rugbyunion
Latest News:

A question for any "Sir"s out there ...
bisach (IP Logged)
15 April, 2012 02:59
What, if anything have you been advised about the "caterpillar" setup at a ruck.

And, in your opinion, is this actually a ruck when there are no opposition in contact or is the ruck over.

Granted in this instance, Jamie still has his hands on the oppositions shoulder for part of the time they were setting it up (although Law16.2c says he's not bound) but, as soon as he takes it away (about 6 seconds before the scrum half picks it up,) should LI be able to move forward to try to win the ball or would they be classed as going offside?

Mr Fox seems to say that "it's fine" which means that LI couldn't go for the ball as Saracens continue their 20 seconds to set it up.

LAW16
A ruck is a phase of play where one or more players from each team, who are on
their feet, in physical contact, close around the ball on the ground. Open play has
ended.
Players are rucking when they are in a ruck and using their feet to try to win or
keep possession of the ball, without being guilty of foul play.


Mind you, looking at Law 16 and it's various sections, most of it is ignored buy official's and players alike.

As for the take out of Tom, unfortunately there's no video of the 1 finger salute to supporters.

 
Re: A question for any "Sir"s out there ...
Sam Skennel (IP Logged)
15 April, 2012 06:59
Once the ruck has been formed, regardless if any opposing players have left it and none are now present, it's still a ruck until the ball is out. That's why the caterpillar is correct (but not right,IMHO)

 
Re: A question for any "Sir"s out there ...
GSB111 (IP Logged)
15 April, 2012 08:46
It's another "modern" tactic that's contributing to the spoiling of the game from a spectator point of view. It needs to be sorted.

 
Re: A question for any "Sir"s out there ...
Sam_R43 (IP Logged)
15 April, 2012 10:09
Quote:
16.1(b) How can a ruck form
Players are on their feet. At least one player must be in physical contact with an opponent. The ball must be on the ground. If the ball is off the ground for any reason, the ruck is not formed.

Quote:
Law 16.6
A ruck ends successfully when the ball leaves the ruck, or when the ball is on or over the goal line.

So in the case of that caterpillar the ruck was formed according to definition from law as member from each team were in physical contact on their feet. In law, there is only one successful way a ruck can end (stated above in law 16.6) and the ball did not leave the ruck and the law doesn't mention anything about opposition players leaving to end a ruck.

The most frustrating thing about everyone saying we need a law to stop it happening and how the IRB are looking at it, is that there is already a law for it!

Quote:
Law 16.7 (b)
Before the referee blows the whistle for a scrum, the referee allows a reasonable amount of time for the ball to emerge, especially if either team is moving forward. [neither were] If the ruck stops moving, or if the referee decides that the ball will probably not emerge within a reasonable time, the referee must order a scrum.

If only referee's applied the laws they were given!

(I didn't think there was anything in the Tom incident, both players looking at the ball, just a collision, not a penalty or a card for me.)

 
Re: A question for any "Sir"s out there ...
bisach (IP Logged)
15 April, 2012 22:23
And of course both of the following parts of 16.2 aren't being followed by everyone involved which sould have resulted in a penalty to us.


(b) A player joining a ruck must bind on a team-mate or an opponent, using the whole arm. The
bind must either precede, or be simultaneous with, contact with any other part of the body
of the player joining the ruck.
Sanction: Penalty kick
(c) Placing a hand on another player in the ruck does not constitute binding.
Sanction: Penalty kick

 
Re: A question for any "Sir"s out there ...
Sam Skennel (IP Logged)
16 April, 2012 07:34
It's as bad as teams running the clock down at the end by playing "keep ball" with little, safe, pick and drives.

A ruck is static by definition, so it can't stop moving as it never started? A ruck usually results immediately post tackle - you can't pick the ball up to form a maul, so that "stops moving" bit is rubbish.

We're going to see the "use it or lose it" phrase at scrums and rucks as well as mauls next season, imho.

 
Re: A question for any "Sir"s out there ...
cjm. (IP Logged)
16 April, 2012 09:27
I think "use it or lose it" is being planned for.

As for refereeing, it is now an area of the game that needs urgent addressing both through law simplification, less coaching from the ref and greater use of assistants.

I have noticed that more and more games, and not just ones that I have an interest in, are being woefully influenced by the current combination of laws and refereeing.

The most recent being that Munster Glasgow match where a blatant crossing before a try was scored and a yellow card in the last ten minutes for a trivial offence were what swung the game.

This is happening more and more often and needs sorting out if we are not too end up with a truly cynical style of play.

Will Greenwood wrote a good article on some aspects of this.

Cheating

 
Re: A question for any "Sir"s out there ...
16 April, 2012 21:46
bisach ....

Joe Ansbro "disengaged" from the ruck, so it is still a ruck even though there are no LI players bound on after JA leaves ... The rest of the ruck is all legal and they comply in law but pretty boring isn't it ....

 
Re: A question for any "Sir"s out there ...
bisach (IP Logged)
17 April, 2012 10:56
Even the guy in the dark scrum cap?

Who never binds with his full arm just leans and grabs with his hands. a situation penalisable by a penalty to us according to law 16.2 sections b and c

 
Re: A question for any "Sir"s out there ...
AlecW (IP Logged)
17 April, 2012 11:25
Hirazawa-san!


HIRAZAWA-SAN...!!!



HIRAZAWA-SAN...!!!


You can come out now - the war finished 23 years ago!!!


(Sm71)

 
Re: A question for any "Sir"s out there ...
bisach (IP Logged)
17 April, 2012 13:17
You can accept the@#$%&dished up if you want Alec, and the more like you that do , the more the current crap inadequate standard of refereeing will continue.

 
Re: A question for any "Sir"s out there ...
AlecW (IP Logged)
17 April, 2012 14:17
I only meant to imply that the LI result is there in the book: IMHO perhaps better to find another [team's] horse to flog and then it will look less like sour grapes to someone who doesn't know you...!

[I know that isn't the case, but there are a lot of people, including those from other boards, who do not!]

Anyway - no offence intended!

(Sm128)

 
Re: A question for any "Sir"s out there ...
18 April, 2012 12:02
bisach ...

you are correct to begin with, he does not have a full bind to begin with, but he then clearly wraps the majority of his arm around another player ...

 
Re: A question for any "Sir"s out there ...
bisach (IP Logged)
18 April, 2012 13:51
Really?

I'm not talking about the guy in the red scrum cap but the one in the black cap who gets there before him.

 
Re: A question for any "Sir"s out there ...
18 April, 2012 15:33
bisach ....

Yes really, look at his left arm on the player in front of him, that is a bind, trust me ...

 
Re: A question for any "Sir"s out there ...
bisach (IP Logged)
18 April, 2012 15:55
I didn't realise the forearm was the whole arm.

I suppose if you high tackle someone with the upper arm only, it won't count because that's not part of the arm.

(flippancy there BTW)

 
Re: A question for any "Sir"s out there ...
Jon_r43 (IP Logged)
20 April, 2012 19:38
Several more eg's tonight, the ESPN team picked up one at the end of the first half where Borthwick's bind was about 1 finger!

 
Re: A question for any "Sir"s out there ...
baldstumpy (IP Logged)
20 April, 2012 20:51
And its boring and winds the clock down

 
Re: A question for any "Sir"s out there ...
bisach (IP Logged)
20 April, 2012 20:59
There were several examples through the game, a couple of which were talked about.

At least someone agree's with me about the legality.

 
Re: A question for any "Sir"s out there ...
Jon_r43 (IP Logged)
20 April, 2012 21:09
Yes but that was Austin Healey.......

 
Re: A question for any "Sir"s out there ...
cheffy (IP Logged)
20 April, 2012 21:40
I asked the question n legality and the use of Law 16 at a ruck last tuesday at the Refs Society meeting and the general concensus was that I was barking!!

Woof!!

 
Re: A question for any "Sir"s out there ...
rugby_iain (IP Logged)
21 April, 2012 10:56
Seems we are not the only ones to have noticed it, although I like the idea of having the scrum half a good distance back from the other team towards the end of the match.

http://www.rugbynetwork.net/boards/read/s130.htm?129,13228498


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
We record all IP addresses on the Sportnetwork message boards which may be required by the authorities in case of defamatory or abusive comment. We seek to monitor the Message Boards at regular intervals. We do not associate Sportnetwork with any of the comments and do not take responsibility for any statements or opinions expressed on the Message Boards. If you have any cause for concern over any material posted here please let us know as soon as possible by e-mailing abuse@sportnetwork.net
 
 

Who is online?

Total users online:  

Most users online:  

Users on this site:  

Where are they?