[Ruck] Can you create a ruck by PULLING in an opponent?

[didds]

Gotcha

 

[ChrisR]

By allowing a player 'over the ball' to reach out and grasp an opponent you are effectively enforcing the '1 meter' rule for defining the tackle area. If you're not in arms reach then you're not in the tackle area.

Prohibit players over the ball from grasping an opponent to form a ruck and you are back to mentally measuring that '1 meter' that defines the tackle area.

That is going to create some very messy tackle areas as defenders, after entering the area legally, will be able to position themselves alongside the player over the ball with impunity.

This is one of those cases where it is better to allow the players to create the situation you want (clear space around the tackle) than to enforce it with the whistle.

 

[FlipFlop]

It has become quite clear that WR have told the tops refs that you CAN'T pull someone in. Has this been cascaded, or clarification issued - of course not. Why have everyone on the same page?

Perhaps the law committee should look at this and issue a clarification. (Maybe top refs have been told wrong).

I am arguing for what I believe is the right outcome - that you should be allowed to pull someone in (or hold onto) to form a ruck

 

[didds]

I'm not bothered either way - I just want to know what to expect in the community game next week when the oppo do it to us!

didds

 

[ChuckieB]

Well you'd have to ask Connor O'shea why he wasn't annoyed.

The question is clearly in the context of the Italian no-ruck tactic.

Didds

In this scenario Blue had entered the tackle area and not engaged, the Italians had stood off totally.

The only reason to enter the tackle area is to pick the ball or at least compete for it and would allow red to more easily induce a legitimate ruck opportunity. You wouldn't be pulling a player in such a scenario . Hence blue looks a bit of a chump!

 

[ChuckieB]

And let us look at the definition of the ruck forming. It only needs physcial contact. It doesn't say that 2 players need to be in mutually consenting contact.

......A good example is the one where Launchbury pulls the Italian #12 in. I have lots of issues with this. Firstly the #12 has his hands on the back of Dan Cole (so #12 initiates contact = ruck). Secondly (ignoring the contact on Cole) - you would allow Launchbury to clear out the #12, and he is within 1m. He is fair game to be "contacted" to form the ruck.

In another post I suggested for the Piccamoles and Launcbury incidents, both were minimal contact. NO clearly saw the contact and am prepared to accept that RP perhaps didn't . If this was the case then you can understand the correctness of NO's decision and perhaps at least understand RP's view of the world that it wasn't a ruck. This helps us to at least maintain a constant view of our clarified understanding that you cannot pull a man into a situation which is not a ruck.

 

[didds]

The Italians defended the fringes of the no-ruck really poorly.

I had wondered if its because they felt if they got too close to the tackle itself - which could mean standing in a totally legal position as if to come through the gate which etc etc etc - they could get grabbed and thus create a ruck which would circumvent what they trying to do. By standing further away this was not possible - but it left blinking great holes to exploit by a pick and drive.

BUT - if you cannot grab an opponent and pull him into contact to create a ruck then this concern is redundant. you can stand pretty close to the tackle and cannot be pulled into contact but remain there for the next phase of defensive duties. In which case "The only reason to enter the tackle area is to pick the ball or at least compete for it" is not entirely correct.

didds

 

[Rich_NL]

I think what's most important at grassroots is that it's clear and consistent what's being reffed, and that you've prepared your (clear and consistent) answer for the pre-match (or in-match) questions.

 

[ChuckieB]

In another post I suggested for the Piccamoles and Launcbury incidents, both were minimal contact. NO clearly saw the contact and am prepared to accept that RP perhaps didn't . If this was the case then you can understand the correctness of NO's decision and perhaps at least understand RP's view of the world that it wasn't a ruck (eventhough with the benefit of hindsight we can see it was). This helps us to at least maintain a constant view of our clarified understanding that you cannot pull a man into a situation which is not a ruck.

......or to clarify:

You just can't do it under any circumstances anyway!;

You are playing a man without the ball (overriding law)(thereby providing support for the of notion of protection for the scrum half position in and around the various breakdown situations before the ball is taken by him.

and the perhaps in the false expectation that by doing so, you might induce him to cause his own infringement, e.g. the generation of an offside line and infringement by one of his own team

 

[ChuckieB]

The Italians defended the fringes of the no-ruck really poorly.

I had wondered if its because they felt if they got too close to the tackle itself - which could mean standing in a totally legal position as if to come through the gate which etc etc etc - they could get grabbed and thus create a ruck which would circumvent what they trying to do. By standing further away this was not possible - but it left blinking great holes to exploit by a pick and drive.

BUT - if you cannot grab an opponent and pull him into contact to create a ruck then this concern is redundant. you can stand pretty close to the tackle and cannot be pulled into contact but remain there for the next phase of defensive duties. In which case "The only reason to enter the tackle area is to pick the ball or at least compete for it" is not entirely correct.

didds

I think the only sensible reason to enter the tackle area is to do just that.

It was a fine line for them, i.e. being able to impede the wider channels without leaving to much space around the breakdown.

The JL penalty decision (wrong though it was based on my view of what RP didn't see or was unsighted by) was probably an added bonus for them!

 

[ChrisR]

I predict that prohibiting players from grasping an opponent who has entered the tackle area (ie. less than an arms length from the tackle) is going to cause more problems that it solves.

Let's see how it plays out and hope that WR doesn't pull more stupid stuff like they did with the non-maul from a line-out.

WR, if you're listening: Take a breath and see where it's going, please.

 

[DocY]

I predict that prohibiting players from grasping an opponent who has entered the tackle area (ie. less than an arms length from the tackle) is going to cause more problems that it solves.

Let's see how it plays out and hope that WR doesn't pull more stupid stuff like they did with the non-maul from a line-out.

WR, if you're listening: Take a breath and see where it's going, please.

I'm not sure - it depends how they word it. Simply saying you can't grasp an opponent who's entered the tackle area would, I agree, be ridiculous (though I'm sure flankers would love it), but there must be a way of wording it to make it sensible.

Perhaps something like "forcing a player who isn't competing for the ball to enter a ruck"

 

[didds]

Perhaps something like "forcing a player who isn't competing for the ball to enter a ruck"

WADR its woolly subjective stuff that that that leads to issues later. This requires a referee to second guess the intentions of a player approaching the ball.

didds

 

[didds]

......or to clarify:

You just can't do it under any circumstances anyway!;

You are playing a man without the ball (overriding law)

I don;t actually disagree but there is already one clear time when it is perfectly legal to play a man without the ball - when creating a ruck

didds

 

[ChuckieB]

We seem to be running the same debate in 2 different threads! A discussion about an aspect of the game and then this poll thread.

Can we get ourselves to the one same place? One seems to be less certain and at a place advocating seeing how this is going to play out and the other is coming to some firm conclusion it has been contrary to the laws all along.

I am an advocate for the latter.

.......whichever thread that is!

 

[didds]

well I had intended this be mereoly the poll and not discussion...

didds

 

[ChuckieB]

I don;t actually disagree but there is already one clear time when it is perfectly legal to play a man without the ball - when creating a ruck

didds

Playing an opponent without the ball. Except in a scrum, ruck or maul, a player who is not in possession of the ball must not hold, push or obstruct an opponent not carrying the ball

Without express permissions within in the ruck formation laws, pretty brief as they are, for such a technical part of the game, it is easy to see how the above will be treated as the overarching law.

 

[ChuckieB]

well I had intended this be mereoly the poll and not discussion...

didds

No disrespect intended. It started to confuse the hell out of me. flitting back and forth.

 

[didds]

both the above fair points ChuckieB

didds

 

[thepercy]

Why grab the opponent, and maybe or maybe not form a ruck, when you could "clear out" an opponent in the tackle zone, creating a ruck?