All Blacks - From Pillars to Stonewalls

[Scarfman]

Yeah, it's a farce. The Lions have received an advantage by not putting anyone into ruck. If the Cheetahs players had found opposition to their driving over the ball, then it's a ruck, no question and Grobellar is in an offside position and needs to roll away. But because no Lions players went up against the Cheetahs players, then no ruck forms and the tackler is free to stand up and pick the ball up.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Here's another SA referees clip. It's pretty comparable to the current situation - http://www.sareferees.com/laws/view/2829788/ t - the replay at 31 seconds shows the incident.

Obviously the main difference in this one is that he actually played the ball. But otherwise, it's pretty similar - he makes the tackle, a supporting attacker goes over the ball but doesn't bind onto any defenders (so again, no ruck), tackler gets to feet and plays the ball.

According to the SA refs, there's no ruck and he's entitled to play the ball.

Given that, is anyone prepared to acknowledge that:
a) It wasn't a ruck
b) McCaw was within his rights to get up?

On what can be seen on the video i am prepared to agree: that is my preferred interpretation.
But you have to allow for the fact that from where AR saw it there may have been a ruck - even a momentary one - and that therefore it had ceased to be a tackle.
But the question which then arises is: which law says McCaw is not then entitled to stand up? Which law says he has to roll away first? or lie doggo until the ball emerges?

I think even if its a ruck he can do either of roll away or stand up and there is nothing in the laws, of which I am aware, that requires him to take the option that will least disrupt his opponents.

Top Bloke - Read comes from the right side of the ruck and is ostensibly counter-rucking rather than relying on a ruck having not been formed despite two saffas on their feet over or around the ball, which is why he didn't get pinged

This supports your argument that there was, as a matter of fact, a ruck: but what difference does the presence of a ruck make to McCaw's rights, he having been the tackler.
Is he not entitled to regain his feet?

 

[Inside Shoulder]

In most cases, that's a ruck.

do you mean in most cases that is called a ruck?
because under 16(b) 2 players form the same team over the ball is not a ruck.

1. 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.
   
   http://www.irblaws.com/downloads/EN/Law_16_EN.pdf

There is arguably momentary contact between the orange 1 and the white defender who remained on his feet - that could make it a ruck.

 

[Top Bloke]

Inside Shoulder: But the question which then arises is: which law says McCaw is not then entitled to stand up? Which law says he has to roll away first? or lie doggo until the ball emerges"

If its a ruck - then this law 16.4 (d)
" Players on the ground in or near the ruck must try to move away from the ball. These players must not interfere with the ball in the ruck or as it comes out of the ruck. "

If it is deemed a tackle then 15.3 (b)
(b) The tackler must immediately get up or move away from the tackled player and from the ball at once

In my opinion in both laws move away is interpreted as being away from the ball - that would preclude Richie from getting up in the manner he did, ie he should have rolled out & then got up.

 

[Bullrush]

Inside Shoulder: But the question which then arises is: which law says McCaw is not then entitled to stand up? Which law says he has to roll away first? or lie doggo until the ball emerges"

If its a ruck - then this law 16.4 (d)
" Players on the ground in or near the ruck must try to move away from the ball. These players must not interfere with the ball in the ruck or as it comes out of the ruck. "

If it is deemed a tackle then 15.3 (b)
(b) The tackler must immediately get up or move away from the tackled player and from the ball at once

In my opinion in both laws move away is interpreted as being away from the ball - that would preclude Richie from getting up in the manner he did, ie he should have rolled out & then got up.

Top Bloke - you only highlight the second part of 15.3. The first part says, "The tackler must immediately get up" which is what Richie McCaw did. Technically, thee was no ruck formed so, as the tackler, he obviously felt he was entitled to go for the ball but he was taken ot of the play almost immediately.

It's interesting that some people seem to want to disregard what actually happened and make a call on the situation based on what they thought happened at the time.

'It looked like a ruck. Most of the time that would be regarded as a ruck' etc. The ruls don't define that situation as a ruck so no matter what we thought it looked like or how similar looking situations might be called, according to the laws of the rugby, I struggle to actually see what offence McCaw committed. I understand why AR might have thought there was an offence but IMO, McCaw was OK. As a 7, those are the fine lines you walk with the refs - you win some and you lose some. I like IS' point that AR never actually said what he was penalising McCaw for.

This happens with forward passes as well where passes that look like they were forward are then broken down frame-by-frame to show that according to the letter of the law, the pass wasn't actually forward.

 

[Top Bloke]

Bullrush - my law ref should read - 15.4 not 15.3 -
but it says "The tackler must immediately get up or move away" not both, but in both cases it should be away from the ball.
I didnt consider it to be a ruck - I merely deduced that AR did rule it as a ruck because of the penalty, but in thinking further that wouldn't matter because AR could use either law as the basis for a PK. Frankly I think it was a one of those 50/50 calls of which there are many every game

 

[BPC]

Bullrush - my law ref should read - 15.4 not 15.3 -
but it says "The tackler must immediately get up or move away" not both, but in both cases it should be away from the ball.
I didnt consider it to be a ruck - I merely deduced that AR did rule it as a ruck because of the penalty, but in thinking further that wouldn't matter because AR could use either law as the basis for a PK. Frankly I think it was a one of those 50/50 calls of which there are many every game

The law says: "The tackler must immediately get up or move away from the tackled player and from the ball"

The player has the choice to get up or move away from player and ball. The law doesn't say get up and move away from the ball or move away from the player and move away from the ball.

You also have to bear in mind 15.4(d) which says the tackler who gets up can play at the ball. This wouldn't be possible if he had to get up and move away from the ball.

 

[Bullrush]

^^Exactly BCP. The tackler must release the tackled player but he doesn't have to move away IF he gets up to his feet immediately. That's the beauty of watching players like McCaw, Pocock, Brussow etc...

 

[Scarfman]

Are you guys also taking into consideration 15.7 (c) No player may fall on or over the players lying on the ground after a tackle with the ball between or near to them.

I have nothing more to say about the McCaw incident, but I think it's a mistake to concentrate on the tackle law at the expense of the ruck law. How many tackles (would you say) does the tackler have enough time to stand up again and play the ball before the cavalry arrives? A few per game, but not many.

Don't forget that if the tackler doesn't go to ground then they are not a "tackler," as defined by Law 15. In some cases (when the tackler forces the ball carrier to ground without going to ground him/herself), then you don't have a tackle phase at all.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

How about the laws relevantly included "in such a way as to not interfere with the opposition playing the ball".
That way you preserve his option to roll or stand but he is obliged to choose the one that least interferes with the play: this would make McCaw a dinosaur!!!!!!!
The problem is it introduces yet more discretion: the answer to that is that the discretion is already being applied but its questionable whether its being applied consistently with the letter of the law.
I think McCaw's penalty was within the spirit of the laws - as was the SA Refs one and maybe even the Hurricanes one.
But as soon as anyone says "spirit of the laws" you know its going to be on for young and old.

 

[Scarfman]

By the way, I think along with the iRB Laws, and the SARefs site, we should pay attention to this site: Law Clarifications, and also these Guidelines.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

By the way, I think along with the iRB Laws, and the SARefs site, we should pay attention to this site: Law Clarifications, and also these Guidelines.

Excellent call and the site yields this:
http://www.irblaws.com/EN/clarificationdetail/law/16/25

A ruck ends successfully when the ball leaves the ruck or when the ball enters in goal i.e. on or over the goal line.

A ruck ends unsuccessfully when the ball becomes unplayable.

As there has been a ruck formed initially, AND the criteria for a successful or unsuccessful ruck have not been exhibited, then the ruck has not ended.

 

[Top Bloke]

http://www.irblaws.com/EN/clarificationdetail/law/16/19
Can anyone actually make sense of this clarification from 2009 - ? seems to describe a bizarre situation where 2 opposing players on their feet both have their hands on the ball and can continue to scrap over it.

Law 16.1 refers to a player from each side in physical contact over the ball and implies that the ball is not in the possession of any player.
Providing a player from either side on their feet after a tackle comply with all aspects of Law 15 and have the ball in their hands prior to contact with an opposition player on his feet those players may continue with possession of the ball even if a player from the opposition makes contact with those players in possession of the ball.

 

[BPC]

How about the laws relevantly included "in such a way as to not interfere with the opposition playing the ball".
That way you preserve his option to roll or stand but he is obliged to choose the one that least interferes with the play: this would make McCaw a dinosaur!!!!!!!
The problem is it introduces yet more discretion: the answer to that is that the discretion is already being applied but its questionable whether its being applied consistently with the letter of the law.
I think McCaw's penalty was within the spirit of the laws - as was the SA Refs one and maybe even the Hurricanes one.
But as soon as anyone says "spirit of the laws" you know its going to be on for young and old.

It would affect Pocock more than McCaw.

 

[BPC]

But as soon as anyone says "spirit of the laws" you know its going to be on for young and old.

Must . . . resist . . . temptation . . . to take bait . . .

But I can't.

Perhaps you can direct me to the written codification of the spirit of the laws to which you refer?

 

[Jay]

http://www.irblaws.com/EN/clarificationdetail/law/16/19
Can anyone actually make sense of this clarification from 2009 - ? seems to describe a bizarre situation where 2 opposing players on their feet both have their hands on the ball and can continue to scrap over it.

Law 16.1 refers to a player from each side in physical contact over the ball and implies that the ball is not in the possession of any player.
Providing a player from either side on their feet after a tackle comply with all aspects of Law 15 and have the ball in their hands prior to contact with an opposition player on his feet those players may continue with possession of the ball even if a player from the opposition makes contact with those players in possession of the ball.

It's giving a fetcher who gets his hands on the ball the right to keep playing it if a supporting attacker tries to clean him out.

So basically Pocock/McCaw/whoever makes a tackle then gets to their feet and goes for the ball. A supporting attacking player arrives a split second later and tries to knock them off the ball unsuccessfully by driving into them while staying on their feet.

Under the old laws, as soon as that supporting attacker arrives it's a ruck and the fetcher must technically stop playing the ball. Now, they may have only had their hands on the ball for a fraction of a second before they were hit - not necessarily long enough for the ref to ping the tackled player for holding on. This clarification rewards good fetching skills by saying as long as they've managed to keep their hands on the ball they can keep playing it and either win the ball or a penalty.

In reality, refs were essentially letting fetchers do this anyway but the clarification makes it transparent.

 

[Roundawhile]

Inside Shoulder: But the question which then arises is: which law says McCaw is not then entitled to stand up? Which law says he has to roll away first? or lie doggo until the ball emerges"

If its a ruck - then this law 16.4 (d)
" Players on the ground in or near the ruck must try to move away from the ball. These players must not interfere with the ball in the ruck or as it comes out of the ruck. "

snip.

McCaw was in a position which would interfere with the ball coming out of the ruck, hence IMHO the PK.

 

[Scarfman]

McCaw, McCaw, McCaw, geez you guys are obsessed!

 

[Gagger]

^^Exactly BCP. The tackler must release the tackled player but he doesn't have to move away IF he gets up to his feet immediately. That's the beauty of watching players like McCaw, Pocock, Brussow etc.

This is the dancing on the head of a pin bullshit drives me nuts.

It's clear - if you're a tackler on the ground, get the fuck away from the ball and don't impede others getting to it. McCaw put his back between the Ball and the saffas to obstruct them as he got up. That's why he got pinged. Ruck or tackle, didn't actually matter - he was deliberately obstructing.

In this case he forced Becker to clear him out and expose the ball - it's a the deliberate tactic employed here to disrupt the attacking team's breakdown.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Must . . . resist . . . temptation . . . to take bait . . .

But I can't.

Perhaps you can direct me to the written codification of the spirit of the laws to which you refer?

Thats the point.
Its all grey - thats why as soon as you mention it - its a free for all.
I mean look at gagger's response.