ruck/maul offside??

[vidiego]

Hi, I hope everybody is ok! I recently became a referee and I have trouble with the interpretation of some laws…I hope somebody can assist me and understand me- English is my second language and I am still learning it. Here is the scenario:

Black vs White: Ball on the ground, ruck formed...blacks won the ball, the scrum half took the ball (the ruck is over because the ball is out of the ruck) and a white player (which was part of the ruck) came through the middle of the ex-ruck and tackled the SH. I said: “play on” because I considered the ruck over, but later I thought “maybe I was wrong, maybe the player was off-side”…I really don’t know the correct answer but my common sense tells me that the player wasn’t offside because the ruck was over.

I guess it is the same principle for a maul, right?

What do you all think about this?

And what happens if the scrum half is carrying the ball and runs near to the maul/ruck and an opposite player who is part of the maul/ruck and is on his feet tackles or holds him? Is this legal as well?

 

[OB..]

Hi, I hope everybody is ok! I recently became a referee and I have trouble with the interpretation of some laws…I hope somebody can assist me and understand me- English is my second language and I am still learning it.

A warm welcome - and don't worry about your English. It is well up to the standard of this website. :biggrin:

I said: “play on” because I considered the ruck over

As you describe it, the ruck was indeed over, and provided the player was not offside before then, it is play on.

And what happens if the scrum half is carrying the ball and runs near to the maul/ruck [...]

There cannot be a maul/ruck any longer because the scrum half has the ball in open play.

 

[damo]

It is a good question and one that I wasn't sure about a while back as well. I understand that if you are bound into a ruck or maul, then once the ruck or maul ends you can play the halfback with the ball. If the player wasn't bound into the ruck or maul, and they were in front of the hindmost feet then they are offside and should be penalised.

 

[Dixie]

According to your description, you were correct. A ruck or maul is a phase of play, and it has offside lines while it exists. AS soon as the ruck or maul is over (typically the ball leaves it), then we are in open play. At that point, it is very difficult for a defender to be offside - law 11 applies.

Assuming a rucker or mauler was legal at the ruck or maul, then when it ends and we are in open play he may attack the scrum half (or whoever takes the ball from the base of the ruck/maul). But we need to recognise that referees are encouraged to allow a game of rugby to break out among 15 players - not just the forwards. At some levels of the game, scrum halves are not skilled enough to whip the ball away before getting hammered by ex-maulers or ex-ruckers. In such games, a referee may give the SH more protection so that players with two numbers on their backs don't completely waste their day.

 

[Phil E]

............so that players with two numbers on their backs don't completely waste their day.

By turning up you mean?
I thought they were only there to make up the numbers :chin:

 

[vidiego]

“At some levels of the game, scrum halves are not skilled enough to whip the ball away before getting hammered by ex-maulers or ex-ruckers. In such games, a referee may give the SH more protection so that players with two numbers on their backs don't completely waste their day”

Yes, you’re right. The level of the game that I am refereeing is not “high” and sometimes I forget that “it is important that referees do not referee the laws; they must referee the game”

So thanks for the answers. Saludos.

Diego!

 

[Dickie E]

“At some levels of the game, scrum halves are not skilled enough to whip the ball away before getting hammered by ex-maulers or ex-ruckers. In such games, a referee may give the SH more protection so that players with two numbers on their backs don't completely waste their day”

Yes, you’re right. The level of the game that I am refereeing is not “high” and sometimes I forget that “it is important that referees do not referee the laws; they must referee the game”

So thanks for the answers. Saludos.

Diego!

Diego, I get the impression that Dixie has convinced you that a SH should get some special protection not afforded to other players. That is not the case. You made the correct decision. Message to black: commit more players to the ruck to protect your SH

 

[damo]

I agree with Dixie's sentiment, and I think it is a worthy aim to let players 11, 14 and 15 play the game as well, but I don't know how I would implement it in practice. You can't really tell a player not to tackle another player when he is allowed to.

 

[Dixie]

I agree with Dixie's sentiment, and I think it is a worthy aim to let players 11, 14 and 15 play the game as well, but I don't know how I would implement it in practice. You can't really tell a player not to tackle another player when he is allowed to.

It happens frequently even in internationals.

Diego, I think you got the essence of what I was saying - very few of us referee the breakdown (for example) as tightly and as accurately as an international ref. This is partly because we are not good enough to be international refs, but also because the players we referee are not as able as international players to function as accurately and as tightly as international players do. We could whistle all day - but we elect to exercise some management of the game WHEN APPROPRIATE to do so.

If looking for a justification to blow the whistle WHEN APPROPRIATE, it may help you to look at Clarification 8 of 2006 . This really deals with a play diving over other ex-ruckers to get to the halfback, but sometimes the definition of diving can be more flexible than at others .....