Ruck clarification recieved today.

[crossref]

Yep. This is best clarification I have seen on the issue, and is one that I would expect most referees here to use.

it's what I use -- but it's not what the WRU are using. (They say it's out as soon as it's lifted) I wonder what exactly the IRB told them (if anything)

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

The difference with RL is that they can afford this because the defending backline is 10 metres away, and the defending markers (the two opponents marking the player playing the ball and the dummy half) must be "square" that is, lined up directly ahead of the play-the-ball and behind one another parallel to the touchline ("markers not square" is a PK in RL)

In RU, the defending backline is only one or two metres away, depending on how "deep" the ruck is, and in the modern game, rucks are very shallow because teams do not commit more than two or three (often less) defenders to the ruck. Consequently, the defending line is very close to the opponent's HMF.

Were we to apply your suggestion, the acting SH would probably be scragged more often that not when he tried to clear the ball, then what sort of game would we end up with? Well, I guess my suggestion was poor. The ball would have to end up out, but not necessaryily far away akin to RL.
What you suggest worked in the past for two reasons

1. Rucks were much, much deeper, with more players committed by both sides, so the defending line was further away, and You mean a smothering defense. This should only change attacking strategy i.e. more kicking not law.


2. Players were less fit and considerably slower, so the acting SH had more time to clear. Shouldn't the SH also become quicker and adapt to the game instead of the laws/clarification adapting to them. Winning ruck teams could also invent alternate methods for the SH to get the ball. I fear we (refs) are adapting law to fit players or the perceived spectators joy and their money.






I mentioned that RL has the defending line 10m back. It used to be only 5m until about 20 years ago. The reason that it was changed is was precisely because they recognised that players were becoming faster, fitter and stronger, and that was resulting in it becoming too easy for defending teams to stifle the attack. Oddly I was stationed on a peacekeeping force about 20 yrs ago and the Kiwis were always undecided whether to use 5 or 10 m on Sundays. Saturday was Union day.

I fear we are part of a grand experiment and some sports sociologist is amazed at what with we come up. After all, lifting in the LO is most peculiar to unfamiliar observers. It is quite humorous if you really think about it.

Anyone know how to join Bilderburg?, I think they are responsible

 

[Ian_Cook]

"Shouldn't the SH also become quicker and adapt to the game instead of the laws/clarification adapting to them."

Why shouldn't the game adapt to to the expectations of the players and spectators? The game has always done so.

If it hadn't, the game would still look like this....

... a continuous rolling maul involving an unlimited number of players!

Winning ruck teams could also invent alternate methods for the SH to get the ball.

It is difficult to get past the problem that the ball cannot be handled in the ruck by ruckers. I suppose we could have the last player in the ruck encouraged to face backward and kick the ball to the backs, but it would be messy.

If we allowed a player bound in the ruck to pick up the ball and throw it back to the SH, that would probably work, but it would need a Law change; exactly what you object to.

"I fear we (refs) are adapting law to fit players or the perceived spectators joy and their money."

I don't fear it, I embrace it. Its called evolution. I guess you see this as evilution

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

Why shouldn't the game adapt to to the expectations of the players and spectators? The game has always done so. Good point. I just think the adaptations should occur with IRB law changes not clarifications that come about by commonplace misinterpretations of law. The video that you show for "balls out "interpretation it is hardly standardized in law or poorly distributed clarifications. If fact it shows a SH breaking 2 seperate laws to get the ball to the point in question.

If it hadn't, the game would still look like this....

... a continuous rolling maul involving an unlimited number of players! agreed, but at some point we will have more laws than even well paid comentators can distinguish.


It is difficult to get past the problem that the ball cannot be handled in the ruck by ruckers. I suppose we could have the last player in the ruck encouraged to face backward and kick the ball to the backs, but it would be messy.

If we allowed a player bound in the ruck to pick up the ball and throw it back to the SH, that would probably work, but it would need a Law change; exactly what you object to. That same player could unbind and do the same and be within current law, he could flick it back, or even hike it back, imagine that skill a recently unbound player hiking it to FH. An adaptation made by player without change in law.

I don't fear it, I embrace it. Its called evolution. I guess you see this as evilution

Yes, the game will change (just as tactics do in war i.e. todays drones), but it should occur from players not shirking or overlooking law and refs enforcing current law. Law change no prob, but no evolution without law change first. Clarifications should only be temporary to prevent crisis til next meeting of illuminati.

 

[OB..]

no evolution without law change first.

Do you advocate pinging a kicker who releases the ball forward to effect a punt? Did you argue that we should penalise a hand-off because it meant playing an opponent without the ball? What if the law is ambiguous, as in the argument over the definition of a throw forward, or deciding whether the ball is in touch when played by a jumping player?

The game evolves as people stretch the limits of the laws, and the law makers play catch-up, ruling out the Bad and legislating for the Good.

 

[Account Deleted]

it's what I use -- but it's not what the WRU are using. (They say it's out as soon as it's lifted) I wonder what exactly the IRB told them (if anything)

Why do you need to sarcastically assume the WRU are making this up? The communication POST DATES the video. So just might be more current.

And what does this mean? " A ruck ends successfully when the ball leaves the ruck."

 

[Dixie]

From WRU office

Law Clarity on Ruck
...
Coaches sought clarification from the IRB referees manager
...
The two points above have been clarified at the recent International coach and referees meetings and as such have been refereed accordingly since the commencement of the 6 Nations and also all other professional gamers worldwide.

it's what I use -- but it's not what the WRU are using. (They say it's out as soon as it's lifted) I wonder what exactly the IRB told them (if anything)

Why do you need to sarcastically assume the WRU are making this up?

ATTR, it's possible to read the clarification as the WRU reporting what they were told by 6N coaches and referees who attended the meeting. If the worldwide pro game, and all the governing bodies in whose countries those games occur, had received an official communication from the iRB, I think I'd have expected that to be more widely available in the refereeing world than a paraphrased email from the WRU. So I can see where Crossref is coming from - to be fair to him, he's not one of this forum's awkward squad, and his posts are rarely gratuitously sarcastic. I think his comment was genuui ne, and picked up on that slight ambiguity in the email itself.

 

[Account Deleted]

ATTR, it's possible to read the clarification as the WRU reporting what they were told by 6N coaches and referees who attended the meeting. If the worldwide pro game, and all the governing bodies in whose countries those games occur, had received an official communication from the iRB, I think I'd have expected that to be more widely available in the refereeing world than a paraphrased email from the WRU. So I can see where Crossref is coming from - to be fair to him, he's not one of this forum's awkward squad, and his posts are rarely gratuitously sarcastic. I think his comment was genuine, and picked up on that slight ambiguity in the email itself.

Sorry but the bit I've highlighted is clearly a sarcastic questioning of the WRU and the integrity of the originator of the communication

I wonder what exactly the IRB told them (if anything)

The email says the ball us be lifted from the ruck before the SH can be played and that the act of having the hands on is not "ball's out" I cannot see what the problem is with that position it agrees with the video that IC posted and the general view of this forum. Yet cross ref has the need to suggest the WRU is making things up or, at best, getting confused.

Coaches sought clarification from the IRB referees manager

The two points above have been clarified at the recent International coach and referees meetings.

So clarification was sought from the IRB REF MANAGER and not from the refs and coaches deciding it among themselves.

There was a meeting International coach and referees meetings

But of course the WRU are lying (if anything).

Sorry some of the stuff on here really is pathetic.

Sorry for posting and trying to help.

 

[Taff]

I wonder whether the IRB will put a similar calrification ot its list?

I'm happy with it (I'm obviously in the WRUs area of authority) but can't help wondering why this isn't a global clarification.

 

[crossref]

ATTR, certainly I am questioning the provenance of the clarification.

Firstly the role of the WRU : I asked you a couple of times already: is the text above actually an official cascade from the WRU? Or is it just an email from one individual whom you happen to know?

You never answered, so I am suspecting the latter, it's just an email from one bloke? TBH it doesn't read like an official cascade, eg I would expect it to start To all coaches, CBS, clubs, refereees (whatever). Plus it's not quite clear.

Secondly the role of the IRB: The text doesn't actually claim to have received any commuinication from the IRB, it's just reporting the results of a discussion with some senior IRB coaches. Is there an IRB communication? Has anyone seen one?
Interestingly SARFU seem to have a differnet idea of waht the IRB think.

So is your text really the WRU officially realying IRB policy, or is it one bloke telling you about one meeting he went to?


EDIT - really I am not having a go at you, ATTR, but I will confess some frustration with the way communications are handled in rugby. Why do we have these chinese whispers of conflicting email chains?
If the IRB have a clarifiaction, why isn't it simpy on their website
If the WRU have a clarification, why isn't it on theirs?

 

[Account Deleted]

ATTR, certainly I am questioning the provenance of the clarification.

Firstly the role of the WRU : I asked you a couple of times already: is the text above actually an official cascade from the WRU? Or is it just an email from one individual whom you happen to know?

You never answered, so I am suspecting the latter, it's just an email from one bloke? TBH it doesn't read like an official cascade, eg I would expect it to start To all coaches, CBS, clubs, referees (whatever). Plus it's not quite clear.

Secondly the role of the IRB: The text doesn't actually claim to have received any commuinication from the IRB, it's just reporting the results of a discussion with some senior IRB coaches. Is there an IRB communication? Has anyone seen one?
Interestingly SARFU seem to have a differnet idea of waht the IRB think.

So is your text really the WRU officially relaying IRB policy, or is it one bloke telling you about one meeting he went to?


EDIT - really I am not having a go at you, ATTR, but I will confess some frustration with the way communications are handled in rugby. Why do we have these chinese whispers of conflicting email chains?
If the IRB have a clarifiaction, why isn't it simpy on their website
If the WRU have a clarification, why isn't it on theirs?

I did reply. You've not bothered to read / have a problem reading the reply! As you have a problem reading the thread I'll repeat post 25 in full!

From WRU office Not from from a person but a communication coming from the office I.E. an official communication

Law Clarity on Ruck
I write with reference to the above subject matter and reports that you may have seen and heard in both the media and match commentary since the beginning of the 6 Nations Tournament
Coaches sought clarification from the IRB referees manager The original request was made to the IRB from whom it can be inferred the reply came regarding two issues around the ruck area.
1. When the ball was deemed to be out of the ruck
2. Offside at Ruck
With regard to Point 1 (above) match officials have deemed the ball to be out of the ruck as soon as the scrum half’s hands are placed on the ball and that is how it has been refereed for many years.
The two points above have been clarified at the recent International coach and referees meetings and as such have been refereed accordingly since the commencement of the 6 Nations and also all other professional gamers worldwide.
I must stress that the below are NOT law changes simply clarification
Point 1 – Strict application of Law 16.6 – A ruck ends successfully when the ball leaves the ruck. The defensive side cannot move forward past their offside line until the Number 9 (or player acting in that position) lifts the ball to pass it. Merely placing hands on the ball whilst it is on the floor does not signify completion of that ruck. the requirement is the ball is lifted and not hands on. Whatever we have been doing individually it can be presumed that the IRB felt that at elite level the procedure being followed was not the one they wish to be followed.

So it is from the OFFICE not FRED the cleaner. I do hope that is clear to you!

There is a clear reference to the request to the IRB REFEREE MANAGER So a clear link is established to the chain.

A request made and here is the reply.

Why have the IRB used its website. I have no clue. But here's the rub. The WRU bothered to write to its refs coaches etc. I copied the "meat" of the communication not the list of addressees. They are private and none of your business frankly. I thought I'd be helpful and post it here. I'm really not sure why I bothered when you accuse the letter writer and me of Lying.

Ignore if you wish I really don't care what you.

 

[Dixie]

So it is from the OFFICE not FRED the cleaner. I do hope that is clear to you!

ATTR, you seem to be passionate about this, which is great - but it is clouding your judgement. Crossref is asking whether this was an official cascade from the WRU to a general distribution list. That remains unclear. It is quite possible that this was a specific email to you (i.e. not addressed to Welsh Rugby at large) from an official at the WRU.

There is a clear reference to the request to the IRB REFEREE MANAGER So a clear link is established to the chain. A request made and here is the reply.

I am afraid not. I write to David Cameron's office with a request for information on a particular point. Some months later, I am one of 100 people attending a general meeting at one of the Government Departments, where I receive a piece of information that seems to cover the point I had in mind. I am not able to conclude that Cameron or his office has interceded. That leap is unproven - though it may have occurred

Why have the IRB used its website. I have no clue. But here's the rub. The WRU bothered to write to its refs coaches etc. I thought I'd be helpful and post it here. I'm really not sure why I bothered when you accuse the letter writer and me of Lying.

And despite Crossref's repeated (polite!) requests, this is the first timee you confirm that this is a broad communication to a wide distribution list. But the WRU doesn't see to be cascading an official document; rather, it is paraphrasing what it has been told (either by an employee at the meeting, or by a coach or ref at the meeting) their informant believes the meeting (not necessarily the iRB) to have concluded.

No-one doubts your honesty, or theirs. But surely you can see that there is the potential for miscommunication in such a chain?

 

[Account Deleted]

Let's comp are the SA stance and the WRU stance

In this instance the ball is not cleared when the scrumhalf had his hands on the ball.

Merely placing hands on the ball whilst it is on the floor does not signify completion of that ruck.

Agreement!

What we as referees look for is for the ball to be clear and obviously out of the ruck before we rule it as out.

A ruck ends successfully when the ball leaves the ruck. The defensive side cannot move forward past their offside line until player acting in that position) lifts the ball to pass it.

Agreement!

What confuses some people is that some referees in the past would say, “Hands on - the ball is out” I include myself in this. The IRB ruling made it very clear for us that it is not the case.

match officials have deemed the ball to be out of the ruck as soon as the scrum half’s hands are placed on the ball and that is how it has been refereed for many years.

Agreement!

The video from Australia says the same thing!

Hands on does not equal out!

The ball must come CLEAR of the ruck to be out!

 

[Account Deleted]

ATTR, you seem to be passionate about this, which is great - but it is clouding your judgement. Crossref is asking whether this was an official cascade from the WRU to a general distribution list. That remains unclear. It is quite possible that this was a specific email to you (i.e. not addressed to Welsh Rugby at large) from an official at the WRU.

I am afraid not. I write to David Cameron's office with a request for information on a particular point. Some months later, I am one of 100 people attending a general meeting at one of the Government Departments, where I receive a piece of information that seems to cover the point I had in mind. I am not able to conclude that Cameron or his office has interceded. That leap is unproven - though it may have occurred


And despite Crossref's repeated (polite!) requests, this is the first time you confirm that this is a broad communication to a wide distribution list. But the WRU doesn't see to be cascading an official document; rather, it is paraphrasing what it has been told (either by an employee at the meeting, or by a coach or ref at the meeting) their informant believes the meeting (not necessarily the iRB) to have concluded.

No-one doubts your honesty, or theirs. But surely you can see that there is the potential for miscommunication in such a chain?

1; My Communication clearly gives the office as the source. Therefore it is OFFICIAL not a "personal" comment. I highlighted that back in post 25. To claim I did not answer is untrue! Had the email been personal I'd have stated so the simple fact that It is from the office says it is not a personal chat.

2; The OFFICIAL WRU communicant references the source of the request and to whom it was directed and gives the reply. There is a very clear indication that there is a clear connection.Otherwise not such like would be required.

3. If you write to the PM and his office replies then HIS office is the source and will have to, potentially answer for him. If the query is passed to another department it is stated and they take responsibility. Here it is stated that the IRB Manager was asked. There was a meeting and here is the advise. A chain.

4. The distribution was to Referees, coaches and clubs. The names on the Email are not for crossref's eyes sorry. but was to those people in official capacities.

There is no clouding of my judgement at all.

I've told you there was a communication from the WRU (not an individual the BODY ) That was in the first post.

crossref accuses the WRU of lying.

Fair enough I'll not share any further communications with you. Why should I care If you are unaware of things. Bye.

 

[Phil E]

ATTR having just read this whole thread through again, everyone seems to me to have gone out of their way to be polite to you. You seem to have taken umbrage to that attitude and attacked people for asking questions. I'm not sure what's got you riled up, as simply asking questions can't have, and it's none of my business, but please try to read posts in the manner in which they are meant. No one is having a go at you or the WRU, they are just trying to achieve clarification.
Thank you.

 

[Jacko]

Yep. This is best clarification I have seen on the issue, and is one that I would expect most referees here to use.

Decent video, but contains one of my favourite bugbears - misuse of "nothing could be more wrong".

'A lot of people will say "Once the hands of the half-back are on the ball." Nothing could be more wrong.'

Really?? Claiming that the ball is out only on the second Tuesday of March during leap years if the referee is called Boris and is wearing an orange wig would surely be more wrong than that.

Makes me literally explode with frustration when I hear things like that. :biggrin:

 

[crossref]

The ball must come CLEAR of the ruck to be out!

WRU says

Point 1 – Strict application of Law 16.6 – A ruck ends successfully when the ball leaves the ruck. The defensive side cannot move forward past their offside line until the Number 9 (or player acting in that position) lifts the ball to pass it. Merely placing hands on the ball whilst it is on the floor does not signify completion of that ruck.

these are not the same, the WRU allows defenders to move when the SH lifts the ball.
The SARFU, and ATTR (and me!) says it must come clear of the ruck.

I didn't say the author of email was lying, I point out that the author of the email doesn't claim to have received a communication from the IRB. The author of the email went to a meeting, and is reporting what he was told. I beleive that, of course.

 

[crossref]

4. The distribution was to Referees, coaches and clubs. The names on the Email are not for crossref's eyes sorry. but was to those people in official capacities.

.

ATTR that's a very important piece of information and is what I was driving at in my questions.

1- it greatly boosts the significance of the email
2- it means it was an email for public consumption, not just to you, and if it has gone out to officially to every ref, club and coach in Wales, I don't see any reason why you can't reveal who sent it?

 

[Browner]

I don't see any reason why you can't reveal who sent it?

ATTR, thank you for the heads up.
CROSSREF even if someone at the WRU has gone out on a limb I see no value in branch shaking , no doubt a IRB, RFU ....or WWF!! Official communique will follow. .....until then.


I've never really understood where the "hands on" myth emanated from (*) , such interpretation never came my way via IRB RFU documented guidance. I suspect it was a single 'elite' coach pushing the margins that ended up going viral....!

I remain favouring the 2D 'OUT' as its attack 'weighted' , but can live with the 3D version (as in vid) indeed spectators at my matches might not see a difference!!!!! .


PS.........(*) does anyone know who started the phrase?

As for ATTR, i

 

[ChrisR]

I think the "hands on" = "out" came into play about the same time that SH digging for the ball became accepted. I think you could trace it's roots back to the dawn of the professional era. I don't think this originated within the coaching ranks but was an invention of the referees.