ruck in goal

[Dickie E]

make it easy on yourself. Ball on or over GL, anyone can dive on it

 

[Rich_NL]

Touching the ball down if it gets placed back into in-goal and the ruck ends is smart attacking play, you see the try given every time it happens on TV, there's no immediate danger (unless someone does a flying belly-flop onto the defending players, which is dangerous play anyway) and youre not preventing an unplayable snarl-up of bodies by stopping people dropping over the ball... and what Dickie says.

I'd give the try, rather than the defence a clearing penalty for not knowing the ruck laws.

 

[didds]

the scenario I had was what would have been a ruck in the field of play but the defending side was in goal. Attacker dived in to the defending side of what was would have been a ruck in the field of play. Fair play to have attackers diving in ? I have had this on 2 occasions and given a 5 metre penalty to defending side but not sure this is right as there is no ruck and anyone can do what they like, including diving on the ball ?

where was the ball? that's the pertinent point.

 

[blobs]

in the "non ruck" which looked like a ruck on the defending side with attacking player diving in.

 

[blobs]

in the "non ruck" which looked like a ruck on the defending side with attacking player diving in.

looked like a ruck but wasn't a ruck because the ball was in goal. Attackers have the opportunity to dive in amongst the legs?

 

[blobs]

looked like a ruck but wasn't a ruck because the ball was in goal. Attackers have the opportunity to dive in amongst the legs?

I am getting the general consensus that it is fair play for attackers to dive in

 

[blobs]

I am getting the general consensus that it is fair play for attackers to dive in

now I have said that someone will disagree !

 

[crossref]

if the ball is in-goal, then I think convention would be that's OK for any player to dive on it, even if it is within, or just emerging from / emerged from / near to an ex-ruck

 

[Mipper]

now I have said that someone will disagree !

Not me. In this instance it is absolutely legal for an attacker to dive in and touch the ball down for a try.

if anyone can be bothered to look it up, this happened in a prem game last year. Bristol had a scrum half crisis and were playing some lad as about 6th choice, he pulled the ball back with his feet from a ruck, in order to kick, but pulled it back over the try line and just watched as one of the oppo (may have been Northampton) just dived on it.

I remember thinking; how can he have played at that level and not know that particular law.

 

[crossref]

I remember thinking; how can he have played at that level and not know that particular law.

but there is no particular Law that allows a player to do that

whereas there is a particular Law that makes it illegal 15.16.d (which I consider we need to ignore)

So I have some sympathy

 

[blobs]

Thank you chaps. Let's conclude that it is fine for attackers to drop on the ball in the defending side of a "what looks like a ruck but it isn't a ruck because the ball is in goal"

 

[blobs]

always good to have some finality on these threads !

 

[crossref]

Thank you chaps. Let's conclude that it is fine for attackers to drop on the ball in the defending side of a "what looks like a ruck but it isn't a ruck because the ball is in goal"

Yes, but that kinda misses the point

I would say that despite 15.16.d , by convention it's ok to fall on a ball that has just emerged from a ruck if the ball is in goal

 

[blobs]

Yes, but that kinda misses the point

I would say that despite 15.16.d , by convention it's ok to fall on a ball that has just emerged from a ruck if the ball is in goal

yes, but you miss the point, we end up at the same place !

 

[Dickie E]

Yes, but that kinda misses the point

I would say that despite 15.16.d , by convention it's ok to fall on a ball that has just emerged from a ruck if the ball is in goal

15.16.d has been worded somewhat lazily (who would have thought?). The intent of 15.16.d is to stop players killing the ball near the ruck. Scoring a try is not killing the ball (I suppose the ball does end up dead but you know what I mean)

 

[crossref]

15.16.d has been worded somewhat lazily (who would have thought?). The intent of 15.16.d is to stop players killing the ball near the ruck. Scoring a try is not killing the ball (I suppose the ball does end up dead but you know what I mean)

What about a defender diving on it ?

 

[Dickie E]

What about a defender diving on it ?

that'd be go directly to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200

 

[crossref]

yes, but you miss the point, we end up at the same place !

Yes but better to directly address the Law that prohibits what you want to allow

 

[didds]

admittedly a long time ago in very coarse rugby terms (university rugby digs league) , our hooker was awarded a try when at a 5m scrum (5m from oppo line) they hooked, we drove and the ball under the second rows' feet ended over the line - our hooker unbound and dived on the ball, through the middle of the "scrum" to score - awarded.

 

[menace]

but there is no particular Law that allows a player to do that

whereas there is a particular Law that makes it illegal 15.16.d (which I consider we need to ignore)

So I have some sympathy

Curious. You seem to advocate ignoring a law in certain situations which appears to be at odds to your opinion/
thinking in the thread 'Tackle/release inches from the try line".

Someone will soon roll out "apply it as if you were mid field".