In at the side!

[Niegs]

Good thread from Three Red Kings... warning: horrific knee injury clip in it!

Looking at the WR law trial videos, a lot of the latcher flopping and denying the contest seems to be things that happen regularly. Are there more people coming in from the side as well now as he suggests?

[JM2K6]

Jack Kenningham of Quins got done in a similar fashion. He was over the ball at a ruck, and got hit by 4 Exeter players coming from different directions, including J Gray straight in at the side. His knee never stood a chance.

Jack Willis also got a bad injury thanks to the lateral movement.

[JM2K6]

This was it:

[Niegs]

I'm still surprised we're not seeing more old school mauls. Turn and present, lads latch on, roll or pop the ball back. As with catch-and-drives, refs eyes will be on the defence for infractions.

But everyone seems to be copying everyone else with three-player pods, ball carrier hitting the deck more than offloading, support players sealing off (or jackal getting stuck in to steal/slow down if their timing is off). And that minimal commitment to the breakdown, I think, is seeing more players flying in desperately when someone's late to arrive.

[PornDog]

Whatever about old school mauls, we need to go back to old school rucks!!! (and I don't actually mean 'rucking' as in dancing on someone's back either - though that too)

When I played at school you weren't allowed put your hands on the ball unless it was at the feet of one of your players who were themselves on their feet. Otherwise it was a penalty for "hands in the ruck". I know it happened in the late 90's early 00's, but why the fuck did we stop enforcing this. The clear out at the ruck is a huge flash point for injuries and cards - remove the poach and go back to old school driving over the ball to win it. Unless you can get hands on and effect a lift before an opposition so much as literally lays a finger on you then get your hands off the ball. Drive over it instead and let that yappy little prick pick it up instead.

[JM2K6]

Whatever about old school mauls, we need to go back to old school rucks!!! (and I don't actually mean 'rucking' as in dancing on someone's back either - though that too)

When I played at school you weren't allowed put your hands on the ball unless it was at the feet of one of your players who were themselves on their feet. Otherwise it was a penalty for "hands in the ruck". I know it happened in the late 90's early 00's, but why the fuck did we stop enforcing this. The clear out at the ruck is a huge flash point for injuries and cards - remove the poach and go back to old school driving over the ball to win it. Unless you can get hands on and effect a lift before an opposition so much as literally lays a finger on you then get your hands off the ball. Drive over it instead and let that yappy little prick pick it up instead.

This is my preference too, but it would require altering how players are refereed at the ruck in terms of body positions and latching on to the guy on the floor etc, otherwise the defending team doesn't have a prayer.

[Paddington Bear]

Not a safety concern but the jackal is IMHO part of the reason not all that many teams play tons of running rugby. 13 bursting through too fast for his mates is a dead cert penalty, so why bother breaking the line if you're not in the red zone/on the counter?

[PornDog]

Whatever about old school mauls, we need to go back to old school rucks!!! (and I don't actually mean 'rucking' as in dancing on someone's back either - though that too)

When I played at school you weren't allowed put your hands on the ball unless it was at the feet of one of your players who were themselves on their feet. Otherwise it was a penalty for "hands in the ruck". I know it happened in the late 90's early 00's, but why the fuck did we stop enforcing this. The clear out at the ruck is a huge flash point for injuries and cards - remove the poach and go back to old school driving over the ball to win it. Unless you can get hands on and effect a lift before an opposition so much as literally lays a finger on you then get your hands off the ball. Drive over it instead and let that yappy little prick pick it up instead.

This is my preference too, but it would require altering how players are refereed at the ruck in terms of body positions and latching on to the guy on the floor etc, otherwise the defending team doesn't have a prayer.

It would, but also if anyone apart from the tackler and tacklee ends up on the ground then it should be a penalty against them for going off their feet. I have an irrational hatred of a small hill of bodies being called a ruck.

[Kawazaki]

This was it:

You posted that pic at the time. Kenningham is already lying on the ground in the background where you can clearly see his legs well clear of where Gray is launching himself. It's not overly clear from the video but it looked like he got injured by clashing with one of his teammates, the hooker I think from memory.

[Kawazaki]

Whatever about old school mauls, we need to go back to old school rucks!!! (and I don't actually mean 'rucking' as in dancing on someone's back either - though that too)

When I played at school you weren't allowed put your hands on the ball unless it was at the feet of one of your players who were themselves on their feet. Otherwise it was a penalty for "hands in the ruck". I know it happened in the late 90's early 00's, but why the fuck did we stop enforcing this. The clear out at the ruck is a huge flash point for injuries and cards - remove the poach and go back to old school driving over the ball to win it. Unless you can get hands on and effect a lift before an opposition so much as literally lays a finger on you then get your hands off the ball. Drive over it instead and let that yappy little prick pick it up instead.

I largely agree with all this.

I've said it many many times so I'll repeat again, the low braced position (often unsupported) of the jackler at the ruck is the root cause of all these problems, and they very often prevent the tackled player from being allowed to place the ball back as they're so fast into them. That is never penalised by the referee.

Change the law, make hands on the ball only legal by the jackler if he has one leg over the tackled player. At a stroke it means the jackler is supporting his own weight, it moves him more side on meaning his neck is less exposed but mostly, it will make jacklers far more selective as to what rucks to try and contest with their hands.

[Woddy]

Whatever about old school mauls, we need to go back to old school rucks!!! (and I don't actually mean 'rucking' as in dancing on someone's back either - though that too)

When I played at school you weren't allowed put your hands on the ball unless it was at the feet of one of your players who were themselves on their feet. Otherwise it was a penalty for "hands in the ruck". I know it happened in the late 90's early 00's, but why the fuck did we stop enforcing this. The clear out at the ruck is a huge flash point for injuries and cards - remove the poach and go back to old school driving over the ball to win it. Unless you can get hands on and effect a lift before an opposition so much as literally lays a finger on you then get your hands off the ball. Drive over it instead and let that yappy little prick pick it up instead.

This is my preference too, but it would require altering how players are refereed at the ruck in terms of body positions and latching on to the guy on the floor etc, otherwise the defending team doesn't have a prayer.

It would, but also if anyone apart from the tackler and tacklee ends up on the ground then it should be a penalty against them for going off their feet. I have an irrational hatred of a small hill of bodies being called a ruck.

Amen to that. It would also help make the game flow more constantly and move away from the current trend of becoming a series of set pieces with a few plays before one side or other wins a penalty.

[Niegs]

Whatever about old school mauls, we need to go back to old school rucks!!! (and I don't actually mean 'rucking' as in dancing on someone's back either - though that too)

When I played at school you weren't allowed put your hands on the ball unless it was at the feet of one of your players who were themselves on their feet. Otherwise it was a penalty for "hands in the ruck". I know it happened in the late 90's early 00's, but why the fuck did we stop enforcing this. The clear out at the ruck is a huge flash point for injuries and cards - remove the poach and go back to old school driving over the ball to win it. Unless you can get hands on and effect a lift before an opposition so much as literally lays a finger on you then get your hands off the ball. Drive over it instead and let that yappy little prick pick it up instead.

I'm 100% for this. Seems like when the 'fetcher' came along, people liked the excitement of it. Guessing that was a loophole about the ruck not yet being formed?

I remembered it going from "Once an attacker joined, no hands." Now it seems "First defender on the ball can continue to flap about, despite contact from attacking player, often either trapping it in because they can't actually lift it or slowing the ball down until the ref has to yell 'No hands!'" So many of these look clearly like hands in the ruck, too, as it's so difficult to spot the split second over who got their first.

So as you and Toga say, drive over only. Ball can only be handled if it's at the hind foot. I reckon those who love the 'physicality' of rugby (I prefer open running and offloading over collisions and wrestles on the ground) will love it as you'd see more shoving at the breakdown.

[JM2K6]

This was it:

You posted that pic at the time. Kenningham is already lying on the ground in the background where you can clearly see his legs well clear of where Gray is launching himself. It's not overly clear from the video but it looked like he got injured by clashing with one of his teammates, the hooker I think from memory.

No, you're wrong. Kenningham is the player being hit by Gray there. The player in the background is not Kenningham.

Edit: Actually - you know what, I went and checked again, and you're right. It's Collier over the ball getting smashed from the side, and the weight of him and Gray and Ewers (I think) lands straight on Kenningham's neck. Apologies, you were indeed correct.

Mind you, still an injury that could not have occurred without Exeter piling in at the side...

[Guy Smiley]

This was it:

Holy shit, that's the touchline in the background!

Who does he think he is, Richie McCaw?

[Kawazaki]

This was it:

You posted that pic at the time. Kenningham is already lying on the ground in the background where you can clearly see his legs well clear of where Gray is launching himself. It's not overly clear from the video but it looked like he got injured by clashing with one of his teammates, the hooker I think from memory.

No, you're wrong. Kenningham is the player being hit by Gray there. The player in the background is not Kenningham.

Edit: Actually - you know what, I went and checked again, and you're right. It's Collier over the ball getting smashed from the side, and the weight of him and Gray and Ewers (I think) lands straight on Kenningham's neck. Apologies, you were indeed correct.

Mind you, still an injury that could not have occurred without Exeter piling in at the side...

I think Kenningham is already injured when events in that still pic occur.

Is he back playing again yet, what's the update?

[JM2K6]

You posted that pic at the time. Kenningham is already lying on the ground in the background where you can clearly see his legs well clear of where Gray is launching himself. It's not overly clear from the video but it looked like he got injured by clashing with one of his teammates, the hooker I think from memory.

No, you're wrong. Kenningham is the player being hit by Gray there. The player in the background is not Kenningham.

Edit: Actually - you know what, I went and checked again, and you're right. It's Collier over the ball getting smashed from the side, and the weight of him and Gray and Ewers (I think) lands straight on Kenningham's neck. Apologies, you were indeed correct.

Mind you, still an injury that could not have occurred without Exeter piling in at the side...

I think Kenningham is already injured when events in that still pic occur.

Is he back playing again yet, what's the update?

Nah there's a big difference in how he's moving before and after he gets crushed. He makes a tackle (no head contact) that sees him lying belly-down, he rolls on to his back and is about to get up when the cleanout dumps everyone on him. At which point both his legs go up in the air in an "ow, fuck" reaction.

He's out for the season, had neck surgery. Expected to be okay June/July.

[Grandpa]

Whatever about old school mauls, we need to go back to old school rucks!!! (and I don't actually mean 'rucking' as in dancing on someone's back either - though that too)

When I played at school you weren't allowed put your hands on the ball unless it was at the feet of one of your players who were themselves on their feet. Otherwise it was a penalty for "hands in the ruck". I know it happened in the late 90's early 00's, but why the fuck did we stop enforcing this. The clear out at the ruck is a huge flash point for injuries and cards - remove the poach and go back to old school driving over the ball to win it. Unless you can get hands on and effect a lift before an opposition so much as literally lays a finger on you then get your hands off the ball. Drive over it instead and let that yappy little prick pick it up instead.

I'm 100% for this. Seems like when the 'fetcher' came along, people liked the excitement of it. Guessing that was a loophole about the ruck not yet being formed?

I remembered it going from "Once an attacker joined, no hands." Now it seems "First defender on the ball can continue to flap about, despite contact from attacking player, often either trapping it in because they can't actually lift it or slowing the ball down until the ref has to yell 'No hands!'" So many of these look clearly like hands in the ruck, too, as it's so difficult to spot the split second over who got their first.

So as you and Toga say, drive over only. Ball can only be handled if it's at the hind foot. I reckon those who love the 'physicality' of rugby (I prefer open running and offloading over collisions and wrestles on the ground) will love it as you'd see more shoving at the breakdown.

So why is something so obvious not implemented? What is stopping the powers that be from changing the laws to this?

[JM2K6]

Whatever about old school mauls, we need to go back to old school rucks!!! (and I don't actually mean 'rucking' as in dancing on someone's back either - though that too)

When I played at school you weren't allowed put your hands on the ball unless it was at the feet of one of your players who were themselves on their feet. Otherwise it was a penalty for "hands in the ruck". I know it happened in the late 90's early 00's, but why the fuck did we stop enforcing this. The clear out at the ruck is a huge flash point for injuries and cards - remove the poach and go back to old school driving over the ball to win it. Unless you can get hands on and effect a lift before an opposition so much as literally lays a finger on you then get your hands off the ball. Drive over it instead and let that yappy little prick pick it up instead.

I'm 100% for this. Seems like when the 'fetcher' came along, people liked the excitement of it. Guessing that was a loophole about the ruck not yet being formed?

I remembered it going from "Once an attacker joined, no hands." Now it seems "First defender on the ball can continue to flap about, despite contact from attacking player, often either trapping it in because they can't actually lift it or slowing the ball down until the ref has to yell 'No hands!'" So many of these look clearly like hands in the ruck, too, as it's so difficult to spot the split second over who got their first.

So as you and Toga say, drive over only. Ball can only be handled if it's at the hind foot. I reckon those who love the 'physicality' of rugby (I prefer open running and offloading over collisions and wrestles on the ground) will love it as you'd see more shoving at the breakdown.

So why is something so obvious not implemented? What is stopping the powers that be from changing the laws to this?

It's major surgery and they're terrified of making fundamental changes like that.

[Grandpa]

I'm 100% for this. Seems like when the 'fetcher' came along, people liked the excitement of it. Guessing that was a loophole about the ruck not yet being formed?

I remembered it going from "Once an attacker joined, no hands." Now it seems "First defender on the ball can continue to flap about, despite contact from attacking player, often either trapping it in because they can't actually lift it or slowing the ball down until the ref has to yell 'No hands!'" So many of these look clearly like hands in the ruck, too, as it's so difficult to spot the split second over who got their first.

So as you and Toga say, drive over only. Ball can only be handled if it's at the hind foot. I reckon those who love the 'physicality' of rugby (I prefer open running and offloading over collisions and wrestles on the ground) will love it as you'd see more shoving at the breakdown.

So why is something so obvious not implemented? What is stopping the powers that be from changing the laws to this?

It's major surgery and they're terrified of making fundamental changes like that.

They could at least trial it at non elite level like they have with tackle heights etc.

[Kawazaki]

No, you're wrong. Kenningham is the player being hit by Gray there. The player in the background is not Kenningham.

Edit: Actually - you know what, I went and checked again, and you're right. It's Collier over the ball getting smashed from the side, and the weight of him and Gray and Ewers (I think) lands straight on Kenningham's neck. Apologies, you were indeed correct.

Mind you, still an injury that could not have occurred without Exeter piling in at the side...

I think Kenningham is already injured when events in that still pic occur.

Is he back playing again yet, what's the update?

Nah there's a big difference in how he's moving before and after he gets crushed. He makes a tackle (no head contact) that sees him lying belly-down, he rolls on to his back and is about to get up when the cleanout dumps everyone on him. At which point both his legs go up in the air in an "ow, fuck" reaction.

He's out for the season, had neck surgery. Expected to be okay June/July.

He's just unlucky then really, it could just as easily have happened in any number of other scenarios that happen during a game.

I've often thought that a rugby pitch is poorly marked out. Lines every 10 metres would massively help referees observe offsides better but I reckon it would also help players to stay straighter and square to the touchline with things like ruck entry.

[JM2K6]

I think Kenningham is already injured when events in that still pic occur.

Is he back playing again yet, what's the update?

Nah there's a big difference in how he's moving before and after he gets crushed. He makes a tackle (no head contact) that sees him lying belly-down, he rolls on to his back and is about to get up when the cleanout dumps everyone on him. At which point both his legs go up in the air in an "ow, fuck" reaction.

He's out for the season, had neck surgery. Expected to be okay June/July.

He's just unlucky then really, it could just as easily have happened in any number of other scenarios that happen during a game.

I've often thought that a rugby pitch is poorly marked out. Lines every 10 metres would massively help referees observe offsides better but I reckon it would also help players to stay straighter and square to the touchline with things like ruck entry.

Yeah, he's unlucky and we don't legislate against in at the side because of the risk to players already on the floor, it's a real edge case. But it still wouldn't have happened without the hilariously illegal cleanout. Exeter had clearly got it in their heads that they were going to smash everything because it was only a few seconds later they Umaga'd Marler and picked up a red.

I worry more lines would make more refs make more bad calls on forward passes, but it's an interesting idea. Wonder how it would look on TV.

[JM2K6]

So why is something so obvious not implemented? What is stopping the powers that be from changing the laws to this?

It's major surgery and they're terrified of making fundamental changes like that.

They could at least trial it at non elite level like they have with tackle heights etc.

I agree.

[Kawazaki]

I worry more lines would make more refs make more bad calls on forward passes, but it's an interesting idea. Wonder how it would look on TV.

It would look similar to a rugby league pitch.

[PornDog]

I'm 100% for this. Seems like when the 'fetcher' came along, people liked the excitement of it. Guessing that was a loophole about the ruck not yet being formed?

I remembered it going from "Once an attacker joined, no hands." Now it seems "First defender on the ball can continue to flap about, despite contact from attacking player, often either trapping it in because they can't actually lift it or slowing the ball down until the ref has to yell 'No hands!'" So many of these look clearly like hands in the ruck, too, as it's so difficult to spot the split second over who got their first.

So as you and Toga say, drive over only. Ball can only be handled if it's at the hind foot. I reckon those who love the 'physicality' of rugby (I prefer open running and offloading over collisions and wrestles on the ground) will love it as you'd see more shoving at the breakdown.

So why is something so obvious not implemented? What is stopping the powers that be from changing the laws to this?

It's major surgery and they're terrified of making fundamental changes like that.

But the could just start by retrograding the steps they've taken in the wrong direction. When was the last time you heard a ref shout "Hands away, ruck!" Bringing that back would be a good first step. We've been taking incremental steps in the wrong direction for years. "First man" - I don't care if he's first or not, if there's literally anybody else there then its a ruck and you should get your stinking hand off it.

I also think Toga's idea of having one foot over the tackled player is interesting - well worth a closer look at anyway.

[Mahoney]

To defend them a little, I think the "first man" call is intended to mean "got his hands on it before anyone else arrived at the tackle area" - i.e. before a ruck was formed. At that point they are either in possession or the tackled player is holding on. No ruck has been formed.

[Mahoney]

The problem is that judging which came first, the jackler getting hands on the ball or a member of the opposition making contact with the jackler to form a ruck, in real time, is really hard.

Also the jackler is bound have their shoulders below their waist, which makes for an unstable ruck, and makes it very hard to judge whether they are supporting their body weight on their feet or on their hands/arms (which is sealing off).

[Kawazaki]

To defend them a little, I think the "first man" call is intended to mean "got his hands on it before anyone else arrived at the tackle area" - i.e. before a ruck was formed. At that point they are either in possession or the tackled player is holding on. No ruck has been formed.

Yes, but the problem arises when the jackler (who wasn't involved in the original tackle) latches over and onto the tackled player the instant he hits the ground preventing him from placing the ball back. That is a fundamental law being broken by the jackler that is just ignored by referees.

[Niegs]

To defend them a little, I think the "first man" call is intended to mean "got his hands on it before anyone else arrived at the tackle area" - i.e. before a ruck was formed. At that point they are either in possession or the tackled player is holding on. No ruck has been formed.

Yes, but the problem arises when the jackler (who wasn't involved in the original tackle) latches over and onto the tackled player the instant he hits the ground preventing him from placing the ball back. That is a fundamental law being broken by the jackler that is just ignored by referees.

This is where I think the lawmakers are leaning toward the excitement of winning a turnover... and most times it seems to be a penalty, not a steal, that is enhanced by players running in to celebrate. I don't like that trapping it in with no intent to lift the ball, often because the player isn't supporting their weight, is rewarded. It allows one 'fetcher' to disrupt things, if not actually winning the pen, but going in with the hands and slowing the recycle of the ball. Requiring them to push over, as you've suggested, would put in place an actual contest (which isn't safe when said player is dipped and with head in a vulnerable spot) that is itself exciting, and I'd say MORE exciting because they'll actually use the ball rather than kicking for points/touch.

How often do we see counter-rucks? I saved this the other day as it seems so rare (in highlights) that we see one, with attacking players pancaked over the tackled teammate or someone anchoring themselves on his body with back parallel to the ground:

[Brazil]

To defend them a little, I think the "first man" call is intended to mean "got his hands on it before anyone else arrived at the tackle area" - i.e. before a ruck was formed. At that point they are either in possession or the tackled player is holding on. No ruck has been formed.

Yes, but the problem arises when the jackler (who wasn't involved in the original tackle) latches over and onto the tackled player the instant he hits the ground preventing him from placing the ball back. That is a fundamental law being broken by the jackler that is just ignored by referees.

Is it? The only requirement is for the tackled player to place the ball, so so long as the tackler can place the ball then it's fair game for the first man there. If they don't release it then they're at fault for holding on.

On the broader issue I'd ban judo throws and taking jacklers off their feet, which is why so many rucks end up a mess. Drive them off the ball or nothing. Half the rucks end up like the conclusion to a David Wong novel in most games.

[Kawazaki]

Players in a tackle

4. Players in a tackle are:
a. Tackled player.
b. Tackler(s).
c. Others:
i. Player(s) who hold the ball-carrier during a tackle but do not go to ground.
ii. Player(s) who arrive to contest possession in the tackle.
iii. Player(s) who are already on the ground.

Player responsibilities

5. Tacklers must:

a. Immediately release the ball and the ball-carrier after both players go to ground.
b. Immediately move away from the tackled player and from the ball or get up.
c. Be on their feet before attempting to play the ball.
d. Allow the tackled player to release or play the ball.
e. Allow the tackled player to move away from the ball.

6. Tacklers may play the ball from the direction of their own goal line provided they have complied with the above responsibilities and a ruck has not formed.

Jacklers are covered by 4.c.ii which is headed 'Players in a tackle'.

5.d. describes what jacklers don't allow the tackled player to do (jacklers prevent 5.e. as well).

6. describes when a player jackling is legally allowed to play the ball with their hands.


https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/l ... 20get%20up.

[Mahoney]

4 defines "players in a tackle". It explicitly distinguishes between Tackler(s) (4.b) and Others (4.c, ii being jacklers).

5 & 6 are explicitly worded as being about Tacklers (so 4.b) and so by extension not about Others (including 4.c.ii, jacklers).

[Kawazaki]

4 defines "players in a tackle". It explicitly distinguishes between Tackler(s) (4.b) and Others (4.c, ii being jacklers).

5 & 6 are explicitly worded as being about Tacklers (so 4.b) and so by extension not about Others (including 4.c.ii, jacklers).

Everyone under the heading "players in a tackle" are players in a tackle, including those described as "others".

[Mahoney]

Yes. That's what I said.

But laws 5 & 6 applies explicitly to Tacklers, and so not to the other players in a tackle.

[Kawazaki]

So Law 5.d needs to be copied and pasted to also be Law 8.e and we have a slightly more equitable ruck.