Crusader vs Reds

[didds]

If you are not clearing the ball from the ruck then you are handling in the ruck

yes, Ill go with that.
Butthe problem is he isnt not clearing the ball form the ruck until he isnnot clearing the ball form the ruck - and the ruck is over when the try is scored.
What oif the ball was already on the try line? Does the lack of clearing the ball from the ruck by just touching it and thus scoring mean it isnt a try but a PK? Even though it would be very difficult to dig in and retrieve a ball touching the try line without performing the requirements of scoring - the slightest "pressure" would count after all ?

 

[didds]

In this scenario you have a player on his feet playing the ball with a foot. This is allowed in a ruck. Once the ball gets to the try line the ruck is over, therefore he can put his hand on the ball - try.

Hmmm... what about combining these scenarios... what if the scrum half puts a foot into the ruck, rolls the ball forward with his foot and then touches the ball down on the try line? I assume he must be bound, therefore this is simply the scenario in post #11?

except in that scenario he wouldn't be bound unless he actually grabs the ruck with a full arm etc before slapping a hand on the ball?

Law 16.b
(b) A player joining a ruck must bind onto the ruck with at least one arm around the body of a team-mate, using the whole arm

 

[Decorily]

Even though it would be very difficult to dig in and retrieve a ball touching the try line without performing the requirements of scoring - the slightest "pressure" would count after all ?

Picking up a ball in the ingoal area is not deemed to be grounding it.

 

[didds]

but all you need to do to a ball in-goal is apply downward pressure. any touch however light is still downward pressure. Grasping the ball has applied pressure. Clearly.

 

[Stu10]

yes, Ill go with that.
Butthe problem is he isnt not clearing the ball form the ruck until he isnnot clearing the ball form the ruck - and the ruck is over when the try is scored.
What oif the ball was already on the try line? Does the lack of clearing the ball from the ruck by just touching it and thus scoring mean it isnt a try but a PK? Even though it would be very difficult to dig in and retrieve a ball touching the try line without performing the requirements of scoring - the slightest "pressure" would count after all ?

If the ball is already on the try line then the ruck is over, but we were talking about the SH picking the ball and then reaching forward or sliding the ball forwards towards the try line.

 

[Decorily]

but all you need to do to a ball in-goal is apply downward pressure. any touch however light is still downward pressure.

Fair enough. ....but context needs to be accounted for.
Technically a ball can be lifted without applying 'downward pressure ' .


For example a ball loose on the ground in the ingoal area can be lifted and carried to a different spot to ground to score a try in a more beneficial spot.

 

[Dickie E]

[LAWS=]
Ending a ruck
15.17 When the ball has been clearly won by a team at the ruck, and is available to be played, the referee calls “use it”, after which the ball must be played away from the ruck within five seconds. Sanction: Scrum.

[/LAWS]

Law 15.17 tells us that the scrum half must play the ball away from the ruck. This example does not comply with law 15.17.

I understood law 15.7 to be saying that the ball must be played away if, and only if, the ref calls "use it".

But I agree with the sentiment. Stick your hands in, play it away. If ball emerges without having to stick your hands, then you don't need to play it away.

 

[Dickie E]

What oif the ball was already on the try line? Does the lack of clearing the ball from the ruck by just touching it and thus scoring mean it isnt a try but a PK? Even though it would be very difficult to dig in and retrieve a ball touching the try line without performing the requirements of scoring - the slightest "pressure" would count after all ?

In that scenario, the ruck is over once the ball reaches the goal line and the downward pressure (although slight) scores a try.

 

[Volun-selected]

In summary - if the ball is still on the fop then any forward movement with their hand is an offense - no try. If they use their hands, then they can only us them to get the ball away from the ruck.

If the ball is on the goal line or in goal, then the ruck is over and the SH simply needs to touch the ball to “apply downward pressure”.

However, by the same logic, if the ruck has done that flop over thing and the ball is on or over and exposed - then I’d also allow any defender to jump in and ground as long as they‘re onside.

Last variation, if the ball is on the fop and just shy of the goal line, as long as the player safely moves the ball forward with their foot (but not in a way that could be deemed kicking the ball out of the ruck) then once on or over the goal line any onside player can then attempt to ground it - including a defender in the former ruck dropping onto the ball.

That sound right?

 

[didds]

However, by the same logic, if the ruck has done that flop over thing and the ball is on or over and exposed - then I’d also allow any defender to jump in and ground as long as they‘re onside.

but the ruck wouldn't exist when "ball is on or over" - so there would be no offside?

didds

 

[Stu10]

Last variation, if the ball is on the fop and just shy of the goal line, as long as the player safely moves the ball forward with their foot (but not in a way that could be deemed kicking the ball out of the ruck) then once on or over the goal line any onside player can then attempt to ground it

I think that player using his/her foot must be part of the ruck (ie bound) and not in the scrum half position.

 

[didds]

I think that player using his/her foot must be part of the ruck (ie bound) and not in the scrum half position.

and while that makes a lot of sense, is there a law reference for that? given s/hs are permitted use of the boot to retrieve a ball along a caterpillar when they are not bound (I appreciate they are taking the ball in a different direction!)...

 

[Stu10]

and while that makes a lot of sense, is there a law reference for that? given s/hs are permitted use of the boot to retrieve a ball along a caterpillar when they are not bound (I appreciate they are taking the ball in a different direction!)...

[LAWS=]During a ruck:
15.13. All players in a ruck must be caught in or bound to it and not just alongside it.
15.14. Players may play the ball with their feet, provided they do so in a safe manner.
15.10. Possession may be won either by rucking or by pushing the opposing team off the ball.
[/LAWS]

Rucking: Legally using one’s feet to try to win or keep possession of the ball in a ruck.

Playing Devil's advocate, I'm not sure the laws actually allow the SH to retrieve a ball along a caterpillar, unless that is considered to be an act of playing the ball away from the ruck (covered by law 15.17).

 

[didds]

Playing Devil's advocate, I'm not sure the laws actually allow the SH to retrieve a ball along a caterpillar, unless that is considered to be an act of playing the ball away from the ruck (covered by law 15.17).

indeed. But clearly refs do allow it.
So im really struggling to see why a non bound s/h couldnt prod the ball with his foot towards the line a couple of inches as opposed to rolling it back sevreal feet under the same "allowance"
But this is what i guess happens when refs have to do "something" to allow the game to actually happen when other laws are all ignored (flopping at rucks for example) - we end up with little non-legsla that then get used in places they havent been used before and its all a bit odd!

 

[Stu10]

indeed. But clearly refs do allow it.
So im really struggling to see why a non bound s/h couldnt prod the ball with his foot towards the line a couple of inches as opposed to rolling it back sevreal feet under the same "allowance"
But this is what i guess happens when refs have to do "something" to allow the game to actually happen when other laws are all ignored (flopping at rucks for example) - we end up with little non-legsla that then get used in places they havent been used before and its all a bit odd!

This pretty much sums up why there is discussion regarding the original post.

 

[didds]

absolutely - and its why i keep prodding with silly queries - so we can all work together to find a workable agreed solution

 

[Locke]

Going back to OP, if we accept that this is or should be legal and is not hands in the ruck and/or the ruck is over, why isn’t this then obstruction?

 

[Stu10]

Nowadays obstruction only seems to be penalised if it is deemed to be a realistic chance of the defender making a tackle, which would have been impossible here because he moved the ball a couple of inches in a split second... I'm not saying this is right though!

 

[didds]

Going back to OP, if we accept that this is or should be legal and is not hands in the ruck and/or the ruck is over, why isn’t this then obstruction?

cos rucks and mauls are never obstruction when the s/h is digging the ball out either. Its just an extension of how its always been allied to the "modern" permission to handle in a ruck because "we" allow flopping etc instead of real rucks.

 

[Locke]

cos rucks and mauls are never obstruction when the s/h is digging the ball out either. Its just an extension of how its always been allied to the "modern" permission to handle in a ruck because "we" allow flopping etc instead of real rucks.

I see your point but I just can’t tolerate this potential loophole, haha. This is not positive play.
[LAWS=]Law 15.18
The ruck ends and play continues when the ball leaves the ruck or when the ball in the ruck is on or over the goal line.
[/LAWS]
I’d like to argue that the ruck should be considered over when he starts playing the ball forward but I can’t back it up in law but, at the least, the ruck is over when the ball reaches the goal line. In any other open play scenario, wouldn’t we penalize for obstruction, even on the goal line? I’m trying to grasp at something to make this clearly illegal lol. But it’s too messy, which is your whole point @didds.
Maybe WR will comment on it…