ruck in goal

[crossref]

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".

I think we have universal agreement (on this thread) that 15.16.d should be ignored when the ball is in-goal ? Don't you agree?
IMO almost all refs would agree with that.
So in this scenario we have what is sometimes called a 'convention' : a convention that a Law shouldn't be applied as written.

In the 'Tackle/release inches from the try line" scenario
1- I think you are confusing me with someone else - Marc? As I hardly posted on that thread and didn't really express a viw
2 - I think that in that scenario the general convention is that the Law should be applied as written.

It would be good if WR amended Laws to reflect agreed convention .. but they don't !

 

[menace]

No..I was thinking of you based on when you posted
"It's a problem created by WR when they decided that one knee on floor is a tackle.
Obviously that Law has been great for speeding up the game generally .. this situation is the downside"

That implied to me you supported "immediately release" as the law says even if it means they fall over for a gimme try.

Im fully aware what a convention is (aka "law application") . I'm not criticising you, just an observation on your posing. I was just highlighting and demonstrating that referees can't have it both ways. On one hand they can'behold strong to rigidly apply law as writ for one law and then on another law don't apply it as writ (ignoring it) under the guise of "convention".

I'm more than comfortable refereeing in the "grey", IMO it's necessary to manufacture a game of rugby (and even more so since the law simplification rewrite!).

 

[crossref]

yes, thererare some Laws where [almost] all refs agree that we should apply the Law [almost] always
there are other Laws where [almost] all refs agree that we should [almost] never apply

my preferred choice would be that WR edit the Laws each year so that where a Law was badly worded, or badly thought through, and no one should apply it - to tweak the Law so that it works.

I don't think it's helpful to have Laws oin the Law book that 'everyone' knows we don't apply

 

[Camquin]

Could we have an experiment where a ref did try to apply all the laws?
I think it might be informative.

 

[Phil E]

Could we have an experiment where a ref did try to apply all the laws?
I think it might be informative.

You wouldn't get any rugby though.

 

[Camquin]

Let's make it simpler. How about taking one technical facet, say the scrum, and referee that to the laws as written.

 

[Phil E]

Let's make it simpler. How about taking one technical facet, say the scrum, and referee that to the laws as written.

I refer you to my previous answer.

There are over 50 possible infringements at the scrum alone, so if you referee to the letter of the law every scrum will end (or possible start) with an infringement and a whistle. No rugby.

 

[crossref]

I refer you to my previous answer.

There are over 50 possible infringements at the scrum alone, so if you referee to the letter of the law every scrum will end (or possible start) with an infringement and a whistle. No rugby.

So the Laws are ripe for another simplification?

 

[Phil E]

So the Laws are ripe for another simplification?

No, the laws are to be treated as a framework that allows the referee to use preventative refereeing and material impact to facilitate a game of rugby.

We have already seen what happens when you try to simplify the laws, you end up with gaps and unintended consequences.

 

[crossref]

No, the laws are to be treated as a framework that allows the referee to use preventative refereeing and material impact to facilitate a game of rugby.

We have already seen what happens when you try to simplify the laws, you end up with gaps and unintended consequences.

Last time they tried (with some exceptions) to keep the Laws the same, but with simpler wording

But if there are 50 scrum offences I am suggesting a real simplification ... to reduce the number

I am proposing, indeed, simpler laws that provide a framework.. rather than the increasingly prescriptive laws with endless offences

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

7 a side with 3 man scrums

 

[Stu10]

Not sure whether to post here or a new thread, but here it is...

I believed the recent focus on law 15.16.d was aimed at stopping defenders diving on the ball as it emerged from the back of a ruck, however, the law does not say anything about direction.

If the ball squirts loose out the side of the ruck and has traveled < 1 m, can a player dive on it?

At age grade, 9/10 times any loose ball gets dived on and is not penalised in any scenario.

 

[Dickie E]

If the ball squirts loose out the side of the ruck and has traveled < 1 m, can a player dive on it?

No. Basically there is a 1 metre circle around the whole ruck inside of which a player may not dive on the ball. Over the goal line excluded.

​

Clarification 2 2022

Clarification in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee​

England Rugby have asked for clarity relating to when a ball is deemed to be leaving/emerging from a ruck and when such a ball can be dived on to claim control of the ball.
Law 15 describes how a ruck ends, and says a player cannot fall onto the ball, but we seek clarity on when a player is legally entitled to dive onto the ball?


Clarification of the designated members of the Rugby Committee


Relevant law wordings
Law 15.16: “Players must not: d) Fall over the ball as it is coming out of a ruck.”
Law 15.18: “A ruck ends and play continues when the ball leaves the ruck or when the ball in the ruck is on or over the goal line.”
Definitions: Near = within one metre.

The ball is leaving/emerging from the ruck when it is in motion away from the ruck, or when the ball is sitting just beyond the hindmost player.

This becomes relevant when determining if a player can fall onto the ball so that player can comply with law 15.16.

In being consistent with other areas of Law (Scrum law 19.38a, tackle law 14.8d), we determine that the player can only dive onto such a ball if it is more than 1m away from the ruck it has emerged from. ‘Near’ is defined in law as being “within one metre.”

If the ball has left the ruck, then the ruck is over, and the ball is out. Providing a player comes from an onside position and does not dive onto the ball if it is within 1m of the ruck, they may play the ball.

 

[crossref]

No. Basically there is a 1 metre circle around the whole ruck inside of which a player may not dive on the ball. Over the goal line excluded.

Where is that exclusion referenced?

 

[didds]

and "why" generally?
I have never understood tyhe point of the law - and especially to the extent of a PK

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

Where is that exclusion referenced?

as I see it, not reference but by default
15.18 The ruck ends and play continues when the ball leaves the ruck or when the ball in the ruck is on or over the goal line.
All bets are off. I guess you could also run around to the oppo side and dive in to score a try.

 

[crossref]

as I see it, not reference but by default
15.18 The ruck ends and play continues when the ball leaves the ruck or when the ball in the ruck is on or over the goal line.
All bets are off. I guess you could also run around to the oppo side and dive in to score a try.

the troublesome scenario is when the ruck is in FoP, and the the ball emerges and cross the goal line -- so it's emerging, and moving, and near (<1m) from the ruck, but in goal. Can you dive on it? 15.16 says no, but common sense says yes.

 

[Stu10]

the troublesome scenario is when the ruck is in FoP, and the the ball emerges and cross the goal line -- so it's emerging, and moving, and near (<1m) from the ruck, but in goal. Can you dive on it? 15.16 says no, but common sense says yes.

This also ties into my previous question about how and which direction the ball emerges from the ruck... I believe the law is intended to protect lower legs and avoid chaos from defenders diving on a ball at the back of the ruck; and does not necessarily account for a loose ball that spills uncontrolled out the side of the ruck, and does not strictly align with the scenario of the ball going over the try line.

 

[crossref]

it's a Law that should be removed - it's just a distraction.
Balls very rarely 'emerge' loose from a ruck, and when it does just happen, mainly the nearest player is the 9, who picks it up.
Very occasionally a player will gain possession by diving on it - really don't see why a player shouldn't do that, on the rare occasions it happens.

 

[Stu10]

it's a Law that should be removed - it's just a distraction.
Balls very rarely 'emerge' loose from a ruck, and when it does just happen, mainly the nearest player is the 9, who picks it up.
Very occasionally a player will gain possession by diving on it - really don't see why a player shouldn't do that, on the rare occasions it happens.

It happens a lot at age grade, and almost every time a defender in the guard position dives on it, which feels normal to me... at present I am not penalising it, but maybe I should be, hence my earlier question.