the ball together) in essence affording the ball holder a chance to get up.

Is that better?