Force v Reds - Genia'a actions

[.X.]

I am currently watching a replay of last nights match - and I noticed something that I would like to get everyones opinion on - and if I can beg Eckys indulgence get his thoughts on it to.

There were a couple of times in the first half were the Reds were working on their phase play and had a ruck where the last feet were that of ScrumHalf Will Genia who was connected to the ruck by placing his hand on the back of a prone Reds forward.

I hope that description makes sense

now in this instance - Genia bent down to pick up the ball with both hands. There was some time where Genia was not attached to the back of ruck while he was directing traffic.

Here are the questions.

1. Once Genia removes his hand from the back of his forward - isnt the ball "out" and the Force players could come around and pick up the ball?

2. If the Reds forwards that are a part of the Ruck shoved forward while Genia is not attached - could that be considered a Truck and trailer penalty?

[Bronski Beat]

I am currently watching a replay of last nights match - and I noticed something that I would like to get everyones opinion on - and if I can beg Eckys indulgence get his thoughts on it to.

There were a couple of times in the first half were the Reds were working on their phase play and had a ruck where the last feet were that of ScrumHalf Will Genia who was connected to the ruck by placing his hand on the back of a prone Reds forward.


I have no idea.
I hope that description makes sense

now in this instance - Genia bent down to pick up the ball with both hands. There was some time where Genia was not attached to the back of ruck while he was directing traffic.

Here are the questions.

1. Once Genia removes his hand from the back of his forward - isnt the ball "out" and the Force players could come around and pick up the ball?

2. If the Reds forwards that are a part of the Ruck shoved forward while Genia is not attached - could that be considered a Truck and trailer penalty?

Posted via Mobile Device

[jono]

Deep and moving words as always beat. Your best work yet
Posted via Mobile Device

[Ecky]

I am currently watching a replay of last nights match - and I noticed something that I would like to get everyones opinion on - and if I can beg Eckys indulgence get his thoughts on it to.

There were a couple of times in the first half were the Reds were working on their phase play and had a ruck where the last feet were that of ScrumHalf Will Genia who was connected to the ruck by placing his hand on the back of a prone Reds forward.

I hope that description makes sense

now in this instance - Genia bent down to pick up the ball with both hands. There was some time where Genia was not attached to the back of ruck while he was directing traffic.

Here are the questions.

1. Once Genia removes his hand from the back of his forward - isnt the ball "out" and the Force players could come around and pick up the ball?

2. If the Reds forwards that are a part of the Ruck shoved forward while Genia is not attached - could that be considered a Truck and trailer penalty?

Just to elaborate on Bronski Beat's reply

1. To be bound in a ruck or maul, the player must be using his whole arm; not just the hand. So technically he's not actually part of the ruck, ergo the ball is already out.

HOWEVER

None of the defending players bound in the ruck, or the pillars next to it (behind the last feet, of course), should be able to see whether Genia is fully bound or not, so they should err on the side of caution and just wait until he gains control of the ball with his hands.

They could, of course, ask Sir if the ball is out. Depending on the ref, they may get a reply, they may not, but at least it draws it to Sir's attention and they'd have a better change of ball spoilage if they risk attacking the ball.

2. Not really. "Truck & trailer" is commonly seen in a maul, not a ruck. And for good reason. There is a fair element of doubt for the players at the front of a ruck as to where the ball is and if it is out or not, so they'd be shoving the whole time until they feel no more shove from behind.

...at least they are my thoughts on it.

[Burgs]

Could they not trust the call from their wider (ie Wing etc) teammates who would be able to see at a better angle? Obviously not as authoritive as Sir but if he won't answer?

Also, would it be fair to say that some Sirs are far better at reading the game, and therefore staying the hell out ot the way of the play, than others?
Seems lately that several Sirs are blundering around and inadvertanlty getting in the way of set moves.

[Flamethrower]

Could they not trust the call from their wider (ie Wing etc

I thought the forwards didn't need or want backs to be involved in their game.

[almac]

Dont you have to be knighted by the Queen to attain the title SIR... ?? Just asking...!! ;-)

[blueandblack]

Dont you have to be knighted by the Queen to attain the title SIR... ?? Just asking...!! ;-)

Not if its spelt "Cur"

[Burgs]

I thought the forwards didn't need or want backs to be involved in their game.

No, they can be useful as eyes and for bringing the ball back to the men so they can take charge again. No point running around all over the place, burns up valuable ruck and maul time.