Collapsed rucks

[Dan Cottrell]

Here is a debate I have been having with one of my colleagues and I am not sure I am on the right tracks here...

My friend writes (coaches and referees at U13)

Hi dan, I have a ruck clearing out question. Situation is team A get tackled, and another team A player takes up a (legal) guard position over the ball. Player B comes in to contest and clears out the guard by pulling him to the ground, or (as in a crusaders drill) using a Judo roll technique. My issue is that as soon as B engages with the guard over the ball, you have a ruck. This is then clearly collapsed by player A, contravening law 16.3 b and c. (The judo roll is specifically a deliberate fall in the ruck as referred to in b).

The reason I ask is we have a few players quite good at it. They do it because they see it on TV and are coached to do it. What raised the issue was my concern over safety. The guard is coached to take up a low position, braced to repel a drive or ruck coming at him. He is therefore highly susceptible to being pulled forward or sideways. And there is then the potential of hitting the head or a neck injury. My worries seem to be backed up by law 16.3, which refers to 'dangerous play' in both cases.

Any comments on this. If I as a ref ping a player for this and shouted collapsed ruck, I think those watching would go bananas. It is a penalty I don't think I have ever seen. On similar topic it is also an offence to deliberately go off your feet in ruck, something that happens all the time in 'clearing out'.

My answer

A much argued point...

Basically, as long as the "clearer" doesn't throw the guard by the neck, it is deemed okay.

Going off the feet is "material" if it effects the ball presentation to either side.

If the player "flies in" or "dives in" then it's dangerous.

If the player clears and both go off their feet, but not over the ball, then fine.


He replies and with some justification because I am only going on what I see in the game and aim to keep safe

Right. So clear collapsing of the ruck is illegal, but deemed OK!

I don't like it. It would be nice to have at least a junior stricter interpretation.

And then he adds


Also, materiality is irrelevant in 16.3 as it refers to dangerous play, not technical interference

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

Another showbiz issue which is tolerated/condoned at the top end and festers its way down the game.

We had a similar discussion about "crocodile/gator/saddle rolls" a year or so ago and I think that most were not happy with it but managed it as best they could. It was generall felt that coaching juniors to do it was not to be encoraged but was almost inevitable given TV.

I posted the Rhodes (Rhodes was cited and banned) incident from S15 where it was probably only the super fiteness of his "victim" which saved him from a catastrophic injury.

At my level it is not uncommon and I do my best to manage it. I don't do juniors anymore but would not like to see it and would be harsher in dealing with it.

See here

 

[Dixie]

Ruck definition: [LAWS]one or more players from each team, who are on their feet, in physical contact, close around the ball on the ground.[/LAWS]

This happens in your correspondent's scenario:

Player B comes in to contest

Having formed the ruck, player B then deliberately collapses it.

Let's then ask why anyone (particularly someone who makes a living from coaching rugby coaches) might respond:

Basically, as long as the "clearer" doesn't throw the guard by the neck, it is deemed okay

There is no guidance from the iRB, the RFU or the RFUW to support this position, even at adult level. There is, however, evidence from the entertainment industry in the form of pro rugby - an environment the writer knows well, it having been his employer. Of course, taking that as a useful guide to U.13, we can also conclude that it's acceptable for looseheads to drive sideways, for scrum halves to feed their back row, and a host of other wholly undesirable actions. Its a bit like pointing to the porno industry as a template for early secondary sex education.

In short - we are stuck with this filth at elite level. Don't encourage it in juniors.

 

[ChrisR]

Poster's answer in the OP:

"Basically, as long as the "clearer" doesn't throw the guard by the neck, it is deemed okay.

Going off the feet (over the ball) is "material" if it effects the ball presentation to either side.

If the player "flies in" or "dives in" then it's dangerous.

If the player clears and both go off their feet, but not over the ball, then fine."

Dan, I agree with your answers. There is no clear prohibition of the gator roll in law. Until there is I think there are only three issues; is it dangerous, did the defender enter through the gate and did it prevent a fair competition for the ball.

However 16.3(b) could be applied (prohibits falling in a ruck) as the roller deliberately falls in the roll to pull his opponent away.

That doesn't mean I approve of it or teach it to my youth players because I don't. There is a risk factor and also it is a potential flash point.

The main reason I don't coach it is simple: It is highly likely to get pinged as you will see from the responses you get on this site.

 

[RobLev]

Poster's answer in the OP:

"Basically, as long as the "clearer" doesn't throw the guard by the neck, it is deemed okay.

Going off the feet (over the ball) is "material" if it effects the ball presentation to either side.

If the player "flies in" or "dives in" then it's dangerous.

If the player clears and both go off their feet, but not over the ball, then fine."

Dan, I agree with your answers. There is no clear prohibition of the gator roll in law. Until there is I think there are only three issues; is it dangerous, did the defender enter through the gate and did it prevent a fair competition for the ball.

However 16.3(b) could be applied (prohibits falling in a ruck) as the roller deliberately falls in the roll to pull his opponent away.

That doesn't mean I approve of it or teach it to my youth players because I don't. There is a risk factor and also it is a potential flash point.

The main reason I don't coach it is simple: It is highly likely to get pinged as you will see from the responses you get on this site.

Why is a gator roll, which necessarily involves the executor going to ground taking his immediate opponent with him, not a clear breach of both 16.3(a) and 16.3(c)? It's also a breach of 10.4(e) (playing a player without the ball). He's not rucking, because rucking is trying to win the ball with the feet, with the proviso that he is permitted in doing so also to hold or push an opponent.

 

[ChrisR]

Why is a gator roll, which necessarily involves the executor going to ground taking his immediate opponent with him, not a clear breach of both 16.3(a) and 16.3(c)? It's also a breach of 10.4(e) (playing a player without the ball). He's not rucking, because rucking is trying to win the ball with the feet, with the proviso that he is permitted in doing so also to hold or push an opponent.

It hinges on whether the players go to ground away from the ruck. If a player joins the ruck and drives his opponent backwards out of the ruck and then goes to ground beyond the ruck we (or maybe just I) would consider the ball fairly won.

I do have an issue with the gator roll because in executing it the roller intentionally goes off his feet but it is away from the ruck.

The IRB have tacitly approved it by not issuing either law changes or directives to the contrary and they have had plenty of opportunity for both.

 

[RobLev]

It hinges on whether the players go to ground away from the ruck.

Serious question; why? The player's illegal action (not endeavouring to stay on his feet, or intentionally collapsing the ruck) takes place in the ruck, even if the landing is away from the ruck. Further, if there are only two players in the ruck, it's conceptually impossible for the players to go to ground away from the ruck - they are the ruck, or were until matey collapsed it.

If a player joins the ruck and drives his opponent backwards out of the ruck and then goes to ground beyond the ruck we (or maybe just I) would consider the ball fairly won.

If he takes the oppo player to ground with him, then he's conceded a PK giving the ball back to the opposition.

I do have an issue with the gator roll because in executing it the roller intentionally goes off his feet but it is away from the ruck.

And hence even more clearly a breach of 10.4(e).

The IRB have tacitly approved it by not issuing either law changes or directives to the contrary and they have had plenty of opportunity for both.

Law change is unnecessary. Or are you saying that the squint feed is legal because the IRB have tacitly approved it because even though we see it all the time in showbiz rugby there have been neither law changes nor (enforced) directives to the contrary?

 

[ChrisR]

Gator roll and squint feed are different animals. 20.6(d) clearly covers squint feed. Not the case with gator roll which is why it is a subject for this forum.

Personally, I'd prefer to see it defined and prohibited but until then I think it's debatable.

 

[Dixie]

There is no clear prohibition of the gator roll in law.

Tell me why this doesn't fit:

[LAWS]10.4(f) 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.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/LAWS]

Since (in this context) this is permissible only in a ruck, where is the uncertainty that pulling this two-man ruck to ground is illegal under all of the 1st 3 parts of 16.3:

[LAWS]16.3(a) Players in a ruck must endeavour to stay on their feet.
Sanction: Penalty kick
(b) A player must not intentionally fall or kneel in a ruck. This is dangerous play.
Sanction: Penalty kick
(c) A player must not intentionally collapse a ruck. This is dangerous play.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/LAWS]

 

[Browner]

Ruck definition: [LAWS]one or more players from each team, who are on their feet, in physical contact, close around the ball on the ground.[/LAWS]

This happens in your correspondent's scenario:

Having formed the ruck, player B then deliberately collapses it.

Let's then ask why anyone (particularly someone who makes a living from coaching rugby coaches) might respond:

There is no guidance from the iRB, the RFU or the RFUW to support this position, even at adult level. There is, however, evidence from the entertainment industry in the form of pro rugby - an environment the writer knows well, it having been his employer. Of course, taking that as a useful guide to U.13, we can also conclude that it's acceptable for looseheads to drive sideways, for scrum halves to feed their back row, and a host of other wholly undesirable actions. Its a bit like pointing to the porno industry as a template for early secondary sex education.

In short - we are stuck with this filth at elite level. Don't encourage it in juniors.

One of the problems in this subject is ..... The coaching that u15/u16 players are getting at county/divisional/EPDG/national level requires these actions .....

Reversing the trickle down from pro prugby 'without' a specific u19 law reference ( yes it could be done....see squeeze ball.....) is akin to what King Canute attempted.

 

[SimonSmith]

Gator roll and squint feed are different animals. 20.6(d) clearly covers squint feed. Not the case with gator roll which is why it is a subject for this forum.

Personally, I'd prefer to see it defined and prohibited but until then I think it's debatable.

USA R have, to a degree.

The bind must be lower than the shoulders.
The player being rolled must have his hands on the ball at the time of the bind.

They have, at least, moved from their initial stance on the subject.

In other news, no-one from USA R talks to me any more

 

[Na Madrai]

'Gator roll is clearly illegal and must always give rise to a penalty.

Dixie's comment 9 clearly clarifies any problem. A player cannot play an opponent without the ball unless in a scrum. maul or ruck. Therefore the connection between the players is either illegal, and hence a penalty, or legal in the form of a ruck and the 'gator roll collapses the Ruck, a penalty.

This is how I always referee irrespective of age or grade.

Just my two bob's worth.



NM

 

[Browner]

There's gator/saddle rolling and then there is this .....:wtf:.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=X2ZqT2vh7GM

:rc: surely ?? I say Eradicate from the game !!

 

[menace]

There's gator/saddle rolling and then there is this .....:wtf:.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=X2ZqT2vh7GM

:rc: surely ?? I say Eradicate from the game !!

He was cited after the game, and SANZAR judiciary gave him 2 weeks holiday (entry was 4 weeks but he wore a suit and said sorry...so reduced 2 weeks)

 

[Browner]

He was cited after the game, and SANZAR judiciary gave him 2 weeks holiday (entry was 4 weeks but he wore a suit and said sorry...so reduced 2 weeks)

Yes, just read further on this ...... Very Interestingly, One of those weeks was a weekend off where he "might/could" have played for his junior club!! :wtf: sounds like a watered down sanction rather than a robust deterrent against this dangerous pro wrestling move .

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...or-nic-white-hit/story-e6frg7o6-1227264862263

I'm surprised the referee & tmo bottled the decision, how obvious does it need to be? ....maybe they are RL converts ?!!?!!! (Sarc)