Ruck is Over?

[RussRef]

Strange things happen at my matches.

Red and Blue player join over ball on the ground. I call ruck. No one joins. Before the ruck moves in either direction, and with the ball lying between them, Red player pushes Blue player away, reaches down and picks up the ball.

Penalty or play on?

 

[Ian_Cook]

Strange things happen at my matches.

Red and Blue player join over ball on the ground. I call ruck. No one joins. Before the ruck moves in either direction, and with the ball lying between them, Red player pushes Blue player away, reaches down and picks up the ball.

Penalty or play on?

IMO, its play on, (unless your name is Stuart Dickinson, in which case, its a PK against Red :biggrin: )

Seriously, if you regard it as still a ruck, then anyone who picks up the ball will be liable to PK, and then you will have the bizarre situation of all the players standing around looking at a loose ball on the ground and doing nothing.

In the strictest sense, the ruck is technically not over because the legal criteria are not met, but in every practical sense, there is no longer a ruck, so the referee has to make sense of the situation.

I'd also say that if you played on, you would not have to sell that decision; if you penalised Red, you would.

 

[Browner]

Strange things happen at my matches.

Red and Blue player join over ball on the ground. I call ruck. No one joins. Before the ruck moves in either direction, and with the ball lying between them, Red player pushes Blue player away, reaches down and picks up the ball.

Penalty or play on?

Play on for me, although to the letter of 16.6 the ruck never ended as law expected it. I can't imagine many would complain that they've been hard done by.

 

[menace]

Can be tricky one.
Had the ball left the ruck before Red picks up the ball? Technically AIUI the ruck dismantling/falling/ripping apart isn't a successful end of the ruck so red could have infringed with hands in the ruck. He should technically ruck it back with his feet BUT from your description it sounds like he's 'won' the ruck and the contest was over, so I'd be inclined to play on. I'd have to see it, but I concede it one that even I think I could have ruled either way depending on how it occurred at the time.

 

[Jarrod Burton]

My immediate reaction was - as there is no-one contesting the ball, isn't the ruck over? If the red player had fallen over as well, does this mean that the ball is still in the ruck and a third player can't come in and pick it up? I'd say either way, play on.

 

[Steve70]

Had this happen last week Reffing an U14 match. Big blue player forms ruck over the ball with smaller red player. Big blue either (a) trundles red back so the ball is behind him now, breaks the bind, turns round/steps backwards and picks up (much to non-amusement of SH) or pushes red backwards, bends over and picks up.

I played on - ball out - but was commented on by red coach that as I'd called ruck, to play it as a ruck with no hands.

However, once he's pushed red back and both are beyond the ball, or he's let go of red, there is no ruck anymore....?

 

[Pegleg]

Law 16.6 SUCCESSFUL END TO A RUCK
A ruck ends successfully when the ball leaves the ruck...

In your example the ball has left the ruck it is over. Breaking your bind when the ball is still in would be different for me.

 

[Browner]

Law 16.6 SUCCESSFUL END TO A RUCK
A ruck ends successfully when the ball leaves the ruck...

In your example the ball has left the ruck it is over. Breaking your bind when the ball is still in would be different for me.

If the players that formed the ruck disengage , then I think most people would expect the ruck to have ended , Law might not yet say so.
In case where one player drives his opponent back away from the ball and he then steps over it , then its ended and any player may pick it up provided they came from an onside position.

 

[Steve70]

If the players that formed the ruck disengage , then I think most people would expect the ruck to have ended , Law might not yet say so.
In case where one player drives his opponent back away from the ball and he then steps over it , then its ended and any player may pick it up provided they came from an onside position.

So he can turn around and pick it up? Since he was never offside

 

[Pegleg]

For me if the ruck drive over and past the ball. Then he can disengage and pick up the ball. I'm less happy with a player disengaging whilst the ball is in the ruck doing so. To draw a comparison, a maul does not end if defenders leave the maul. so should we all either side to end a ruck by merely disengaging?

Happy for the powers that be to rule either way.

 

[Browner]

......I'm less happy with a player disengaging whilst the ball is in the ruck doing so. To draw a comparison, a maul does not end if defenders leave the maul. so should we all either side to end a ruck by merely disengaging?

Happy for the powers that be to rule either way.

If we're talking about only x1 player from each side rucking, and one player shrugs off the other player then "it's still a ruck' is a pretty darned hard sell to players and supporters.

 

[Pegleg]

I would agree with you Browner. but what is right in law and in terms of consistent practice?

If the player has "won" the ruck is his detaching akin to him "leaving the maul" so we would consider it a successful end to the ruck and ok for him to pick it up or am I making this too complicated.

As I run through the thread I am coming to the conclusion that seeing it play out the answer would just look logical and I'd probably not think too much about it.

 

[FightOrFlight]

If the ball is loose on the ground then to be honest I would be looking for the players to seek to play the ball more so and not eachother. If it is sitting still on the floor and 2 players come in and one drives the other away I would be thinking along the lines of :

[LAWS]10.4(f)
Playing an opponent without the ball. Except in a scrum, ruck or maul, a player who is not in possession of the ball must not hold, push or obstruct an opponent not carrying the ball[/LAWS]

The chances of it not just being a charge off are slim the way the game is played these days

If they come together over the ball in an old fashioned gentlemanly manner then I would be happy to call that a ruck but in the modern game that is a remote possibility. If however it was a ruck and one player was to drive over and past the ball I would be happy to deem his team had "won the ball" and they can play it with hands.
I asked a pro ref about this issue as to when a team can use hands in a contested "driven off ruck" and he said that once 1 player from a team has driven past the ball it is deemed won and someone can can pick it up behind however when it is picked up the ruck is over.

 

[Browner]

Bump .,.............. The commentators believe the Italian was lucky , but if the ball has been removed .... then isn't the ruck over ?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=X0QagFVsVlg

 

[The Fat]

Bump .,.............. The commentators believe the Italian was lucky , but if the ball has been removed .... then isn't the ruck over ?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=X0QagFVsVlg

Yes the ruck was over even though the SA commentators believe the Italian player was playing the SH at the ruck.
The referee has determined that the ruck was over and the Italian player has hit the arm/hand of the green SH in general play causing the green to lose the ball forward. Hard to tell if he hits the hand/arm or if he actually slaps the ball. I think he only gets ball. Therefore the next question would be, did the white player intentionally knock the ball forward or straight down?