Ruck - Hooking The Ball Back, Opposing Scrum Half Comes In With Hands

[jdeagro]

(Retyping this briefly, as it didn't submit the first time.)

This just occurred to me last weekend in a game I played in.

Red team is advancing the ball. Red ball carrier tackled, and a clean ruck is set. Red team rucking players fall to ground which exposes the ball on ground. Blue team ruckers still on their feet. Front-most Blue rucker uses his foot to start to hook the ball back on the ground. While in the middle of hooking the ball back (after a few seconds), the Red team scrum half comes in and reaches down to try to pick the ball off the ground from his side of the open ruck. The Red scrum half can't get a clean handle on the ball at first because the Blue player is in the middle of hooking it with his foot. The official pings the blue team and PK to Red team.

When I asked the official what happened, he briefly said that I need to let the Red player play that.

What violation occurred? I could sort of understand the official's perspective if the Red team already secured the ball at the ruck and the Red scrum half was already digging out the ball. But when the Red team doesn't have the ruck secured anymore and the Red scrum half comes in after the Blue rucker is already hooking the ball back, it seems all fair on both ends to me?

 

[Dixie]

It sounds messy. As described, I think the Pk would more properly go against Red #9 for handling in the ruck while a contest for the ball is clearly taking place. Howver, that would be quite hard for the ref to sell. I see no Blue offence though - in the ref's shoes, perhaps a quick peep, that's a mess, scrum to the attacking side.

 

[ChrisR]

No penalty. Blue has every right to contest for the ball with his foot. That is an example of over management.

 

[ChrisR]

Dixie, what is the referee signal for "messy"? It would get a lot of use here.

 

[Ian_Cook]

No penalty. Blue has every right to contest for the ball with his foot. That is an example of over management.

Only if he is bound into the ruck. If he is just standing there, not bound, or not bound in by other players in the ruck, then he cannot participate in the ruck, i.e., he cannot play the ball with his foot...

[LAWS]

Clarification 1 2005

Ruling in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee

Ruling

1-2005

Union

IRFU

Law Reference

16

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[/LAWS]

 

[Simon Thomas]

From the description it is a real mess, so first the referee needs to address his ruck management perhaps !

If all red ruckers are on the ground the ruck no longer exists, so it is open play. Blue ex-rucker and red scrum half both legal.

If at least one red is bound to a blue then we have a ruck still :

If Blue was bound (and so legally in a ruck) and on his feet then he should not be penalised.
If Blue was not bound (and so illegally in a ruck) he should be penalised
If the contest is still active then red scrum half cannot use his hands.

 

[OB..]

If all red ruckers are on the ground the ruck no longer exists, so it is open play.

[LAWS]Clarification 3 2007

Ruling in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee
Ruling
3-2007

Union
GRU

Law Reference
16

Date
1 October 2007

Request
1. A ruck is formed and the ball is playable for Team A. All players in Team B now leave the ruck and step back. Is there still a ruck or has the ruck ended?

Ruling in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee
A ruck ends successfully when the ball leaves the ruck or when the ball enters in goal i.e. on or over the goal line.

A ruck ends unsuccessfully when the ball becomes unplayable.


As there has been a ruck formed initially, AND the criteria for a successful or unsuccessful ruck have not been exhibited, then the ruck has not ended.[/LAWS]What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander?

 

[Simon Thomas]

Yes good point OB (as always).

Dis-engaging deliberately and stepping back into a defensive alignment AFTER THE CONTEST AND BALL LOST compared to falling over to leave no bound players to the ruck which is still active are very different in my view.

We must encourage players to stay on their feet, not go to ground.

The issue is did the ruck cease to exist and so the ball had left the ruck Is that a valid assumption ? Another clarification needed ?

 

[didds]

....... already answered

 

[didds]

... except that... presumably then all red have to do to win the ball at any ruck is just disengage and collapse ?

didds

 

[Jarrod Burton]

Doesn't the answer really depend on where the ball was in comparison to the Blue players? If the ball was out of the ruck, with no players bound over it and the Blue players could have picked it up, then they would be eligible to play the ball with their hands as its now open play. If the Blue players are bound over the ball then the ruck is still going and the Blue players are ok to play the ball with their feet in my book/drive right over the top to secure it (probably a preferred option for a coach).

If the ruck is still on and the red 9 comes in and plays the ball with his hands, the Blue players could prevent this by holding firm with his foot on the ball, as they should have the opportunity to contest and win the ball that the red players have left unguarded.

Surely the red 9 would make physical contact with a blue player during this mess and you could (if you squinted long enough) potentially ping him for handling the ball in the ruck - or is he still sacred under the "don't touch the princess picking up the ball at the end of the ruck" law (which I hear on game days and the TV but can't find a reference to), even though none of his team-mates are in a position to contest the ruck?

Either way, play on for me, though I'm willing to hear from more learn-ed refs.

 

[Ian_Cook]

If the ruck is still on and the red 9 comes in and plays the ball with his hands, the Blue players could prevent this by holding firm with his foot on the ball, as they should have the opportunity to contest and win the ball that the red players have left unguarded.

We allow the SH to take the (clearly won) ball out of the ruck with his hands; we even allow him to dig for it. This is not Law but it is good management and accepted best practice. If we don't, then how is the ball going to get out of the back? Someone in the ruck has to roll it out with his foot (bye bye 2013, hello 1965). With the speed and fitness of the players in the modern game, the ruck pillars will be onto the SH at about the same time that he gets the ball. The SH will hardly ever have time to clear the ball, and the game would become a never-ending series of scraps for the ball around the backs of rucks (bye bye 1965, hello 1865).

IMO, once the ball is clearly won by one side, the contest for the ball itself is over, and the only way the non-ruck winning side can get the ball back is to counter-ruck before the opposing SH has a chance to clear it. Counter-rucking must be done by bound or bound-in players driving the opposing ruck off the ball, not by individual unbound players stepping their way through the ruck and having a hack at the ball.

That's how I see it anyway.

 

[smeagol]

We allow the SH to take the (clearly won) ball out of the ruck with his hands; we even allow him to dig for it. This is not Law but it is good management and accepted best practice. If we don't, then how is the ball going to get out of the back? Someone in the ruck has to roll it out with his foot (bye bye 2013, hello 1965). With the speed and fitness of the players in the modern game, the ruck pillars will be onto the SH at about the same time that he gets the ball. The SH will hardly ever have time to clear the ball, and the game would become a never-ending series of scraps for the ball around the backs of rucks (bye bye 1965, hello 1865).

IMO, once the ball is clearly won by one side, the contest for the ball itself is over, and the only way the non-ruck winning side can get the ball back is to counter-ruck before the opposing SH has a chance to clear it. Counter-rucking must be done by bound or bound-in players driving the opposing ruck off the ball, not by individual unbound players stepping their way through the ruck and having a hack at the ball.

That's how I see it anyway.

I agree, to the extent that the SH can dig if the ball is won. If the ball is not won, I manage it by telling the SH to get his hands off.

In the above scenario, I would potentially ping Red for going off feet, contingent on the context in which they went to ground.

 

[Jarrod Burton]

We allow the SH to take the (clearly won) ball out of the ruck with his hands; we even allow him to dig for it. This is not Law but it is good management and accepted best practice.

I agree with the clearly won ruck & SH being able to play the ball concept, but in this case, did red win the ruck? I'd say no, as the only players still able to play the ball in the desciribed situation are Blue (as all Red ruckers are on the floor) before the red SH arrives therefore, still being contested and certainly red haven't won it just because the SH gets his hands on it.

 

[didds]

so who gets to play the all and how in the OP?




didds

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

When I asked the official what happened, he briefly said that I need to let the Red player play that.

What violation occurred?

Jdeagro

No violation.

I think the ref was operating in the myth mode. He was misinterpreting what he has perceived the norm. Rugbyref responders are not familiar with the standard of ref in the US. I think we are severely lacking in knowledge of the game.

Good question to the ref, he deserved it. He may benefit from it, if he looks it up or reads rugbyrefs

 

[jdeagro]

Thanks for the replies. I meant to further discuss with the official after the game to try to understand better what happened but unfortunately missed him after. It was frustrating because he seemed like a pretty top notch ref for our division based on the rest of his game management but I guess I can't expect anyone to be perfect lol.

 

[ChrisR]

What if ......

Red had driven Blue off the ball but then lost it and went to ground but left the ball exposed. Then the referee may have seen it as 'ball won by red' and was thus giving possession to Red. That situation occurs but rarely such that a defender could play it with his boot.

 

[Jarrod Burton]

What if ......

Red had driven Blue off the ball but then lost it and went to ground but left the ball exposed. Then the referee may have seen it as 'ball won by red' and was thus giving possession to Red. That situation occurs but rarely such that a defender could play it with his boot.

I'd call that as ruck over and open play, as I can't see how any players would be in a contest over/around the ball.

[LAWS]Definitions
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.[/LAWS]

I'll argue till I'm out of breath that regardless of whether players believe that they have "won the ruck", if they go off their feet while winning it, its either ruck over or a PK. I understand the desire for quick, flowing rucks and play, but the game is meant to be played on your feet.

 

[Phil E]

I'll argue till I'm out of breath that regardless of whether players believe that they have "won the ruck", if they go off their feet while winning it, its either ruck over or a PK.

Going off your feet doesn't mean the ruck is over.

[LAWS]16.6 Successful end to a ruck
A ruck ends successfully when the ball leaves the ruck, or when the ball is on or over the goal line.
16.7 Unsuccessful end to a ruck
A ruck ends unsuccessfully when the ball becomes unplayable and a scrum is ordered[/LAWS]