Was he offside?

[Wert Twacky]

Don't have law book to hand and this is bugging me:

Attacking maul moves towards tryline, everyone bound and playing nicley. Maul is half over tryline, half not and the ball is NOT over the line. Ball plops to the ground, but inside the hindmost foot.

Ball ends up on floor and defender who is now stood on goaline, hacks the ball on to clear?

Is this OK? Was defender offside? Saw a ref issue a yellow for it on Saturday....

 

[Mike Whittaker]

Don't have law book to hand and this is bugging me:

Attacking maul moves towards tryline, everyone bound and playing nicley. Maul is half over tryline, half not and the ball is NOT over the line. Ball plops to the ground, but inside the hindmost foot.

Ball ends up on floor and defender who is now stood on goaline, hacks the ball on to clear?

Is this OK? Was defender offside? Saw a ref issue a yellow for it on Saturday....

Well done referee!! Quite right! I think...

 

[Simon Griffiths]

I think he was right too, as the part of the 'maul'/'ruck' that he kicked through was still in the field of play (thus still a ruck) - only the front half was in-goal so was no longer a ruck. He was by all means within his rights to just stand on the try line.

Of course (opening can of worms), we have the philosophical question of whether the 'ruck' is still one anyway if all of the defending members were in-goal. This means that our 'in-field' 'ruck' only had players from one team involved - no ruck...

 

[Mike Whittaker]

I think it just depends where the ball is..

If the ball is on or over the line the ruck has ended. If not it hasn't!!

Same principal for maul but not always as easy to judge...

 

[Fabio]

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that if the maul moves through the tryline... isn't the offside line for the defending team the tryline instead of the hindmost foot? In that case, the defending player over the tryline is not offside... (unfortunately this PC doesn't read PDF files, so I can't even download the laws from irb.com to check this...)

 

[Mat 04]

...Im pretty sure that if ruck or maul enters the in-goal the defending offside line is the try line, so therefore we can assume that if the player was "onside" he can playthe ball regardless of where it is???

 

[didds]

but if the player crosses the offside line (ie the tryline) in order to play the ball that is still in the ruck/maul then that is an offside action.

That all aside if the maul as desribed ends up with the ball on the floor it isn;t a ruck aiui - its a use it immediately or blow for a scrum AIUI. Presumably the defender acted "immediately".

??


didds

 

[Deeps]

To recap, the ruck is extant because the ball in the ruck has not yet crossed the goal line yet the defender waiting behind his goal line is not offside either. The offence he committed was to play the ball in the ruck while not being bound in or legally part of the ruck.

Mind you, as soon as the ball reaches the goal line, the defender can dive in and legally ground the ball if he can beat an attacking player to it (22.6). The great Robert Jones did this in at least one international that I can recall.

 

[Account Deleted]

Law 16.6 says the ruck end when the ball is on or over the try line. so the ruck is not over.

The offside line of players not in the ruck is the try line as they are in goal.

However, as we still have a ruck you must join behind the hindmost foot.

Players must, according to the definition, use their feet to "try to win or keep possession of the ball".

Our player here contravenes the law on 2 fronts. He "joins" from the side and he is not using his feet to "win or keep possession". I saw a guy at a ruck so 15/ 20 mtrs from his try line kick ball out of a ruck and get a yellow for his troubles.

Seems the referee was correct.

 

[didds]

... so kicking the ball out of the ruck for 20 metres, running after the ball and grabbing it cannot count as "winning" the possession? (or more likely half a metre) ?

didds

 

[didds]

Attacking maul moves towards tryline, everyone bound and playing nicley. Maul is half over tryline, half not and the ball is NOT over the line. Ball plops to the ground, but inside the hindmost foot.

is this not now a maul that has come to an end and not a ruck?

thus the laws pertaining to a ruck are irrelevant and the attacking side must play the ball "immediately" away from the maul, or the ref blows for a scrum?

didds

 

[Simon Griffiths]

In this case it is a ruck, as the ball is now on the ground, with players bound over it. I know what you're thinking of, but that is when there is an accidental collapse and the ball is just in a load of bodies. I had this explained to me not too long ago.

I was under the impression that you couldn't kick the ball in a ruck (only hook/roll it back), but I can't find any reference to it. Anyone know what jibberish I'm on about?

 

[Account Deleted]

In rely to Dibbs:

I guess the presumption is that by kicking the ball in the ruck towards a mass of players from the other side you are probably giving them the ball rather than trying to get it to your side.At best you are giving them untidy ball with the chance of pressuring them.
I thought it strange when I first saw it and asked one of the Welsh international panel and that's how he explained it to me.

 

[Mike Whittaker]

If the defending player is behind the goal line and waits until the ball actually touches the goal line then I see no reason why he cannot kick it out. The ruck no longer exists.

The interesting theoretical point is if there is a moment just before the ball touches the goal line when he can do the same thing? does this kicking count as joining?

For practical purposes suggest that the ref in the example is absolutely right.

Incidentally, do we all penalise the person who dives on a ball which has emerged from a ruck?

 

[Mat 04]

Incidentally, do we all penalise the person who dives on a ball which has emerged from a ruck?

Absolutely - Atleast I would, diving to ground at a tackle zone or ruck is diving to ground at tackle zone or ruck.......

 

[Account Deleted]

If the defending player is behind the goal line and waits until the ball actually touches the goal line then I see no reason why he cannot kick it out. The ruck no longer exists.

The interesting theoretical point is if there is a moment just before the ball touches the goal line when he can do the same thing? does this kicking count as joining?

For practical purposes suggest that the ref in the example is absolutely right.

Incidentally, do we all penalise the person who dives on a ball which has emerged from a ruck?

Para 1:

Agreed the position of the BALL is critical.

Para 2:

I would say no he can't kick it out as he would be coming from the side in almost every case and therefore off-side. And no he is not joining the maul (no reference to any binding).

Para 3:

Agreed

Para 4

Yes

 

[ex-lucy]

Mike: "Incidentally, do we all penalise the person who dives on a ball which has emerged from a ruck?"

The refs dont do it in Internationals and otehr 1st class matches... so why should we ?

If i see it happen i shout at the player to make the ball available immediately .. if he doesnt then i penalise him.

 

[Account Deleted]

Because we should try to referee properly despite what others do? Even though we will get stick for it.

 

[Davet]

The situation had moved from maul to ruck. The player on his goal line was onside - but could not play the ball in the ruck unless he was bound on.

A player bound on to a ruck may play the ball with his feet.

If he kicks it towards the opposition he does so because he wants to run onto it going foward (or for a team mate to) - the assumption that he is giving away possession deliberatley seems a little warped - I never yet met a player who intended the ball to go to the opposition.

If a player is bound in a ruck then I see no reason why he should not kick it through.

 

[Account Deleted]

It would seem that at the CL level Referees are interpreting it in this way. Ie to ruck the ball you must be trying to "pull" the ball back with your feet towards your own side. Presumablely kicking the ball out of the ruch towards the other side is akin to kicking the ball out of a scrum.

I'm not saying I agree with that view point. I was shocked to see a player yellow carded for kicking a ball out of a ruck. I can also see that near the opposition try line kicking the ball through maycreate a try scoring chance for your side.

To say " I never yet met a player who intended the ball to go to the opposition" does, however, strike me as odd. It happens many times in every game when a side kicks the ball down into the opposition 22 to put pressure on them. David Humphreys has made a living from it.