Did you see that All Blacks try against Scotland and immediately think, "Wait, was that even legal?!" You weren't alone! A seemingly identical play by Japan earlier in the series was penalized, leading to online outrage and accusations of favoritism. But here’s the truth: it all boils down to a very specific, and often misunderstood, rugby law.
The incident in question involves Josh Lord's contribution to Cam Roigard’s try in the All Blacks' victory over Scotland during the Quilter Nations Series. Lord's break around the ruck ignited a firestorm of debate. Many viewers questioned whether the towering lock forward was legally allowed to pick up the ball, considering his position near what appeared to be a ruck.
To add fuel to the fire, Japan's Shuhei Takeuchi executed a similar maneuver, only to be penalized by the referee, Gianluca Gnecchi. The contrasting calls sparked a wave of conspiracy theories claiming that certain teams receive preferential treatment. Was this just a case of inconsistent officiating, or something more?
Fortunately, renowned former international referee Nigel Owens stepped in to clarify the situation, offering a simple explanation that cuts through the noise. According to Owens, the crucial difference lies in whether or not a ruck was actually formed. And this is the part most people miss...
Owens explained using World Rugby's Whistle Watch that in the Japan incident, Takeuchi was penalized because he was bound in a formed ruck. "If a player is bound in the ruck, and he puts his hand down and picks the ball up, you can’t play the ball with your hands in the ruck," Owens stated. To legally pick up the ball, the player must first detach from the ruck, effectively ending it. In short: "If you want to pick up the ball, the ruck must be over."
But here's where it gets controversial... The All Blacks' situation was different. Owens highlighted that in Lord's case, no ruck was actually formed because no Scottish players were bound onto the New Zealand player. Without a ruck, the situation defaults to a tackle scenario. "The key difference [in the All Blacks match], it’s not a ruck. You don’t have any Scottish players on their feet bound onto that New Zealand player. So you don’t have a ruck," Owens clarified. This means Lord wasn't picking the ball up in a ruck, which is illegal, but rather in a tackle situation, which is perfectly legal as long as, as Owens pointed out, "Because he had one leg back, and the ball was in front of that leg, he’s quite entitled to do what he did."
Therefore, while the two plays looked similar, the presence (or absence) of a formed ruck dictated the legality of the players' actions. It's a subtle but vital distinction.
So, does this explanation clear things up for you? Do you agree with Owens' interpretation of the laws? Or do you still believe there was some inconsistency in the refereeing? Let us know your thoughts in the comments below!
