[
PLEASE LOGIN TO POST TO THE FORUM
]
|
|
|
ballsie
|
Tue, 08 April 08 17:46 GMT
|
Yes but in the good old days a ruck was a ruck and if you were on the deck on the wrong side and sometimes on the right side you got a good shoeing...
because players were actually rucking...
now they they have to be so carefull where they put their feet and on what they place there size 14,s on that the art of rucking as we used to know it has all but gone...so maybe its better that the ball is moved at the earliest oppotunity...
cheers
This message edited on Tue, 08 April 08 by ballsie
|
-------------------------
Ballsie |
|
|
HighsideUK
|
Tue, 08 April 08 14:18 GMT
|
oldun:
So, the laws DID originally intend that the ball must be out before even the scrum half could pick it up. Ha! How about that? Thanks for that.
In direct answer to your question 'Is it better?' Well I bet it was, for a couple of seasons, as long as all the forwards still played as if the scrum half could not go digging (even though the ref let him). But then everybody adjusted and now we are no better off, its just a different game for which nobody has written down the rules.
So what we are saying is that the Laws are more sort of guidlines really and actually we play by a different set of rules that most referees agree on but that aren't actually written down anywhere.
Great.
|
|
|
oldun
|
Tue, 08 April 08 14:05 GMT
|
Looks like I must once again show my age and "old-f*rtedness", and speak to both "back in the day" and "showbiz rugby".
Like a couple of others here, I began playing (at university) when trys were 3 points. Rucks were over when the ball was out, and the scrumhalf would only pick it up when it was out.
It (the ball) had to be at the rear of the ruck (or at least between about 5:00 and 7:00 of the clock) and the hindmost player would move a foot to "uncover" the ball.
If the ball wasn't at the back of the ruck, you either pushed over or heeled the ball to the back of the ruck. Both of these things involve teamwork and a little skill.
If a scrumhalf _ever_ put his arms into a ruck up to his elbows you could guarantee the whistle was coming.
Now, in the present, rather than trying to push over a ball in the ruck, teams fall down, seal/park, and the scrumhalf digs.
Is this better or more preferable than driving over or heeling the ball back under control? For continuity's sake, many think so.
But now, we as refs seem to get the same question EVERY game: "When is the ball out, ref?" And we say "When a bird can poop on it". But then we let the person standing at scrumhalf go spelunking for it.
Harumph.
|
|
|
ballsie
|
Tue, 08 April 08 13:34 GMT
|
a scrum half using his feet eh players on the ground, ball on the ground, scrum half using his feet,, dont think so.. I dont think this is confinded to showbiz rugby, it just makes sense that once the ball is won, defenders defend and scrum half gets the ball on the, move assuming of course the attacking scrum half has won it, he may have been turned over..
surely thats positive play..
|
-------------------------
Ballsie |
|
|
Oldmanmartin
|
Tue, 08 April 08 12:24 GMT
|
Is the scrum half "in the ruck"? I have the impression that he is allowed to pick the ball out of the ruck provided it is under the control of his ruckers. Or is this just in showbiz rugby?
And when is the ball out of the ruck, allowing the opposition to play it legally? All too often you see defenders penalised when the ball is apparently clear but not behind the rearmost foot.
|
|
|
HighsideUK
|
Tue, 08 April 08 08:09 GMT
|
ballsie
"So the question then just how does the ball come out of a ruck then"
Well, quite.
Assuming the law makers did not just make a mistake, then they must have intended that even the scrum half should only use his feet until the ball was out.
That sounds pretty slow and clumsy to me.
But if this has been abandoned, then the laws should be change to reflect the change in thinking. If it was never intended then they still should be changed.
Yes, I know that in the meantime we have to get on with the game somehow, but it is not right to just move on from the written laws into our own world of compromise and pragmatism with never a backwards glance.
The laws that we actually play to are not that complicated and can be written down accurately. It is the governing body's job to do this.
|
|
|
HighsideUK
|
Tue, 08 April 08 08:00 GMT
|
ob:
" have no problem at all with 16.4 "
Then you've missed the point. As it stands, it forbids the scrum half from picking the ball out of a ruck. Do have a problem with that?
This message edited on Tue, 08 April 08 by HighsideUK
|
|
|
ob
|
Mon, 07 April 08 22:07 GMT
|
I have no problem at all with 16.4 (b). Standard English expects the phrase "in a ruck" to apply to the nearest noun ie "the ball". "Players" is generic.
It does not appear in my list of Laws That Must Be Rewritten.
|
|
|
ballsie
|
Mon, 07 April 08 21:57 GMT
|
So the question then just how does the ball come out of a ruck then, if you are saying its contary to the laws of the game if the scrum half digs it out otherwise you end up with no game...play positive get the ball moving and get on with the game, incidentally if you manage the tackle situation correctly all this rucking stuff is avoided.. long protracted competions for the ball with players on the ground invite all sorts of problems, oh and if what is being said in this thread actaully happens what on earth happened to the old pick and punch that back rows love to play, they have to have picked the ball up from some where. well thats my way of thinking
This message edited on Mon, 07 April 08 by ballsie
|
-------------------------
Ballsie |
|
|
HighsideUK
|
Mon, 07 April 08 15:44 GMT
|
Whistleblower:
Yes, I am assured that Laws written in plain English don't work. I'm told its been tried by legal experts and you do need dense legalese to really pin down what you mean. I'm sceptical about this but willing to concede that it may be true. Since we do want the laws to be read by the man on the Clapham Omnibus then we have to make do with plain English and accept that they will have to be less than rigourously framed.
But even with plain English you could do a damn sight better than what we have at the moment.
You say
"Law 16.4(b) says: "Players must not handle the ball in a ruck.
Penalty: Penalty Kick". "
Well if those are the very words then you are quite right! They didn't even word that that one correctly(or maybe they didn't think it through properly).
How hard would it be to change it to say "Players in the ruck must not handle the ball" instead? A lawyer might find fault, but for you and I it would make the world of difference. Been on any Omnibuses lately?
Maybe there are areas of Law that are necessarily fuzzy or complicated, but it drives me up the wall when even the simplest ones are just plain wrong and nobody seems to worry!
This message edited on Mon, 07 April 08 by HighsideUK
|
|
|
the whistleblower
|
Mon, 07 April 08 15:13 GMT
|
Highside,
I enjoyed your counter-response to mine. There's much in there that is valid - especially your call for better laws that take the pressure off the refs to make the current highly-imperfect ones function. The downside of that, of course, is that the laws are meant for the average Joe, and it would be a shame if only barrack-room lawyers and the true legal professionals could bear to wade through them.
We disagree on the following; "The scrum half is not bound. He is not in the ruck. He is therefore allowed to handle the ball. " Your contention is that a player who is not bound and not participating in the ruck is not constrained by the ruck laws relating to handling.
Law 16.4(b) says: "Players must not handle the ball in a ruck.
Penalty: Penalty Kick".
It had not previously occurred to me that this was another ambiguous law. It doesn't say "players in a ruck must not handle the ball", which would be much closer to your view of things. As I read it, it is an injunction to all players that they may not touch the ball with their hands when the ball is in the ruck.
The scrum half is a player. When the law says that players may not handle the ball while it is in a ruck, it covers all 30 players and doesn't give a get-out-of-jail-free card to the scrum halves. In law, they may no more dig out the ball than they may reach into the 2nd row's feet to pull a ball out of the scrum. Both actions are illegal - but both may well be tolerated in the interests of a game dominated by passing and handling rather than the ref's whistle.
It would be interesting to hear from other refs whether they adopt my interpretation or Highside's, and to hear whether they had been aware of the ambiguity in the law before Highside's post. Over to you!
|
-------------------------
Whistleblower |
|
|
HighsideUK
|
Mon, 07 April 08 13:55 GMT
|
sw
"I recogise that I made the wrong call "
I hope you are not feeling bad about it!
Just to avoid any other confusion, I'm sure that you made many fewer mistakes than I would have done and will vigourously defend any referee's right to make any number of honest mistakes!
|
|
|
HighsideUK
|
Mon, 07 April 08 13:42 GMT
|
Whistleblower:
My refereeing is limited to U10s - and I'm no good at it. In the heat of the moment too much happens too fast for me to think about. I need too much time to think things through to be a good ref.
But given time I can reach a correct decision and I've had plenty of time to think about this....
you say
"How can he dig it out without handling the ball while it is in the ruck? "
I regard this the refreeing equivalent of a schoolboy's error.
The scrum half is not bound. He is not in the ruck. He is therefore allowed to handle the ball. Note that the ruck does not end until the ball leaves it. Even if the scrum-half has his hands on it.
you ask
"..the law gives him protection to lean in and fetch it without anyone being able to touch him - where exactly is that written? I'm not aware of such a law - though it is standard refereeing practice in almost all games."
Now that is a much better question! I think you are right that the laws do not protect him at all and it is a mystery to me why referees have started protecting the scrum halfs. I used to regard it as my duty to haul the scrum half into the ruck/maul as soon as he touched the ball if his forwards let me. But it gets penalised now and you are right it IS standard at all levels. Does anybody know how that happened???
You misunderstand my remark about dumping defensive bodies. I mean driving the attackers back so it is the attackers bodies that are in the way.
Just diving on the floor is a bit Riche McCaw.
When a team defends a ruck they try to drive the attackers back over the ball. If the defenders stay on their feet they get driven clear but more often they end up in a pile on the other side of the ball. I know that collapsing a ruck is illegal but when did you sever see anyone penalised because they drove somebdoy back in a ruck who then fell over?
Again though this is interesting - At least half the defence you see at rucks involves lifting an opponents leg or driving an opponent in a direction that is intended to catch them off balance and is therefore likely to make them fall over. Since this is technically collapsing should it be penalised??? Just me and you in a ruck. You drive me up and back and I lose my balance because you are pushing me (you cad!) fall on my bum - did you just give away a penalty?
The Laws are a mess. But creative interpretation tends to make things worse. Why fix the laws when we can rely on the good old refs to make the best of the broken ones?
We'll just tell them we want the scrum half left alone. They'll understand. Keep the game flowing. No need to put it in the law book.
What a shambles.
"We just have to tell players what is the limit of our tolerance...."
Yuck. I know this is necessary but I hate it. With well written laws it would be much less necessary!
This message edited on Mon, 07 April 08 by HighsideUK
|
|
|
sw
|
Mon, 07 April 08 13:34 GMT
|
So that there is no confusion from my original thread, I was referring to the practice of assisting the ball to the back of the ruck with the hands, not turning the ruck into a maul.
Penalising this would result it slowing down the game, possibly encourage 'careless' use of the foot (to free the ball) and confuse players because they see it all the time on telly!
From your replies however, I recogise that I made the wrong call as the ball was not at the rear feet and the player did not detach legally (on reflection quite obvious).
Thankfully the outcome was not overly affected, as the defending (in this case) team won comfortably.
|
|
|
the whistleblower
|
Mon, 07 April 08 12:15 GMT
|
Highside writes: "This "blind eye" to handling in the ruck once the contest is over is not a good idea. It just breeds confusion amongst players and even places the referees in a quandry at times as we see here. If the contest really is over, then whoever is at scrum half should be able to dig it out - the law gives him ample protection to enable him to lean and fetch it and nobody is allowed to touch him.
If the defence have managed to dump enough bodies in the way to slow down this process then good for them - that is part of the contest and the attackers need to work harder for their quick ball."
Highside, I don't know whether or not you referee, but your argument in favour of consistency is itself inconsistent. On the one hand, you feel that turning a blind eye to handling in the ruck is a bad idea; on the other, you hold that the SH should be allowed to dig it out. How can he dig it out without handling the ball while it is in the ruck? You say the law gives him protection to lean in and fetch it without anyone being able to touch him - where exactly is that written? I'm not aware of such a law - though it is standard refereeing practice in almost all games.
While you may see dumping defensive bodies in the way of the ball as part of the contest, I suspect most refs would view it as a clear contravention of multiple laws, chief among them being Law 16.3 (a) to (c) and 16.4 (d) and (e). It sounds as though you turn a blind eye to these as well in whatever capacity you serve the game, and you seem to believe that this use of the blind eye is not as bad as the one on limited aspects of handling. That sounds inconsistent.
The truth is that we cannot now go back on much of the slippage in the application of law without a clear requirement to do so from the upper echelons, which (crucially) is actually enforced in those echelons. We saw with scrum "feeding" that a mere diktat from the global head of refereeing backed up by a threat to deselect non-compliant top refs from the RWC was not enough to make those elite refs enforce a straight feed. They clearly had other pressures that overcame the diktat. It will be the same here.
Overall, at level 9 and above a ref will ruin a game by asking for all hands to be kept out of rucks (I've done it - never again!). We just have to tell players what is the limit of our tolerance (in line with the practice they experience week in, week out), and then enforce that limit. There is a world of difference between on the one hand helping the ball back to the base where it can be legitimately recycled by onside players, and on the other permitting an illegal pickup to result in a score that can't really be legitimately defended. The latter (which is the subject of this thread) is a critical incident on which the ref will rightly be marked down if assessed on the day.
|
-------------------------
Whistleblower |
|
|
HighsideUK
|
Mon, 07 April 08 11:22 GMT
|
If the player is not the rearmost and he detaches then he is offside.
If he does not detach then he is hadling in the ruck that is a penalty too.
So, as I'm sure you already knew, this is definitely technically illegal.
But the real problem is that you are allowing something that is against the spirit of the laws. Turning a ruck into a maul or picking the ball out from anywhere except the back of it is intended to be illegal.
This "blind eye" to handling in the ruck once the contest is over is not a good idea. It just breeds confusion amongst players and even places the referees in a quandry at times as we see here. If the contest really is over, then whoever is at scrum half should be able to dig it out - the law gives him ample protection to enable him to lean and fetch it and nobody is allowed to touch him.
If the defence have managed to dump enough bodies in the way to slow down this process then good for them - that is part of the contest and the attackers need to work harder for their quick ball.
Just tell the players 'Its a Ruck - no hands' if they lean down to help the ball back and they'll soon get the hang of it. Then, if you want to keep the game flowing, you can then let them get away with it as long as they stop when you tell them. But when somebody scores a try like this one you can disallow it and legitimately say that you have been telling them not to handle in the rucks.
|
|
|
sw
|
Mon, 07 April 08 09:07 GMT
|
I assume (and I'm prepared for the backlash!) that in order to provide continuity, the majority of referees permit the side in possession to present the ball at rucks with a little assisstance from their hands? Effectively handling in the ruck. Naturally we penalise the defending side should they attempt to secure possession in this fashion!
Rightly or wrongly, this is prevelant at the top level. I'm trying to establish if this is tolerated at the lower levels?
I allow it, but a situation arose at the weekend which made me reconsider:
Ruck virtually on defence try line, attack in possession.
Ball is on attacks' side and forward of rear feet (obviously - its a ruck).
Player towards back of ruck (but not the rearmost player) picks up ball and flops over the line.
Legitimate try or not? In Law this could be considered 'handling in the ruck'; however, having permitted 'handling' throughout in the interests of continuity, why should it be any different here?
For the record I awarded the try.
|
|
|
|
|
|
