Jimmy_Crouch
Ken Catchpole (46)
I thought it might have been called offside (for bumping into his own player) or obstruction (the player in the ruck obstructing the defender to make a stop)
Refereeing decisions
- Thread starter boyo
- Start date
Th0mo
Allen Oxlade (6)
Most relevant bits I can find.
Law 15.8 The ruck ends and play continues when the ball leaves the ruck or when the ball in the ruck is on or over the goal line.
Game Management Guidelines > Ruck > ball out and collapsed ruck
At a tackle, a player can pick up the ball if one foot is level with or behind the ball. At a ruck, a player can pick up the ball if both feet are level with or behind the ball. If a player is still bound with an opponent, then they cannot pick up the ball.
So if you reach in for the ball without anyone from the other team in contact then good to go. Law 15.8 probably less relevant but as it was promoted rather than rolled over line.
JRugby
Allen Oxlade (6)
Couple of things:
The ball is at the base of the original ruck and possession has been legally retained by the crusaders, so no issues with hands in the ruck as an attacking player can use their hands to retrieve the ball from a ruck if their team has won or retained possession (Law 15.17). If this scenario was occurring anywhere else in the field of play, this would also be legal.
The location of ruck in this play is key (Law 15.1 - a ruck can only take place within the field of play). The tackle and ruck is formed in the field of play, but through no illegal action - the players involved in the ruck are now in goal with the ball remaining just inside the field of play (players are allowed to win possession by pushing opposing players off the ball (Law 15.10) which explains why the location of the ruck can shift from the point of the original tackle and give Hienz a clear view of the try line). Hienz isn't returning the ball to the ruck because a ruck can't occur in goal.
As the ball is now centimetres from the goal line - he can present the ball forward to score a try (Law 8.2b - A try is scored when an attacking player: Is first to ground the ball when a scrum, ruck or maul reaches the goal line).
My personal opinion: I agree with the post match commentary around reviewing this area of the game. It reminds me of the old laws around grounding the ball against the base of the goal post, and how that was changed as it was near impossible to defend. I'd like to see this change to something like - "a try cannot be scored behind a ruck if the ruck was formed in the field of play" and force players to have to score either side - ensuring a fair opportunity for defence.
Last edited:
Lightblue
Arch Winning (36)
This may have been brought up here earlier so pardon me if that is the case ….but…..
With the scrum being the showpiece for the forwards and a major distinction between the low rent NRL scrums, why has it become normal now for the half to feed it in to second row ? It gives the opposing hooker zero chance to strike for the ball. It’s like it is just a thing now that the refs don’t police it. I mean scrums have far too many ridiculous penalties for my liking but isn‘t it a ‘rule’ that the halfback is supposed to roll the ball into the scrum close to the centre? If this was properly policed the ref could just give a quick tap to the non offending team. Halves would be straightening up their put ins quicksmart after that!
With the scrum being the showpiece for the forwards and a major distinction between the low rent NRL scrums, why has it become normal now for the half to feed it in to second row ? It gives the opposing hooker zero chance to strike for the ball. It’s like it is just a thing now that the refs don’t police it. I mean scrums have far too many ridiculous penalties for my liking but isn‘t it a ‘rule’ that the halfback is supposed to roll the ball into the scrum close to the centre? If this was properly policed the ref could just give a quick tap to the non offending team. Halves would be straightening up their put ins quicksmart after that!
Slim 293
Stirling Mortlock (74)
It was tried a few years back with unintended consequences…
Hookers are unable to hook in a modern scrum… safety issues… etc
JRugby
Allen Oxlade (6)
From a pure law perspective, the halfback can offset themselves to their side of the tunnel to feed, rather than needing to feed down the middle (still needs to be straight however):
And yeah, probably would have that effect. I think in the grand scheme of things it has a pretty minimal impact (most scrums are won through better scrummaging rather than the impact of a hook against the feed). Just need a Raynal-esque moment in a professional game to bring this to the forefront of peoples attention like rugby has done with timewasting.
Attachments
Rebel man
Jim Lenehan (48)
Nothing annoys me more in the game than this.
They feed it straight to the 8s feet, it is a joke. Yet a hooker gets a throw wrong on an uncontested line out and it’s a turn over.
What’s worse is when the ref allows the 9 to get away with shaping like he is going to feed the ball then not putting it in to get the early push from the opposing front row
John S
Chilla Wilson (44)
Yep, again, if a hooker baulks at the lineout - penalty.
Probably another reason forwards don't like half backs
Rebel man
Jim Lenehan (48)
Yeah it’s a bloody disgrace.
I get feeding to the 8s feet speeds up the scrum and the game. But either change the rule to allow it or penalise it. I hate how they ignore it.
Proud Pig
Ted Thorn (20)
You can't allow it. If you allow the 9 to feed to the back of the scrum you may as well abandon scrums altogether.
A feed to the 8 may as well be a league scrum and that is just too wrong to contemplate.
Rebel man
Jim Lenehan (48)
Look I do understand that view point. They can still hold the ball in and play for a penalty. But all 9s are blatantly feeding it to their side as it is
Lightblue
Arch Winning (36)
That’s what’s killing rugby for me. The half has the ball at the lock‘s feet….and he waits for the ref to award a penalty, due to forward dominance or a collapse… BUT …. They have the ball!! Just have refs get them to play the fu.king thing and get on with it. They already have the advantage because they have the ball! Play it…. Those penalties are absolute bullish.t . Why? …because SOME refs say to half ‘play it‘ and SOME give a penalty… fix that …for Christ’s sake….
Dan54
Tim Horan (67)
Just thought I would post this, I love the fact that O'Keefe can go from reffing 6N, tests etc, super rugby but still enjoys doing odd game in heartland club comp at the mighty Nua!! Know that he actually asked if he needed to pay subs etc at the local refs assoc, and does genuinely make sure he's in having a beer with players etc after game.
Eyes and Ears
Bob Davidson (42)
Scrums have been a battle of power as opposed to a striking contest for many years now; even before the we lost the engagement hit. I feel the relevant question is whether there is reward in having a dominant scrum and the answer is unequivocally, YES. Even without a straight feed, teams need strong scrums with high quality front rowers. At the particpation level of the game, there is still a role for many players with a body shape that is not as valued in other sports. My argument is that it very much remains the "showpiece" for the forwards despite the issue with scrumfeeds.
If you want less ridiculous penalties at scrums, then expecting straight feeds will have the oppositive effect ie more penalties for not straight, early strikes, hookers not holding their weight. Also most of these offences are free kicks which will likely have the unintended outcome of more scrums
