Where is this 'playing the 9' offence at ruck found in the laws, please

[CrouchTPEngage]

i ve been through the ruck law and cant find a law to back up the penalty against a defender,at a ruck, who is attempting to disrupt the opposing 9 by contacting him. typically this takes the form of knocking his hands or grabbing the 9s shirt to pull him into the ruck?

I appreciate its an offence, as all refs penalise it, and it is obviously better for the enjoyment of the gamw. But can someone please quote me chapter and verse.

Thanks in advance.

CPTE

 

[Rushforth]

10.4 (f) Playing an opponent without the ball. Except in a scrum, ruck or maul, a player who is not in possession of the ball must not hold, push or obstruct an opponent not carrying the ball.

Edit: Just to be clear, this can be read in two ways: When in a maul, players not in possession of the ball may hold or obstruct any other players, including the full-back and both wings if their three arms are long enough, OR they may hold and push and obstruct opponents (not carrying the ball) who are ALSO in the maul. We go for the second interpretation. At least I do.

 

[Adam]

The reason it's penalised is because the player isn't being positive. It is a 'patient-speak' phrase.

The player concerned is almost always offside, not bound or something else illegal.

 

[Taff]

The player concerned is almost always offside, not bound or something else illegal.

IIRC in a maul, there is no requirement to be bound in. Merely caught in will do.

 

[Guyseep]

10.4 (f) Playing an opponent without the ball. Except in a scrum, ruck or maul, a player who is not in possession of the ball must not hold, push or obstruct an opponent not carrying the ball.

Agreed, this is the basic principle of why you cant play the 9. As refs we also allow a bit of leeway to the 9 as he is digging for the ball. Some might argue that the defending team can at that moment interfere with the scrumhalf, but if we allow it then play would grind to a halt.

The one other thing to consider is if a ruck forms, and a defending player in the ruck legally breaks through the middle of it and the only person left standing is the attacking 9 at the base of the ruck, I think there should be no reason the defender can't counter ruck and clear out the 9. Thoughts?

 

[menace]

Does this help?....

[LAWS]Clarification 8 2006

Ruling in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee
Ruling8-2006
UnionFFR
Law Reference16
Date29 November 2006
Request
The FFR has requested a ruling with regard to Law 16 Ruck
Question:
1. Can the referee allow a defender coming from his side to intervene on an opponent as soon as his opponent has his hands on the ball, by diving over the players on the ground in front of him?
2. Can the referee allow a defender coming from his side to intervene on the ball as soon as it emerges from the ruck, by diving over the players on the ground in front of him?
3. Can the referee allow a player coming from his side to hit the arm of the
opponent as this opponent has the ball in his hands, by diving over the
players on the ground in front of him?
4. Can the referee allow a player coming from his side to hit the arm of the
opponent as this opponent has the ball in his hands, by staying on his feet but being in contact with players on the ground in front of him?
Ruling in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee
1. No. See Laws 16.2(d) and 16.3(d).
2. No. See Laws 16.2(d) and 16.3(d).
3. No. See Laws 16.2(d) and 16.3(d).
4. Yes. If the player was on his feet and came from an onside position.[/LAWS]

I know it says diving over for 1 - 3, but I think reaching over the ruck has some connotations in this context too.
Part 4 seems to be relevant to your question. Though depending on the situation if front of you, you need to assess if the player taking the 9 out was bound in the ruck (and offside if not) or came from the side to take out the 9. So many variables to consider and many laws to apply that somewhat protect the 9. But the terms "taking out the 9" or "leave the 9 alone" often used at elite level don't really help to establish which law was broken.