what is a ruck?
Moderator: moderators
what is a ruck?
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.
Re: what is a ruck?
I take it back....according to the excellent Murray Kinsella analysis of this issue, Owens was right to interpret that there was a ruck......El Diablo wrote: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.
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.
Re: what is a ruck?
Baby don't hurt me?
Re: what is a ruck?
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 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
- Jamie Heaslip
- Posts: 15008
- Joined: January 22nd, 2009, 7:49 pm
Re: what is a ruck?
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.
Re: what is a ruck?
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.jezzer wrote: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).
- Dave Cahill
- Devin Toner
- Posts: 25536
- Joined: January 24th, 2006, 3:32 pm
- Location: None of your damn business
- Contact:
Re: what is a ruck?
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 RolllersLeRouxIsPHat wrote: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.
I have Bumbleflex
-
- Mullet
- Posts: 1920
- Joined: December 15th, 2013, 10:52 pm
Re: what is a ruck?
Correctdesperado wrote:I'm similarly intrigued. Seem like there's a much greater delay in calling a maul -jezzer wrote: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).
and any hint of a knee touching grass is enough to call tackle.
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.
Re: what is a ruck?
Tackle gets called first, ye don't want to be getting ahead of yourself like the English.
Ruddock's tackle stats consistently too low for me to be taken seriously as a Six Nations blindside..... Ruddock's defensive stats don't stack up. - All Blacks Nil, Jan 15th, 2014
England A 8 - 14 Ireland A, 25th Jan 2014
Ruddock(c) 19/2 Tackles
England A 8 - 14 Ireland A, 25th Jan 2014
Ruddock(c) 19/2 Tackles
- LeRouxIsPHat
- Jamie Heaslip
- Posts: 15008
- Joined: January 22nd, 2009, 7:49 pm
Re: what is a ruck?
I just had a thought...is El Diablo actually James Haskell in disguise? Apt username too if it is.
-
- Graduate
- Posts: 737
- Joined: May 18th, 2016, 7:54 pm
Re: what is a ruck?
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.
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.
Re: what is a ruck?
Some refs let it go on longer than the average maul does.LeRouxIsPHat wrote: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.
- olaf the fat
- Seán Cronin
- Posts: 3636
- Joined: April 5th, 2006, 11:35 am
- Location: On the sofa of perpetual pleasure
Re: what is a ruck?
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.
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.
As they say in Russia, Goodbye in Russian
Re: what is a ruck?
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
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
- Rob Kearney
- Posts: 9823
- Joined: February 1st, 2010, 5:08 pm
- Location: Procrastinasia
- Contact:
Re: what is a ruck?
I think if you're going to use it tactically, you'll be having a chat with the ref prior to kick off
"It was Mrs O'Leary's cow"
Daniel Sullivan
Daniel Sullivan
-
- Mullet
- Posts: 1920
- Joined: December 15th, 2013, 10:52 pm
Re: what is a ruck?
One man ruck?R-Dog wrote: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
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.
Re: what is a ruck?
Of course you'd be allowed dummy but what penalty could it get you? (no off side in these situations)All Blacks nil wrote:
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.
-
- Mullet
- Posts: 1920
- Joined: December 15th, 2013, 10:52 pm
Re: what is a ruck?
Encroaching into exclusion zone or maybe tackled without ball.R-Dog wrote:Of course you'd be allowed dummy but what penalty could it get you? (no off side in these situations)All Blacks nil wrote:
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.
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.
Re: what is a ruck?
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.All Blacks nil wrote:One man ruck?R-Dog wrote: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
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.
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.
-
- Mullet
- Posts: 1920
- Joined: December 15th, 2013, 10:52 pm
Re: what is a ruck?
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.jezzer wrote: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.All Blacks nil wrote:One man ruck?R-Dog wrote: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
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.
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.
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.