Crocodile Roll at Under 19

[crossref]

That's because it's NOT a law change.

well, the Law in the 2016 book is different from the Law in the 2015 book, so obviously it IS a change!

I agree that it doesn't make any practical difference though, as it merely brings the definition in the Law into line with established practice,

 

[Phil E]

well, the Law in the 2016 book is different from the Law in the 2015 book, so obviously it IS a change!
,

If I remove a comma for the next law book is that a law change then, because it's different?
The law hasn't changed, they have just made it clearer.

Clarification maybe, change, no.

 

[ChrisR]

In my experience crocodile rolls are used a response to defenders 'resting' on the tackled player, such that it's impossible to get low enough to compete for the ball. Can't go under, can't go round, got to go over... since rucking with the studs is no longer acceptable, it's become accepted as a response to sealing off in those border cases where the ref won't whistle.

Rich, your post sounds like you're excusing the actions of the roller because the opponent is infringing and the referee isn't enforcing the law. Slippery slope.

 

[Camquin]

This is getting off-topic - and I would be happy for a moderator to move it.

PhilE

They have not simply removed a comma, they have completely reworded the law.
Admittedly it presumably now says what the secret memo said - though I was never party to that memo.

Unfortunately I still do not believe it actually says what they meant.

A throw forward occurs when a player throws or passes the ball forward, i.e, if the arms of the player passing the ball move towards the opposing team’s dead ball line.

So on a pedantic reading every pass on the run - including one thrown directly towards the player's own dead ball line - is forward as the player's arms will be moving closer to the opponents dead ball line, due to their body moving closer to the dead ball line.

Which would bring the game to a staggering halt.

I think they meant something line:

The ball must only released in a direction behind a line running through the ball carrier parallel with the dead ball line and moving with the player (in open play this line is the offside line for players on the ball carrier's team).

Note

Due to the speed with which the player is moving toward the opponents dead ball line, the ball can be released backwards and yet land, or be touched by an opponent, closer to the opponents dead ball line that the point of release.

But I cannot say I am happy with that exact wording.

 

[TheBFG]

To execute a roll the player must intentionally go off their feet therefore violating 16.3(a).

I used to support rolling as a valid method of clearing out but don't anymore. I do support grasping the opponent from the chest down and driving them off the ruck if they can stay on their feet. Not easy to do but if the ops get very low over the ball it can be the best option.

What about dealing with the first offence? Head and shoulders below hips! If we didn't allow that to happen the crocodile roll wouldn't be required???

 

[didds]

This is the nub of it isn;t it though?

I am sure you guys don;t really have to deal with crocodile rolls [1] as you provide via the laws a true and open contest for the ball.
Once again the elite levels by not simply using the l;aws as writ , allow situations to develop that have no legal counter, so illegal counters have to be invented to continue a contest.


[1] Caveat: unfortunately I am sure what you do see is players using elite level "solutions" as players see and copy the elites, even when the technique used isn't probably even needed as a reasonable contest via normal means is still available.

didds

 

[thepercy]

That's because it's NOT a law change.

It's not a law change, they just changed the wording of the law.

 

[crossref]

It's not a law change, they just changed the wording of the law.

either way I think it merited a green highlight to indicate a difference from 2015 Law Book

It would be interesting to look back at other examples and see if they highlighted -- for instance when they introduced the Law that specifically allowed hand-offs a few years ago, that was very similar : it was a change in the Law Book, but on-field nothing changed, as it brought the Laws into line with accepted practice.
Did they green-highlight that change?
OB.. ????

 

[Ian_Cook]

either way I think it merited a green highlight to indicate a difference from 2015 Law Book

It would be interesting to look back at other examples and see if they highlighted -- for instance when they introduced the Law that specifically allowed hand-offs a few years ago, that was very similar : it was a change in the Law Book, but on-field nothing changed, as it brought the Laws into line with accepted practice.
Did they green-highlight that change?
OB.. ????

It was first written in the 2011 Laws

Hand-off was added to the General Definitions on page 5 of that issue...

"Hand-off: An action taken by a ball carrier to fend off an opponent by using the palm of
the hand."

This was NOT highlighted

Also a change was made to Law 7

[LAWS]LAW 7 PLAYING A MATCH
A match is started by a kick-off.
After the kick-off, any player who is onside may take the ball and run with it.

A ball carrier may hand-off an opponent.[/LAWS]

This WAS highlighted

Bloody 12 year old proof-readers!!

 

[Ian_Cook]

What about dealing with the first offence? Head and shoulders below hips! If we didn't allow that to happen the crocodile roll wouldn't be required???

You are talking about 16.2(a) right?

[LAWS]16.2 (a) All players forming, joining or taking part in a ruck must have their heads and shoulders no lower than their hips.
Sanction: Free Kick [/LAWS]

Well, that is a Ruck Law. It doesn't apply to the first arriving player at a tackle, the jackler, so he cannot be FK just for being in that position.

You could argue that the moment an opponent grabs him, its a ruck, and he's now "forming" and/or "taking part" in the ruck and is liable to FK, but IMO that would be somewhat unfair. We insist that jacklers play the ball on their feet, unsupported, and since human arms are shorter than human legs, having head and shoulders above hips while grabbing a ball on the ground under those imposed conditions simply is not going to happen.

Also, for the overall playing of the game, this would make a breakdown turnover almost impossible to get, and we end up with no contesting of the breakdown, a precession of possession and defenders lining the trenchesl

 

[Rushforth]

Rushforth, you keep harping on, flogging the same dead horse over and over, and it will always be to no avail.

...

Momentum is not new, its just new to you!

Ian_Cook, I said I agreed with you two years ago, having asked the opinion of another referee called John. My apologies to you for baiting again, and John said he could understand why my father would have a different opinion (being also a cricket umpire). My apologies for the brief derail.

But to be a bit more serious, the reason I stopped playing was "the hit". As a beginning referee I had to (almost) ignore skew put-ins at the scrum, five years ago. As a hooker turned loose-head turned tight-head did I care about crooked feeds? Slightly more than I did about forward passes, I can tell you that much! As a referee, and here I believe we agree, I care about safety first. Doing what everybody else does comes second, as long as it involves continuity of play and fair contest. Then come the Laws, which as far as I am concerned it is the responsibility of players to know.

(And you know as well as I do that no Rugby Union referee in a perfect position to see the ball passed over the try line from a metre out before it is caught a metre past is going to watch the ball all the same. Haha!)

 

[Pegleg]

I think this thread is missing the point : in terms of the Laws, crocodile rolls ARE banned, clearly they breach 16.3(a) and 16.3(c)

the question is why don't we enforce those Laws any more ?

That could be re-written thus:


In terms of the Laws, &%^48^$&£ is banned, clearly they breach Law x, y or z.

The question is why don't we enforce those Laws any more ?

Scrum feeds, hands in rucks, obstruction "fixing" a defender etc etc etc. Of course some will argue. "no one strikes agains the head" "we allow it to make a game" etc etc etc. We if that is so. Change the laws!

 

[Pegleg]

In my experience crocodile rolls are used a response to defenders 'resting' on the tackled player, such that it's impossible to get low enough to compete for the ball. Can't go under, can't go round, got to go over... since rucking with the studs is no longer acceptable, it's become accepted as a response to sealing off in those border cases where the ref won't whistle.

So part of the fault lies with US! WE gfail to deal so players and coaches find legal OR illegal ways to deal with our approach.

 

[Rich_NL]

Rich, your post sounds like you're excusing the actions of the roller because the opponent is infringing and the referee isn't enforcing the law. Slippery slope.

It's not my intention to excuse, merely explain. I'd rather avoid a dangerous situation than penalise someone for causing it; all the more so if the player then feels frustrated and disadvantaged because they had no other realistic opportunity to contest.

If we don't want crocodile rolls and they arise from illegal play, we have the opportunity to nip the problem in the bud.

 

[OB..]

It's not my intention to excuse, merely explain. I'd rather avoid a dangerous situation than penalise someone for causing it; all the more so if the player then feels frustrated and disadvantaged because they had no other realistic opportunity to contest.

If we don't want crocodile rolls and they arise from illegal play, we have the opportunity to nip the problem in the bud.

The game inevitably evolves faster than the laws This happens piecemeal, leaving referees in an awkward position: join the bandwagon or not? WR moves with the speed of a tectonic plate, so the best we can hope for initially is local agreement on which way to go, unsatisfactory though that is.

 

[crossref]

The game inevitably evolves faster than the laws This happens piecemeal, leaving referees in an awkward position: join the bandwagon or not? WR moves with the speed of a tectonic plate, so the best we can hope for initially is local agreement on which way to go, unsatisfactory though that is.

I think WR move quite quickly in the pro-world, I get the impression that they work out quite quickly how referees should deal with new trends -- but the cascading to the rest of the world is slow/patchy, and based too heavily on a cascade/secret email type process

 

[OB..]

I think WR move quite quickly in the pro-world, I get the impression that they work out quite quickly how referees should deal with new trends -- but the cascading to the rest of the world is slow/patchy, and based too heavily on a cascade/secret email type process

I think they are also aware of the difference between TV international rugby and the local park.
In part that accounts for the instructions they give (or don't give) to international referees.

 

[ChrisR]

The crocodile roll from my perspective as a coach.

Continuity in contact (that is maintaining/losing possession of the ball) is determined by two critical factors:

Timing of the support players to the contact area and their technique in receiving, protecting or challenging for the ball.

Technique is the easy part as it can be taught in small group drills that can isolate the elements of the skill.

Timing (and I include angles as part of this) is not. It requires a progression from small sided games to full 15s with the focus on the player arriving at the contact area at the right time/speed ready to take the right action. This is true for defenders as well as attackers.

One of the weaknesses of the US Eagles has been the propensity for players to get (or be left) isolated and the inability to recognize the opportunities for offload (which means they suffer from "ruckitis").

In the USA, where most players take up the game in college, developing support skills may be the most critical and time consuming part of practice. To have this commitment in time and effort negated by an illegal action such as the crocodile roll is truly frustrating.

If players are allowed to arrive late to the ruck and take players out illegally then why would a coach bother investing in developing technically skilled players who get there first.

To condone and teach the crocodile roll to young players is truly counter to the development of the game.

Please excuse the long winded sermon.

 

[Rich_NL]

The game inevitably evolves faster than the laws This happens piecemeal, leaving referees in an awkward position: join the bandwagon or not? WR moves with the speed of a tectonic plate, so the best we can hope for initially is local agreement on which way to go, unsatisfactory though that is.

Agreed when it comes to new tactics that exploit grey areas; less so if it's a development caused by refs ignoring laws because "everybody does it these days", though.

 

[OB..]

Agreed when it comes to new tactics that exploit grey areas; less so if it's a development caused by refs ignoring laws because "everybody does it these days", though.

I can remember the days when the ball was carefully rolled out of the scrum before the scrum half picked it up. I don't think there is a real distinction. Both gradually get accepted - or not. We get the same problem in both cases.