what is a ruck?

[El Diablo]

Not only did the english team not know what a ruck is but apparently Nigel Owens didn't know on Saturday either. If you have it recorded go to the 50th minute. Conor Murray is preparing to play the ball, the french are not engaged around the tackle area and the french tight head comes up alongside Murray waving his hands just like the Italians did against England. What does Nigel do? He shouts "GO BACK". Is it possible he didnt know the rule either? Incredible.

[El Diablo]

Not only did the english team not know what a ruck is but apparently Nigel Owens didn't know on Saturday either. If you have it recorded go to the 50th minute. Conor Murray is preparing to play the ball, the french are not engaged around the tackle area and the french tight head comes up alongside Murray waving his hands just like the Italians did against England. What does Nigel do? He shouts "GO BACK". Is it possible he didnt know the rule either? Incredible.

I take it back....according to the excellent Murray Kinsella analysis of this issue, Owens was right to interpret that there was a ruck......
http://www.the42.ie/italy-tackle-only-e ... 0-Feb2017/
I havent read the entire article but I would trust Kinsella as he is usually spot on.

[wixfjord]

Baby don't hurt me?

[jezzer]

I think Murray is giving Nige a lot of credit, but maybe he's right.

I'm still intrigued how/why Nige decided that the choke tackle no longer leads to a maul, without any apparent World Rugby guideline to that effect (not a published one anyway).

[LeRouxIsPHat]

Refs have been allowing more time before calling a maul for about 18 months now and they've also been allowing players fight to get a knee to ground upon when they immediately call tackle. I think some refs let it go on for too long but it's very standard stuff.

[desperado]

I think Murray is giving Nige a lot of credit, but maybe he's right.

I'm still intrigued how/why Nige decided that the choke tackle no longer leads to a maul, without any apparent World Rugby guideline to that effect (not a published one anyway).

I'm similarly intrigued. Seem like there's a much greater delay in calling a maul - and any hint of a knee touching grass is enough to call tackle.

[Dave Cahill]

Refs have been allowing more time before calling a maul for about 18 months now and they've also been allowing players fight to get a knee to ground upon when they immediately call tackle. I think some refs let it go on for too long but it's very standard stuff.

Yeah, its the Gary Puckett and Union Gap of defensive techniques nowadays, they simply won't call a maul unless they have no possible choice - it looks like a situation where the word has come down from Rolllers

[All Blacks nil]

I think Murray is giving Nige a lot of credit, but maybe he's right.

I'm still intrigued how/why Nige decided that the choke tackle no longer leads to a maul, without any apparent World Rugby guideline to that effect (not a published one anyway).

I'm similarly intrigued. Seem like there's a much greater delay in calling a maul -
and any hint of a knee touching grass is enough to call tackle.

Correct
That is the law. Once your knee touches the ground you are deemed to be tackled.
Even though Ireland and Irish teams benefit greatly from the "choke"tackle it is a very negative play and hinders continuity within the game. It is a no brainer that as the choke tackle became more prevalent that instruction from above, would decree that the ruck be called asap to promote continuity.

[paddyor]

Tackle gets called first, ye don't want to be getting ahead of yourself like the English.

[LeRouxIsPHat]

I just had a thought...is El Diablo actually James Haskell in disguise? Apt username too if it is.

[Fan with smartphone]

Lol LRIP.

El Diablo es en el detail, el Hasque.

Murray Kinsella doing some really good work around this, but I think Jezzer may be right that he is possibly not quite right on Owens' thought process.

Some referees deem the 1m away from the ball/ruck, or closing in on the 9 more harshly than others. Poite was to my mind quite generous on just how much of that he allowed and I don't think many other referees would have went with that. You have to remember, Poite is the most binary ref in rugby. Look at how he has generally refereed the scrum: Team going forward (no matter if legal) = good, team going backward = penalty. I think a lot of referees would have allowed the fox to a certain extent, but would have got a bit harsher on calling ruck the longer it went on. It's not that dissimilar to what is evolving with the choke tackle as mentioned above. Would need Owens to say himself, but I'd guess his decision was based more on a gut-feel of proximity than saying Picamoles created a ruck at a certain moment. Personally I think that's an easier way to referee it and cleaner too, but then as Murray kinsella says, given that he knew about it early in the week, presumably Poite sought clarification from above on it?

As entertaining as the ref cam was, I still think haskell and Hartley had a bit of a point. Even if they weren't confident enough of the laws to make it better than they did. But the reaction of Jones is pure BS. You can be sure if they thought the could get advantage out of it, they'd do it themselves. Sure they were adapting to Poite's interpretation and trying the fox themselves by the end of the game! There are lots of ways people cynically try to get an edge. Given that O'Shea went to Poite pre-match, clearly this wasn't one.

[jezzer]

Refs have been allowing more time before calling a maul for about 18 months now and they've also been allowing players fight to get a knee to ground upon when they immediately call tackle. I think some refs let it go on for too long but it's very standard stuff.

Some refs let it go on longer than the average maul does.

[olaf the fat]

Regarding Owens

Without going back over clips of the game, I think the difference was down to timing. The Italians were passed the tackle immediately, whereas the French No.3 seemed to try to wonder offside well after the Ruck (nee. tackle) was formed. That allowed Nige to make the call on the picture presented to him.

Although "Nigel stop making up your own rules" does get shouted more and more as the star grows.

[R-Dog]

Anyone see the Rugby show on BT lastnight?

Was interesting to see the number of examples they showed of teams midfield being penalised when technically there had been no ruck. The tactic of a quick one man ruck could cause alot of controversy going forward

[Peg Leg]

I think if you're going to use it tactically, you'll be having a chat with the ref prior to kick off

[All Blacks nil]

Anyone see the Rugby show on BT lastnight?

Was interesting to see the number of examples they showed of teams midfield being penalised when technically there had been no ruck. The tactic of a quick one man ruck could cause alot of controversy going forward

One man ruck?

This and the uncontested maul really are loopholes which need addressing. While both are clever and initially innovative, the non existence of an offside line is a serious problem for any game.

Perhaps one way of policing it is that if you are behind the ball when the tackle is made that you can only go ahead of the ball through the gate (most likely casing a ruck to be formed) and the ball itself is the offside line.
If you are in front of the ball you must be seen to attempting to retreat. This would legislate for a player attempting to cover a break while also trying to prevent or block a pass.eg a winger covering an inside break by a centre while also attempting to cover the pass to his wing. Other players have to retreat to the newly created offside line I.e the ball
If the tackle eventually becomes a ruck the offside line is as now, the hindmost foot.
It needs addressing before all levels of rugby start coaching this and suffocating the game

Another tactic that could be used by the team in possession is for the scrumhalf to dummy a pass to draw a penalty. As it isn't a ruck, mail or scrum, it could be construed as open play and surely a player is entitle to dummy a pass.

[R-Dog]

Another tactic that could be used by the team in possession is for the scrumhalf to dummy a pass to draw a penalty. As it isn't a ruck, mail or scrum, it could be construed as open play and surely a player is entitle to dummy a pass.

Of course you'd be allowed dummy but what penalty could it get you? (no off side in these situations)

[All Blacks nil]

Another tactic that could be used by the team in possession is for the scrumhalf to dummy a pass to draw a penalty. As it isn't a ruck, mail or scrum, it could be construed as open play and surely a player is entitle to dummy a pass.

Of course you'd be allowed dummy but what penalty could it get you? (no off side in these situations)

Encroaching into exclusion zone or maybe tackled without ball.
If a team really want to challenge the lawmakers just leave the ball there. Defence can't play it and attack don't have to play it as it is not a scrum ruck or maul.


Any my views on my suggested change of laws to remedy situation.

[jezzer]

Anyone see the Rugby show on BT lastnight?

Was interesting to see the number of examples they showed of teams midfield being penalised when technically there had been no ruck. The tactic of a quick one man ruck could cause alot of controversy going forward

One man ruck?

This and the uncontested maul really are loopholes which need addressing. While both are clever and initially innovative, the non existence of an offside line is a serious problem for any game.

Perhaps one way of policing it is that if you are behind the ball when the tackle is made that you can only go ahead of the ball through the gate (most likely casing a ruck to be formed) and the ball itself is the offside line.
If you are in front of the ball you must be seen to attempting to retreat. This would legislate for a player attempting to cover a break while also trying to prevent or block a pass.eg a winger covering an inside break by a centre while also attempting to cover the pass to his wing. Other players have to retreat to the newly created offside line I.e the ball
If the tackle eventually becomes a ruck the offside line is as now, the hindmost foot.
It needs addressing before all levels of rugby start coaching this and suffocating the game

Another tactic that could be used by the team in possession is for the scrumhalf to dummy a pass to draw a penalty. As it isn't a ruck, mail or scrum, it could be construed as open play and surely a player is entitle to dummy a pass.

Don't forget that the current laws already insist on a player coming through the gate if he tackles/engages with a player. So even when there is no ruck, defenders who want to play the ball or th man must do so having come through the gate.

Obviously, if they don't plan to play the ball or man, they can stand wherever they want. In that sense, there probably is a need for an offside line but then you rule out the chance of a player poaching the ball legally before a ruck has formed.

[All Blacks nil]

Anyone see the Rugby show on BT lastnight?

Was interesting to see the number of examples they showed of teams midfield being penalised when technically there had been no ruck. The tactic of a quick one man ruck could cause alot of controversy going forward

One man ruck?

This and the uncontested maul really are loopholes which need addressing. While both are clever and initially innovative, the non existence of an offside line is a serious problem for any game.

Perhaps one way of policing it is that if you are behind the ball when the tackle is made that you can only go ahead of the ball through the gate (most likely casing a ruck to be formed) and the ball itself is the offside line.
If you are in front of the ball you must be seen to attempting to retreat. This would legislate for a player attempting to cover a break while also trying to prevent or block a pass.eg a winger covering an inside break by a centre while also attempting to cover the pass to his wing. Other players have to retreat to the newly created offside line I.e the ball
If the tackle eventually becomes a ruck the offside line is as now, the hindmost foot.
It needs addressing before all levels of rugby start coaching this and suffocating the game

Another tactic that could be used by the team in possession is for the scrumhalf to dummy a pass to draw a penalty. As it isn't a ruck, mail or scrum, it could be construed as open play and surely a player is entitle to dummy a pass.

Don't forget that the current laws already insist on a player coming through the gate if he tackles/engages with a player. So even when there is no ruck, defenders who want to play the ball or th man must do so having come through the gate.

Obviously, if they don't plan to play the ball or man, they can stand wherever they want. In that sense, there probably is a need for an offside line but then you rule out the chance of a player poaching the ball legally before a ruck has formed.

As it stands, the only way a non tackling defender can poach the ball is by coming through the gate. By doing so the opposition will react and will invariably instigate a ruck and an offside line is created.The tackler can poach the ball by regaining his feet and playing the ball before the ruck is formed. That too will provoke a reaction.
An offside line has to be defined otherwise as Italy showed and you have said, defenders can stand wherever they want. Their inaction provides for a stalemate. As I said previously what is to stop a scrumhalf from leaving the ball there?. It is open play, therefore a ref cannot call "use it", the opposition can only play it as described above.

Simple solution is to define an offside line for open play.
If you are ahead of the ball you must be seen to make an effort to retreat onside, behind the ball i.e you can not stand around in front of the ball and if you are behind the ball you must remain their until you either come through the gate or the ball is played.