22 - 20

33 - 15

53 - 16

34 - 18

38 - 18

32 - 19

13 - 8

15 - 23

38 - 20

31 - 7

44 - 31

22 - 45

42 - 21

28 - 23

22 - 33

14 - 35

50 - 21

22 - 17

31 - 3

14 - 10

28 - 21

52 - 0

29 - 26

68 - 14

33 - 0

31 - 31

45 - 34

50 - 5

23 - 21

61 - 12

Autumn Nations Series

Nigel Owens clears up outrage over controversial All Blacks incident

By Josh Raisey

31 days ago

Finn Russell (r) and captain Sione Tuipulotu of Scotland react during the Quilter Nations Series 2025 rugby international match between Scotland and New Zealand at the Scottish Gas Murrayfield on November 08, 2025 in Edinburgh, Scotland. (Photo by Stu Forster/Getty Images)

Week two of the Quilter Nations Series had its share of controversial moments, with Cam Roigard’s try for the All Blacks in the opening minutes of their victory over Scotland being near the top of the list.

While there was nothing controversial about the scrum-half’s actions, the break made by second-row Josh Lord to set up the try has opened up quite a debate online.

The Chiefs lock broke the Scottish defence untouched around the base of a ruck (or so it seemed) on halfway, with many questioning the legality of the move as he was part of the apparent ruck.

What’s more, Japan tighthead Shuhei Takeuchi pulled off a move shortly before that looked ostensibly the same, only to be penalised by Gianluca Gnecchi.

These two moves, and consequences, opened the door for a raft of conspiracy theories online about the treatment of different teams. However, the explanation is far simpler, as former referee Nigel Owens has explained.

Fixture

Internationals

England

33 - 19

Full-time

New Zealand

All Stats and Data

“In this instance here [Japan match], 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,” the Welshman said on World Rugby’s Whistle Watch.

“If he wants to do that, he’s got to detach and then pick the ball up, which then means the ruck is over.

“If you want to pick up the ball, the ruck must be over.”

“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.

“What you have now is a tackle situation, and the the law that we just discussed does not apply because it’s not a ruck. Because there’s no ruck formed, it’s now a tackle, which means Lord is not picking the ball up in a ruck, which you’re not allowed to do, he’s picking the ball up in a tackle situation, which is perfectly legal and allowed.

“Because he had one leg back, and the ball was in front of that leg, he’s quite entitled to do what he did.”

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 (@WorldRugby) November 13, 2025

LIVE

Comments

1 Comment

JW 30 days ago

Lol Nigel has it all wrong. What he is trying to say is that Lord detached from the ruck before ending the ruck by picking it up?

Two points I think I remember hearing the refs rule (this is what’s important here, not someone elses interpretation of what should have been ruled);

The player must be a half back (acting), ie, not part of the ruck, and onside. I think Lord was ruled onside thanks to have one foot behind the ball/ruck.

Lord (anybody) is OK to have his hands on the ball if it was/is stationary (just like they let tackled players keep it under control), he would just need stand up/disconnect first.

Like I say I didn’t note the ref saying anything about a tackle but if it was I’m sure he still needs something (?) behind the ball. This is how I’ve seen it ruled consistently, it’s irrelevant what the Japanese player did.

Join free and tell us what you really think!