Ruck entry anyways you like

[Torquemada 1420]

Before anyone says it, I do read Nolan's stuff because he is the one on PR with riting skillz.

I watched four games this weekend. After the first one left an impression, I began counting. By the end of the other three I had found 49 instances where attacking ruckers had either gone off their feet or entered a ruck through the side.

A part of the problem is the new law to which only one person has to be present for a ruck. Defending teams facing a well-organised forward pod rarely put anyone in to contest after the tackle has been made; far more efficient to keep a nice flat string of players across the field and wait for a less-organised carry.

Meanwhile, attacking cleaners, meeting nothing to clean, often clean thin air and then flop over. Or, obeying the coaching edict of cleaning beyond and around the ball, get busy going in at peculiar angles to get rid of, or at least hamper, the pillar and post defenders.

Which rarely flaps a defence that is not contesting particularly, but the problem comes when they do try to contest or jackal. Then you get, say, nine phases, in which perhaps half of which the cleaners have gone off their feet or gone in at a skew angle, but because there was no contest it was not whistled. The tenth phase however, is contested. Cleaners go in on the same angles, the same weight distributions. And because of the precedent from the same attacking set, they don’t get penalised.

Timely in that it's a pet hate of JM's that Fre ref's are abysmally inconsistent at officiating the breakdown. On Sunday, we saw a game between MH and UBB where that laxness resulted in the game progressively resembling a kamikaze diving contest. Af for sure, someone will be seriously injured at some point. But I doubt Nolan was watching Fre rugby in any of his 4 games and so the problem at the ruck is everywhere. Probably not as mental as Sunday's T14 game but there nonetheless.

[Kawazaki]

The contact area is heavily weighted in favour of the defence at the moment imho. And most of that advantage comes down to something already in the laws which is just ignored by referees - defenders must allow the tackled player to place the ball. This simply isn't happening, jacklers are on to the ball and tackled player the instant he hits the ground. There's zero chance the attacking player can hope to place the ball back.

[Mahoney]

The contact area is heavily weighted in favour of the defence at the moment imho. And most of that advantage comes down to something already in the laws which is just ignored by referees - defenders must allow the tackled player to place the ball. This simply isn't happening, jacklers are on to the ball and tackled player the instant he hits the ground. There's zero chance the attacking player can hope to place the ball back.

We did this the other day - the laws only require the tackler to allow the tackled player to release or play the ball and allow the tackled player to move away from the ball. There's no requirement for other defenders in the tackle area to do so.

Tacklers are covered by 14.5:

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.

Other defenders are covered by 14.8:

Other players must:
a. Remain on their feet and release the ball and the ball-carrier immediately.
b. Remain on their feet when they play the ball.
c. Arrive at the tackle from the direction of their own goal line before playing the ball.
d. Not play the ball or attempt to tackle an opponent while on the ground near the tackle.

[CM11]

Tacklers must not prevent the release of the ball in the tackle. Other defenders can go straight for ball and have no responsibility to allow carrier time to place ball (something they aren't given anyway, it has to be released instantly if you're quoting law).

[Torquemada 1420]

Tacklers must not prevent the release of the ball in the tackle. Other defenders can go straight for ball and have no responsibility to allow carrier time to place ball (something they aren't given anyway, it has to be released instantly if you're quoting law).

Technically placing the ball and leaving you hand upon it is not releasing anyway?

[CM11]

Tacklers must not prevent the release of the ball in the tackle. Other defenders can go straight for ball and have no responsibility to allow carrier time to place ball (something they aren't given anyway, it has to be released instantly if you're quoting law).

Technically placing the ball and leaving you hand upon it is not releasing anyway?

That too.

[Insane_Homer]

Technically placing the ball and leaving you hand upon it is not releasing anyway?

You're generally allowed to place and leave your hand on the ball until there's a legal challenge for the ball.

[Kawazaki]

It's a huge advantage to the defence. Laws need a tweek, the wording is already in place, just needs copying and pasting.

[Mahoney]

You're generally allowed to place and leave your hand on the ball until there's a legal challenge for the ball.

There is of course no reference to that in the laws.

Rugby laws remind me a bit of Anglo-Saxon law codes; my tutor was an expert in them, but also in actual Anglo-Saxon legal cases, and he used to talk about how the law codes are never referenced in those cases. The law as it was written and the law as it was applied were two different and largely unrelated things.

[Mahoney]

Read this and see if you can avoid giggling:

Tackled players must immediately:
b. Move away from the ball or get up.
c. Ensure that they do not lie on, over or near the ball to prevent opposition players from gaining possession of it.

[Mahoney]

As she is played:

Tackled players must:
a. fall with their back to the opposition goal line so that as much of their body is between the ball and the opposition as possible
b. stay there, under no circumstances moving
c. hold the ball in place so that some clod footed oaf doesn't accidentally kick it forward

[Insane_Homer]

You're generally allowed to place and leave your hand on the ball until there's a legal challenge for the ball.

There is of course no reference to that in the laws.

Rugby laws remind me a bit of Anglo-Saxon law codes; my tutor was an expert in them, but also in actual Anglo-Saxon legal cases, and he used to talk about how the law codes are never referenced in those cases. The law as it was written and the law as it was applied were two different and largely unrelated things.

Material effect.

It's considered inconsequential as there's no competition for the ball. Much like how a skewish lineout throw will be allowed if the opposition didn't compete or how an offside player isn't immediately penalised unless there's a material affect, like when taking a quick tap penalty.

[average joe]

You're generally allowed to place and leave your hand on the ball until there's a legal challenge for the ball.

There is of course no reference to that in the laws.

Rugby laws remind me a bit of Anglo-Saxon law codes; my tutor was an expert in them, but also in actual Anglo-Saxon legal cases, and he used to talk about how the law codes are never referenced in those cases. The law as it was written and the law as it was applied were two different and largely unrelated things.

Material effect.

It's considered inconsequential as there's no competition for the ball. Much like how a skewish lineout throw will be allowed if the opposition didn't compete or how an offside player isn't immediately penalised unless there's a material affect, like when taking a quick tap penalty.

Why is it then that a defending player that miss judged if the ball is out of a ruck and jumps the gun only to back track and join the line again gets pinged for offside?

[Insane_Homer]

Why is it then that a defending player that miss judged if the ball is out of a ruck and jumps the gun only to back track and join the line again gets pinged for offside?

because by doing so he prevented the opposition from playing the ball freely, he's effectivity slowed the play down, giving his own team more time to organise defence, therefore there's still a material consequence to his action.

[Niegs]

Read this and see if you can avoid giggling:

Tackled players must immediately:
b. Move away from the ball or get up.
c. Ensure that they do not lie on, over or near the ball to prevent opposition players from gaining possession of it.

Reminds me of a game I reffed many years ago. Carrier is tackled and as one from each side bind over the ball to contest, both tackled and tackler actually roll away in opposite directions and get back to their feet. The two over the ball - it now just sitting there all alone - are still engaged in a fairly even pushing contest going nowhere. One player puts hand down to move the ball back toward their feet.

TWEET! from me... "Hands in the ruck. Back 10."

"But, sir, that's not a ruck!"

"One player from each team bound over the ball. I'll bet you've never seen a ruck where players actually rolled away before?"

(Even if I was incorrect in my call, that was my interpretation and one of many problems wrong with rugby laws. I'd be happier if it were a slower game, but one with more flow and less confusion over law application.)

[Mahoney]

You were definitely correct.

[Insane_Homer]

You were definitely correct.

FORMING A RUCK
A ruck is formed when at least one player from each team are in contact, on
their feet and over the ball which is on the ground.

DURING A RUCK
10. Possession may be won either by rucking or by pushing the opposing team off
the ball.
11. Once a ruck has formed, no player may handle the ball unless they were able to
get their hands on the ball before the ruck formed and stay on their feet.

ENDING A RUCK
17. When the ball has been clearly won by a team at the ruck, and is available to be
played

18. The ruck ends and play continues when the ball leaves the ruck or when the ball
in the ruck is on or over the goal line.

19. The ruck ends when the ball becomes unplayable.

Simples.

A SPORT FOR ALL
It is incumbent upon all who play rugby to have a thorough
knowledge and understanding of the laws of the game

[JM2K6]

The laws need a proper fucking overhaul, along with the interpretation of them

[Brazil]

The laws need a proper fucking overhaul, along with the interpretation of them

It'd need codifying like Roman Emperors used to do, what with the number of interpretations that have come into existence over the last couple of decades.

[Torquemada 1420]

You're generally allowed to place and leave your hand on the ball until there's a legal challenge for the ball.

There is of course no reference to that in the laws.

Rugby laws remind me a bit of Anglo-Saxon law codes; my tutor was an expert in them, but also in actual Anglo-Saxon legal cases, and he used to talk about how the law codes are never referenced in those cases. The law as it was written and the law as it was applied were two different and largely unrelated things.

Hence the bulk of the legal decision process being reliant upon judicial precedent and obiter dictum.

[Torquemada 1420]

Material effect.

It's considered inconsequential as there's no competition for the ball. Much like how a skewish lineout throw will be allowed if the opposition didn't compete or how an offside player isn't immediately penalised unless there's a material affect, like when taking a quick tap penalty.

I don't care. As Mahoney point out, it's a nonsense peculiar to rugby as a sport. It's not hard: either write the law to permit the steadying of the ball or apply the laws as written. It's precisely this interpretative nonsense that makes rugby a laughing stock.

Another example: the scrum put in. Such a nonsense that it is actually called "a feed" now. What's the point of hookers these days? For a short time, WR focused on making the refs apply the laws but it did not last long.

[JM2K6]

They changed how the put-in was refereed, so it is legitimately more of a feed now.

I don't get the logic for allowing squint throws for "unopposed" lineouts though. If you don't compete in the air it's because you want to compete against the maul. By not throwing straight, the jumper doesn't land in the teeth of the defence and will also screw up the timings for the defenders - it's still material, it just didn't prevent competition for the ball in the air.

[Insane_Homer]

Material effect.

It's considered inconsequential as there's no competition for the ball. Much like how a skewish lineout throw will be allowed if the opposition didn't compete or how an offside player isn't immediately penalised unless there's a material affect, like when taking a quick tap penalty.

I don't care.

You'd be the first cunt moaning at the ref and how shyte, unwatchable and unplayable game is.

It's simply impossible to manage at any level.
First it would require the players actually knowing every law to the letter themselves, most international Captains would fail at this point let alone some 40 year old bald fat prop whose played the game for 25 years and still doesn't know how to ruck legally.

[JM2K6]

Material effect.

It's considered inconsequential as there's no competition for the ball. Much like how a skewish lineout throw will be allowed if the opposition didn't compete or how an offside player isn't immediately penalised unless there's a material affect, like when taking a quick tap penalty.

I don't care.

You'd be the first cunt moaning at the ref and how shyte, unwatchable and unplayable game is.

It's simply impossible to manage at any level.
First it would require the players actually knowing every law to the letter themselves, most international Captains would fail at this point let alone some 40 year old bald fat prop whose played the game for 25 years and still doesn't know how to ruck legally.

Maybe have a set of laws that are easily understood and don't require an encyclopedia for a brain or a million different ways to interpet them

[Insane_Homer]

Maybe have a set of laws that are easily understood and don't require an encyclopedia for a brain or a million different ways to interpet them

Like the football offside rule?

[JM2K6]

Maybe have a set of laws that are easily understood and don't require an encyclopedia for a brain or a million different ways to interpet them

Like the football offside rule?

Yes, like the football offside rule, which is very straightforward and players understand how it works and can play to it very effectively.

[Torquemada 1420]

Maybe have a set of laws that are easily understood and don't require an encyclopedia for a brain or a million different ways to interpet them

Like the football offside rule?

How is that a rebuttal? There is little complicated about the offside law in most cases bar the issue of rebounds/defensive player touches. I agree it's a hard rule to get right in practice because its measurement is down to inches in a situation where players are in motion. But here's a thing, like the kick in/out the 22 in rugby, don't push to the absolute limit and you won't get your goals disallowed.

Anyway, that is ONE rule in the entirety of the sport. Rugby has dozens of such. Some of my football friends reckon rugby is deliberately obtuse (like opera) to make it the preserve of "toffs". Argue out of that one.

[Insane_Homer]

Maybe have a set of laws that are easily understood and don't require an encyclopedia for a brain or a million different ways to interpet them

Like the football offside rule?

Yes, like the football offside rule, which is very straightforward and players understand how it works and can play to it very effectively.

and yet even with VAR there's a shit fight and ton of conjecture as to whether a foot, chest, knee, boner and/or elbow was offside or not

... and what about the player that's offside but doesn't interfere with play or the goal.. oh yeah that's... not material.

[JM2K6]

Like the football offside rule?

Yes, like the football offside rule, which is very straightforward and players understand how it works and can play to it very effectively.

and yet even with VAR there's a shit fight and ton of conjecture as to whether a foot, chest, knee, boner and/or elbow was offside or not

And? No-one is arguing that they don't understand the law or that it is purely subjective. VAR is them attempting to add another layer of precision to an objective call. Much like, ooh, I dunno, using replays in rugby to determine is someone is ahead of the kicker - a law that no-one is suggesting needs changing or is confusing in the slightest.

The offside law works fine with or without VAR, just to varying degrees of accuracy. That's really miles away from what we're talking about here.

[Insane_Homer]

Maybe have a set of laws that are easily understood and don't require an encyclopedia for a brain or a million different ways to interpet them

Like the football offside rule?

How is that a rebuttal?

because as it's written it is simple, yet in practice it's not.

[Insane_Homer]

And? No-one is arguing that they don't understand the law or that it is purely subjective. VAR is them attempting to add another layer of precision to an objective call. Much like, ooh, I dunno, using replays in rugby to determine is someone is ahead of the kicker - a law that no-one is suggesting needs changing or is confusing in the slightest.

The offside law works fine with or without VAR, just to varying degrees of accuracy. That's really miles away from what we're talking about here.

... and what about the player that's offside but doesn't interfere with play or the goal.. oh yeah that's... not material.

[JM2K6]

And? No-one is arguing that they don't understand the law or that it is purely subjective. VAR is them attempting to add another layer of precision to an objective call. Much like, ooh, I dunno, using replays in rugby to determine is someone is ahead of the kicker - a law that no-one is suggesting needs changing or is confusing in the slightest.

The offside law works fine with or without VAR, just to varying degrees of accuracy. That's really miles away from what we're talking about here.

... and what about the player that's offside but doesn't interfere with play or the goal.. oh yeah that's... not material.

So what? That's what they decided to go with. They used to have it as if anyone was offside, it was offside regardless. The game worked fine for decades like that.

[JM2K6]

Like the football offside rule?

How is that a rebuttal?

because as it's written it is simple, yet in practice it's not.

Bullshit. It's still simple. You're confusing "can take a while to get the exact answer when using video replay technology" with "not a simple law". It's a simple law. Just like the "ahead of the kicker" law. Both can take a while to get an answer with the newly required level of accuracy.

[inactionman]

And? No-one is arguing that they don't understand the law or that it is purely subjective. VAR is them attempting to add another layer of precision to an objective call. Much like, ooh, I dunno, using replays in rugby to determine is someone is ahead of the kicker - a law that no-one is suggesting needs changing or is confusing in the slightest.

The offside law works fine with or without VAR, just to varying degrees of accuracy. That's really miles away from what we're talking about here.

... and what about the player that's offside but doesn't interfere with play or the goal.. oh yeah that's... not material.

That's generally an edge case - although I do think the mere presence of a player, even if not actively interfering in the literal sense of playing at the ball, will impact play as the defenders need to be aware of them and it will mean defenders might behave differently. The ref will only call if there's a direct and distinct influence.

Football has also changed the handball rules to make them more objective, so there's no need to interpret intent or outcome.

[Insane_Homer]

So what? That's what they decided to go with. They used to have it as if anyone was offside, it was offside regardless. The game worked fine for decades like that.

Torq wants simple rules that are reffed to the letter of the law. Football offside rule, is a simple enough rule, yet even so it's not that simple to referee and requires some common sense interpretation to make it fair and effective.
Rugby is far more complex due to the different nature and phases of play, both open and set pieces. Materiality matters far more so that we get a game that flows and is playable.

It's easy enough to say the laws are too complicated, but I don't see any suggestions as to how rectify it?
Sure, I'd like to ref a simpler game. The new kicking / touch laws don't help nor the new in-goal / 22 shyte.
I'd happy call a lot more scrum feeds not straight than almost all international refs.
We know what forms a maul, yet almost every game that definition is thrown out and the ref calls tackle instead...?
Why do scrum pens apparently carry more weight than any other? (hint, it's a safety thing).
Contact with the head, it's Red, except when it's not...

And back to topic title, tackle entry in itself is well defined and easy to understand, but it's a shitter to police and with everything else going on at a tackle often gets missed in a sea of bodies.

So when a tackled player keeps his hand on the ball after the tackle and no one is there competing for it what does it matter? It matters not a jot, play on.

PS - Rugby laws of the game = 164 pages, Football = 228 - effective gameplay pages ~71 v ~50.

[Kawazaki]

Material effect.

It's considered inconsequential as there's no competition for the ball. Much like how a skewish lineout throw will be allowed if the opposition didn't compete or how an offside player isn't immediately penalised unless there's a material affect, like when taking a quick tap penalty.

I don't care. As Mahoney point out, it's a nonsense peculiar to rugby as a sport. It's not hard: either write the law to permit the steadying of the ball or apply the laws as written. It's precisely this interpretative nonsense that makes rugby a laughing stock.

Another example: the scrum put in. Such a nonsense that it is actually called "a feed" now. What's the point of hookers these days? For a short time, WR focused on making the refs apply the laws but it did not last long.

They did change/introduce a law that the hooker must actually still hook when the ball comes in under the 2nd Rows knees.

[Insane_Homer]

Bullshit. It's still simple. You're confusing "can take a while to get the exact answer when using video replay technology" with "not a simple law". It's a simple law. Just like the "ahead of the kicker" law. Both can take a while to get an answer with the newly required level of accuracy.

[JM2K6]

Bullshit. It's still simple. You're confusing "can take a while to get the exact answer when using video replay technology" with "not a simple law". It's a simple law. Just like the "ahead of the kicker" law. Both can take a while to get an answer with the newly required level of accuracy.

What's the confusion here? The offside player ran towards the ball.

[JM2K6]

So what? That's what they decided to go with. They used to have it as if anyone was offside, it was offside regardless. The game worked fine for decades like that.

Torq wants simple rules that are reffed to the letter of the law. Football offside rule, is a simple enough rule, yet even so it's not that simple to referee and requires some common sense interpretation to make it fair and effective.
Rugby is far more complex due to the different nature and phases of play, both open and set pieces. Materiality matters far more so that we get a game that flows and is playable.

It's easy enough to say the laws are too complicated, but I don't see any suggestions as to how rectify it?
Sure, I'd like to ref a simpler game. The new kicking / touch laws don't help nor the new in-goal / 22 shyte.
I'd happy call a lot more scrum feeds not straight than almost all international refs.
We know what forms a maul, yet almost every game that definition is thrown out and the ref calls tackle instead...?
Why do scrum pens apparently carry more weight than any other? (hint, it's a safety thing).
Contact with the head, it's Red, except when it's not...

And back to topic title, tackle entry in itself is well defined and easy to understand, but it's a shitter to police and with everything else going on at a tackle often gets missed in a sea of bodies.

You're kinda making our point for us here. Take the maul - where in the laws does it say how long it takes before a maul should be called? It's a subjective thing for referees, meaning it varies wildly and there's huge inconsistency. Throw-ins at the lineout - what defines not straight? It's subjective. Why should it not be called if the lineout was unopposed? It still made it easier for the catcher to catch it and the defence to react. Rucks are an absolute mess because we're a mile away from what rucks are supposed to be as per the laws - we let players be almost horizontal over the ball, we let players collapse the ruck, we let players fly into the ruck, we let players use their hands long after the ruck is formed, we let players play the ball multiple times, etc.

I agree that materiality matters more in rugby than in football, but that's in large part because of the complexity of the laws.

So when a tackled player keeps his hand on the ball after the tackle and no one is there competing for it what does it matter? It matters not a jot, play on.

It matters because all of a sudden you've created a situation where the law only applies in specific circumstances when that wasn't the intent. If a tacked player is supposed to release the ball regardless, then that should happen, because by not doing so you're effectively a) changing the conditions of the game on a whim, and b) ensuring that the default approach is to keep the hands on the ball, leading to more instances of players doing so when there's opposition players in attendance - which is what we have now, where 99% of the time the tackled player keeps his hands on the ball if it's not stolen. Now that law might as well not exist, because by default we ignore it.

PS - Rugby laws of the game = 164 pages, Football = 228 - effective gameplay pages ~71 v ~50.

Now do rugby's "interpretations and guidelines" vs the same for football...

[Insane_Homer]

What's the confusion here? The offside player ran towards the ball.

You'd think so, reading the comments section the majority agree, as do I, however there seems to be a fair few that disagree. I wonder which team they support?