Ruck use it or lose it - Gloucester v Northampton

[MattyP]

I watched the Aviva highlights tonight with my son, a young ref and player. The end of the game was interesting because it was the first time I have seen the new ruck 5 second "use it or lose it" law in action. Northampton in front by 5, scrum half mucking around at the back of a ruck, gets told to use it, doesn't, ref blows it up. This is exactly one of the situations that the law makers had in mind with this law, right - stop teams delaying in possession at the end of a game? Only problem was, time was up - so no scrum restart, ref blows for full time and that's it.

My son and I then had a discussion about whether that's the right outcome. It didn't seem right to us that the team in the lead and possession can just delay ruck possession to close out the game without even giving the opposition to contest. They weren't even forced to have to go through clearing the ruck cleanly and kicking into touch. Presumably advantage can't be played. This seemed like the law of unintended consequences in an action. If anything, it seems to me that the right outcome here (irrespective of the law) is that the scrum should still be set.

Curious to see what others think of this.

 

[TheBFG]

Mmmm i saw this and thought it looked a little messy, i see a "rulling" coming up :wink:

 

[OB..]

If the referee calls "use it", and the player doesn't, so that time can run out and he does not have to take the risk involved in a clearance kick, I would suggest that is Time Wasting. FK. (On a bad day I would see it as Intentional Offending!)

 

[Davet]

It's a new tool in the box, and may need sharpening by use.

Hindsight might suggest that where the game would be over if they fail to use it then the ref leaves the tool where it is and uses the old one of a FK fot timewasting, which is still available.

My personal opinion only.

 

[Buzz]

My first game of the season on Saturday resulted in 3 turnovers from the 5 sec rule - all in the 1st 15 minutes. After this as soon as ball was available, it was away from the ruck. Helped improved the flow of the game. For me it was a plus, but I agree that there may be some tweaking - maybe as stated before FK for deliberate time wasting.

 

[Dickie E]

It's a new tool in the box, and may need sharpening by use.

Hindsight might suggest that where the game would be over if they fail to use it then the ref leaves the tool where it is and uses the old one of a FK fot timewasting, which is still available.

My personal opinion only.

Hang on. Time wasting is for wasting time while ball is out of play. I can't think of any precedence otherwise.

If the 5 second count commences when there is only 4 seconds left on the clock, then bad luck - game over.

 

[didds]

now there's an interesting tactical nuance...

"Last play gentlemen" - ruck created - SH just pointedly stares at the ball at the base and available - "use it" - SH stares - peep, scrum turnover- no side.

didds

 

[Dickie E]

perhaps the equitable way is to mentally stop the clock when you say "use it" so that the ball is either played or a scrum set irrespective of game time.

If a restart kick is taken right on fulltime and the kicker kicks the ball 1/2 metre before picking it up - what is the sanction/restart if any? This gives us some guidance, I think:

Ruling 2 2010:

[LAWS]Ruling of the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee
The Designated Members have ruled that if there has been a score towards the end of the game and there is time for the kick off to take place but time will expire immediately after the kick and the kicker:

• Does not kick the ball ten metres
• Kicks the ball directly into touch
• Kicks the ball dead on or over the opponents touch-in-goal or dead ball line

The referee will offer the non-offending team the options provided by Law 13.7, 13.8 and 13.9 respectively and the match continues until the ball next becomes dead. [/LAWS]

 

[andyscott]

Sounds fair enough, so the delay at the end of the game was 10 seconds at most. So not an issue.

80 mins is a long time to win a game, cant be blaming the last couple of minutes for not doing enough for the rest of the game.

 

[Taff]

Hang on. Time wasting is for wasting time while ball is out of play. I can't think of any precedence otherwise.

But 10.2(b) doesn't say that the ball must be out of play. And if there is no restriction - it can apply at any time.

10.2(b) Time-wasting. A player must not intentionally waste time.
Sanction: Free Kick

TBH using the FK in such circumstances sounds very sensible to me. So the game continues until it "next becomes dead".

 

[andyscott]

TBH using the FK in such circumstances sounds very sensible to me. So the game continues until it "next becomes dead".

Using a FK in the aviva premiership at that stage of the game, sounds sensible???

Sounds barking to me, and I doubt many elite referees would do this in the last minute!!! far to much attention would be swayed your way.

 

[Taff]

Sounds fair enough, so the delay at the end of the game was 10 seconds at most. So not an issue.

I don't know the final score in the Gloucester v Northampton game, but it may be "an issue" if you're 4 points down and in a ruck 5m out. OK if a side were winning by 30 points I take your point, but in a close game? I just don't feel comfortable with a player manipulating the laws beyond what they were intended for and trying to be a clever-dick.

Using a FK in the aviva premiership at that stage of the game, sounds sensible??? Sounds barking to me ....

Why does it matter what competition it is?

 

[didds]

80 mins is a long time to win a game, cant be blaming the last couple of minutes for not doing enough for the rest of the game.

80 minutes is also a long time for lots of things to alter significantly and affect the tide of play. Weather, oppositon naughty step requirements/injuries... otherwise why not just play 78 minutes and not 80? If the last two minutes are not relevant...

didds

 

[crossref]

I watched the Aviva highlights tonight with my son, a young ref and player. The end of the game was interesting because it was the first time I have seen the new ruck 5 second "use it or lose it" law in action. Northampton in front by 5, scrum half mucking around at the back of a ruck, gets told to use it, doesn't, ref blows it up. This is exactly one of the situations that the law makers had in mind with this law, right - stop teams delaying in possession at the end of a game? Only problem was, time was up - so no scrum restart, ref blows for full time and that's it.

My son and I then had a discussion about whether that's the right outcome. It didn't seem right to us that the team in the lead and possession can just delay ruck possession to close out the game without even giving the opposition to contest. They weren't even forced to have to go through clearing the ruck cleanly and kicking into touch. Presumably advantage can't be played. This seemed like the law of unintended consequences in an action. If anything, it seems to me that the right outcome here (irrespective of the law) is that the scrum should still be set.

Curious to see what others think of this.

if the referee was correct to blow for full time, then it was shocking mistake for him to call 'use it'. A critical incident even.

 

[andyscott]

I don't know the final score in the Gloucester v Northampton game, but it may be "an issue" if you're 4 points down and in a ruck 5m out. OK if a side were winning by 30 points I take your point, but in a close game? I just don't feel comfortable with a player manipulating the laws beyond what they were intended for and trying to be a clever-dick.

Why does it matter what competition it is?

Well would you FK a delay in the first minute? If not don't do it in the last.

Of course it matters what competition the expectation of an elite level game is different to county level matches

 

[Taff]

Well would you FK a delay in the first minute? If not don't do it in the last.

But the FK isn't an option in the first minute - because the team in possession just give away a turnover scrum. I'm just wondering whether it will get treated like a reset scrum on full time. :chin:

 

[OB..]

Hang on. Time wasting is for wasting time while ball is out of play..

[LAWS]Law 10.2 (b) Time-wasting. A player must not intentionally waste time.[/LAWS]No mention of the ball being out of play.

now there's an interesting tactical nuance...

"Last play gentlemen" - ruck created - SH just pointedly stares at the ball at the base and available - "use it" - SH stares - peep, scrum turnover- no side.

didds

[LAWS]Law 5.7 (e) ...If a scrum has to be reset, the scrum has not been completed. ...[/LAWS]We have argued before whether a turnover is a reset or not, but it would certainly kill this tactic off.

Or make it Intentional Offending in that the accused did wilfully ignore a legitimate command.

 

[Dickie E]

[LAWS]Law 10.2 (b) Time-wasting. A player must not intentionally waste time.[/LAWS]No mention of the ball being out of play.

I understand that but custom & practice prevail (like your oft quoted reference to the fend).

The sanction for failing to use the ball after a "use it" call is a scrum - in the first minute and the last minute.

Why didn't Ruling 2 2010 result in a FK for time wasting?

 

[Davet]

The issue seems to be that a Law which is specifically introduced to prevent timewasting at the ruck can be used to waste time with impunity if the clock is up - and indeed be used to end the game. That strikes me as wrong in principle.

Time wasting is still an offence, it doesn't require the ball to be out of play.

 

[OB..]

I understand that but custom & practice prevail

I don't agree that is the case - it is a very rare call anyway.

(like your oft quoted reference to the fend).

Now that the IRB has taken that one away, I have to resort to the fact that punting the ball requires a throw forward.

The sanction for failing to use the ball after a "use it" call is a scrum - in the first minute and the last minute.

So use the argument that the scrum has not been completed to allow the turnover to be played.

Why didn't Ruling 2 2010 result in a FK for time wasting?

Because they thought there was a better solution? Just as I prefer playing the turnover scrum.