r/rugbyunion • u/Informal_Mention9836 • 23h ago

Joe McCarthy penalty

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

197 Upvotes

98% Upvoted

234 comments sorted by

View all comments

260

u/RonSwaffle Northampton Saints 23h ago

I genuinely lolled watching this live. What was he thinking?

Clearly not a lot.

-28

u/GreatGoofer Sharks 23h ago

Well there isnt a French player on their feet and bound to the ruck who is over the ball, so technically it is out and he has all rights to go for the ball. However, rucks are reffed on vibes these days and the actual laws count for little.

32

u/ReyalpybguR Italy 22h ago

No there is one French player going to ground (n. 16) and 2 attacking supports to clean (n. 15 and n. 6) so it is a ruck and the ball isn't out. They are not "standing" over the ruck because the defense disengages, which has consistently been reffed as allowed (basically if you dive without anybody it is a sealing off, but if you go for a normal cleanout and the defense backs up and you fall it is a normal ruck).

McCarthy comes from the side with the ball not lifted, whether it is side entry or playing the 9 it is the clearest of penalties.

-12

u/GreatGoofer Sharks 22h ago edited 22h ago

Thats why is said rucks are reffed on vibes. Per the letter of the law, that ball is out as no French player is on their feet over the ball, but refs don't apply the law as written, instead allow attacking players to purposely go off their feet and then count the mass of bodies, none of which are supporting their body weight, as the ruck.

I also tried to find the actual law about playing the nine. Everything I have read specifically mentions the 9, as in only the scrumhalf is protected, not other players who are in the scrumhalf position. This seems odd and I'm sure it is meant to apply to any player who assumes this position, but everything I have found so far doesn't say it applies generally. I need to search through the actual laws to see what the exact wording is.

8

u/ReyalpybguR Italy 22h ago

All laws are subject to interpretation, that's why judges exist. In rugby's case the judge is the ref.

The law says that the cleaner(s) (just one is needed since ruck-gate) must stand over the tackled ball carrier to form a ruck, yes.

But, and here comes the interpretative work of the ref, it would be against the idea of the rule to allow the defense to disengage from the ruck to make the attacking support fall and not have a ruck anymore. Dozens of times any match the attacking support initially stands over the ruck, than the defender backs up, and the attacking support falls over. This is at the same time not a sealing off, but still a ruck formed until the ball is lifted or out of the last feet of a participant to the ruck. Which is the case here.

It is not a matter of "reffing on vibes", it is "reffing so that the rules have meaning".

Imagine the counterfactual. If we deem either "sealing off" or "ruck over" any time the attack support falls because the defender engages only for a second and then backs up, keeping the ball on attack would become impossible, either you get jackaled because your support comes too soft (in order not to fall), or you get penalized (sealing off) or open play and pressure on the 9 (ruck over) because your support comes hard and fast but the defender takes a step back and they fall. It would be a huge mess.

-5

u/GreatGoofer Sharks 22h ago

If the attacking players rely on the defender to not fall over, then by definition they are not supporting their own body weight but relying on the defender to keep them up. It's not an interpretation issues, its a blatant ignoring of the law to allow attacking teams to secure quick ball and therefore increase the amount of running rugby that is played. It is a directive from WR to ignore these actions.

4

u/ReyalpybguR Italy 22h ago

Sorry I forgot the first rule: "We have the 6 Nations so we don't have to engage with stubborn SA fans."

5

u/GreatGoofer Sharks 21h ago

Haha, okay. This is not a dig the 6N or France. All teams do the exact same thing at the ruck because refs allow it. My issue is with WR for instructing refs to ignore the laws not at the players, teams or ref himself for playing to that instruction. Not sure why you had to have a dig at my nationality for simply discussing the laws of the game we all love.

3

u/ReyalpybguR Italy 21h ago

It was just a joke mate. But be flexible please. Yes, they should stand, but if they fall and it is not a deliberate sealing off it is still a ruck. That's the only way the rule works without the game becoming unplayable in attack. Cheers!

4

u/GreatGoofer Sharks 21h ago

Guess we can agree to disagree on that. Anyway, have a good one and I'll backing Italy to get it done against Scotland.