What’s allowed when no one is left in the ruck?

[Jarrod Burton]

Out for me also but Blue 5 offside. The defending line cant just stand there as the ruck whistles past and do nothing about it.

I'd say 5 was marginal at the time the red ruckers came through and went off their feet as they cleared the ruck. Given the screen shots above shows that the red players were off their feet (and made no real attempt to stay on their feet in doing so) I've taken it as the offside line hasn't changed - and I've had agreement from national coaches with this - and the blue player doesn't move until the ball appears - but isn't "out".

First image shows marginal onside

Then Red off their feet to bring down the ruck - where does the offside line go now since neither red player is supporting their weight? Or is the ruck over from now?

 

[didds]

at5 tehse levesl it seems to me that the ruck still exists - i can see that that is done to promote the game flowing etc but thats only becasue players off their feet athe ruck are not penalised in the first place - so we have a ruck that isnt.

winner.

 

[Rich_NL]

Then Red off their feet to bring down the ruck - where does the offside line go now since neither red player is supporting their weight? Or is the ruck over from now?

I seem to recall Underhill having a try disallowed in ENG vs NZ in about 2018, as the offside line was taken as the furthest point of the ruck pile. I don't remember the exact details, though.

 

[Jarrod Burton]

I seem to recall Underhill having a try disallowed in ENG vs NZ in about 2018, as the offside line was taken as the furthest point of the ruck pile. I don't remember the exact details, though.

That sort of ruling encourages attacking ruck players to blow through as fast and hard as they can in order to lengthen the ruck to push the offside line back. Not what I think the law writers were trying to achieve though.

 

[crossref]

That sort of ruling encourages attacking ruck players to blow through as fast and hard as they can in order to lengthen the ruck to push the offside line back. Not what I think the law writers were trying to achieve though.

Indeed

 

[BikingBud]

Interesting that the ruck time stat is becoming a point of focus as sealing off to enable quick ball or caterpillar/box kick from slow ball seem the only options in the playbook.

Frequently seems that the law makers intent is never considered as the laws are not applied?

Personally would prefer to see much greater application of the basic premise and first 3 elements of the ruck law as clearly 2 of the 3 are rarely applied:

Law 15 Principle

The purpose of a ruck is to allow players to compete for the ball which is on the ground.

Forming a ruck

1. A ruck can take place only in the field of play.
2. A ruck is formed when at least one player from each team are in contact, on their feet and over the ball which is on the ground.
3. Players involved in all stages of the ruck must have their heads and shoulders no lower than their hips. Sanction: Free-kick.

 

[crossref]

And also 9.20

1. Dangerous play in a ruck or maul.
   1. A player must not charge into a ruck or maul. Charging includes any contact made without binding onto another player in the ruck or maul.
   2. A player must not make contact with an opponent above the line of the shoulders.
   3. A player must not intentionally collapse a ruck or a maul.

 

[chbg]

Surely it is always the judiciary who decide how to interpret what the legislature has written?

 

[Jarrod Burton]

And also 9.20

1. Dangerous play in a ruck or maul.
   1. A player must not charge into a ruck or maul. Charging includes any contact made without binding onto another player in the ruck or maul.
   2. A player must not make contact with an opponent above the line of the shoulders.
   3. A player must not intentionally collapse a ruck or a maul.

How often do you see 1.1 actually enforced unless the entering player tucks the arm and drives straight at the head though?

 

[crossref]

How often do you see 1.1 actually enforced unless the entering player tucks the arm and drives straight at the head though?

1&2 are enfoced to some degree. 3 never (in fact collapsing rucks is standard practice)

 

[Jz558]

I'd say 5 was marginal at the time the red ruckers came through and went off their feet as they cleared the ruck. Given the screen shots above shows that the red players were off their feet (and made no real attempt to stay on their feet in doing so) I've taken it as the offside line hasn't changed - and I've had agreement from national coaches with this - and the blue player doesn't move until the ball appears - but isn't "out".

First image shows marginal onside
View attachment 4368
Then Red off their feet to bring down the ruck - where does the offside line go now since neither red player is supporting their weight? Or is the ruck over from now?
View attachment 4369

I can see your point but it strikes me that there is a difference between collapsing a ruck and pushing your opponents off the ball at a speed that causes them to fall over whilst retreating? You wouldn't penalise a dominant scrum for collapsing becasue the opponents failed to stay on their feet going backwards. The video is much clearer than the still image for me on this.

 

[Stu10]

I can see your point but it strikes me that there is a difference between collapsing a ruck and pushing your opponents off the ball at a speed that causes them to fall over whilst retreating? You wouldn't penalise a dominant scrum for collapsing becasue the opponents failed to stay on their feet going backwards. The video is much clearer than the still image for me on this.

I agree with this, though it leads us back to discussion as to whether the attackers join the ruck in a controlled fashion or charge in.

 

[Jarrod Burton]

I can see your point but it strikes me that there is a difference between collapsing a ruck and pushing your opponents off the ball at a speed that causes them to fall over whilst retreating? You wouldn't penalise a dominant scrum for collapsing becasue the opponents failed to stay on their feet going backwards. The video is much clearer than the still image for me on this.

Correct that I wouldn't penalise a dominant scrum for their opponents failing, but scrums are very different to rucks. Scrums are effectively a static set up against each other while rucks have fewer players, other players who are dynamically joining at pace and unbound until contact is made. Offside lines at a scrum are also generally more clear cut and easier to work - 5m back from the last feet and a 0.25m difference There won't have the same issue as the same distance at a ruck. Players near a ruck that it breaking apart can find themselves offside due to the actions of counter-ruckers blasting through with no intent or real opportunity at staying on their feet once they have completed their impact phase.

If you have no intent at staying on your feet at a ruck your body on the floor shouldn't form the boundary of the same IMO. I'm not talking about the initial transition between tackle and ruck for the pedants here, but rather the habit of smashing into rucks at speed to try to disrupt opposition players.

 

[Stu10]

I'm not talking about the initial transition between tackle and ruck for the pedants here, but rather the habit of smashing into rucks at speed to try to disrupt opposition players.

First and foremost, shouldn't this be a penalty. (Am I being too idealistic? )

 

[Jarrod Burton]

First and foremost, shouldn't this be a penalty. (Am I being too idealistic? )

It should but we'd pretty much penalise 90% of rucks in the higher levels of the game.

 

[didds]

It should but we'd pretty much penalise 90% of rucks in the higher levels of the game.

maybe "we" should. Then the rucks will go back to something less messy!

 

[Jarrod Burton]

maybe "we" should. Then the rucks will go back to something less messy!

I'd need to carry two spare whistles in a match after wearing out the peas.

 

[Stu10]

maybe "we" should. Then the rucks will go back to something less messy!

I'd need to carry two spare whistles in a match after wearing out the peas.

Change has to start somewhere... question is whether this is a change that WR wants.

 

[didds]

I'd need to carry two spare whistles in a match after wearing out the peas.

when the sin bin first came in I saw many people saying the game would end up 9 v 8 for large parts of the match and it was unworkable and nobody would be able to stay on the pitch.

funnily enough this never really happened and after a couple of weeks there were minimal sinbins.

funny that.

 

[BikingBud]

There has to be a will to enforce the laws as written otherwise people tend to discount them as immaterial.

Rucks, going off feet and in at the side, ping hard and consistently will soon see a change in behaviours.
Be firm with offside lines to give attacking teams a fair chance to build an attack and defending teams a fair opportunity to field kicks.

While we are at it, the contest at scrums and line outs should be reasserted.

A line out jumper going across or interlinking arms when that is the only way they can get near a ball that is blatantly not down the middle should be adjusted to address the first offence.

But this cannot be done by individual referees they need the backing of the system.