Laws Question? Ask here!

who_me

Captain_Hindsight wrote: »

Not sure if this will make sense but I'll give it a go.

In order for a ruck to form "At least one player must be in physical contact with an opponent. The ball must be on the ground." according to the laws.

After a tackle has taken place and the ball is on the tackled players side (on the ground) what happens if no opposition players have remained in the tackle area? It's not a ruck as there is no contact between opponents, so what is it? And what can the team without the ball do, if anything?

I've always thought this would be a very effective tactic in a scenario where you're down by 1 or 2 points in the dying seconds of a game but don't have the ball. Just don't join the breakdown, so no ruck or offside, which means you can have a couple of flankers alongside the opposition 9 waiting to clatter him the second he picks up. Chances are though, someone will clear one of your players out of it, earning you a penalty (assuming the ref has his thinking cap on).

Wasps used to do something along these lines a few years back, used to cause chaos as players are accustomed to a certain pattern of play where the opposition defences are onside(ish) and pushing forward, rather than standing right next to them.

rje66

Swiwi. wrote: »

If it's still a tackle, tackle players can do what they like. Other players arriving must come through the gate. Once the opposition arrive then ruck is formed and no hands allowed.

Nearly true, the tackle assist that has remained on his feet, if he is on oppositions side of the ball , must come around thru gate before he goes for ball. Only the tackler that went to ground and relased ball carrier and got back to his feet has all rights from any direction.

Steve Perchance

who_me wrote: »

I've always thought this would be a very effective tactic in a scenario where you're down by 1 or 2 points in the dying seconds of a game but don't have the ball. Just don't join the breakdown, so no ruck or offside, which means you can have a couple of flankers alongside the opposition 9 waiting to clatter him the second he picks up. Chances are though, someone will clear one of your players out of it, earning you a penalty (assuming the ref has his thinking cap on).

Wasps used to do something along these lines a few years back, used to cause chaos as players are accustomed to a certain pattern of play where the opposition defences are onside(ish) and pushing forward, rather than standing right next to them.

You often see S15 teams leave no one in rucks, but I think once a ruck has formed, it's not undone because one side leave it - it's over when the ball comes out behind the back foot. And there's not much chance of no ruck forming really, as the tackler can get up and contest from where ever he is - if he's not cleared out, then that should be exactly what he does - get on the ball and stop them scoring that way.

Losty Dublin

who_me wrote: »

I've always thought this would be a very effective tactic in a scenario where you're down by 1 or 2 points in the dying seconds of a game but don't have the ball. Just don't join the breakdown, so no ruck or offside, which means you can have a couple of flankers alongside the opposition 9 waiting to clatter him the second he picks up. Chances are though, someone will clear one of your players out of it, earning you a penalty (assuming the ref has his thinking cap on).

Wasps used to do something along these lines a few years back, used to cause chaos as players are accustomed to a certain pattern of play where the opposition defences are onside(ish) and pushing forward, rather than standing right next to them.

This scenario is covered under experimental law, 16.7.

http://www.irblaws.com/index.php?domain=11&amendment=1

Losty Dublin

Steve Perchance wrote: »

You often see S15 teams leave no one in rucks, but I think once a ruck has formed, it's not undone because one side leave it - it's over when the ball comes out behind the back foot. And there's not much chance of no ruck forming really, as the tackler can get up and contest from where ever he is - if he's not cleared out, then that should be exactly what he does - get on the ball and stop them scoring that way.

If players withdraw from a ruck the ruck is still ongoing as there hasn't been a successful or unsuccessful end to the ruck nor has an offence been committed to warrant a penalty or free kick. This one has been clarified in Law by the IRB.

http://www.irblaws.com/index.php?domain=10&clarlaw=16&clarification=25

who_me

Steve Perchance wrote: »

You often see S15 teams leave no one in rucks, but I think once a ruck has formed, it's not undone because one side leave it - it's over when the ball comes out behind the back foot. And there's not much chance of no ruck forming really, as the tackler can get up and contest from where ever he is - if he's not cleared out, then that should be exactly what he does - get on the ball and stop them scoring that way.

Well, it seems (to me at least) SH referees are stricter on the defenders/tacklers at the breakdown, so if there's less chance of a turnover without conceding a penalty, it makes sense to not contest and fan out in defence.

In the case I referred to above, it's mostly when teams are running down the clock via pick and drives, so there's little realistic chance of the tackler getting up and winning the turnover. It probably works better for the tackler not to contest (nor anyone else) thus allowing the defenders to stand on the opposite side of the breakdown and be a menace to the opposition scrum half.

who_me

Losty Dublin wrote: »

This scenario is covered under experimental law, 16.7.

http://www.irblaws.com/index.php?domain=11&amendment=1

That law doesn't seem to directly address what I was talking about, since that's discussing the playing of the ball after a ruck, whereas I was saying the defending team deliberately doesn't form a ruck to avoid creating an offside line.

Steve Perchance

who_me wrote: »

That law doesn't seem to directly address what I was talking about, since that's discussing the playing of the ball after a ruck, whereas I was saying the defending team deliberately doesn't form a ruck to avoid creating an offside line.

That's true, but if the scenario is that no-one decides to form a ruck then the ball is free to be played by coming through the gate or by the tackler getting up and playing it. There's no advantage to be gained by doing otherwise as you would get a less favourable result

Losty Dublin

who_me wrote: »

That law doesn't seem to directly address what I was talking about, since that's discussing the playing of the ball after a ruck, whereas I was saying the defending team deliberately doesn't form a ruck to avoid creating an offside line.

Apologies for that, I misread it as being that the attacking team hold back from a ruck in order to use up time.

Reading your post again, either the ruck either is formed or it isn't formed. Should it be formed then the ruck exists until the either ball leaves or the ball becomes unplayable in the ruck; simply withdrawing defending players doesn't render it over but players may leave it if sthey wish. Pulling players back has the effect of making the ball available quicker for the team in possession as there is less competition going on.

As regards offside lines, these are still there so players must hold to them under pains of conceding a penalty. Bear in mind that the 5 second call puts pressure on the team in possession to play the ball. This gives a defending team a chance to pressurise in defensive situations; this happens all the time in the modern game where player fan back to try coax the ball into open play.

who_me

Steve Perchance wrote: »

That's true, but if the scenario is that no-one decides to form a ruck then the ball is free to be played by coming through the gate or by the tackler getting up and playing it. There's no advantage to be gained by doing otherwise as you would get a less favourable result

Not necessarily - consider this situation: an attacking player is tackled and brought down. A team mate of the attacking player is the first to reach the breakdown, and braces for an opponent to contest possession.

In that situation, it's very difficult to contest the ball, since the instant any defender makes contact with the player on his feet, it's a ruck and so defending players may be cleared out and offside rules apply. If you try and get at the ball without making contact with the player on his feet, you'll probably be done for not joining through the ate.

It's easier to leave the player on his feet, run around to the attackers' side of the breakdown, and wait for the opposing 9 to pick up and immediately tackle him before he has a chance to kick the ball dead (or, wait for one of the attacking side to get confused, clear you out off-the-ball and concede a penalty).

Losty Dublin

who_me wrote: »

Not necessarily - consider this situation: an attacking player is tackled and brought down. A team mate of the attacking player is the first to reach the breakdown, and braces for an opponent to contest possession.

In that situation, it's very difficult to contest the ball, since the instant any defender makes contact with the player on his feet, it's a ruck and so defending players may be cleared out and offside rules apply. If you try and get at the ball without making contact with the player on his feet, you'll probably be done for not joining through the ate.

It's easier to leave the player on his feet, run around to the attackers' side of the breakdown, and wait for the opposing 9 to pick up and immediately tackle him before he has a chance to kick the ball dead (or, wait for one of the attacking side to get confused, clear you out off-the-ball and concede a penalty).

I've read this three times now and while I understand the act of what you are saying I fail to see any tactical merit or sense in doing it as you described. It's assuming too little defence from the opposition and lightening quick reaction from your supporting player.

Regardless of that, it's only going to work if they have no supporting player to protect the scrum half, yours are very quick and nimble and provided that they don't contravene Law 15.6.

Steve Perchance

who_me wrote: »

Not necessarily - consider this situation: an attacking player is tackled and brought down. A team mate of the attacking player is the first to reach the breakdown, and braces for an opponent to contest possession.

In that situation, it's very difficult to contest the ball, since the instant any defender makes contact with the player on his feet, it's a ruck and so defending players may be cleared out and offside rules apply. If you try and get at the ball without making contact with the player on his feet, you'll probably be done for not joining through the ate.

It's easier to leave the player on his feet, run around to the attackers' side of the breakdown, and wait for the opposing 9 to pick up and immediately tackle him before he has a chance to kick the ball dead (or, wait for one of the attacking side to get confused, clear you out off-the-ball and concede a penalty).

In theory it might be easier, but you're reducing the scenario to two men (three with the tackler) where that will not happen in a real game with 30 on the pitch, particularly in the scenario where a team is trying to run down the clock.

In real life, if you were to attempt what you propose, you would either be pinged for not coming through the gate (perhaps technically incorrect, but to a referee it may look like that's your intention) or, you will be blasted out of it by an arriving opposition forward and that's all you'll get. The game is quicker than your scenario requires it to be.

Your other option is to ruck aggressively (ideally with the tackler or another player) and take advantage of the fact that there's only one player defending it on their side, which is the better percentage play in real life.

who_me

Hah. Maybe the "no clear advantage to doing this" bit explains why no one does this.

It doesn't have to be just one attacking player on his feet, it could be 2, 3...14. The point I'm making is that in a scenario where one team is running down the clock by playing pick-and-gos it's almost impossible to get a turnover because the attacking side are virtually binding onto the ballcarrier before he's tackled. So if/when the defenders try to contest the breakdown it's an instant ruck, and "no hands" and offside rules apply. Thus, there's only a minuscule chance of a turnover (bar a mistake, attackers "sealing off", or winning a choke-tackle turnover which still ends the game if time's up).

The alternative is to not contest the breakdown, letting you stand on the "wrong" side and giving the attacking 9 no time to play the ball. There's nothing the attackers can legally do to clear you out, you're not offside and you're not the ball-carrier so if they interfere it's a penalty to you - exactly what you want.

It does rely on the referee being quick-witted enough to notice it's a breakdown/tackle and not a ruck; so I do think a lot of referees would (wrongly) award an offside penalty to the attacking side, almost out of habit. Hence, it might be worth the captain having a quick word in advance, pointing out the strict definition of a ruck and that there's no offside at the breakdown.. Referees - just like players - are accustomed to certain patterns of play (tackle -> breakdown -> ruck -> next phase -> tackle ...) and that's partly why this ploy could work: the attacking side aren't accustomed to the non-contest at the breakdown and don't immediately know how to react.

Losty Dublin

who_me wrote: »

Hah. Maybe the "no clear advantage to doing this" bit explains why no one does this.

It doesn't have to be just one attacking player on his feet, it could be 2, 3...14. The point I'm making is that in a scenario where one team is running down the clock by playing pick-and-gos it's almost impossible to get a turnover because the attacking side are virtually binding onto the ballcarrier before he's tackled. So if/when the defenders try to contest the breakdown it's an instant ruck, and "no hands" and offside rules apply. Thus, there's only a minuscule chance of a turnover (bar a mistake, attackers "sealing off", or winning a choke-tackle turnover which still ends the game if time's up).

The alternative is to not contest the breakdown, letting you stand on the "wrong" side and giving the attacking 9 no time to play the ball. There's nothing the attackers can legally do to clear you out, you're not offside and you're not the ball-carrier so if they interfere it's a penalty to you - exactly what you want.

It does rely on the referee being quick-witted enough to notice it's a breakdown/tackle and not a ruck; so I do think a lot of referees would (wrongly) award an offside penalty to the attacking side, almost out of habit. Hence, it might be worth the captain having a quick word in advance, pointing out the strict definition of a ruck and that there's no offside at the breakdown.. Referees - just like players - are accustomed to certain patterns of play (tackle -> breakdown -> ruck -> next phase -> tackle ...) and that's partly why this ploy could work: the attacking side aren't accustomed to the non-contest at the breakdown and don't immediately know how to react.

Odd question; what position do you play?

sydthebeat

I can't see why in this situation forwards wouldn't just keep picking and going. ... they'd win yardage ever time.

Steve Perchance

sydthebeat wrote: »

I can't see why in this situation forwards wouldn't just keep picking and going. ... they'd win yardage ever time.

They would. And if it came time to kick the ball out, you can be sure they'll either clear or obstruct anyone trying to prey on the scrumhalf as described.

Its one of those scenarios that may sound good on paper, but makes you look silly if you try it on a pitch.

Dave_The_Sheep

What's the difference between wheeling a scrum and ... I dunno, turning?

What I mean is, sometimes a scrum turns 90 degrees and after that it seems a lottery. 50% of the time, the defensive side are said to have wheeled it, the other 50% it's an attacking penalty for whatever reason (it's turned?). Huh?

What's the reason behind the differences in which way the penalty goes?

Losty Dublin

Dave_The_Sheep wrote: »

What's the difference between wheeling a scrum and ... I dunno, turning?

What I mean is, sometimes a scrum turns 90 degrees and after that it seems a lottery. 50% of the time, the defensive side are said to have wheeled it, the other 50% it's an attacking penalty for whatever reason (it's turned?). Huh?

What's the reason behind the differences in which way the penalty goes?

There isn't a difference between a wheel and a turn. Some may say a wheel is quicker than a turn or that a turn has some drive behind it; it's not worth arguing about to be honest as they are treated the same. Once the scrum wheels 90 the referee must call for a reset. The non putting in team at the previous scrum puts in at a reset scrum so there are benefits in a team getting a scrum wheeled, especially if it is close to a try line.

A deliberately wheeled scrum is illegal in under the U 19 scrum variations. As well, a scrum can only wheel 45 before a reset is called; the putting in team will have possession. These laws will apply to most of us who play rugby at club or school level so there are worth mentioning here.

Dave_The_Sheep

Ah, so you're not acually allowed deliberately wheel a scrum? I thought you were... and it was up to the other team to stop you.

Losty Dublin

Dave_The_Sheep wrote: »

Ah, so you're not acually allowed deliberately wheel a scrum? I thought you were... and it was up to the other team to stop you.

Your best rule of thumb is that in the club, school and youths game a wheel is illegal while at the pro level (U 20, AIL and upwards) a wheel is is legal.

sydthebeat

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Your best rule of thumb is that in the club, school and youths game a wheel is illegal while at the pro level (U 20, AIL and upwards) a wheel is is legal.

ok im confused as feck now,,

so if a professional team wheels a scrum its legal, and its up to the other team to prevent it, possession or not ?

irishbucsfan

sydthebeat wrote: »

ok im confused as feck now,,

so if a professional team wheels a scrum its legal, and its up to the other team to prevent it, possession or not ?

There are legal ways of wheeling the scrum and illegal ways of wheeling the scrum. The props have to drive straight regardless. They can't "walk it round"

errlloyd

Just curious, if you're taking a penalty to touch. Is there anything stopping you having a guy waiting in the area you're going to kick to, and you kick it it to him and he takes a quick line out. (so does he have to be onside, or does that requirement go away the second the ball goes out of play)

Losty Dublin

sydthebeat wrote: »

ok im confused as feck now,,

so if a professional team wheels a scrum its legal, and its up to the other team to prevent it, possession or not ?

Under 19 variations is the key here, and they apply to most rugby games so in a way, yeah. But you don't have to wheel it

Losty Dublin

errlloyd wrote: »

Just curious, if you're taking a penalty to touch. Is there anything stopping you having a guy waiting in the area you're going to kick to, and you kick it it to him and he takes a quick line out. (so does he have to be onside, or does that requirement go away the second the ball goes out of play)

If he is ahead of the ball before or as it is kicked then he is in an offside position. In the same vein, a player can't leave the field and then rejoin at the point where the ball went out to take a quick line out.

sydthebeat

Just watching John lacey today in quins v Scarlets.

How can you call early push agAinst the team in possession after you call in nine?

Shelflife

You can't push until the ball comes in, so ref calls yes 9 , team push before/as ball goes in = free kick.

Robbo

Inspired by one of Reddan's whoopsies on Saturday...

A scrumhalf is about to put the ball in and signals in the usual way by tapping the ball off the head of one of his tight five. His players have particularly bouffant hair and the ball bounces forward off this head a nestles into the space between the heads of his LH and the opposition hooker. The referee, fixated on the bindings of the props doesn't notice this and the SH reclaims the ball and puts it in as usual.

Has a knock on occurred? Should the touch judge mention it?

Losty Dublin

Robbo wrote: »

Inspired by one of Reddan's whoopsies on Saturday...

A scrumhalf is about to put the ball in and signals in the usual way by tapping the ball off the head of one of his tight five. His players have particularly bouffant hair and the ball bounces forward off this head a nestles into the space between the heads of his LH and the opposition hooker. The referee, fixated on the bindings of the props doesn't notice this and the SH reclaims the ball and puts it in as usual.

Has a knock on occurred? Should the touch judge mention it?

You sure as hell have a vivid imagination today

A scrum is a method of restarting the game. To restart the game, the ball is fed in by a scrum half into the tunnel under the front row of the scrum. As the ball has not yet been fed into the scrum, the game hasn't restarted so as such no knock on can have taken place in play.

As an aside, an appointed touch judge can't make a call on infringements in play (their remit is mainly limited to foul play and issues relating to players in touch and grounding of the ball) but an appointed assistant referee may do so. Domestically, the IRFU doesn't run any competition that requires assistant referees so their roles won't come into play here.

Fergus_Nash

In the first half of the Scotland-Australia match today, Quade Cooper kicked the ball and it was caught by Sean Maitland. Maitland kicked the ball back and Cooper tackled him late with his follow through trying to block the kick. The touch judge flagged for a foul but the referee let the play continue, which resulted in some aerial ping pong and a bad clearance to touch by Maitland.

The referee consulted the touch judge and went back for the Scotland penalty. My question is what would have happened if Australia had scored a try during the intervening play? Would the referee have gone back for the penalty?