To call "Ruck" or not to call ruck.

[PaulDG]

Fair point dixie, doubt at my level it will make one jot of difference except one game in ten.

What'll make a difference at our level is the rumor going round that "you can handle in the ruck now, can't you Sir?".

We should be trying to make sure we know who has what rights - and doing our best to be equitable.

We're never going to spot everything as the game isn't "tidy" at our levels.

But we can try to be consistent and decisive.

 

[Deeps]

My view is that nothing has changed as far as the players are concerned, only the way we referee at post tackle/ ruck. To reward the first man there who has the ball 'in hand' (N.B. not just 'hands on'), as the second and subsequent players arrive to form the ruck, we will no longer insist on 'no hands' as the ruck begins to form. The first player and only the first player, then has the opportunity to play the ball with his hands but you must be certain who he is for if an opposition player gets there at the same time you risk penalising the wrong man. You may wish instead to decide that the ball has become unplayable at this point.

If the first man is successful in geting the ball off the ground then a maul has formed; you then call it and play it out, however, if the ball remains on the floor and you deem the first man has been unsuccessful in the nanosecond you have allowed him to do something positive with it, then I see no reason why you cannot then call 'ruck' and 'no hands'. He has had his bite of the cherry, he has had his chance and failed and it is your duty to ensure that a fair competition for the ball then follows. What you are not doing is penalising him in the first instance however when his chance has gone you can then insist that he releases the ball and call the ruck.

We seem to be in danger of breeding a culture of being afraid to call 'no hands' at the moment as being non PC and to players who ask you whether they can now handle in the ruck you say that nothing has changed as far as they are concerned. The only change is in the way that you referee it.

 

[Greg Collins]

The offside laws are identical mutatis mutandis. However the turnover (or not) law is different.

You can turn a maul into a ruck by letting the ball go to the ground (but not forward).

If the ball carrier goes to ground and the ball is not available, you have an unsuccessful end to a maul.

I was thinking of the new offside lines that arise if a team voluntarily leaves a maul.

 

[SimonSmith]

I wonder (angels on pins moment....)

If all the forwards from a team detach voluntarily from a maul, leaving only the players from Team B in the maul, where does the offside line now exist? There is no hindmost foot....

 

[Greg Collins]

I wonder (angels on pins moment....)

If all the forwards from a team detach voluntarily from a maul, leaving only the players from Team B in the maul, where does the offside line now exist? There is no hindmost foot....

foremost foot of the rapidly advancing opposition phalanx of players known as team B's continuing maul. i guess the law makers want to encourage people to stay in mauls....

see page 103 in law book and appendix 3 of this

bgut it will have been clarified/amended and changed by the time I find my boots

 

[DrSTU]

I wonder (angels on pins moment....)

If all the forwards from a team detach voluntarily from a maul, leaving only the players from Team B in the maul, where does the offside line now exist? There is no hindmost foot....

As Greg said 17.4 (f) 2009 laws

 

[SimonSmith]

Thanks.

I'm going to have a large gin now.

 

[Taff]

... If all the forwards from a team detach voluntarily from a maul, leaving only the players from Team B in the maul, where does the offside line now exist? There is no hindmost foot....

Somehow I can't see this being as much of an issue as we fear. Ok Italy have used the law quite cleverly especially at mauls formed at a Lineout; you only have to listen to the crowds and commentators and some players reactions to realise they've taken everyone by surprise.

The problem for the Italians is that you can only take the competition by surprise for a short while, before your "surprise tactic" becomes the norm and other teams plan and train for it. What I think will happen is that the opposition instead of turning their backs towards the Italians (bracing themselves for a maul) they will instead turn 180 degrees and run at them ie forcing them to make a tackle. My guess is they've been training for this from the first time the Italians started using it.

 

[Dickie E]

the danger then is:
1. if ball at back of pack - obstruction
2. if ball at front of pack - flying wedge

 

[Greg Collins]

1. it's still a maul and providing the ball carrier and other players are bound no oine is obstructing anyone - and no truck'n'trailer either provided they all stay properly bound

2. If it's still a maul so how can it mutate into a flying wedge? If the oppo didn't bind on in the first place then sure it could be, but if they bound on and then left the scene...? We saw players pulling oppo's into contact to create mauls (ball carrier plus a player frmo either side bound etc, etc.,) in Aus vs RSA last weekend. (btw bloody well played Australia! Great match). The LotG are silent on involuntarily joining a maul :chin:

Given that a driving maul with no oppo bound to it, they all having voluntarily left like the pussies they must surely be, could trundle the entire length of the pitch in 30 secs with no legal means for the oppo to stop it only a team of complete nutters is going to voluntarily leave a maul these days? Can see it happening by accident at my level but deliberately I think as a tactic it is consigned to history whilst the laws remain as they are

 

[Simon Thomas]

phew -great thread guys. Lots of different elements all coming in and flying off in highly relevent tangents.

Just as it is in a match.

What I have found in the last three weeks is that referees are fairly well up to date (apart from the level 7 I b*llocked for not allowing a tackler, who went to ground, to get up and pick the ball - he told him to go thru gate - tut tut). The biggest issue is coaches and players who either have no idea that anything has changed (new jackler-third man hands-on), or got the wrong idea (e.g. hands llowed in all rucks at all times !, or players broke off a maul, leading player 'truck & trailer' I pinged them as tackler went into contact with truck - coach argued it was now allowed as it was a "disengaged maul". :nono:

 

[Bury_Dave]

Hasn't this changed this year?

15.69(c)

The player who puts a player on the ground and stays on his/her feet has to release that player and can then only play the ball by coming from the direction of his own goal line, behind the ball and the player on the ground nearest his goal line.

There's a pic in the appendix of the pdf doing the rounds.

But, as has been said, 15.4 (c) makes it clear that the tackler CAN come from any direction to pick the ball up.

I was talking to a lad I work with who plays prop. I asked him his opinion of the new ruck laws and he said that he hasn't a clue. He just plays rugby and if he does something wrong, relies on the ref' to ping him ! So speaketh 80% of club rugby players perhaps ???

Seriously, at my local club at youth level this isn't being taught as it's not properly understood.

This ref'ing 'lark' has certainly opened my eyes to more of the subtleties of the game and how I watch and what I look at. Which has been a good thing. Wish I'd taken it up years ago

And thanks for your advice and debate gents (are there any ladies?) It's all very helpful. It also seems to be what the Eastern Counties Assoc is saying. Consensus ? :wow:

DAve

 

[Dickie E]

But, as has been said, 15.4 (c) makes it clear that the tackler CAN come from any direction to pick the ball up.
This is true but to be a "tackler" you have to go to ground as well. If you stay on your feet you are not a "tackler" eventhough you may have executed a tackle.


I was talking to a lad I work with who plays prop. I asked him his opinion of the new ruck laws and he said that he hasn't a clue. He just plays rugby and if he does something wrong, relies on the ref' to ping him ! So speaketh 80% of club rugby players perhaps ???
Wise lad


(are there any ladies?)
there's a couple of posters who I have my doubts about (gay icon avatar - you know who you are )

(msf)

 

[Simon Thomas]

And thanks for your advice and debate gents (are there any ladies?) It's all very helpful. It also seems to be what the Eastern Counties Assoc is saying. Consensus ? :wow:

DAve

Hardly suprising there is general consensus - all the English Societies work from the same National Panel & RFU Refs Dept / Regional Referee Development Manager 'songsheets'.

Society Chairmen, Training Officers and Assessment Officers are often involved at Group level at least and we do speak to each other occasionally !

 

[Bury_Dave]

(msf)

Thanks for that clarification Dickie. I'd temporarily forgotten that distinction somehow. For every 3 new laws I learn, I forget 1 ! DOH.

Simon, I wasn't implying a lack of joined up thinking. It's just always nice to witness it in action ! :biggrin:

Dave

 

[Simon Thomas]

Simon, I wasn't implying a lack of joined up thinking. It's just always nice to witness it in action ! :biggrin:

Dave

Dave - i was confused by WOW icon. BTW I was the match assessor when Bury played at Portsmouth in the National Cup last season - nice bunch of lads and an old fashioned few hours in the clubhouse afterwards.

 

[Greg Collins]

I spent a lenghty train journey explaining all this stuff to a youth team coach y'day. All the usual misconceptions. I'll be reffing their side in a few weeks, club had told them nothing.... guess it will blow the cobwebs out of the whistle.

 

[Dixie]

(are there any ladies?)
there's a couple of posters who I have my doubts about (gay icon avatar - you know who you are )

Oi! Now I know how Caster Semanya feels. I sense a glamour shoot for You! magazine coming on ....

 

[Phil E]

And thanks for your advice and debate gents (are there any ladies?)

Based on the number of photo's posted of naked men and blokes displaying their tackle I reckon Dickie E is a Sheila :wow:

 

[Bury_Dave]

Dave - i was confused by WOW icon. BTW I was the match assessor when Bury played at Portsmouth in the National Cup last season - nice bunch of lads and an old fashioned few hours in the clubhouse afterwards.

Simon, it came up as 'biggrin' when i moused it. Nothing sarcastic I assure you. I was genuinely pleased that people's opinions seemed to agree and I'm glad to see the humour on here is my kind of humour.

Dave