So, what did we learn this season?

[Torquemada 1420]

Just on this player welfare issue...

I'm 100% in agreement with this. It doesn't take a masters in process systems to understand that
- if you are trying to eliminate behaviour (such as you describe)
- in order to try and prevent serious injury to players
to then use the determinant based on the outcome of the fouled player rather than the actions of the assailant is barking and missing the point of the exercise by the proverbial mile.

I really hope it doesn't happen.... but it will. Someone is going to have his neck broken by a lift (which still might be shoulder first, followed by head/neck) or there mental ruck collisions.

[Torquemada 1420]

As far as I'm concerned the only time you can poach the ball is if you can literally get hands on the ball and effect a lift before any opposing player binds on you. The shouldn't have to "clear you out", just bind and then its a fucking ruck - if you haven't lifted the ball by then then get your hands off it. Ideally a couple of the poachers buddies will join in, drive over the ball and help you win it legally.

Yes, but with the proviso that anyone joining a ruck HAS TO JOIN and in the manner of a scrum i.e. engage with the opponent BEFORE being allowed to push.

[Kawazaki]

Yes you are. You think you’re not because you don’t understand the point.

But I’m not going to continue this, it’s incredibly boring for everyone else.

I think I get your point. Sarries would have still won trophies due to good coaching but less of them without the salary cheating that enabled them to retain and sign top talent. It will actually take time for the benefits of their cheating to dwindle completely (probably a couple more years). Exeter probably lost out more than any other team.

Yep. And the impact wasn’t on their best 15-20 players, it was the next ten, which gave them more depth, more strength on the bench and the ability to see out games in the last 20 minutes as a result.

If Saracens failed to reach the top-4 then you might have a point. You're placing an awful lot of weight for your premises on them losing one game, a final, by a last minute drop goal.

[Torquemada 1420]

If Sarries thought they were going to win all those trophies without cheating then I'd suggest it was bad management to have squandered all that money unnecessarily.

[PornDog]

As far as I'm concerned the only time you can poach the ball is if you can literally get hands on the ball and effect a lift before any opposing player binds on you. The shouldn't have to "clear you out", just bind and then its a fucking ruck - if you haven't lifted the ball by then then get your hands off it. Ideally a couple of the poachers buddies will join in, drive over the ball and help you win it legally.

Yes, but with the proviso that anyone joining a ruck HAS TO JOIN and in the manner of a scrum i.e. engage with the opponent BEFORE being allowed to push.

I'm good with this

Proper rucking (and not the stamping on your head kind) may even have the added bonus of helping take more players out of the 1st lines resulting in more space.

[Chilli]

The URC isn't won in February.

[Guy Smiley]

As far as I'm concerned the only time you can poach the ball is if you can literally get hands on the ball and effect a lift before any opposing player binds on you. The shouldn't have to "clear you out", just bind and then its a fucking ruck - if you haven't lifted the ball by then then get your hands off it. Ideally a couple of the poachers buddies will join in, drive over the ball and help you win it legally.

Yes, but with the proviso that anyone joining a ruck HAS TO JOIN and in the manner of a scrum i.e. engage with the opponent BEFORE being allowed to push.

I'm good with this

Proper rucking (and not the stamping on your head kind) may even have the added bonus of helping take more players out of the 1st lines resulting in more space.

I like this... but just imagine the scope for cheating. Too much of a grey area for 'interpretation'.

[Kawazaki]

Yes, but with the proviso that anyone joining a ruck HAS TO JOIN and in the manner of a scrum i.e. engage with the opponent BEFORE being allowed to push.

I'm good with this

Proper rucking (and not the stamping on your head kind) may even have the added bonus of helping take more players out of the 1st lines resulting in more space.

I like this... but just imagine the scope for cheating. Too much of a grey area for 'interpretation'.

The problem isn't players trying to ruck, the problem starts and ends with the jackler.

[ia801310]

I'm good with this

Proper rucking (and not the stamping on your head kind) may even have the added bonus of helping take more players out of the 1st lines resulting in more space.

I like this... but just imagine the scope for cheating. Too much of a grey area for 'interpretation'.

The problem isn't players trying to ruck, the problem starts and ends with the jackler.

Removing the Jackler is one stage further to turning Union into League. If the Jackler gets there before the ruck is formed then he is just picking up a ball in open play.

[Guy Smiley]

Competing for the ball has to stay… you might as well shut up shop and give up if we’re going down the road if taking that away… but how the jackler is dealt with could be improved, unless you take away the right to contest the ball from everyone but the tackler?

[Uncle fester]

Poach/jackal is clearly a bad thing - a break that doesn’t result in a try is all but a guarantee of a turnover and therefore a bad decision

You want to remove the contest for the ball and turn it into rugby league with no tackle limit?

[sockwithaticket]

I like this... but just imagine the scope for cheating. Too much of a grey area for 'interpretation'.

The problem isn't players trying to ruck, the problem starts and ends with the jackler.

Removing the Jackler is one stage further to turning Union into League. If the Jackler gets there before the ruck is formed then he is just picking up a ball in open play.

And yet Union existed as a distinct code for over a century before jackalling started, so I'm not sure that removing it really does herald turning it into League. Possession can still be contested by driving over as we see with many a counter ruck.

[PornDog]

The problem isn't players trying to ruck, the problem starts and ends with the jackler.

Removing the Jackler is one stage further to turning Union into League. If the Jackler gets there before the ruck is formed then he is just picking up a ball in open play.

And yet Union existed as a distinct code for over a century before jackalling started, so I'm not sure that removing it really does herald turning it into League. Possession can still be contested by driving over as we see with many a counter ruck.

indeed.

Also, players off their feet are not part of a ruck and should have to roll away just as the tackler does. A pile of bodies is not a fucking ruck and if nobody is on their feet then the ref should call the ball out.

[Guy Smiley]

Removing the Jackler is one stage further to turning Union into League. If the Jackler gets there before the ruck is formed then he is just picking up a ball in open play.

And yet Union existed as a distinct code for over a century before jackalling started, so I'm not sure that removing it really does herald turning it into League. Possession can still be contested by driving over as we see with many a counter ruck.

indeed.

Also, players off their feet are not part of a ruck and should have to roll away just as the tackler does. A pile of bodies is not a fucking ruck and if nobody is on their feet then the ref should call the ball out.

Go off your feet... penalty. How does that roll?

[Line6 HXFX]

Post Lions tours, Wales are complete shit..

[Kawazaki]

I like this... but just imagine the scope for cheating. Too much of a grey area for 'interpretation'.

The problem isn't players trying to ruck, the problem starts and ends with the jackler.

Removing the Jackler is one stage further to turning Union into League. If the Jackler gets there before the ruck is formed then he is just picking up a ball in open play.

I haven't advocated removing them.

[Kawazaki]

Competing for the ball has to stay… you might as well shut up shop and give up if we’re going down the road if taking that away… but how the jackler is dealt with could be improved, unless you take away the right to contest the ball from everyone but the tackler?

You change when the jackler can use his hands on the tackled player. The tackled player is (very) often being jackled before he's even hit the ground. There is zero chance for him to place the ball back and present it. This is where it all goes wrong for the attacking team and this is the exact reason coaches would rather kick the ball than carry it up. The balance of the game is all wrong, the laws quite literally favour the rights of the jackler over the rights of the tackled player.

My solution...

1. The tackled player must be allowed to place the ball backwards after he's tackled before there is any interference or intervention by a jackler who hasn't been involved in the tackle.

2. The jackler must place at least one leg beyond the tackled player before he can use his hands to go for the ball.

Employing one or both of these conditions will recenter the balance of the contact area to at least parity between attack and defence. Attacking teams will still have to put players into the tackle area to maintain possession and defending teams can still effect turnovers on attacking teams who don't do this.

[ia801310]

The problem isn't players trying to ruck, the problem starts and ends with the jackler.

Removing the Jackler is one stage further to turning Union into League. If the Jackler gets there before the ruck is formed then he is just picking up a ball in open play.

And yet Union existed as a distinct code for over a century before jackalling started, so I'm not sure that removing it really does herald turning it into League. Possession can still be contested by driving over as we see with many a counter ruck.

People didn't pick up the ball in open play for over a century? Must have been an extremely weird sport back then.

[average joe]

What if the tackled player refuses to place the ball. Does the defending player just stand there and wait for a ruck to form?

[Guy Smiley]

What if the tackled player refuses to place the ball. Does the defending player just stand there and wait for a ruck to form?

The current Law deals with that pretty well, really.


As Kwaka says, the problem lies with how much we allow the Jackler (Jackaller) to get away with. Recent Law variations have shifted the balance too far in favour of the defending team with the tackled player required to give the ball up before even placing it.

Some limits on that access would help, as would some restrictions on how other players join that ruck... flying in off feet has to stop. The idea that players should bind properly and keep their feet has merit, that would stop the exocet style of play we see too much of.

It was interesting to watch the Australian Supe teams this season pretty much all try to rip the ball in the tackle as a matter of course. it was a clear distinction between them and the NZ teams. I saw a few Kiwi players try it but it was an exception as opposed to the norm.

[Paddington Bear]

Poach/jackal is clearly a bad thing - a break that doesn’t result in a try is all but a guarantee of a turnover and therefore a bad decision

You want to remove the contest for the ball and turn it into rugby league with no tackle limit?

No - I want teams to be encouraged to break the line. Which means that they need to have some ability to retain the ball if briefly isolated.

[OomStruisbaai]

Breakdown poaching, the dark side of rugby. Why would you want to take that from rugby?

[Slick]

Competing for the ball has to stay… you might as well shut up shop and give up if we’re going down the road if taking that away… but how the jackler is dealt with could be improved, unless you take away the right to contest the ball from everyone but the tackler?

You change when the jackler can use his hands on the tackled player. The tackled player is (very) often being jackled before he's even hit the ground. There is zero chance for him to place the ball back and present it. This is where it all goes wrong for the attacking team and this is the exact reason coaches would rather kick the ball than carry it up. The balance of the game is all wrong, the laws quite literally favour the rights of the jackler over the rights of the tackled player.

My solution...

1. The tackled player must be allowed to place the ball backwards after he's tackled before there is any interference or intervention by a jackler who hasn't been involved in the tackle.

2. The jackler must place at least one leg beyond the tackled player before he can use his hands to go for the ball.

Employing one or both of these conditions will recenter the balance of the contact area to at least parity between attack and defence. Attacking teams will still have to put players into the tackle area to maintain possession and defending teams can still effect turnovers on attacking teams who don't do this.

Isn't this just going to give us endless possession for the attacking team until they drop it.

[Sinkers]

It wasn’t too long ago that in super rugby aotearoa they “trialed” actually enforcing the laws at the breakdown as they are written.

After two initial rounds of penalty fests it resulted in a lot of great quick, clean rugby.

Then they stopped

[Kawazaki]

Competing for the ball has to stay… you might as well shut up shop and give up if we’re going down the road if taking that away… but how the jackler is dealt with could be improved, unless you take away the right to contest the ball from everyone but the tackler?

You change when the jackler can use his hands on the tackled player. The tackled player is (very) often being jackled before he's even hit the ground. There is zero chance for him to place the ball back and present it. This is where it all goes wrong for the attacking team and this is the exact reason coaches would rather kick the ball than carry it up. The balance of the game is all wrong, the laws quite literally favour the rights of the jackler over the rights of the tackled player.

My solution...

1. The tackled player must be allowed to place the ball backwards after he's tackled before there is any interference or intervention by a jackler who hasn't been involved in the tackle.

2. The jackler must place at least one leg beyond the tackled player before he can use his hands to go for the ball.

Employing one or both of these conditions will recenter the balance of the contact area to at least parity between attack and defence. Attacking teams will still have to put players into the tackle area to maintain possession and defending teams can still effect turnovers on attacking teams who don't do this.

Isn't this just going to give us endless possession for the attacking team until they drop it.

Defending teams can still jackal and they can definitely still ruck over the ball. An alteration is needed to reward teams that carry the ball up in lieu of just kicking it.

I know it was only one match but there were 105 kicks in the GP final. Let's guestimate a ball in play time of 35 minutes, and you can do the maths. It's 3 kicks per minute.

[Biffer]

As with everything else - enforce the current laws. If the jackaller puts a hand on the ground they can't go for the ball. If they put a hand down past the ball it's a penalty.

Simple.

Edit - also absolutely rigid on supporting your own weight. If your belly is resting on a player on the ground, you're not supporting your weight so you can't go for the ball. Alongside that, more rigid enforcement of players attackiing players flopping on top, as that'll be what defensive coaches willl then teach - 'get another body on top so it looks like they're leaning on you'. Again, it's just about enforcing existing laws.

Football went through a couple of years of people creaming when they outlawed the tackle from behind. We need to have a period like that in rugby for dangerous play of all types until coaches and players learn.

[Torquemada 1420]

Most Saffa posters have an evil little imp that sits on their shoulder whenever someone says, ‘Sharks!’

[OomStruisbaai]

Deon Fourie has been excellent this weekend. One interesting fact that we're discussed afterwards was the role supporting players play in supporting him.

[Slick]

It wasn’t too long ago that in super rugby aotearoa they “trialed” actually enforcing the laws at the breakdown as they are written.

After two initial rounds of penalty fests it resulted in a lot of great quick, clean rugby.

Then they stopped

I remember this. Very odd.

[PornDog]

Competing for the ball has to stay… you might as well shut up shop and give up if we’re going down the road if taking that away… but how the jackler is dealt with could be improved, unless you take away the right to contest the ball from everyone but the tackler?

You change when the jackler can use his hands on the tackled player. The tackled player is (very) often being jackled before he's even hit the ground. There is zero chance for him to place the ball back and present it. This is where it all goes wrong for the attacking team and this is the exact reason coaches would rather kick the ball than carry it up. The balance of the game is all wrong, the laws quite literally favour the rights of the jackler over the rights of the tackled player.

My solution...

1. The tackled player must be allowed to place the ball backwards after he's tackled before there is any interference or intervention by a jackler who hasn't been involved in the tackle.

2. The jackler must place at least one leg beyond the tackled player before he can use his hands to go for the ball.

Employing one or both of these conditions will recenter the balance of the contact area to at least parity between attack and defence. Attacking teams will still have to put players into the tackle area to maintain possession and defending teams can still effect turnovers on attacking teams who don't do this.

Isn't this just going to give us endless possession for the attacking team until they drop it.

Or you could, you know, ruck over the ball in a ruck. It played a major role in Scotland winning their last Grand Slam and was one of the major strengths of the All Blacks back then as well, before the like of Rutchie and Smith pioneered the jackal and for some reason were allowed to get away with their hands being in a ruck.

Getting players off their feet to roll away could be difficult to implement, but at the very least, the ball should have to be at the foot of a player on their feet. If it's at the feet of a player on the ground, then it shouldn't be still in a ruck.

[Slick]

You change when the jackler can use his hands on the tackled player. The tackled player is (very) often being jackled before he's even hit the ground. There is zero chance for him to place the ball back and present it. This is where it all goes wrong for the attacking team and this is the exact reason coaches would rather kick the ball than carry it up. The balance of the game is all wrong, the laws quite literally favour the rights of the jackler over the rights of the tackled player.

My solution...

1. The tackled player must be allowed to place the ball backwards after he's tackled before there is any interference or intervention by a jackler who hasn't been involved in the tackle.

2. The jackler must place at least one leg beyond the tackled player before he can use his hands to go for the ball.

Employing one or both of these conditions will recenter the balance of the contact area to at least parity between attack and defence. Attacking teams will still have to put players into the tackle area to maintain possession and defending teams can still effect turnovers on attacking teams who don't do this.

Isn't this just going to give us endless possession for the attacking team until they drop it.

Or you could, you know, ruck over the ball in a ruck. It played a major role in Scotland winning their last Grand Slam and was one of the major strengths of the All Blacks back then as well, before the like of Rutchie and Smith pioneered the jackal and for some reason were allowed to get away with their hands being in a ruck.

Getting players off their feet to roll away could be difficult to implement, but at the very least, the ball should have to be at the foot of a player on their feet. If it's at the feet of a player on the ground, then it shouldn't be still in a ruck.

Well, quite. Was just trying to get similar clear in my head before posting. Not sure we should have any hands in any rucks really.

[Uncle fester]

Poach/jackal is clearly a bad thing - a break that doesn’t result in a try is all but a guarantee of a turnover and therefore a bad decision

You want to remove the contest for the ball and turn it into rugby league with no tackle limit?

No - I want teams to be encouraged to break the line. Which means that they need to have some ability to retain the ball if briefly isolated.

If you make it too hard to contest possession on the deck, attacking teams will just endlessly recycle possession until the defence cracks. England 2003 and Oz 1999 used to do this lots.

[Paddington Bear]

You want to remove the contest for the ball and turn it into rugby league with no tackle limit?

No - I want teams to be encouraged to break the line. Which means that they need to have some ability to retain the ball if briefly isolated.

If you make it too hard to contest possession on the deck, attacking teams will just endlessly recycle possession until the defence cracks. England 2003 and Oz 1999 used to do this lots.

'We should reset rugby to 2003' does not hold negative connotations for me

[average joe]

What if the tackled player refuses to place the ball. Does the defending player just stand there and wait for a ruck to form?

The current Law deals with that pretty well, really.


As Kwaka says, the problem lies with how much we allow the Jackler (Jackaller) to get away with. Recent Law variations have shifted the balance too far in favour of the defending team with the tackled player required to give the ball up before even placing it.

Some limits on that access would help, as would some restrictions on how other players join that ruck... flying in off feet has to stop. The idea that players should bind properly and keep their feet has merit, that would stop the exocet style of play we see too much of.

It was interesting to watch the Australian Supe teams this season pretty much all try to rip the ball in the tackle as a matter of course. it was a clear distinction between them and the NZ teams. I saw a few Kiwi players try it but it was an exception as opposed to the norm.

The "current" Laws deals with every facet of the game pretty well for decades. They just need to be applied consistently across the board.

Hands in the ruck, off your feet etc have been there since I started playing in primary school, for some bizarre reason they've largely been ignored.

And what's wrong with ripping the ball? If the attacker is still on his feet I see nothing wrong with ripping the ball.

[Torquemada 1420]

Also, players off their feet are not part of a ruck and should have to roll away just as the tackler does. A pile of bodies is not a fucking ruck and if nobody is on their feet then the ref should call the ball out.

The other bug bear I have about players not on their feet is when a ball carrier gets tackled upright (choke tackle) and then lifts his feet and struggles to get a knee down: "Tackle! Release!"
It should not be a f**king tackle if the ball carrier is not attempting to stay on his feet as the game intended.

The bit we have to be careful off is if we don't address this part and remove any effective competition for the ball on the floor, we are really looking like Sumo-ball.

[Niegs]

You want to remove the contest for the ball and turn it into rugby league with no tackle limit?

No - I want teams to be encouraged to break the line. Which means that they need to have some ability to retain the ball if briefly isolated.

If you make it too hard to contest possession on the deck, attacking teams will just endlessly recycle possession until the defence cracks. England 2003 and Oz 1999 used to do this lots.

I think the incentive to get defenders to contest in that case is to make the counter ruck more appealing. One way, if you're going to be so strict on jackalers doing things perfectly or not at all, would be to say attacking players can't anchor themselves to the tackled player and shoulders must be above hips.

Less:


More:


Incidentally, while looking for a picture, came across these. Says a lot about what's become of the breakdown that there's an actual piece of equipment that allows you to practice what ref guidelines say players should be doing (enter 'like a plane landing'), or laying them on their side drilling to clear someone out that low.

[Niegs]

Here's another one... the players in white might have just blown over the top rather than latching on to win a penalty.

[lemonhead]

As a Munster fan:

[lemonhead]

Edit

[PornDog]

The first photo, that prick isn't supporting his weight - should be a penalty ot the defence. If you're not on your feet you're out of the game. Whether your tackling somebody or rucking, if you do it while on the ground it's a penalty