Ruck entry anyways you like

[JM2K6]

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?

Probably neither of them, it's fairly low level stuff!

Anyway I think it's possible to come up with edge case scenarios for most laws in most sports - but the aim should always be clarity and the ability to make the decision without a ton of guesswork. The sheer amount of subjectivity involved in rugby refereeing is quite mad; the game - unlike football - does not represent the lawbook and individual referees interpretations, style, and general decision making alter the game hugely. I don't blame refs for this, I blame the steady changes to the sport over the last howevermany years and I think each ref is doing the best they can with the support they have and their understanding of how the game should be played. But it's very strange to have this level of variation, this amount of divergence from the laws of the game, and this amount of subjectivity in something that should be a lot simpler.

I'm shouting into the void here because I fully understand that what I am asking for is essentially a remake of the sport. This may end up happening with the situation regarding concussions anyway, but other than that it's utterly unrealistic to expect the sort of major rework that I think is required to make this a sane sport.

[Insane_Homer]

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.

yup, unfathomable, seems simple enough...

FORMING A MAUL
1. It consists of a ball-carrier and at least one player from each team, bound
together and on their feet.

yet



we was robbed

[Torquemada 1420]

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.

Nail + head.

[Torquemada 1420]

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

Total red herring. WR and the refs panel issues a million and one clarifications to supplement the official laws book. In football, it's zero.
{EDIT} I see J has already dealt with that one.

[JM2K6]

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.

yup, unfathomable, seems simple enough...

FORMING A MAUL
1. It consists of a ball-carrier and at least one player from each team, bound
together and on their feet.

yet



we was robbed

Quite. It's a law not fit for purpose. We're really hot on defining a ruck from the second the conditions are met. But for calling mauls, we add in this period of time - which can vary wildly between referees, from like HALF A MILLISECOND when you're playing against Ireland, to TEN BLOODY YEARS when Quins were screwed by someone last year...

Why is the time not defined in the law? Why is it left up to referees? What is the intent of this law? It's a mess.

[Torquemada 1420]

FORMING A MAUL
1. It consists of a ball-carrier and at least one player from each team, bound
together and on their feet.

See this bit in red.
Rugby is a game to be played by players on their feet, right? Except from the dozens of situations it's not from players being rewarded for not trying to stay on their feet** by suddenly developing paraplegia ("Tackle. Release.") to players on the floor holding on to opponents etc

**I appreciate this is because the Law in question is an arse rather than an interpretation confusion.

[Niegs]

With the uptick in threads like this, I'd just love to see the experimental people (at Stellenbosch?) play games with strictly-applied laws. What would it look like once players get used to it? Slower transitions perhaps? More actual contests for possession?

[Insane_Homer]

FORMING A MAUL
1. It consists of a ball-carrier and at least one player from each team, bound
together and on their feet.

See this bit in red.
Rugby is a game to be played by players on their feet, right? Except from the dozens of situations it's not from players being rewarded for not trying to stay on their feet** by suddenly developing paraplegia ("Tackle. Release.") to players on the floor holding on to opponents etc

**I appreciate this is because the Law in question is an arse rather than an interpretation confusion.

I totally agree. It's better than that - Law book clearly states

LAW 13 Players on the ground in open play
PRINCIPLE
The game is played only by players who are on their feet.

My biggest bug bear is...

LAW 14 Tackle
Any player who gains possession of the ball :
a. Must play it immediately, by moving away, or by passing or kicking the
ball.
b. Must remain on their feet, and not go to ground at or near the tackle
unless tackled by the opposition.

It happens often enough, gets hands on ball, fall over next to tackled player and present for another ruck.
I don't think this has ever been called in any game I've played in or watched (and reffed).

[Insane_Homer]

With the uptick in threads like this, I'd just love to see the experimental people (at Stellenbosch?) play games with strictly-applied laws. What would it look like once players get used to it? Slower transitions perhaps? More actual contests for possession?

with or without advantange?

[Niegs]

With the uptick in threads like this, I'd just love to see the experimental people (at Stellenbosch?) play games with strictly-applied laws. What would it look like once players get used to it? Slower transitions perhaps? More actual contests for possession?

with or without advantange?

With, but one good pass and it's over or you take the penalty. Reminds me, when did kicking on scrum advantage come back for the scrum!? That's always been "advantage over" in my playing/coaching days, but am seeing it coming back for the scrum more in the last year or so?

... so, yeah, short advantage only, but 'materiality' in most of its forms can fudge off.

[CM11]

It could just be because Ireland are playing more attractive rugby but I get the perception rugby is moving a bit more back to playing on the feet, at international level anyway.

Any stats for comparing total rucks in this year's six nations compared to previous years? Or total offloads, passes, ball in play time etc.? Anything to compare whether more rugby is being played.

[Torquemada 1420]

With the uptick in threads like this, I'd just love to see the experimental people (at Stellenbosch?) play games with strictly-applied laws. What would it look like once players get used to it? Slower transitions perhaps? More actual contests for possession?

with or without advantange?

With, but one good pass and it's over or you take the penalty. Reminds me, when did kicking on scrum advantage come back for the scrum!? That's always been "advantage over" in my playing/coaching days, but am seeing it coming back for the scrum more in the last year or so?

... so, yeah, short advantage only, but 'materiality' in most of its forms can fudge off.

I'd like to see kicking it away being an immediate end to advantage. Advantage should be to encourage playing with ball in hand.

[CM11]

It comes down to what led to the kick. If you're being harassed and slice it out on the full then it's fair to go back from the scrum. Most refs will call advantage over if you have decent control of the ball and execute an OK kick.

Basically advantage is over when you gain some sort of advantage. Someone knocking on and then harassing the opposition so they gain no attacking advantage is not an advantage.

[Kawazaki]

It could just be because Ireland are playing more attractive rugby but I get the perception rugby is moving a bit more back to playing on the feet, at international level anyway.

Any stats for comparing total rucks in this year's six nations compared to previous years? Or total offloads, passes, ball in play time etc.? Anything to compare whether more rugby is being played.

It might be my imagination but I think I'm seeing more players blindly lift the ball up into the pocket of space behind them with soft hands as they are hitting the ground so supporting players can continue the phase. It strikes me that if you think you are isolated or have been chopped tackled then this might be a good thing to do as once you hit the ground you're going to get either turned over or penalised for holding on anyway.

[inactionman]

with or without advantange?

With, but one good pass and it's over or you take the penalty. Reminds me, when did kicking on scrum advantage come back for the scrum!? That's always been "advantage over" in my playing/coaching days, but am seeing it coming back for the scrum more in the last year or so?

... so, yeah, short advantage only, but 'materiality' in most of its forms can fudge off.

I'd like to see kicking it away being an immediate end to advantage. Advantage should be to encourage playing with ball in hand.

I've no set position on this, but I'd like to see advantage declared over once an advantage is actually gained - you come back for the penalty only if the attacking team do not improve their position. I'm not sure it was ever intended to allow play to be brought back 30-40 meters for some long-forgotten offence.

I'm not sure if this would encourage more foul play (well, penalty infringements) as the intent would just be to slow down promising attacks and let defences reset, but - for example - resetting 5 meter pick and goes for a single offside 10 phases ago, and doing this repeatedly, is all a bit dull.

I'm not actually sure what the laws say on advantage, I'll take a look when I've a few minutes.

eta: Joined this thread late and skipped to end, this has been said above. Ignore.

[Kawazaki]

with or without advantange?

With, but one good pass and it's over or you take the penalty. Reminds me, when did kicking on scrum advantage come back for the scrum!? That's always been "advantage over" in my playing/coaching days, but am seeing it coming back for the scrum more in the last year or so?

... so, yeah, short advantage only, but 'materiality' in most of its forms can fudge off.

I'd like to see kicking it away being an immediate end to advantage. Advantage should be to encourage playing with ball in hand.

Similarly, any knock-ons whereby possession is then gained immediately by the non-offending team, the default position should be that gaining possession is advantage enough and the ref should signal to play on.

[inactionman]

With, but one good pass and it's over or you take the penalty. Reminds me, when did kicking on scrum advantage come back for the scrum!? That's always been "advantage over" in my playing/coaching days, but am seeing it coming back for the scrum more in the last year or so?

... so, yeah, short advantage only, but 'materiality' in most of its forms can fudge off.

I'd like to see kicking it away being an immediate end to advantage. Advantage should be to encourage playing with ball in hand.

Similarly, any knock-ons whereby possession is then gained immediately by the non-offending team, the default position should be that gaining possession is advantage enough and the ref should have play on.

I'd agree with this, if the opposition cleanly recover a knock-on then just play on, if the opposition themselves knock on or can't cleanly recover the ball then call a scrum. It's all done and dusted.

[CM11]

Except that doesn't give much advantage to the opposition depending on field position. You can't make one rule for every game or area of the pitch. For example, refs will usually play longer advantage for scrum advantage if team with advantage have a shit scrum because otherwise it's an advantage for the dominant scrummaging side to knock on if they're otherwise well corralled.

I have far less issue with scrum advantage, which seems fine in any games I've watched, than I do with the inconsistency surrounding penalty advantage.

[Mahoney]

Advantage should be all about not denying the team offended against a clear cut opportunity to exploit. As such I think there should be two criteria on advantage:

1) You only play advantage whilst it is positively likely that the team offended against will do as well as, or better than, they would have done were you to award the scrum or penalty

2) If this is the case, advantage is over once roughly the same advantage has been gained as you would reasonably expect form being awarded the scrum or penalty, assuming no infringement would happen at the scrum

I think refs are pretty good at 2) on penalties, but less good at 2) on scrums - the most you should expect from a scrum is clean possession with good options. The moment you get that, scrum advantage should be over in my opinion, play on. No second chance if you screw up.

On 1) on penalty advantage I think they need to blow & award the penalty much quicker when there's nothing particularly on. If the defence manage the next tackle OK and have set their defence OK, award the penalty. Too often penalty advantage meanders on through multiple phase of little or no gain, or the attacking team takes an unlikely shot to nothing as a freebie precisely because there wasn't anything on.

[sockwithaticket]

When a ref calls advantage teams can still say 'yep, want the pen' instead of trying to use advantage, yeah?

Like Mahoney says, I feel we see an awful lot of teams running advantages inside their own half and jut crashing into more or less set defences for a few phases before eventually having to go with the pen or they make some ground, but perhaps not as much as if they'd kicked it. Surely the most efficient thing to do is ask for the pen when it's given and boot it into touch upfield?

[CM11]

With the 5m law at scrum time, it's hard to replicate the same advantage from a recovered ball with defenders in your face.

Generally, if you're exiting a ref will call advantage over if a kick is roughly as good as you'd expect from a scrum and in all other instances will usually wait for some gainline advantage. As I said, I don't have any perception from games I've watched that this is being reffed particularly poorly. The odd one where scrum advantage is called too early or late but generally it's fair.

Agree on the penalty one. The allowance to go phase after phase before calling back is frustrating. Maybe refs should do us all a favour and say to teams that if they pick and go again, they'll whistle, so we'll finally see teams actually try to play near the line off advantage! The other one is the allowance to make 40m with multiple linebreaks but still retain advantage. Sorry, nope.

[Mahoney]

> Maybe refs should do us all a favour and say to teams that if they pick and go again, they'll whistle
Just blow on the first pick and go. Refs should blow the moment there's no obvious advantage to be had.

Advantage is to stop the referee blowing when you've got a 3 on 2 or are in the middle of a line break.

[CM11]

> Maybe refs should do us all a favour and say to teams that if they pick and go again, they'll whistle
Just blow on the first pick and go. Refs should blow the moment there's no obvious advantage to be had.

Advantage is to stop the referee blowing when you've got a 3 on 2 or are in the middle of a line break.

The primary reason for advantage is to avoid too much setpiece. Particularly scrums. At least with penalties, they're usually kicked down the pitch so there's a territorial gain.

[Biffer]

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.

That's what it should still be imo. We keep hearing about how the best players need half a yard or a fraction of a second to make a difference. Allowing the offside line to be vague means there are fewer half yards available.

[Mahoney]

Advantage is to stop the referee blowing when you've got a 3 on 2 or are in the middle of a line break.

The primary reason for advantage is to avoid too much setpiece. Particularly scrums. At least with penalties, they're usually kicked down the pitch so there's a territorial gain.

I strongly disagree.

[Torquemada 1420]

Similarly, any knock-ons whereby possession is then gained immediately by the non-offending team, the default position should be that gaining possession is advantage enough and the ref should signal to play on.

Yes. Agree. And there are others that should not be pens at all where turnover of possession is more than adequate. Pens should only be for foul play or significant harm to the detriment of the opposition.
e.g In front of the kicker should only be a free kick.

[CM11]

In front of kicker and 'accidental/deliberate' offside when the ball comes off a teammate are two which could be downgraded to a free kick alright. Similarly obstruction in a maul, especially the timing ones where you just set wrong.

[sockwithaticket]

In a lot of those instances, particularly at restarts or other high ball contests, it's not obvious in the moment who the ball came off, so a penalty does feel very harsh.

If it's a very clear knock on and an boviously offside player grabs it to deny the opposition the chance of an advantage, then maybe retain the option to award a penalty, because that is cynical and it's not asking the ref to make any kind of intent judgment call they don't already make with breakdown offences.

[Mahoney]

In front of the kicker is like obstructing tacklers - the reason it needs to be a penalty is that refs sometimes miss it, so the lower the sanction the more it's worth doing it on purpose. If it were always caught then it needn't even be a free-kick, it could just be a scrum, because no-one would ever do it on purpose.

The anomaly there is forward passes - a deliberate forward pass (one of those pop passes from a player stationary / running laterally to someone coming at pace from deep, for instance, or an offload to someone who has already over-run it) is often an excellent way to create a line break, and the ref often misses it, so it's a bit odd that you can do it with relative impunity.

[Kawazaki]

In front of the kicker is like obstructing tacklers - the reason it needs to be a penalty is that refs sometimes miss it, so the lower the sanction the more it's worth doing it on purpose. If it were always caught then it needn't even be a free-kick, it could just be a scrum, because no-one would ever do it on purpose.

The anomaly there is forward passes - a deliberate forward pass (one of those pop passes from a player stationary / running laterally to someone coming at pace from deep, for instance, or an offload to someone who has already over-run it) is often an excellent way to create a line break, and the ref often misses it, so it's a bit odd that you can do it with relative impunity.

I remember back in my playing days that if as I went to pass the ball I saw that the intended recipient was already ahead of me then I didn't throw the pass. I was too honest!

[Niegs]

The one in the middle versus Quins. "Counter-ruck is fine..."

[Kawazaki]

Watching any clips of jacklers tends to get me heated. I watch it and think that it isn't rugby, it's actually anti-rugby. Not sure how the law makers got here but they've allowed the evolution of a technique that is designed purely to 'win' penalties from a team running with the ball rather than kicking it away.

[CM11]

It's anti rugby to have a contest for the ball at all times?

You'd prefer teams that run the ball get full protection when, eh, they stop running the ball? But then I guess you couldn't let them keep going to ground so, eh, let's say they only get a number of phases allowed. Hmmmmm.

[Niegs]

Jackaling is very often just trapping the ball in for a penalty. I wouldn't call that in the spirit of a 'fair contest for possession'. I don't blame them given the boot of most pros and the dominance of the lineout (a whole other thing not often policed properly).

Properly balanced, hands on ball first, tackled player not releasing, yes, blow it up as a pen. I'd rather see, the instant an attacking player has joined, and if that first condition wasn't a factor, no more hands. Get stuck in and actually have a pushing contest. Even better, as Kawa often professes, I'd rather see them START with the step over / push over. 'Counter Rucks' are way more exciting to me than a pen, back slaps and celebrations as much as when a try is scored, followed by a kick for touch.

[CM11]

IMO there's been a lot more of this recently. As in the positive way of handling rucks.

The problem with the breakdown isn't just the jackaller pretending to try and lift but also the tackled player holding on for a second or two. The exact second or two that you outline as fair game to jackal. So it's really not as simple as saying 'jackal bad, teams trying to run good'. Especially when, by definition the ball isn't been run when the jackal is attempted.

[Kawazaki]

I'd like it mandated that the tackled player must be allowed to present the ball back after he's tackled. At the moment jacklers are latched onto the tackled player the moment they hit the ground, very often with body positions where they're clearly using the tackled player to support them. That's a ridiculous situation the law makers have allowed to be normalised. I'd also like the jackler to have to initiate a jackal by placing one leg over and/or behind the tackled player so he's supporting his own bodyweight.

[TheFrog]

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.

Interesting. I was asking myself sometimes whether some calls for offside on a kick and chase which ended up penalised weren’t actually harmless, with the player ahead of the kicker not interfering with play.

[Blackmac]

I was at the 1872 Cup at the weekend with a group that contained 2 non rugby fans. It was so apparent that rugby as a sport is completely unfathomable for the new/non fan to watch live. As one pointed out after repeatedly asking us what happened after each penalty, even we were speculating and scratching our heads about what happened so how the fuck was he meant to follow it.

[GogLais]

I was at the 1872 Cup at the weekend with a group that contained 2 non rugby fans. It was so apparent that rugby as a sport is completely unfathomable for the new/non fan to watch live. As one pointed out after repeatedly asking us what happened after each penalty, even we were speculating and scratching our heads about what happened so how the fuck was he meant to follow it.

Indeed, the idea of spreading the game worldwide seems ambitious atm. I was reading about Renaissance Florence yesterday - I’m that sort of chap. They used to play one of these medieval football games that were basically legitimised gang warfare. If the ball became trapped in a mass pileup they’d let a bull free which would clear the ruck and provide additional entertainment for the spectators.

[Niegs]

I was at the 1872 Cup at the weekend with a group that contained 2 non rugby fans. It was so apparent that rugby as a sport is completely unfathomable for the new/non fan to watch live. As one pointed out after repeatedly asking us what happened after each penalty, even we were speculating and scratching our heads about what happened so how the fuck was he meant to follow it.

Indeed, the idea of spreading the game worldwide seems ambitious atm. I was reading about Renaissance Florence yesterday - I’m that sort of chap. They used to play one of these medieval football games that were basically legitimised gang warfare. If the ball became trapped in a mass pileup they’d let a bull free which would clear the ruck and provide additional entertainment for the spectators.

That's amazing!