"wheeling" the ruck

[Yaweesh]

Apologies for the title - its the closest description I could come up with. For my benefit (and also Dan Cole's & Sean Lamont's), is it an offence to drive your opponent backwards and around the rear of the ruck.

This was done with impunity in the EnglandvItaly match, but was penalised in the EnglandvWales match.

To clarify the situation.

Player (white) joins alongside a team mate at an existing ruck, legally in accordance with 16.5 and 16.2, and binds onto an opponent. Drives him backwards (parallel to the touchnlines), he then deliberately wheels him round and drives him back across the rear of the ruck (parallel to the goal lines), thus disrupting ball availability for the defending team.

What is the offence and law please ?

Many thanks.

 

[didds]

if this was pinged in Wales v England this was possibly one of Steve Walsh's peculiarities.

happy to be shown the law that makes this illegal naturally!

Yaweesh - do you have the game clock time of that PK perchance?

didds

 

[Davet]

Sp long as the player joins legally then no problem.

I also see refs telling such a player who has legally moved beyond the ball to disengage and go back round. Why?

 

[Dixie]

happy to be shown the law that makes this illegal naturally!

There can be little doubt that the current refereeing of the ruck has improved the game by preventing the slowing-down of ball that has been well won while the contest for the ball was actually going on. The question then, as with so much else, is whether the referee is actually using any known laws to make this happen, or is simply putting a personal (or indeed corporate) stamp on the play in question.

I also see refs telling such a player who has legally moved beyond the ball to disengage and go back round. Why?

I suspect in both cases they are putting an agreed "corporate" stamp on the play, but I also suspect they could find a figleaf to hide their embarrassment if challenged. On the question of driving an oppo round the back of the ruck, I'd ask whether the oppo was still bound and thus part of the ruck? If so, how was he going back and round so easily? If not, then both ex-ruckers are offside and need to retire:

[LAWS](c) Placing a hand on another player in the ruck does not constitute binding.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/LAWS]

[LAWS](d) Players not joining the ruck. If a player is in front of the offside line and does not join the ruck, the player must retire behind the offside line at once. If a player who is behind the offside line oversteps it and does not join the ruck the player is offside.
Sanction: Penalty kick on the offending team’s offside line[/LAWS]

 

[didds]

wrt are they both stuill in the ruck Dixie I was wondering along those lines.

If red buinds on ruck, and blue binds on him... the blue drives him backwards such that red disengages from the ruck, it seems somewhat harsh to PK blue for not being part of the ruck any longer, due to his otherwise legal play, purely becasue he is still attacjed to red only (and was only ever attached to red)

Yes he needs to get back o9nside ... but just to ping him simply for not now being part of the ruck?


?
didds