[
PLEASE LOGIN TO POST TO THE FORUM
]
|
|
|
miniref
|
Mon, 17 March 08 13:06 GMT
|
Andy Melrose
May I respectfully request that the RFU Referee Department re-iterates your response to its senior Referee Development personnel. That way, the "out of line" person will get the clear message.
|
|
|
meldt11
|
Wed, 27 February 08 16:41 GMT
|
The RFU Referee Department follows Law 16.3(f), it states that 'a player rucking for the ball must not ruck players on the ground'.
We also adhere to the 2005 IRB Ruling “ 4. Additionally, would inadvertent or unintentional contact with players in a ruck as an incident of legitimate rucking for the football (reckless and patently dangerous rucking apart) be considered legal and within the Laws of the Game? Answer. Yes”
Andy Melrose
|
|
|
ob
|
Tue, 26 February 08 17:33 GMT
|
miniref - "My original post was actually a quote from a SENIOR member of the referee development fraternity. I did not mis-hear; he was clear: in his opinion, you can ruck the hand off the ball. "
That really worries me. I have no idea how he justifies that, given the clarity in the law and the IRB Ruling on it.
As to ELVs and hands in the ruck, that particular one is not being trialled in the S14, but will be part of SA domestic rugby for this season.
|
|
|
Peterj#5E$
|
Tue, 26 February 08 17:33 GMT
|
miniref - "My original post was actually a quote from a SENIOR member of the referee development fraternity. I did not mis-hear; he was clear: in his opinion, you can ruck the hand off the ball. "
That really worries me. I have no idea how he justifies that, given the clarity in the law and the IRB Ruling on it.
As to ELVs and hands in the ruck, that particular one is not being trialled in the S14, but will be part of SA domestic rugby for this season.
|
|
|
p.g.t
|
Tue, 26 February 08 17:24 GMT
|
A slight tangent to this...Isn't this the sort of concern that has been raised before on this forum as regards the new Experimental Law variations? I've lost track a bit of which changes are in at the moment but I thought that hands in ruck (as long as the player is on his/her feet) was going to be allowed? The concern that has been voiced before was around what happens when a hand and foot both then try to "ruck" the ball out.
It strikes me that the current situation is slightly clearer (as described by other posters here) - hand on ball, ref calls hands off/advantage/penalty, if foot rucks hand, ref reverses penalty. Under the potential new laws I am unsure how this would be handled (pardon the pun!) - do you consider which part of the body was on the ball first, or which is most vulnerable, or what?
|
-------------------------
Tipsy |
|
|
miniref
|
Tue, 26 February 08 13:50 GMT
|
Whistleblower - yes, you're right, I'm quite active in arguing that rucking any part of the body is unacceptable and should be a PK (suitable limited allowance for accidental contact on non-joints), often to be accompanied with a card.
I agree that the situation must be managed such that players don't feel the need to take the law into their own hands.
My original post was actually a quote from a SENIOR member of the referee development fraternity. I did not mis-hear; he was clear: in his opinion, you can ruck the hand off the ball.
|
|
|
miniref
|
Tue, 26 February 08 13:46 GMT
|
Whistleblower - yes, you're right, I'm quite active in arguing that rucking any part of the body is unacceptable and should be a PK (suitable limited allowance for accidental contact on non-joints), often to be accompanied with a card.
I agree that the situation must be managed such that players don't feel the need to take the law into their own hands.
My original post was actually a quote from a SENIOR member of the referee development fraternity. I did not mis-hear; he was clear: in his opinion, you can ruck the hand off the ball.
|
|
|
ballsie
|
Mon, 25 February 08 15:46 GMT
|
you can if you are there blow for the first offence especially if its on the deck and there is a chance of feet on players, nip it in the bud and avoid the flash point
|
-------------------------
Ballsie |
|
|
didds
- scrumtime@hotmail.com
|
Mon, 25 February 08 10:08 GMT
|
not helped by players then ignoring refs calls of "advantage being played" and still taking the wild west approach to law enforcement.
You can;t have it both ways.
didds
|
|
|
ballsie
|
Sat, 23 February 08 15:10 GMT
|
you know what guys I fully understand a pk for stamping is fully deserved but I am getting a bit tired of being told that we wouldnt see the first offence ie the hand in the ruck.. you put your hand in the ruck and it is likely to get trodden on at any level.... call ruck call hands out, be there see the first offence ie the hands in and blow thus avoiding the stood on hands or what ever you want to call it....
what frustrates players of all levels is referees not punishing the first offence, usually caused by the referee not being where he should be and looking for what he should be looking for..
This message edited on Sat, 23 February 08 by ballsie
|
-------------------------
Ballsie |
|
|
zackly
|
Sat, 23 February 08 11:02 GMT
|
Whistleblower. Thanks for the reminder on the IRB v IRFU rulings. These are also pertinent to the Thread on Bridging/Latching running concurrently.
Zackly's creative variant is sometimes to try to bring natural justice to bear on the events. Assuming I see the White hand sneak out in the ruck to hold the ball illegally before the Blue stamp on the White hand : YC to Blue stamper but PK AGAINST White initiator of the sequence = PK to Blue. Down-in-the-weeds I don't always feel impelled to award sanctions in strict time sequence order !
I got there having seen Troy Flavell NZ diving over a ball emerged from a ruck only to be raked by Ben Cohen. That ref. gave PK to NZ !
|
|
|
the whistleblower
|
Sat, 23 February 08 08:43 GMT
|
That would be ideal, but the ref may not see it (or may have called advantage). However, the post presumes the player quickly sees it, and presumes rhetorically that it is immediately legal to stamp on it (masking the unpalletable term "stamp" with the inoffensive term "ruck", inappropriately, IMO).
In any event, the PK for the hands-in is over-ridden by, and reversed for, the 10.4 stamping offence.
This message edited on Sat, 23 February 08 by the whistleblower
|
-------------------------
Whistleblower |
|
|
ballsie
|
Sat, 23 February 08 08:19 GMT
|
what about penalty for hands in the ruck before the boot goes on the hand.
|
-------------------------
Ballsie |
|
|
the whistleblower
|
Fri, 22 February 08 22:18 GMT
|
Blue player risks YC at least, possible RC (especially at youth levels where, if I recall previous posts, Miniref is quite active). Miniref, most Society refs are familiar with, and rigidly enforce, iRB Ruling 1 of 2005:
The IRFU has requested a ruling with regard Law 16-Ruck:
1. To paraphrase the definition, it basically states that rucking can occur as long as players are not in contravention of Law 10 Foul Play. In 16.3(f) it states that 'a player rucking for the ball must not ruck players on the ground'. It also states that 'a player must not intentionally step on players who are on the ground, and that 'a player rucking must do so near the ball'.
Is this then taken to mean that there are no exceptions or qualifications to the Law, and that rucking which is directed at a player to remove him as an obstruction or impediment to securing possession of the ball is illegal?
2. Can the Law also be taken to mean that so called 'mountain climbing' where a player is using his boots to climb on a players back/body, is illegal?
3.Can the Law also be taken to mean that rucking can only occur when a player is in a ruck and bound correctly {Law 16.2(b)} and that any player not caught in or bound in the ruck cannot be rucking for the ball and is therefore liable to penalty for Dangerous Play and Misconduct under Law 10.4(b) and/or (c) and/or 10.4(k).
4. Additionally, would inadvertent or unintentional contact with players in a ruck as an incident of legitimate rucking for the football (reckless and patently dangerous rucking apart) be considered legal and within the Laws of the Game?
The Designated Members have ruled the following in answer to the questions raised:
Rulings
1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. Yes
In the scenario you mention, I would very likely determine that a boot that just "happened" to hit the hand was reckless and patently dangerous.
|
-------------------------
Whistleblower |
|
|
pauldg
|
Fri, 22 February 08 21:24 GMT
|
>You can ruck the ball from under his hand. If you catch his hand a glancing blow with your boot that's OK. The intention must be to play the ball not the body part.
It's not just about intention. If you're reckless - i.e. if you're rucking and it's pretty clear to the ref that you *will* "catch his hand" then it's still not allowed.
Fundamentally, the player using his boots has a duty of care.
|
-------------------------
--
PaulDG |
|
|
petersturton
|
Fri, 22 February 08 19:58 GMT
|
You can ruck the ball from under his hand. If you catch his hand a glancing blow with your boot that's OK. The intention must be to play the ball not the body part.
|
|
|
ob
|
Fri, 22 February 08 16:44 GMT
|
No, you can't. It is always illegal to use a boot on any part of the body.
|
|
|
Peterj#5E$
|
Fri, 22 February 08 16:44 GMT
|
No, you can't. It is always illegal to use a boot on any part of the body.
|
|
|
miniref
|
Fri, 22 February 08 13:04 GMT
|
Whites v Blues. Ruck formed and Blues have control of the ball at the back of the ruck. Then, a long White arm comes through and places his hand on the ball. You can ruck his hand off the ball.
Please comment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
