• 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

Jumping over the "ruck"

Shelflife

Shelflife


Referees in Ireland
Last week in a Super pacific game , Angus Gardner disallowed a try for a player jumping over the ruck.

So attacking ruck just short of the line, blue player picks the ball up and jumps over the pile of player and touches down for a try .

AG says no try pen against blue you cant jump over the ruck.

But once he takes the ball out, the ruck is over.

Serious law error ? or has there being a clarification issued recently?
 
I would distinguish #9 diving over it, that might be dangerous , but could be achieved safely , from #9 passing the ball to #10 at speed who hurdles the ruck, which is always dangerous
 
we've been here before.

J

Thread 'Legal diving over the ruck?'

https://www.reddit.com/r/rugbyunion/comments/189rvnf

Ok, to be fair this isn't diving over the ruck in a traditional sense, but is there something illegal about this in the law book? Something somewhere about a player leaving their feet maybe? I can't recall exactly.
Z

Post in thread 'Diving to score'

But is this sort of diving dangerous or reckless to others? Opinions needed to get a consensus. I'm on the OK side, as long as players are diving to score, I'd be less happy in open play away from the try line (although you would be highly unlikely to se this except diving over a ruck which is specifically outlawed anyway.
Ciaran Trainor

Thread 'Diving Over The Ruck'

Watched highlights of Cardiff v Glasgow yesterday and asw the Glasgow Scrum half dive over a ruck on the line to score a try.
Try was given straight away but is it Legal?
If this was in midfield and a scrum half was about to get the ball away with ball in the air and in two hands I'm sure a defender would be penalised if he dived over and tackled the scrum half.

Law 16(d) A player must not jump on top of a ruck.
Sanction: Penalty kick

Its very unlikely that a player Diving over a ruck does not touch anybody.
Thoughts any body

possibly others etc
 
crossref said:
Itoje jumping over just now 25m in , no one seems to worry about that .
He's held up
Click to expand...
that whole episode was poor refereeing. He called a transfer of the ball so the tackle happened on the ball carrier - but if that's the case then its a PK to Italy for England obstruction.
Or if the ball carrier is attached to the maul then its in from the side and a YC for collapsing a maul, possibly PT.

So having decided it was a genuine tackle but somehow NOT obstruction by England, then indeed Itoje's jump may have been worth viewing - but wasn't.

They cant ALL be non existent?
 
Clarification 3-2022
Last paragraph
In principle, in a try scoring situation, if the action is deemed to be a dive forward for a try, then it should be permitted. If a player is deemed to have left the ground to avoid a tackle; or to jump, or hurdle a potential tackler, then this is dangerous play and should be sanctioned accordingly.

I think it should have been sanctioned accordingly
 
I thought in the moment, and on replay, that he was diving to score. He's diving forward, not jumping or hurdling.
 
I thought by my understanding of the difference, he was diving legally. Propelled forward, horizontal, with the ball going to ground first.

I also thought it was an excellent example of how ambiguously it is defined and inconsistently related to safety. The call was correct, the law is the problem.
 
I also think Sheehan was in a classic "diving for the line" body shape and movement.
The Australian's were claiming that he dived over 2 "tacklers", but both those players had knees firmly on the ground and should be considered out of play.
 
Stu10 said:
I also think Sheehan was in a classic "diving for the line" body shape and movement.
The Australian's were claiming that he dived over 2 "tacklers", but both those players had knees firmly on the ground and should be considered out of play.
Click to expand...
I was ok with the diving for the line.
Being "considered out of play" doesn't mean you shouldn't be protected from dangerous play
 
The problem is, they want to allow diving for the line and prevent going over players. And both happened here.

Usually diving for the line is a case of a back jumping while a covering defender comes across to stop them; in this case, the defenders were lined up right in front and going low.
 
Rich_NL said:
The problem is, they want to allow diving for the line and prevent going over players. And both happened here.

Usually diving for the line is a case of a back jumping while a covering defender comes across to stop them; in this case, the defenders were lined up right in front and going low.
Click to expand...
Ie It was a planned dive over , rather than am instinctive one ...
 
I feel he was diving to score in the full knowledge that ground level chop tackles, often with out arms are now commonplace, see Luke Cowan Dickie for frequent example. And that by diving it was highly unlikely he would be stopped.

So not hurdling/jumping tackles but also as he was mid air not a traditional dive/slide into goal.

I also feel there will be clarification sought.
 
crossref said:
Ie It was a planned dive over , rather than am instinctive one ...
Click to expand...

Diving (which he did) to score a try (which he did) is allowed; I see nothing about intent in the clarification.

It's not the first time he's tried it, by the way, and it's seemingly defendable:

 
Balones said:
I don’t think the law makers necessarily want to ban diving but rather they want to ban jumping which has more potential for head/knee contact.
Click to expand...
what's the difference though? in a rugby context I think jumping is where your centre of gravity initially goes upwards (the jump), but diving is where your centre of gravity is always going down -- the run and dive in.

I think that's supported by the clarification (my emphasis)

In principle, in a try scoring situation, if the action is deemed to be a dive forward for a try, then it should be permitted. If a player is deemed to have left the ground to avoid a tackle; or to jump, or hurdle a potential tackler, then this is dangerous play and should be sanctioned accordingly.

in this case centre of gravity went up, so it was primarily a jump, to avoid a tackler. So I think the law makers intended that to be a PK.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top