When is the ball out of a ruck?

[crossref]

Well, this thiead certainly illustrates OB point : there are as many answers to this question as there are referees.

That's probably why the irb issued some guidance to clear it up, under the unfortunate impression that referees would listen and apply it

 

[OB..]

Well, this thiead certainly illustrates OB point : there are as many answers to this question as there are referees.

If not more!

After the meeting I had a lively conversation with one of our senior referees, who would answer "Ask me and I will tell you. And I won't lie!" I tried to get the point across that he was making the players guess at his criteria, but I failed.

In practice I agree it rarely becomes a problem, but if we could get all our referees to say the same thing, players would stop asking.

 

[The Fat]

Well, this thiead certainly illustrates OB point : there are as many answers to this question as there are referees.

That's probably why the irb issued some guidance to clear it up, under the unfortunate impression that referees would listen and apply it

Referee's probably would have if the IRB memo was not at odds with the Law

 

[Mr Danes]

Yesterday's training session was a panel-led discussion on what referees, players, coaches and assessors expect of each other.

One of the thinbgs that got mentioned several times was consistency, though we found it useful to distinguish "consistency" (by a referee during a game) and "uniformity" (all refeees across all games).

To give the discussion a specific focus, I said that at almost every PMB someone asks "When is the ball out of a ruck?". I hear almost as many answers as there are refeees, and it seemed to me a good exemple of where society training could produce uniformity, at least in our area.

I know this subject has come up before, but I thought it would be useful to collect a wide rnage of approaches from the assembled group of experts.

[LAWS]16.6 A ruck ends successfully when the ball leaves the ruck, or when the ball is on or over the goal line.[/LAWS]
For me that means the ball has to be clear of the players in the ruck. However there is a rider: by convention the scrum half is allowed to use his hands to clear the ball from the ruck, and he may have difficulty pulling it out from under a player. I would allow him to do that provided he lifts the ball clear of the ruck as soon as he can. If he delays with his hands on the ball when he could lift it out, he is technically handling in the ruck.

I recommend saying the first bit, but making the scrum half aware of the rider if he starts to take liberties.

Over to you.

In my pre-match briefing to all players I define the ball leaving the ruck as when it has nothing vertically above it, which works very well. I tell the players I won't be verbally confirming this for them & not to ask me, either.

Likewise, I define the end of a scrum when there's nothing vertically above the ball.

These criteria are so simple that everyone can understand them and act on them. So, win-win.

 

[crossref]

In my pre-match briefing to all players I define the ball leaving the ruck as when it has nothing vertically above it, which works very well. I tell the players I won't be verbally confirming this for them & not to ask me, either.

Likewise, I define the end of a scrum when there's nothing vertically above the ball.

These criteria are so simple that everyone can understand them and act on them. So, win-win.

but they are different from just about every other ref...

 

[OB..]

In my pre-match briefing to all players I define the ball leaving the ruck as when it has nothing vertically above it, which works very well. I tell the players I won't be verbally confirming this for them & not to ask me, either.

Likewise, I define the end of a scrum when there's nothing vertically above the ball.

I think that is wrong. If the ball is between the #8's feet at a scrum, it is not out. That has to be the case or a pushover try would be almost impossible.

Why do you want players to guess if the ball is out?

These criteria are so simple that everyone can understand them and act on them. So, win-win.

It requires a view from above, which most players do not have.

 

[crossref]

Of course, having said this, the current guidance (2018) from World Rugby has moved towards Mr Danes' interpretation : viz

[LAWS]if the ball is clearly exposed, or has emerged from the ruck, it is deemed over[/LAWS]

clearly exposed is a bit like : nothing vertically over it.

https://www.londonrugby.com/training-blog/2018/9/16/world-rugby-june-2018-focus-areas

 

[Phil E]

Of course, having said this, the current guidance (2018) from World Rugby has moved towards Mr Danes' interpretation : viz

[LAWS]if the ball is clearly exposed, or has emerged from the ruck, it is deemed over[/LAWS]

clearly exposed is a bit like : nothing vertically over it.

https://www.londonrugby.com/training-blog/2018/9/16/world-rugby-june-2018-focus-areas

It would be helpful if you quoted the complete guidance and didn’t just cherry pick to suit your argument.

 

[crossref]

It would be helpful if you quoted the complete guidance and didn’t just cherry pick to suit your argument.

hmm - I'm not even sure what you are getting at -- you can be very cryptic sometimes, Phil

But here you go

[LAWS]
Dead Ruck
If the ball is clearly exposed or has emerged from the ruck, it is deemed over so therefore the ball can be played. If not the principle of once a ruck always a ruck applies. However the scrum half cannot be tackled without the ball
[/LAWS]

to me, it's quite an opaque paragraph - so I'm intrigued to know what you are getting at?

 

[Marc Wakeham]

It is a mess. [LAWS]
Dead Ruck
If the ball is clearly exposed OR has emerged from the ruck, it is deemed over so therefore the ball can be played. If not the principle of once a ruck always a ruck applies. However the scrum half cannot be tackled without the ball[/LAWS]

So if it is ion the ruck but the old seagul can crap on it it is out. OR it is out if it is out!

Are we expected t osay a ball that is between the legs of a player in a ruck is out. BUT in a scrum we have OB's words "If the ball is between the #8's feet at a scrum, it is not out. That has to be the case or a pushover try would be almost impossible."

Under previous guidence we had "lifted clear" Which for one referee was an inch and another 6 inches and another a foot.

Where is the consistency we all crave?

 

[OB..]

Low level local incident at the weekend: collapsed ruck with the ball lying between the feet of two Green players as the scrum half bends down to pick it up. Enthusiastic Blue flanker goes for the ball and comes into contact with the scrum half, flattening him with a clash of heads. Referee gave a red card.

 

[crossref]

hmm .. was the ball clearly exposed ?
If so could be just a rugby incident

 

[Camquin]

Or not depending - it all depends on what the ref saw.

 

[crossref]

hmm - I'm not even sure what you are getting at -- you can be very cryptic sometimes, Phil

But here you go

[LAWS]
Dead Ruck
If the ball is clearly exposed or has emerged from the ruck, it is deemed over so therefore the ball can be played. If not the principle of once a ruck always a ruck applies. However the scrum half cannot be tackled without the ball
[/LAWS]

to me, it's quite an opaque paragraph - so I'm intrigued to know what you are getting at?

Phil you never did explain your accusation of cherry picking.
What do you see as the essential difference between the whole paragraph and the sentence that quoted from it ?

 

[Phil E]

Taking one sentence out of a paragraph to prove your point, without referring to the rest of the paragraph, or the motivation/explanation behind it, is cherry picking. You do it all the time.

Mr Danes said his interpretation of a ruck was that when a bird could shit on the ball it was over.
This is not true as it could still be in the confines of the ruck boundaries. Many players could be on their feet actively rucking. The contest isn't over.

You then jumped in with your "if the ball is clearly exposed" comment. However you did not mention the rest of the discussion around that comment that it refers to when all the players have fallen to the side of the ruck, no one is on their feet, the ball is just lying there waiting to be picked up, no one is contesting it at that moment. There is a big difference between this and what Mr Danes quoted.

 

[crossref]

.

You then jumped in with your "if the ball is clearly exposed" comment. However you did not mention the rest of the discussion around that comment that it refers to when all the players have fallen to the side of the ruck, no one is on their feet, the ball is just lying there waiting to be picked up, no one is contesting it at that moment. There is a big difference between this and what Mr Danes quoted.

But none of that is in the WR guidance ..

Meanwhile clearly exposed is, let's face it, unfortunately similar to the old seagull definition

 

[Phil E]

But none of that is in the WR guidance ..

Meanwhile clearly exposed is, let's face it, unfortunately similar to the old seagull definition

It was in the explanatory discussion notes...at least it was in my Society copy.

But with a different context. Everyone has moved away from the ruck for one reason or another (driven past it, rolled to the side, etc).

The seagull analogy tended to refer to the ball being between the 8's feet or similar.

 

[crossref]

Jonathn Kaplan in the Sunday Telegraph today, the bird is still crapping --

To my mind, if the ball is no longer in the ruck and is not covered at all by the other players - something I assessed by asking myself iwhether a bird could shit on it from above - then it is out and available for all to play. Further illustrating the point : by touching it Perenena ensured it was fair game, the offside line is not relevant now

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-u...gland-try-offside-no-clear-evidence-overturn/


this area of the Law is so murky! Every ref has a different idea. When they players ask me I say : "when the scrum half lifts it" so neither of the two tests Kaplan gives apply.

we all say : well - World Rugby should give some proper guidance!
And hey presto : in June they gave some guidance

[LAWS]Dead Ruck
If the ball is clearly exposed or has emerged from the ruck, it is deemed over so therefore the ball can be played. If not the principle of once a ruck always a ruck applies. However the scrum half cannot be tackled without the ball[/LAWS]

but two problems now:
a) the guidance is so poorly written it hardly makes any sense, However - like it or not - it does seem to bring back the previously discredited sea-gull view.

b) but we refs refuse to believe what it says anyway, because it doesn't fit our preconceptions and/or we didn't get an email about it from the Society, and/or its not what it says in the old 2017 Law Book and most of us are firmly convinced that the Laws now can never change from how they were understood in 2017

Rugby needs to get a grip on this . Its's basic. - we should all be able to agree on when is the ball out

 

[OB..]

Rugby needs to get a grip on this . Its's basic. - we should all be able to agree on when is the ball out

Agreed.

However I observe that the seagull view is not the one being applied at the top level. You often see players carefully keeping a foot either side of the ball while the scrum half positions himself for a box kick.

The seagull approach is flawed because the defenders (and usually the referee as well) do not have that view and therefore have to guess.

 

[crossref]

I totally agree that the seagull view is flawed, and I don't use it
(Even though WR guidance last month seems to suggest it's making a comeback )