Quins vs Scarlets

[dave_clark]

in a ruck at about 42 minutes, the scarlets prop gets yellow carded for reckless use of the boot. basically he tried to ruck the ball back, wasn't successful (although he did make contact) and his boot inadvertently them made contact with a Quins player's face. note that the player's head was some distance from the ball, so there was no risk of that contact being made first.

my immediate thoughts were it had to either be:

a) play on - as the prop rucked the ball (which was legal) any subsequent contact with a player was merely incedental
b) red card for the boot making contact with the face

interested in views on this.

 

[Shelflife]

He was carded for reckless use of the boot which I think was a fair call. Never a red IMO , just about a yellow.

 

[dave_clark]

i guess that's my question - was it reckless use of the boot, given that he made contact with the ball first? and had the rucking been successful (i.e. had the ball come back) and all else had been the same, would it still likely have been carded?

 

[OB..]

ithe player's head was some distance from the ball

[LAWS]Law 16.3 (f) [...]A player rucking must do so near the ball.[/LAWS]
I didn't see the incident, but making contact with the ball first is no excuse.

 

[Account Deleted]

in a ruck at about 42 minutes, the scarlets prop gets yellow carded for reckless use of the boot. basically he tried to ruck the ball back, wasn't successful (although he did make contact) and his boot inadvertently them made contact with a Quins player's face. note that the player's head was some distance from the ball, so there was no risk of that contact being made first.

my immediate thoughts were it had to either be:

a) play on - as the prop rucked the ball (which was legal) any subsequent contact with a player was merely incedental
b) red card for the boot making contact with the face

interested in views on this.

How do you square those two? He makes contact with the ball and then a face that is "some distance away". That sound reckless to me.

 

[dave_clark]

that's why i said "my immediate thoughts", and posed it as a question (*).

edit - wasn't there a similar (note - similar, not identical) thing recently with Tom Wood, where he joined a ruck and inadvertently made contact with his knee on the head of another player? IIRC, the universal view on that was play on.

* - further edit - asked for views rather than posed it as a question

 

[Dixie]

OK - firstly, the player on the ground was wearing 9, so fair game in anyone's book. But his face was about a foot from the ball, and behind it. The Scarlets player attempted to ruck the ball backwards, using the foot. It didn't come (can't say whether legally or illegally trapped by something), and backward raking foot made glancing contact with Care's upturned face. No stamp, no suggestion of malice, no suggestion of anything but incidental contact.

For me, though this referred to the TMO, it was not even a PK.

Clarification 1/2005
Date 1 April 2005
This Clarification was incorporated into Law in 2009
Request
The IRFU has requested a ruling with regard Law 16-Ruck

1. To paraphrase the definition, it basically states that rucking can occur as long as players are not in contravention of Law 10 Foul Play. In 16.3(f) it states that 'a player rucking for the ball must not ruck players on the ground'. It also states that 'a player must not intentionally step on players who are on the ground, and that 'a player rucking must do so near the ball'. Is this then taken to mean that there are no exceptions or qualifications to the Law, and that rucking which is directed at a player to remove him as an obstruction or impediment to securing possession of the ball is illegal?

2. Can the Law also be taken to mean that so called 'mountain climbing' where a player is using his boots to climb on a player’s back/body, is illegal?

3. Can the Law also be taken to mean that rucking can only occur when a player is in a ruck and bound correctly {Law 16.2(b)} and that any player not caught in or bound in the ruck cannot be rucking for the ball and is therefore liable to penalty for Dangerous Play and Misconduct under Law 10.4(b) and/or (c) and/or 10.4(k).

4. Additionally, would inadvertent or unintentional contact with players in a ruck as an incident of legitimate rucking for the football (reckless and patently dangerous rucking apart) be considered legal and within the Laws of the Game?

Ruling in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee
1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. Yes

 

[Ian_Cook]

OK - firstly, the player on the ground was wearing 9, so fair game in anyone's book. But his face was about a foot from the ball, and behind it. The Scarlets player attempted to ruck the ball backwards, using the foot. It didn't come (can't say whether legally or illegally trapped by something), and backward raking foot made glancing contact with Care's upturned face. No stamp, no suggestion of malice, no suggestion of anything but incidental contact.

For me, though this referred to the TMO, it was not even a PK.

Clarification 1/2005
Date 1 April 2005
This Clarification was incorporated into Law in 2009
Request
The IRFU has requested a ruling with regard Law 16-Ruck

1. To paraphrase the definition, it basically states that rucking can occur as long as players are not in contravention of Law 10 Foul Play. In 16.3(f) it states that 'a player rucking for the ball must not ruck players on the ground'. It also states that 'a player must not intentionally step on players who are on the ground, and that 'a player rucking must do so near the ball'. Is this then taken to mean that there are no exceptions or qualifications to the Law, and that rucking which is directed at a player to remove him as an obstruction or impediment to securing possession of the ball is illegal?

2. Can the Law also be taken to mean that so called 'mountain climbing' where a player is using his boots to climb on a player’s back/body, is illegal?

3. Can the Law also be taken to mean that rucking can only occur when a player is in a ruck and bound correctly {Law 16.2(b)} and that any player not caught in or bound in the ruck cannot be rucking for the ball and is therefore liable to penalty for Dangerous Play and Misconduct under Law 10.4(b) and/or (c) and/or 10.4(k).

4. Additionally, would inadvertent or unintentional contact with players in a ruck as an incident of legitimate rucking for the football (reckless and patently dangerous rucking apart) be considered legal and within the Laws of the Game?

Ruling in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee
1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. Yes

I agree.

I have not seen the incident, but as described, this sounds accidental and in direct accord with part four of that claification, therefore not even a PK. And in any case, why was the opposing 9's head behind the ball? Did he make any effort to move away?

 

[SimonSmith]

I saw it.

I agree with Dixie

 

[Browner]

Most players know exactly what their feet are doing. Rucking is defined as [LAWS]"try to win or keep possession of the ball"[/LAWS] most boots that are genuinely trying to extract the ball don't fire backwards towards players behind it, or at the side of it ...... all x-forwards know exactly what's occurring & if the game wishes to keep up the pretence that it's inadvertent then so be it. I'm rarely fooled though.

 

[Taff]

According to the BBC he's been cited. See HERE.

I must say I'm surprised; bearing in mind Clarification 1/2005 I can only assume that the CO considered it deliberate.

 

[dave_clark]

looks like my initial thoughts have been approved by a combination of RRF and the powers that be - it was either play on or a red card :biggrin:

 

[winchesterref]

He's been banned for two weeks.