Stormers v Bulls 2nd try

[The Fat]

Thoughts please re Stormers 2nd try (starts at 20 secs on video).
Looked wrong when I watched it live but now 50/50 after watching the replay.
CJ is clear in his communication but do you agree? Sure to be views either way.
Watch it at full speed, make a call and then slow it down to see if you change your call.

 

[Browner]

Offside for me.

As the tackler he wasnt quick enough to get to feet and contest for the ball, Ruck formed , white tackler needed to retreat behind HMF to become onside. In effect ' tackjackler' was " beaten by the ruck"...

If that's OK, then we'll see ankle holders delaying their rise to gain possession , nah..... IMO CJ misread the timings of that one.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Thoughts please re Stormers 2nd try (starts at 20 secs on video).
Looked wrong when I watched it live but now 50/50 after watching the replay.
CJ is clear in his communication but do you agree? Sure to be views either way.
Watch it at full speed, make a call and then slow it down to see if you change your call.

At no stage was there ever a player from each team in close contact over the ball, so no ruck formed.

Therefore, tackle only and no offside.

White 2 was the tackler, so at the tackle he can play the ball from any direction provided he has gotten to his feet first, which he did.

Play-on. Good call and good communication by CJ.

 

[didds]

I guess it comes down to whether blue 3 driving the white player (sorry - can't make his number out) at 0:23 in the video is the creation of a ruck. The ball appears to beneath/below blue 3's leg/foot at the time so there could be an argument that the ruck WAS formed and so white 2 was offside.

C&O at the speed it happened? That's another thing.

didds

 

[Browner]

(b) How can a ruck form. Players are on their feet. At least one player must be in physical contact with an opponent.

If it wasn't a ruck then what were the x2 blues doing?

Surely they would be playing the white player without the ball - of course not - , they were clearing a potential jackler and as soon as he was physically contacted with they formed the ruck. They shoved him backwards off/away from the ball and white became the HMF which all his teammates observed(except#3)

The fact the white jackler passively/quickly gave up hope of success does not remove the ruck existence.

If you allow the tackler to do this, and coach a passive ball jackling attempt then you've invented a new game dynamic IMO

 

[OB..]

C&O at the speed it happened? That's another thing.

Agreed. The timing at slow speed is pretty clear, but at full speed ....?

 

[Browner]

Agreed. The timing at slow speed is pretty clear, but at full speed ....?

Hmnnn,
so clearing out/shift/moving/shunting a potential jackler 'too quickly'

A) disadvantages your team by allowing a tackler to just nick the ball
B) & what game state was it? - If just a tackle, what were the two blue players then doing tackling a white player trying to get to the ball in open play?

 

[OB..]

Hmnnn,
so clearing out/shift/moving/shunting a potential jackler 'too quickly'

A) disadvantages your team by allowing a tackler to just nick the ball
B) & what game state was it? - If just a tackle, what were the two blue players then doing tackling a white player trying to get to the ball in open play?

A) If the tackled player releases the ball back out of the tackle area before a ruck forms, the tackle is over and the tackler can get up and play the ball.

B) If the ball has been released out of the tackle area, then technically they are too late to form a ruck, but I don't see any need to penalise that any more than you would a similarly "late" tackle.

 

[tim White]

Tricky -the 'ruck'was not formed over the ball as the law requires. No ruck, no hind foot, no offside line =no 'lazy runner'.

At game speed I would probably have called it a ruck though.

 

[Ian_Cook]

To be strictly technical

1. Blue 4, the first arriving, goes past the ball and straight to ground without touching anyone - PING for going off his feet - 15.7 (c). In fact, White 5, the jackler stands up and allows Blue 4 blow past him.

2. White 5 is standing almost sideways when he plays the ball and since he's not a tackler, he cannot play the ball from there - PING side entry - 15.6 (d)

3. Blue 5?, the second arriving Blue player drives past the tackler and ball as the tackled player releases the ball backwards. The ball is still rolling backwards, and when Blue 5? grabs White 5, the ball is already behind him.

I maintain no ruck was ever formed so no offside

Tricky -the 'ruck'was not formed over the ball as the law requires. No ruck, no hind foot, no offside line =no 'lazy runner'.

At game speed I would probably have called it a ruck though.

And that is the difference between them and us.

At that speed if you cannot be sure a ruck was formed, then it wasn't.

 

[talbazar]

Was off-side for me at full speed and is still off-side when slowing it down...
See below.

At no stage was there ever a player from each team in close contact over the ball, so no ruck formed.

Tricky -the 'ruck' was not formed over the ball as the law requires. No ruck, no hind foot, no offside line =no 'lazy runner'.

Really?:

 

[Ian_Cook]

Was off-side for me at full speed and is still off-side when slowing it down...
See below.


View attachment 2866

Firstly, stills are no good for a dynamic game like rugby union, especially in the most dynamic part of the game, the breakdown. The referee cannot stop and ask the TMO to pop a still up on the big screen so he can judge if the ball is fractionally this way or that, or if physical contact was made in this millisecond or that millisecond

Secondly, the OP asked you to look at full speed. If you can tell with 100% certainty that white 2 was offside when you view that at full speed, then why are you not out in the middle in refereeing elite rugby.

ETA: Just to illustrate how bloody difficult a decision this is...

When the second arriving Blue player first makes physical contact with the White jackler, his left leg is on the other side of the tackler from the ball (so no ruck, because he and the jackler are not "over" the ball. The ball itself is already rolling backwards. Does that Blue player's foot touch the ground before the ball rolls behind it? Was he ever "over" the ball with both feet on the ground?

This is one of the reasons why I love this game. Its so dynamic that no two breakdowns are identical

 

[talbazar]

Firstly, stills are no good for a dynamic game like rugby union, especially in the most dynamic part of the game, the breakdown. The referee cannot stop and ask the TMO to pop a still up on the big screen so he can judge if the ball is fractionally this way or that, or if physical contact was made in this millisecond or that millisecond

Agreed.

Secondly, the OP asked you to look at full speed.

Well, the OP asked for both full speed and slow mo opinions.
As in my original post, I gave both.
It looked offside at full speed and and looked offside in slow-mo too
That's all I'm saying here.

If you can tell with 100% certainty that white 2 was offside when you view that at full speed, then why are you not out in the middle in refereeing elite rugby.

I ask this to myself everyday :biggrin: epper: :sarc:

Thirdly, in any case, your still show the ball between the Blue players left boot and the camera, so even though he is in physical contact with the White player, neither of them are "over" the ball. So no ruck!

Agreed on the position of the ball.
But
[LAWS]Law 16 - Definitions
A ruck is a phase of play where one or more players from each team, who are on their feet, in physical contact, close around the ball on the ground. Open play has ended.[/LAWS]
So if we take your advice of looking at this in (slow) motion (and not a still), the ball gets on the ground and a player of each side get in contact close around the ball on the ground so that the white player is getting pushed away from the ball by a blue player.
That sounds like a ruck to me.

Cheers,
Pierre.

Edit: Sorry, it looks like I answered your post a bit too early Ian.
Said so, my view remains and the definition of a ruck is not "over the ball".
So even if the ruck is finished because the ball is behind the hindmost foot of the last player, there was a ruck and the tackler was/is off-side.

 

[Camquin]

In the mind of the referee there was no ruck.
In his mind the contact was not close enough to the ball.
And if you take that view it is just a tackle so the tackler has the right to play the ball.

I think there was a ruck in the mind of the two Blue supporting players as they were contesting possession with the second white player to arrive.
In which case the correct decision I think is a penalty to White for Blue going off his feet.
As this occurs before the "offside" white player plays the ball we go back for the first offense.

Oddly a ruck forms if the contesting players are close to the ball - not if they are over the ball.
However, once they are no longer over the ball, the ruck ends.
So - if I am reading the law correctly - if you make contact while going for the ball but not directly over it, the ruck ends as soon as it starts but, the offside lines have been set. Which is not something I had thought of before.

OB ... suggests that if the ball has left the tackle you cannot form a ruck. May I ask why?
As far as I can see, the laws seem to allow a ruck to form any time the ball is on the ground and two player contest possession. The case of a ruck after a tackle is technically an exception - in that the tackler still has the right to place the ball.

Camquin

 

[RobLev]

...

Agreed on the position of the ball.
But
[LAWS]Law 16 - Definitions
A ruck is a phase of play where one or more players from each team, who are on their feet, in physical contact, close around the ball on the ground. Open play has ended.[/LAWS]
So if we take your advice of looking at this in (slow) motion (and not a still), the ball gets on the ground and a player of each side get in contact close around the ball on the ground so that the white player is getting pushed away from the ball by a blue player.
That sounds like a ruck to me.

Cheers,
Pierre.

Edit: Sorry, it looks like I answered your post a bit too early Ian.
Said so, my view remains and the definition of a ruck is not "over the ball".
So even if the ruck is finished because the ball is behind the hindmost foot of the last player, there was a ruck and the tackler was/is off-side.

Aha. Is English your first language? I ask because the word "close" in that sentence isn't an adverb meaning " near to"; it's a verb meaning "make contact with one another".

 

[Rushforth]

Aha. Is English your first language? I ask because the word "close" in that sentence isn't an adverb meaning " near to"; it's a verb meaning "make contact with one another".

Are you sure?

Une Mêlée spontanée (ou Ruck) est une phase de jeu dans laquelle un ou plusieurs joueurs de chaque équipe sur leurs pieds, physiquement au contact, entourent le ballon au sol. Elle met fin à la situation de jeu courant.

’n Losskrum is ’n fase van die spel waar een of meer spelers van elke span wat op
hulle voete is, in fisieke kontak met mekaar naby die bal op die grond is.
Algemene spel is beëindig.

 

[Dixie]

There is no doubt that Roblev is correct looking solely at the English translation. But as so often happens with multi-jurisdictional law, the intent is thrown into doubt by consideration of the texts of other languages.

But since the iRB is essentially an Anglo-Saxon construct, we safely can assume that the non-English translators merely made a mistake! :wink:

 

[Ian_Cook]

Oddly a ruck forms if the contesting players are close to the ball - not if they are over the ball.
However, once they are no longer over the ball, the ruck ends.

Whoa there! Where are you getting this idea that the players have to be close to the ball?

DEFINITIONS
A ruck is a phase of play where one or more players from each team, who are on
their feet, in physical contact, close around the ball on the ground. Open play has
ended.

This doesn't mean the players have to be in close proximity to the ball. "Close" is a verb, i.e. "to close" (pronounced "cloze"), i.e.come into contact with (something) so as to encircle and hold it. as in "we closed around the bonfire"

so, "....players from each team, who are on their feet, in physical contact, cloze around the ball on the ground" ,they surround the ball on the ground, i,e, the are over the ball.

http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/close+around

There is no such expression as "close around" in english that relates to "proximity"

 

[OB..]

OB ... suggests that if the ball has left the tackle you cannot form a ruck. May I ask why?

We were surely talking about turning a tackle into a ruck? Obviously you can form a tackle after the ball has left the tackle, but that has to be over the ball, not over the tackled player.

And yes, I do ,mean "over" the ball. Checking the meaning of the original English text by looking at translations only tells you how the translator interpreted it, not how it was intended. Nevertheless there appears to be some consistency:
French: “entourent le ballon “
Spanish: “se agrupan alrededor de la pelota “
Italian: “ sopra il Pallone”
Russian: “группируются вокруг мяча”

French, Spanish and Russian all use verbs meanings "surround", and Italian actually uses the preposition "over".

The English version harks back to the early days. The 1871 definition of a scrummage (a ruck was initially a "loose srummage") was
[LAWS]11. A scrummage takes place when the holder of the ball being in the field of play puts it down on the ground in front of him and all who have closed round on their respective sides endeavour to push their opponents back and by kicking the ball to drive it in the direction of the opposite goal line. [/LAWS]

 

[Ian_Cook]

Are you sure?

Une Mêlée spontanée (ou Ruck) est une phase de jeu dans laquelle un ou plusieurs joueurs de chaque équipe sur leurs pieds, physiquement au contact, entourent le ballon au sol. Elle met fin à la situation de jeu courant.

’n Losskrum is ’n fase van die spel waar een of meer spelers van elke span wat op
hulle voete is, in fisieke kontak met mekaar naby die bal op die grond is.
Algemene spel is beëindig.

Yes, I am sure that RobLEv is right

entourent is French for "surround" not for "close to" or "near to"

naby is Afrikaans for "near", so clearly that has been incorrectly translated