"Bring back propper Rucking!"

[Pegleg]

How many time do we hear this call? What do the "experts" mean by this call? People on their feet contesting the ball, as per the law book? No they mean a return to the days when it a OK to stamp & rake any one who got themselves "on the wrong side".

I'm interested in the answers to the following questiions:

1. When did the laws of the game allow the stamping and rucking (raking) of players on the wrong side?
2. Can someone quote a law that sanctioned these practices?
3. Can someone say when it was outlawed?

 

[TheBFG]

AFAIK it's never been "allowed" it was always just an excepted part of the game :wink:

 

[Phil E]

Its always been against the law I believe.

OB will confirm.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

16.3 Rucking

(f)
A player rucking for the ball must not intentionally ruck players on the ground. A player rucking for the ball must try to step over players on the ground and must not intentionally step on them. A player rucking must do so near the ball.
Sanction: Penalty kick

This is what prevents it now.

My 96-97 lawbook has a note almost similar wording in LAW 21 (then ruck)

My 94-95 lawbook does note have note

Not sure when this was placed into law written above, but in 2000 players were still asking me before the game if it was permissible to step on players on the ground below ruck


I can't even find foul play law as the lawbooks didn't even have a table of contents

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

Well Law 10 was Law 26 in 96, it has it as illegal to trample an opponent on the ground.

I suspect coaches and players took to rucking players similar as to rucking the ball as legal way of dealing with infractions commited by players on the ground. As it wasn't enforce by the letter, players took more liberties with their slipper and it got out of hand.

When I go surfing an injury to my ribcage surfaces from such a slipper, it is only time it bothers me. In Ohio, it ain't a big deal

 

[SimonSmith]

If I could just voice quietly my support for "old fashioned" rucks.

Take the perception that it was all about stamping out of the equation. What good rucking produced, waaaay back *sucks pipe, looks wistfully out of window* was really good quality go ahead ball that had the defenders retreating. It was, above all else, a dynamic phase of play, as opposed to this pileup of bodies we see now.

New Zealand, and Scotland under Jim Telfer, got to be very good at it, and just occasionally (for Scotland anyway) it payed big dividends.

I think the idea that it produced widespread rampant violence is overdone a bit and has become urban legend. Was there some strategic stamping? Yes. Enough that we would be worried about it recurring nowadays? No. Players today don't know how to ruck.

 

[OB..]

When New Zealand first developed dynamic rucking, they scattered the odd opponents and of course the ball popped out for them. A few people got trodden on - collateral damage, they said. Once opponents learned how to defend, that stopped. It now became necessary to ruck the ball out with your feet, not caring if anybody was in the way. Some defenders reckoned that collecting some scars showed they were "doing their job".

The argument that they were trying to roll players out of the way with their feet does not wash. It would require a considerable amount of force and would be very slow. The actual aim was to hurt the players enough to deter them from doing it again. There were unofficial "rules" about not rucking the head or joints, but in the heat of the moment they got forgotten or were simply too difficult to apply.

When the law changed in 1996, some players immediately tried to use "accidental contact" as an excuse, but were strongly dissuaded. "This law means what it says."

Even if I thought it was a good idea (and I don't), I see no way we could go back to that style, so many factors have changed, such as players' skill sets, strength, and fitness.

 

[Browner]

When New Zealand first developed dynamic rucking, they scattered the odd opponents and of course the ball popped out for them. A few people got trodden on - collateral damage, they said. Once opponents learned how to defend, that stopped. It now became necessary to ruck the ball out with your feet, not caring if anybody was in the way. Some defenders reckoned that collecting some scars showed they were "doing their job".

The argument that they were trying to roll players out of the way with their feet does not wash. It would require a considerable amount of force and would be very slow. The actual aim was to hurt the players enough to deter them from doing it again. There were unofficial "rules" about not rucking the head or joints, but in the heat of the moment they got forgotten or were simply too difficult to apply.

When the law changed in 1996, some players immediately tried to use "accidental contact" as an excuse, but were strongly dissuaded. "This law means what it says."

Even if I thought it was a good idea (and I don't), I see no way we could go back to that style, so many factors have changed, such as players' skill sets, strength, and fitness.

And increased player weightings being delivered through a multitude of (dare i say 'popensity to injure through skin glance unsuitable' studs) non rugby stud boots !!!!! :deadhorse:

 

[Pegleg]

So I'm reading that it hs never been allowed to target the player with the "rucking action". Is that right. Refs just allowed it like crooked feeds, pillars, fixers etc are allowed now.

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

The last quote I saw about "bring back proper rucking" was from Jonathan Davies (Jiffy - not the current model) who tends to talk a load of old bollocks in two languages about both codes. I think it was his suggestion for improving the game in a bbc website piece that I can't seem to find. It was discussed on here.

 

[Browner]

The last quote I saw about "bring back proper rucking" was from Jonathan Davies (Jiffy - not the current model) who tends to talk a load of old bollocks in two languages about both codes. I think it was his suggestion for improving the game in a bbc website piece that I can't seem to find. It was discussed on here.

You can get owt for nowt ....... Try this,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/31641675

Yep, old bollocks indeed

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

You can get owt for nowt ....... Try this,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/31641675

Yep, old bollocks indeed

Cheers Mr B?

I think it ironic that the photo used to illustrate old fashioned rucking shows Jones and Fitzpatrick on the floor, two other ABs about to hit the deck and only Drake and Shelford? bound and on their feet. Add to all that mess the French aren't competing.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose as Laurent Rodriguez would say.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Found this thread after reading this: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/r...did-old-fashioned-rucking-become-illegal.html If from 2010 but Brian Moore tweeted a comment and link to the article yesterday morning.

Can anyone (OB) provide a copy of the ruck law before 1996 (as per OB's post above) and the wording from 1996 I can't find the old law books.

 

[OB..]

[LAWS]1996 Law 21 note (ii)
Players' safety is of primary importance and players should ruck for the ball and not the players on the ground. Players rucking for the ball should attempt to step over other players lying on the ground and should not intentionally step on them. Players must ruck in close proximity to the ball.[/LAWS]

This was later incorporated into the laws.

Prior to 1996, referees relied on Law 26 Foul Play.

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

Proper rucking became unacceptable when the rugby powers caved in to big business and allowed all sorts of dangerous studs and cleats on the pitch!

 

[crossref]

Nigel Owens , in Brian Moore's podcast, said that the Law still allows proper rucking .. but teams don't do it

[LAWS]Players may play the ball with their feet, provided they do so in a safe manner.[/LAWS]

 

[OB..]

Nigel Owens , in Brian Moore's podcast, said that the Law still allows proper rucking .. but teams don't do it

[LAWS]Players may play the ball with their feet, provided they do so in a safe manner.[/LAWS]

To people like Brian Moore, "proper rucking" means rucking players.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

[LAWS]1996 Law 21 note (ii)
Players' safety is of primary importance and players should ruck for the ball and not the players on the ground. Players rucking for the ball should attempt to step over other players lying on the ground and should not intentionally step on them. Players must ruck in close proximity to the ball.[/LAWS]

This was later incorporated into the laws.

Prior to 1996, referees relied on Law 26 Foul Play.

Thanks OB can you quote Law 26 for me. I'd particlarly like to see what it said before 1986 to see exactly what the law was in Briand's playing days.

 

[OB..]

Thanks OB can you quote Law 26 for me. I'd particlarly like to see what it said before 1986 to see exactly what the law was in Briand's playing days.

In 1985 Law 26 is 12 pages long and covers many different scenarios.

The relevant bit is:
[LAWS]Misconduct, Dangerous Play
(3) It is illegal for any player:-
(a) to strike an opponent;
(b) wilfully or recklessly to hack or kick an opponent, or trip him with the foot, or to trample on an opponent lying on the ground;
[...]
Note (vi)
A player shall not "take the law into his own hands" nor wilfully do anything that is dangerous to an opponent even if the latter is infringing the Laws.[/LAWS]

 

[crossref]

Interesting
Is there any significant difference between the 1985 Law and the current Law ? Or is it all a matter of interpretation?

(WRT to rucking , I mean , of course)