Ruck or Not a Ruck ???

Thanks Nikostratos, for the following.......

"Hi, I noticed what I thought was a dodgy decision in Saturday's game and wondered how you saw it; I don't seem to be able to start a thread in the "Are you blind..." section. 

On about 8mins, Martyn Williams won a turnover, the ref said "OK, he's on his feet".  At the time he picked up the ball, there were two Scots, also on their feet, who seemed to be bound to him [one certainly was].  To me, that's a ruck and it doesn't matter if you're on your feet or floating on a cloud, you can't use your hands to win the ball.  Is there any situation where that's not the case?  [And no, he didn't have the ball in his hands first then get held].

 Obviously that wasn't the only decision I didn't like, but in this case I can rule out bias and I heard the ref's comment. The rest were likely to be down to not understanding what the ref saw or use of one eye only ;-) "

There are a few points here

1. Martyn Williams was the tackler, therefore when he tackled the Scot, he had to relaease the player, which he did, then, regained his feet. The Scot then had to release the ball, which he wasn't, clearly preventing MW gaining posession legally.
2. When the following Scots arrived, yes they bound of sorts, but unfortunately, one hand on a Welsh shirt is not a "legal bind" it must be a full arm.
3. When the Scots did arrive, the offence of "holding on" had already been committed, so advantage was with the Welsh.

I hope this helps.

ps. You can only contact this section by PM ing Me or the Admin Group.

.