A ruck, or not a ruck?

[loretta]

While watching last weekends match, we got talking about what constitutes a ruck. Often after a tackle, a ruck is formed whereby all the defenders drop off to form a defensive line, leaving the tackled man on the deck presenting the ball with his mates bridging over and the scrum half in position. Now, my understanding (confirmed by a recent conversation with a sir) is that without defenders involved, this has ceased to be a ruck. So what can the defenders do? Is it a free-for-all? Can they just walk round and grab the ball, similar to the equivalent situation with mauling? Is it open play?

Discuss.

[northerntiger]

I suppose that, if a ruck has been formed, then the fact that there is no one still competing for the ball is irrelevant.

Law 16: Ruck

16.6 Successful end to a ruck

A ruck ends successfully when the ball leaves the ruck, or when the ball is on or over the goal line

The ball has not left the ruck, therefore it is not over.

[Skin_and_Muscle]

Didn't the Chiefs (the Waikato variety) try this earlier on in the Super 15? I got the impression that the difficulty with the tactic of walking round and disrupting the play was that it depended, to a certain extent, on second guessing the referee.

[loretta]

I suppose that, if a ruck has been formed, then the fact that there is no one still competing for the ball is irrelevant.

Law 16: Ruck

16.6 Successful end to a ruck

A ruck ends successfully when the ball leaves the ruck, or when the ball is on or over the goal line

The ball has not left the ruck, therefore it is not over.

However, under Definition, we see that "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." So, without a player from both sides being involved there is no ruck.

By comparison,

17.5 Successful end to a maul
A maul ends successfully when :

•the ball or a player with the ball leaves the maul
•the ball is on the ground
•the ball is on or over the goal line.

Yet we see players being allowed to directly compete for the ball if there are only attacking players in a "maul".

Or is there something I've missed here? E.g. can the latter situation only happen when a maul has not already formed?

[northerntiger]

I think the key is that when the ruck has formed (two or more players competing etc) if the competing players leave the ruck is still formed. The difference with the lineout maul is that the maul is never formed as the opposition forwards all step back and do not allow it to form

[Norfolk & Goode]

a ruck is formed whereby all the defenders drop off to form a defensive line, leaving the tackled man on the deck presenting the ball with his mates bridging over and the scrum half in position

That is not a ruck it is a tackle, you need a player from either side bound over the ball. No offsides there except if you want to play the tackle area then you have to from directly behind the ball, which includes tackling the scrum half. If you are the first tackler (ie the player that took the ball carrier and yourself to ground) you may get to your feet and play the ball from any direction provided a ruck has not been alreadyformed.

So what can the defenders do? Is it a free-for-all? Can they just walk round and grab the ball, similar to the equivalent situation with mauling? Is it open play?

Defenders can stand absolutely anywhere when a tackle has taken place. However, should a ruck form they are instantly offside and 'risk' being penalised. See the above explanation as to why you cannot walk round and play the ball or the scrum half.

Many pro players and even pundits get the 'tackle or ruck' understanding wrong. Crowds usually scream for offside when a defender crosses the back foot when it is simply a tackle, you watch this Saturday, it'll happen!

[Norfolk & Goode]

Yet we see players being allowed to directly compete for the ball if there are only attacking players in a "maul".

No maul has been formed if only attacking players are bound in, therefore no offside line, so defenders can come around to play the ball/carrier as it is open play. No maul laws apply unless in the process of that tackle the tackler remains on his feet bound on to the ball carrier (on his feet!) and an attacker binds on to him, then it becomes a maul!

If only attacking players are bound in and the ball is at the back then they risk being penalised for either blocking or offside if defenders tackle the players at the front, that is why you won't see only attacking players bound with the ball at the back for very long.

[jgriffin]

Many of the pure definitions have become blurred by ref abuse and the tolerance of punishable practices. The 'choke' tackle does not exist in Law; taking a maul down is a penalty at least; no use of arms in a ruck; being off your feet and interfering with play....the list is endless.

[Norfolk & Goode]

Many of the pure definitions have become blurred by ref abuse and the tolerance of punishable practices. The 'choke' tackle does not exist in Law; taking a maul down is a penalty at least; no use of arms in a ruck; being off your feet and interfering with play....the list is endless.

How is the choke tackle a tolerated punishable practise? It is perfectly legal to bind on to another player and hold him up with the intention of team mates driving the maul to their opponents goal line.

What is unfair is that if you are the ball carrier and you are going forwards in the choke tackle/maul you lose possession if the maul stops and the ball does not appear, that seems absurd to punish the team that was going forward before it stopped.

[jgriffin]

Read the offical ref blog
http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php ... oke-tackle

That's why Dayglo points out that pushing off an attacking player is a penalty to the attack - preventing a maul from forming. That's what Bath do all the time. there is no such thing as a choke tackle (i.e. upright tackle) in RU - it's either ball in play or a maul, and refs find it difficult to agree if the 'upright tackle' is a maul.

[The Boy Dave]

under Definition, we see that "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." So, without a player from both sides being involved there is no ruck.

This
My understanding is that until the attacking team in possession place a man over the ball to protect possession then no ruck is formed and the ball is free for anyone on their feet to pick up coming from any direction i.e there is no offside until a ruck is formed.
Or so I was told anyway.

[Tiger_in_Birmingham]

What is unfair is that if you are the ball carrier and you are going forwards in the choke tackle/maul you lose possession if the maul stops and the ball does not appear, that seems absurd to punish the team that was going forward before it stopped.

What is more unfair is the number of time the defending team makes the choke, gets driven backwards at a rate of knots (as they're not in a position to stop the drive, only hold up the ball carrier) and then clearly collapse it but somehow get the turnover rather than giving away the penalty

[jgriffin]

Two weeks ago JP gave the ball to the attacking side declaring open play, no maul formed, ball trapped etc. I cheered.

[Norfolk & Goode]

Read the offical ref blog
http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php ... oke-tackle

That's why Dayglo points out that pushing off an attacking player is a penalty to the attack - preventing a maul from forming. That's what Bath do all the time. there is no such thing as a choke tackle (i.e. upright tackle) in RU - it's either ball in play or a maul, and refs find it difficult to agree if the 'upright tackle' is a maul.

A flawed blog right from the start as expressed by the second post!

Why split hairs over calling it a 'choke' or 'upright' tackle? It's fundamentally the same except 'choke' is a better metaphor as to what it does to a game. Neither are technically tackles anyway!

The law needs changing so a maul is a solely a pushing contest and not a holding up contest, award the scrum to the team going forward before the second stoppage.

[mightymouse]

The ruck law is a joke now but Law 16 used to be tackled player and tackler on the floor and 1 more person constitutes a ruck - who thereafter enters or leaves it is irrelevant, it is a ruck until the ball comes out the back - in those days everyone must leave the ball alone and only play with the feet

however now you can pick it up it has ruined the ruck and the game along with it!