The second weekend of the Autumn Nations Series presented a few noteworthy incidents, with Cam Roigard’s scoring play for the All Blacks early in their triumph over Scotland standing out.
While the scrum-half’s actions were straightforward, the run initiated by second-row Josh Lord to facilitate the scoring play has sparked considerable debate online.
The Chiefs lock penetrated the Scottish defensive line unimpeded around the base of a ruck (or so it appeared) near midfield, leading many to question the legitimacy of the maneuver, given his apparent involvement in the ruck.
Furthermore, Japan tighthead Shuhei Takeuchi executed a similar action shortly before, which seemed essentially identical, only to be penalized by Gianluca Gnecchi.
These two actions, and their respective outcomes, fueled a series of speculation online concerning the treatment of various teams. However, the clarification is much simpler, as former referee Nigel Owens has articulated.
England
New Zealand
“In the specific instance referenced [Japan match], if an athlete is engaged in the ruck, and subsequently places a hand down to retrieve the ball, using one’s hands to manipulate the ball within the ruck is impermissible,” the Welshman stated on World Rugby’s Whistle Watch.
“To legally perform such an action, the athlete must first disengage from the ruck before retrieving the ball, which consequently signals the termination of the ruck.”
“If the intent is to retrieve the ball, the ruck must be concluded.”
“The significant distinguishing aspect [in the All Blacks match] is the absence of a ruck. No Scottish athletes are observed to be upright and bound to that New Zealand athlete. Thus, no ruck is in effect.
“The prevailing scenario is that of a tackle situation, thereby rendering the aforementioned law inapplicable due to the non-existence of a ruck. Given that no ruck has been established, Lord’s retrieval of the ball does not occur within a ruck, an action deemed impermissible; rather, it occurs during a tackle scenario, an action entirely within the bounds of legality and permissibility.”
“Considering the positioning of one leg behind and the ball in front of that leg, his actions were entirely justified.”
What’s the difference between these two moments?
Catch the latest episode of #WhistleWatch on YouTube and RugbyPass TV to find out the answer to this question and more 👀 pic.twitter.com/LLWy7Ag8NO
— World Rugby (@RugbyWorldCup) November 13, 2025
