• Please bear with us. We have moved to a new provider, and some images and icons are not working correctly. We are working hard to fix this

Caterpillar Extension

World rugby created this problem when they said that a player on the ground could define the offside line. ..

The offside line should be the hindmost point of players on their feet (as we all thought was the case until recently)
 
The Law here is an ASS

Team A player is "long" and and Team B are joining behind him legally. They drive over him but the ball is still "in the ruck". Who can play it? The 9 can't come past the player on the ground to get to it and the players in the ruck can't pick it up.

What happens next?

Technical point:

Is not the point of team A's player on the floor that is "nearestTeam B's goal line" his "FOREmost" rather than "HINDmost" point?
 
Marc Wakeham said:
The Law here is an ASS

Team A player is "long" and and Team B are joining behind him legally. They drive over him but the ball is still "in the ruck". Who can play it? The 9 can't come past the player on the ground to get to it and the players in the ruck can't pick it up.

What happens next?

Technical point:

Is not the point of team A's player on the floor that is "nearestTeam B's goal line" his "FOREmost" rather than "HINDmost" point?
Click to expand...
The problem is in the Law they wrote

Each team has an offside line that runs parallel to the goal line through the hindmost point of any ruck participant. If that point is on or behind the goal line, the offside line for that team is the goal line

"any participant"
This is all to do with that disallowed try England had v New Zealand
 
smeagol said:
I see this, next stoppage I’m telling the BC and captain that I’m pinging this if it happens again - 14.7.b rarely comes up, but this is a clear cut case IMO
Click to expand...
Or C?
c. Ensure that they do not lie on, over or near the ball to prevent opposition players from gaining possession of it.
Click to expand...

They can place immediately, also 14.7:

a. Make the ball available so that play can continue by releasing, passing or pushing the ball in any direction except forward. They may place the ball in any direction.
Click to expand...

If they are moving while still holding the ball in the ruck:

15:15 - Players on the ground must attempt to move away from the ball and must not play the ball in the ruck or as it emerges.
Click to expand...
So it is either out and playable by all, or they are playing the ball on the floor or in the ruck.

All 3 are peep and pen against team in possession but those in command determine that "technical" offences shouldn't ruin the spectacle and therefore are allowed!
 
crossref said:
The problem is in the Law they wrote

Each team has an offside line that runs parallel to the goal line through the hindmost point of any ruck participant. If that point is on or behind the goal line, the offside line for that team is the goal line

"any participant"
This is all to do with that disallowed try England had v New Zealand
Click to expand...
Yep we know the problem is in the law they wrote. But a bit of common sense could have avoided this.
 
In such a situation, is the defending team allowed to grab the BC by the ankles and drag him out of the ruck?

I guess grabbing someone's ankles isn't 'binding' as such, but...

Might not be the best tactic, but could be fun to watch.
 
would that be the same territory of dragging a player into touch ?

which I thought was illegal - but honestly cant remember now! LOL
 
Quite simply the referee should have applied any of 14.7. He didn’t because he probably hadn’t seen such a blatant, slow motion, non-compliance of the law before. The after match review would be interesting and this action will have been discussed. We now have to watch to see if other teams/players do it. If they do then I think wecan determine from this that it has been sanctioned by the various law authorities. If it is penalised then we know it hasn’t. Having said that I do think that the TV clubs are given a message before it is likely to happen again. We wil just have to wait and see because such things are unfortunately not conveyed openly very often. If they are it is usually after a delay and doesn’t help the grassroots/community game when such an action will happen next week because of people watching it on tv.
 
jeremy said:
In such a situation, is the defending team allowed to grab the BC by the ankles and drag him out of the ruck?

I guess grabbing someone's ankles isn't 'binding' as such, but...

Might not be the best tactic, but could be fun to watch.
Click to expand...
No dragging. Can't do it if a support player is on their feet, can't do it if the player is on the ground.
didds said:
would that be the same territory of dragging a player into touch ?

which I thought was illegal - but honestly cant remember now! LOL
Click to expand...
If the BC has been tackled and is on the ground, no you cannot drag them into touch.
 
I can live with "controlling the landing as you are tackled" but once stationary on the floor you are out of the game. The wriggling about to maximise the offside line is not permitted and now refs should be saying either 'ignore him/her, this is the back foot' or PK for not releasing the ball on the floor immediately if still in contact.
 
tim White said:
I can live with "controlling the landing as you are tackled" but once stationary on the floor you are out of the game. The wriggling about to maximise the offside line is not permitted and now refs should be saying either 'ignore him/her, this is the back foot' or PK for not releasing the ball on the floor immediately if still in contact.
Click to expand...
I'll try that Saturday, shouldn't be a problem.. Fancy assessing ;)
 
For me, if you go to ground as the ball carrier and want to play the ball you’re expected to do so immediately, let’s apply similar timescales to other actions. In that clip the defence have had enough time to form up on the expected offside line, Itoje’s actions were not immediate and I’d be quite happy to not enforce that - appreciate there’s no basis in law.

If challenged I may ‘not have seen that’ as I was on to my next job of expected behaviour by then 🤷‍♂️

Don’t like it, not positive
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top