|
|
|
Junior Member
 
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 13/12/2009 21:57:43
Posts: 15,
Visits: 176
|
|
| With referees making the tackled player move away from the ball on the ground, if all of the defending team stepped away from a ruck, thereby their being no physical contact with an oppponent, does this constitute that the ruck is over. If so, then there is no offside line, defending team could offlicially move around the ruck and take the ball. The Italians used to do this at Maul time, especially at line outs. Am I correct or am I missing some laws to stop this happening?
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Member
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 12/12/2008 13:37:04
Posts: 30,
Visits: 216
|
|
i must be missing them too
i agree with you.
we've looked at this in a soft/stop-start training match. two men on each side walking on the pitch, guiding and geeing-up
two mixed teams, with boys doing the usual stuff at a breakdown.
we noticed that a keen boy would always bridge and not pick up.
his secondary support was lazy/slow so he was, in effect, on his own for a time.
we had our forwards nip around him and not engage the bridging boy, they picked up behind him. and secured the ball for their own side.
lots of calls for offside but i cant see how it is offside if a ruck has'nt formed.
the speed and attitude of this game made this move glaringly obvious but i see it as the same as you described.
i have tried to describe that italian' maul defensive move to some who have not seen it.
you can see the cogs moving but most simply dont think this way. (im not sure i would have)
exploiting rules can spoil the game but i find it interesting to see the 'experts' having to rethink.
i'll wait to see if im told im wrong but as in all things, i'll play the ref.
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Being
Group: Moderators
Last Login: 05/03/2010 11:46:41
Posts: 229,
Visits: 1,561
|
|
| This is a great question and one I thought of as well this weekend...great minds... Have put it to refereeing sources.
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Guru
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 11/11/2009 12:22:33
Posts: 54,
Visits: 149
|
|
| I'm with weathergirls ... if there are not two players, one from each team, shoving over the ball then it isn't a ruck and therefore it must be open play. This whole "when is a ruck not a ruck" question is very topical in our team. I am trying to get our boys to understand that if the ball is loose they can fall on it or pick it up (subject to arriving at the tackle from the right direction etc) but all too often they wait for the opposition to form a ruck and guess what ... they pick it up instead! Ferret
U14s Backs Coach "There is a forgotten, nay almost forbidden word, which means more to me than any other. That word is England" (Sir Winston Churchill)
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Member
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 12/12/2008 13:37:04
Posts: 30,
Visits: 216
|
|
i seem to remember a gloucester match early this year where a player was pinged for falling on the ball when it had spilled out of the back of a ruck.
the player was pinged, by ref wayne barns, because he came from within a metre of the ruck and 'fell on the ball'. he would have been alright if he had picked it up,or, if he came further than 3 metres and then fallen on the ball.
he was not offside as the ball was clearly out.
it looked like one of those early season rule changes as everyone seemed confused.
i dont know enough to say either way, but we have three approachable refs in our age group but none of them knew that rule, or anything that it could have been
i mention it because we tried to get the boys to make an effort to pick up, and then choose to set up, run or pass, so we didnt fall foul of this law.
better to have some options anyway.
this might apply to the other situation
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Member
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 04/03/2010 17:57:12
Posts: 27,
Visits: 71
|
|
| I don't think the 1m bit applies to the player, I think it's if the ball is within 1m of the original ruck/maul. The only reason I can think of is for safety purposes.
|
|
|
|
|
Junior Member
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 05/02/2010 11:38:37
Posts: 14,
Visits: 45
|
|
| The law here is that if the ball is within a metre of the ruck you must remain on your feet to play the ball, presuming you were onside prior to the ball becoming loose. The intention is to prevent a pile up of bodies. Mr Barnes was correct, but you do see this action not being pinged at times.
|
|
|
|
|
Junior Member
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 23/02/2009 11:21:21
Posts: 11,
Visits: 29
|
|
| Did Italy not step away from a line-out to prevent a ruck or maul from forming in an international match a while ago?
|
|
|
|
|
Junior Member
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 23/02/2009 11:21:21
Posts: 11,
Visits: 29
|
|
Rainier (18/11/2008)
Did Italy not step away from a line-out to prevent a ruck or maul from forming in an international match a while ago?Argh J7, did not read your post correctly. I believe your interpretation of the situation is correct.
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Guru
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 11/11/2009 12:22:33
Posts: 54,
Visits: 149
|
|
| 16.4 (e) a player must not fall on or over a ball as it is coming out of a ruck Can't see where the 1 metre comes into it, is it a refs guideline, related to the 1 metre "tackle zone" or the definition of "near" for Law 14.... or is it elsewhere in the laws? How does anyone ever learn the laws of this game? Ferret
U14s Backs Coach "There is a forgotten, nay almost forbidden word, which means more to me than any other. That word is England" (Sir Winston Churchill)
|
|
|
|