the Retallick red card

[Thor Sedan]

Brodie got 2 weeks, so out until England

And this is a big part of why we still see players executing dangerous tackling and clearing out techniques. The punishments are negligible.

I see that Retallick was the latest to get time off on proviso of completing a coaching intervention. What is a coaching intervention in isolation going to do for any pro player, let alone a 31 year old who's on the cusp of becoming a test centurion? They're going to do this mandated course and then walk right back into environment that coaches them to tackle upright/high and that every ruck is winnable if you go into it withe enough reckless abandon.

Any coaching intevention should be for the whole team, including coaching staff, of any player who commits one of these offences and it should involve them being parked in front of harrowing documentaries/interviews about early onset dementia Clockwork Orange style. Maybe then they'll actually consider changing their approach to tackle heights and leaving the ball when it's lost. At the moment it's clear that they only pay lip service to player safety.

But then you can look at it from the other side - the Japanese player was not supporting their own weight in the ruck, their head was the lowest point of their body. So do players in rucks just put their heads as low as possible thus destroying the contest in the ruck altogether as the only way for an opposing player to contest at the breakdown is to make some sort of contact with the head?

I don't know what the answer is - but the two different rulings of the ref for the BB and the Young incident against Australia highlighted perfectly the problem with the game.

We are literally 1 step away from uncontested breakdowns.

[average joe]

But then you can look at it from the other side - the Japanese player was not supporting their own weight in the ruck, their head was the lowest point of their body. So do players in rucks just put their heads as low as possible thus destroying the contest in the ruck altogether as the only way for an opposing player to contest at the breakdown is to make some sort of contact with the head?

I don't know what the answer is - but the two different rulings of the ref for the BB and the Young incident against Australia highlighted perfectly the problem with the game.

We are literally 1 step away from uncontested breakdowns.

Was it ruck? If so, the ref should have pinged him for hands.
If it was not a ruck and he was infringing when he attempted to take the ball, the ref should have pinged him.
If it was not a ruck and the tackled player refused to release the ball, the ref should have pinged him for not releasing.

In none of these situations should it be necessary for Big Bad Brodie or any other player to launch themselves headfirst into anyone.

I agree with you on the constancy issues.

[Mahoney]

Spitballing, but perhaps just say that shoulders must be above hips for all players in a tackle area? So yes, you can pick the ball up, but only from a deep crouch.

Theory:
* Means you will be supporting your own weight, not sealing off
* Means you are presenting an upper body for opposing players to bind onto and drive you back, so a ruck can be formed without everyone falling over

And enforce not collapsing the ruck - i.e. no croc rolls

[Rhubarb & Custard]

Players must attempt to stay on their feet, so no diving over the ball, no taking other players at the ruck off their feet. And rather than sprinting into contact over the ball as Townsend notes instead players must bind at the ruck before they continue to play.

Exactly what happens if we actually go with the laws as they theoretically are but rarely enforced isn't clear, we could simply create other problems, but we keep trialling ELVs and keep not enforcing the actual laws

[Raggs]

Spitballing, but perhaps just say that shoulders must be above hips for all players in a tackle area? So yes, you can pick the ball up, but only from a deep crouch.

Theory:
* Means you will be supporting your own weight, not sealing off
* Means you are presenting an upper body for opposing players to bind onto and drive you back, so a ruck can be formed without everyone falling over

And enforce not collapsing the ruck - i.e. no croc rolls

Head level with hips does not present an upper body to hit. Even slightly above hips.

[average joe]

Spitballing, but perhaps just say that shoulders must be above hips for all players in a tackle area? So yes, you can pick the ball up, but only from a deep crouch.

Theory:
* Means you will be supporting your own weight, not sealing off
* Means you are presenting an upper body for opposing players to bind onto and drive you back, so a ruck can be formed without everyone falling over

And enforce not collapsing the ruck - i.e. no croc rolls

So, squatting like you're about to squeeze out a turd?
So your head is about level with other players hips, does that stop Big Bad Brodie from kneeing you accidently on purpose or just shoulder charge diving you in the noggin?

[PornDog]

Spitballing, but perhaps just say that shoulders must be above hips for all players in a tackle area? So yes, you can pick the ball up, but only from a deep crouch.

Theory:
* Means you will be supporting your own weight, not sealing off
* Means you are presenting an upper body for opposing players to bind onto and drive you back, so a ruck can be formed without everyone falling over

And enforce not collapsing the ruck - i.e. no croc rolls

So, squatting like you're about to squeeze out a turd?
So your head is about level with other players hips, does that stop Big Bad Brodie from kneeing you accidently on purpose or just shoulder charge diving you in the noggin?

When protecting a ruck legally, what's to stop a big bad Eben from kneeing you in the head? It's a facile argument.

If an offensive players shoulders go below his hips at a ruck he'll most likely be pinged for sealing off. Apply the same laws to the defensive team as you do to the offensive team! Problem solved

[average joe]

Spitballing, but perhaps just say that shoulders must be above hips for all players in a tackle area? So yes, you can pick the ball up, but only from a deep crouch.

Theory:
* Means you will be supporting your own weight, not sealing off
* Means you are presenting an upper body for opposing players to bind onto and drive you back, so a ruck can be formed without everyone falling over

And enforce not collapsing the ruck - i.e. no croc rolls

So, squatting like you're about to squeeze out a turd?
So your head is about level with other players hips, does that stop Big Bad Brodie from kneeing you accidently on purpose or just shoulder charge diving you in the noggin?

When protecting a ruck legally, what's to stop a big bad Eben from kneeing you in the head? It's a facile argument.

If an offensive players shoulders go below his hips at a ruck he'll most likely be pinged for sealing off. Apply the same laws to the defensive team as you do to the offensive team! Problem solved

Firstly, Eben is known as the enforcer not big bad anything.
Secondly, the enforcer Eben won't be protecting a ruck legally, if there was no ruck formed.

Why are you still going on about a ruck, there's no ruck if there's no one bound. You're not sealing off anything, you're bending down to pick up a loose ball. If you were bending down to pick up a ball in a ruck, I'd expect the ref to ping you for hands in the ruck.

[PornDog]

You are allowed to swan dive (though I'd like to revisit that too ) - but do it over a tackled player (before a ruck has formed) and you will rightly get penalised for going off your feet. This argument that a ruck hasn't formed doesn't fly in other situations, why should it absolutely protect the poacher? It's a nonsense.

You bend your head and shoulders over the ball to protect it (even before an opposition player arrives), you will rightly get pinged for sealing off. But the defenders can do it!!!!

Apply the laws equally to both sides