This is similar to the argument about not pinging a crooked throw in the lineout if the opponents do not compete: if that is your approach they will see no point in competing.
You didn't read and understand what I posted did you:nono:
Perhaps I can clarify....
When a ruck is moving forward, with a team on attack with the ball at the back, and the defending team (already) fanning out and not attempting to contest, to then PK an attacker for going off their feet, when they are not affecting the game at all is plain stupid refereeing.
Despite what some people think, there is
NO Law of the Game that states players at a ruck must not go off their feet, only that they must not do so
deliberately
16.3 RUCKING
(a) Players in a ruck must endeavour to stay on their feet.
Sanction: Penalty kick
(b) A player must not intentionally fall or kneel in a ruck. This is dangerous play.
Sanction: Penalty kick
(c) A player must not intentionally collapse a ruck. This is dangerous play.
Sanction: Penalty kick
The Law talks about
endeavour and
intention, not about the
action or the
result.
I have seen players being pinged for going off their feet regularly in NH competitions, and many, many of them have been in circumstances such as
1. They trip over a defender on the ground who has not rolled away.
2. They are knocked off their feet by other players joining the ruck.
3. They are pulled over by a defender.
4. They are pushing/leaning on a ruck and the player they are leaning on gives way.
5. They have attempted to clean out a defender and the defender steps aside.
In none of these examples do the players go to ground intentionally, so if the referee penalises them, he is wrong in Law to do so. It is pedantic and un-necessary, and it becomes a disincentive to play attacking rugby with the ball in-hand.
Take a look at the ITM Cup this year, and you'll see referees applying Law 16.3 (a)
only if it is material, and the result has been the most exciting, high speed elite domestic rugby competition anywhere in the world in years. We are getting back to the great days of 1990's rugby when attacking rugby was given an incentive to play with the ball in hand, while defensive rugby that uses illegal, negative tactics to stifle open play was caned off the park.
In the above examples, I would react as follows;
1. Adv/PK the player on the ground for not rolling away - 15.4(b) or 15.5 (b)
2. Adv/PK the player who knocked that player off their feet (could be a team-mate) - 10.2 (a)
3. PK the defender who pulled their opponent off their feet - 10.2 (a)
4. Ignore as immaterial. No PK
5. Ignore as immaterial. No PK
.
