Reversing through the ruck

[Taffy]

Match today. Blue tackles red. Asked to roll away. Does so but ends up on red side. Gets to his feet and walks backwards through the ruck and back heels the ball back to the side of blue. It was one of those "doesn't look right moments".

I penalised him, but please don't ask me what for. Thankfully red took a quick penalty before I could give a signal and no one referred to it at the time or afterwards. He was on his feet,he did come through the gate (backwards) and did not touch it with his hands. But it still didn't look right.

I suspect I have got it wrong. But why?

 

[Adam]

From the sounds of things the blue player has entered the ruck through red's gate and has therefore incorrectly entered the ruck?

 

[menace]

Match today. Blue tackles red. Asked to roll away. Does so but ends up on red side. Gets to his feet and walks backwards through the ruck and back heels the ball back to the side of blue. It was one of those "doesn't look right moments".

I penalised him, but please don't ask me what for. Thankfully red took a quick penalty before I could give a signal and no one referred to it at the time or afterwards. He was on his feet,he did come through the gate (backwards) and did not touch it with his hands. But it still didn't look right.

I suspect I have got it wrong. But why?

Sounds like you got it right.
If he was one the red side, then he hasn't come through HIS gate?
PK. Incorrect entry signal.
(Or even offside would have done)

Without seeing it, And not sure what level game, but I'd imagine it was deliberate by the player to illegally and cynically disrupt the ball. Depending on the game proceeding it and field location a YC might have been in order too.

 

[The Fat]

Match today. Blue tackles red. Asked to roll away. Does so but ends up on red side. Gets to his feet and walks backwards through the ruck and back heels the ball back to the side of blue. It was one of those "doesn't look right moments".

I penalised him, but please don't ask me what for. Thankfully red took a quick penalty before I could give a signal and no one referred to it at the time or afterwards. He was on his feet,he did come through the gate (backwards) and did not touch it with his hands. But it still didn't look right.

I suspect I have got it wrong. But why?

From your description, when he gets to his feet, a ruck has already formed. He must now join the ruck legally from his team's side. As for "the gate", each team has only one, the one on their side of the tackle. Once a ruck forms, technically the gate disappears and players are reqired to join the ruck as per 16.5

16.5 (c) Players joining or rejoining the ruck. A player joining a ruck must do so from behind the foot of the hindmost team-mate in the ruck. A player may join alongside this hindmost player. If a player joins the ruck from the opponents’ side, or in front of the hindmost team-mate, the player is offside. A player may bind onto an opposition player providing the player is not otherwise offside.


Sanction: Penalty kick on the offending team’s offside line



You have correctly penalised him for "incorrect entry". Technically he is penalised for entering the ruck from an offside position

 

[Phil E]

Was it definitely a ruck? Or was it still just a tackle?

if it was still a tackle, then as the tackler he can come in from any angle.

If as you say, it was a ruck, then you were right, wrong gate......it's also what some refs call "taking up space", what the rest of us call "getting in the bloody way".

 

[Browner]

Was it definitely a ruck? Or was it still just a tackle?

if it was still a tackle, then as the tackler he can come in from any angle.

If as you say, it was a ruck, then you were right, wrong gate......it's also what some refs call "taking up space", what the rest of us call "getting in the bloody way".

From the description, and guessing the likely grade, then I doubt we saw a bonafide tackler springing to his feet & immediately seeking the ball, instead it is more likely a player pretending that his roll direction/backward stumble/backheel were all accidental, which even if true - are all penalisable , if as Taft says ruck had by the latter 'formed'.

 

[Pegleg]

Basically, I agree with Phil. If it is still a tackle them the gate does not apply to him (he was a tackler) he would have been legal. However, you say it was now a ruck (so I'll take that as the scenario). He must join the ruck from behind / alongside the hindmost foot ( the gate no loner exists. of course) nearest to his side's goal line.

Therefore ping him for illegal entry at the ruck [16.5 (c)].

Yesterday I pinged a youth lad under 16.5(c) he pointed out, very politely, that it was still a tackle and therefore he did not enter a ruck from the side). "You may be right. But, if so, come through the gate next time please!" He smiled and accepted the PK.

 

[Browner]

Yesterday I pinged a youth lad under 16.5(c) he pointed out, very politely, that it was still a tackle and therefore he did not enter a ruck from the side). "You may be right. But, if so, come through the gate next time please!" He smiled and accepted the PK.

So, he informed you of your decision error, but you found another convenient (albeit likely applicable ) Law to save face ( if his tackler 'directional' rights had expired) ... His smile might have been a tad forced, nevertheless - Get his name and enrol him in a refs course me thinks ....

 

[Pegleg]

Whether or not he had a point about a ruck being formed (and I my opinion he was wrong - all a question of timing and opinion.) he was still illegal. So his defence was a straw man. Interestingly after the game we chatted and he agreed with the penalty. He had no tackler rights. He arrived at the post tackle situation . So had to either come through the gate (if his claim was valid) or via the hindmost foot (if mine was) either way "PING"!