Was this right?

[doofy96]

Blue going forward. Red grabs blue shirt and throws him to the ground. One player from each team bind over the ball (which to us on the sideline meant a ruck was formed). However the (tackled?) blue player on the ground stood up and carried on running. Referee shouted play on as he wasn't held...
This all happened in a very short time, but was the call correct to let him get up with the ball even though a ruck had formed?
I don't believe the law book says that a there needs to be a tackled player on the ground for a ruck to form.
By the way this was an under 14s tournament.
Taa.

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

I would agree with play on he wasn't held, and in possession, the other 2 guys are irrelavant however I may have been tempted to call scrum attack if everyone stopped and there was shouts all round particularly at U14 level.

 

[didds]

well, by the strict letter of the law I suppose a ruck had been formed and he was technically handling in the ruck.

manage it I think is the answer

didds

 

[Waspsfan]

The ruck definition requires the ball to be on the ground. In this scenario I don't think it ever was as it sounds as though it was always in the player's possession. Therefore no ruck. Now we have a player on the ground, but not tackled as not held. He has to do either pass the ball, get up, or release the ball. He chose option 2 - play on for me. Good refereeing and a lesson learnt by the junior players.

Now if the player released the ball - ie presented it like we see in a proper tackle, and then the players formed over him I think we have a ruck without a tackle which is fine. At this stage the player on the floor is out of the game and he can't play it. If he grabs it again and gets up the. I would ping him.

 

[Phil E]

"play on, not held!"

 

[Davet]

Waspsfan seems to have it right - ruck requires ball to be on the ground, it wasn't - no ruck.

 

[didds]

Now we have a player on the ground, but not tackled as not held.

...r..i...g...h...t... but then how we arrive at a player on the ground that IS tackled... but not held? As per the scenarios whereby the "tackler that isn't a tackler cos he never went to ground" having to release and come from his own side to the ball that the tackled player has to exercise on of three options with? Outside of tackle assists. Or are we saying that if no tackler goes to ground, then the "tackled player" is never held so the tackle never existed? And so the "non tackler" as well doesn't have to come from behind the rear feet to play the ball and doesn't have to release the "non tackled" player or the ball if he already has a grip on them?

didds

 

[Waspsfan]

a player on the ground that IS tackled... but not held?

That is not possible. See the definition of a tackle. The laws clearly describe what a tackled player is, and what a player brought to ground with no tackle are. They are different.

Although the standing 'tackler' (poorly named) has muddied the waters somewhat with regards to the 'tackler' it has not redefined what a tackle is.

If a player finds himself on the ground but there has been no tackle. He has three options as discussed below. Every other player who is on his feet and onside can compete the ball. No tackle so come from any direction you like - it is open play. If the players choose to form a ruck around this man (as described) then we have a ruck.

 

[Dickie E]

Let me see if I've got this right:

ball carrier is thrown to ground (ie not tackled) and ends up on his back with ball on chest. Players from each team (could be 1, could be 3) form a ruck above the ball. Canny ball carrier (realising he is not held) wriggles out from amongst the mass, with the ball.

Consensus is "play on"???

 

[didds]

If a player finds himself on the ground but there has been no tackle. He has three options as discussed below. Every other player who is on his feet and onside can compete the ball. No tackle so come from any direction you like - it is open play. If the players choose to form a ruck around this man (as described) then we have a ruck.

Ok... but a ruck can only happen if the ball was on the floor, and in this case you deemed that the ball wasn't on the floor so no ruck.

So if the non tackle had seen the ball touch the floor, and the players converge over it simultaneously then it would be a ruck?

What if it touched the floor, the player on the ground lifted it off the floor and then the players converged over him ?

What happens if in a real tackle etc arms get pinned or whatever and the ball never actually ends up on the floor as players form over it?

WADR chaps this all seems somewhat convaluted - isn't it easier to treat it a ruck like thing as a duck?

didds

 

[Dickie E]

Ok... but a ruck can only happen if the ball was on the floor, and in this case you deemed that the ball wasn't on the floor so no ruck.

I disagree with this. If it's not a ruck, what is it? A maul?

If its neither a ruck nor maul then you have no offside lines. Then we have chaos.

 

[didds]

That was really my point Dickie.

Using the logic/reasoning provided by others in this thread it seems to em that there are at least 4 possible scenarios revolving around a ball carrier going to ground in a tackled and non-tackled manner, and the ball touching or not touching the ground. Further scenarios then involviong the timing of players arriving and binding over the top.

For a ref to make a judgement call on the different situations now allowed (see posts above) seems overly burdensome. I seems far simpler to use the duck analogy here, which is where I believe your post comes in - I think we agree

BC goes to ground howsoever it happens = man on the floor, exercise options.
Two players arrive over the top = ruck, and bugger whether the ball has touched the ground for 1 nano-second or not and when that happened.

If nothing else allowing a player beneath two bound players to retain a hold on the ball, stand up and run off with it (because the ball never touched the ground) is potential flash point material.

didds

 

[Dickie E]

yes, Didds. BC on ground = ball on ground.

 

[The Fat]

Crux of the matter would seem to be, can a ruck form if no tackle has taken place? A player thrown to the ground (but not held) has not been tackled.

Regardless of that, the OP had a player off his feet with the ball and an opposition player on his feet over the top of him (albeit wrestling with the BC's team mate and not trying to pick up the ball), so the BC must do one of three things.

Instead of just jumping to his feet again, should the BC have released, jumped up and then picked up the ball again because of the position of the opposition player above him?

If a ball is rolling along the ground (no BC) and a player from each team start wrestling with each other over and in the general vicinity of the ball, has a ruck formed or do we just have 2 players each playing an opponent without the ball?

 

[Dickie E]

Crux of the matter would seem to be, can a ruck form if no tackle has taken place?

Of course. There is no relationship except a ruck often follows a tackle.

 

[didds]

Crux of the matter would seem to be, can a ruck form if no tackle has taken place?....


...

...If a ball is rolling along the ground (no BC) and a player from each team start wrestling with each other over and in the general vicinity of the ball, has a ruck formed or do we just have 2 players each playing an opponent without the ball?

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.

No need for a tackle to have taken place for a ruck to be occuring.

didds

 

[Dixie]

yes, Didds. BC on ground = ball on ground.

I can't agree with this. Nor, indeed, does Dickie. If it were correct, he'd award a grounding or a try in-goal as soon as the man hit the deck - without waiting to see whether the ball made it further to ground.

I wouldn't call Ruck in the situation the OP described - ball not on the ground. Ball carrier can do what he likes with it - and other players can't force him to release it by the simple expedient of playing an opposition player without the ball.

 

[Dixie]

yes, Didds. BC on ground = ball on ground.

I can't agree with this. Nor, indeed, does Dickie. If it were correct, he'd award a grounding or a try in-goal as soon as the man hit the deck - without waiting to see whether the ball made it further to ground.

I wouldn't call Ruck in the situation the OP described - ball not on the ground. Ball carrier can do what he likes with it - and other players can't force him to release it by the simple expedient of playing an opposition player without the ball.

 

[Camquin]

If you are on the ground you have to get to your feet or release the ball immediately - under law 14.
If a ruck forms over you you are not getting up immediately.

Camquin

 

[RobLev]

If you are on the ground you have to get to your feet or release the ball immediately - under law 14.
If a ruck forms over you you are not getting up immediately.

Camquin

So your vote is for a penalty against the player who didn't get up immediately?

According to the OP, "This all happened in a very short time...".

I'm not a ref, simply an armchair fan, but it seems to me that it is perfectly possible for a player to be thrown to the ground, catch his breath, have two other players stand over him, and then stand up and run away while he is still acting "immediately".

Surely either the player is entitled to exercise his Law 14 option of getting up and continuing to play, or he is to be penalised for not acting immediately? The putative ruck is irrelevant; just as a tackled player must release or pass the ball immediately, and if he doesn't will be penalised irrespective of whether a "ruck" forms over him.