Flooding the Ruck

[Patrick]

Do you guys know what 'flooding' is? Sometimes called Flooding the Ruck.

I typed a much longer questions but the site lost it and now I'm just pissed off.

So, this is more of a test and if it works, I'll type the whole question again....

 

[Browner]

Do you guys know what 'flooding' is? Sometimes called Flooding the Ruck.

Essentially its 'an overload of numbers'

Can be used for many reasons, in attack or defence .....
A couple of Example uses ....

Attack ( virtually guaranteeing quick possession for your team )
Defence ( virtually guaranteeing slower possession to your oppo)

Any use?

 

[Patrick]

Thanks for the quick reply - I guess it's working.

I'm a ref so I'm asking from the point of trying to figure out what the call would be other then 'flooding' in the same way 'sealing off' isn't a real call.

Here is what's in our Guidelines (USA Rugby, 2014 - 2015 Game Management Guidelines):

'Players may position themselves at the tackle to prepare for contact withopposition players, however they have to be near/over the ball. They may not
be too far ahead of the ball, i.e. “flooding” the space in front of the ball. PK'

It's one of those things that looks wrong but I can't wrap my mind around EXACTLY why it's wrong and wanted some learned thoughts.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Thanks for the quick reply - I guess it's working.

I'm a ref so I'm asking from the point of trying to figure out what the call would be other then 'flooding' in the same way 'sealing off' isn't a real call.

Here is what's in our Guidelines (USA Rugby, 2014 - 2015 Game Management Guidelines):

'Players may position themselves at the tackle to prepare for contact withopposition players, however they have to be near/over the ball. They may not
be too far ahead of the ball, i.e. “flooding” the space in front of the ball. PK'

It's one of those things that looks wrong but I can't wrap my mind around EXACTLY why it's wrong and wanted some learned thoughts.

There is nothing wrong or illegal with flooding the ruck, provided all players join legally and remain legal. Its analogous to the move the Canadians (?) use to use at a lineout where as soon as the maul formed after the lineout has moved over the line of touch (and therefore, the lineout is over) the rest of the team would join the maul in a 15 man shove to get it over the line.

However, flooding the ruck is not without its risks. If a team chooses to do this, by joining enough players so that 12 of their 15 players are rucking, and they don't win the ball, they could to be in serious trouble if their opposition manage to clear it, they will be completely outnumbered in the backs.

 

[OB..]

Here is what's in our Guidelines (USA Rugby, 2014 - 2015 Game Management Guidelines):

'Players may position themselves at the tackle to prepare for contact withopposition players, however they have to be near/over the ball. They may not
be too far ahead of the ball, i.e. “flooding” the space in front of the ball. PK'

That seems to be referring to players near to the tackle who are affected by "the gate". There is no offside line, so other players can be anywhere they like.

 

[Patrick]

Uggg - I'm totally failing at describing my issue! My fault.

I typed a long explanation and hit submit and it was gone.

Unfortunately, I have a whisky tasting event I'm committed to attending this evening and need to leave. If I can see the screen when I get home, I'll start over.

Sorry for wasting your time guys.

Patrick

 

[buff]

I think what our whiskey tasting friend is referring to is attacking players flooding the area ahead of the ball and preventing the defenders from contesting the ruck. We'll see in the morning, depending on the state of his head!

 

[Guyseep]

ll.

Here is what's in our Guidelines (USA Rugby, 2014 - 2015 Game Management Guidelines):

'Players may position themselves at the tackle to prepare for contact with opposition players, however they have to be near/over the ball. They may not
be too far ahead of the ball, i.e. “flooding” the space in front of the ball. PK'

The guidelines seem to be referring to the players being offside and obstructing. When they mention "they have to be near/over the ball. They may not be too far ahead of the ball, i.e. “flooding” the space in front of the ball." they are talking about players entering the ruck legally but then advancing so far ahead that they are now beyond the tackle area/ruck and then just standing there and preventing or slowing opposing players from counter rucking. The offending players are either offside or obstructing. I think the term "taking up space" has been used to quickly explain the offense.

 

[Dixie]

The guidelines seem to be referring to the players being offside and obstructing. When they mention "they have to be near/over the ball. They may not be too far ahead of the ball, i.e. “flooding” the space in front of the ball." they are talking about players entering the ruck legally but then advancing so far ahead that they are now beyond the tackle area/ruck and then just standing there and preventing or slowing opposing players from counter rucking. The offending players are either offside or obstructing. I think the term "taking up space" has been used to quickly explain the offense.

This ^^^^^^^

 

[ChrisR]

"Flooding the ruck". Snappy, but misleading, term. "Obstructing in the tackle area" would be more accurate.

If players arriving at the tackle set up in front of the ball, instead of over it, then they are obstructing. If they set up over the ball before the opponents engage then they are preparing to form a ruck so no problem.

That's what I think they mean.

 

[Patrick]

My head's only a little woozy.

Last night's list (only showing you guys because most of you are Europeans):
Macallan Gran Reserva 1982
Macallan 18 year
Springbank 12 year
Glendronach 15 year
Clynelish 14 year 1998
Laphroaig 15 Year Signatory Refill Sherry Butt Cask Strength
Arran 17 Year Sherry Hogshead

On to the business at hand,

I think what our whiskey tasting friend is referring to is attacking players flooding the area ahead of the ball and preventing the defenders from contesting the ruck. We'll see in the morning, depending on the state of his head!

EXACTLY Buff!

So, some of the specific questions would be:
- How far in front of the ball is too far?
- How far in front of the tackler (behind his back) is too far?
- If unbound by a team mate, is he then obstructing?
- If unbound and on the back side of the tackled player, is he playing an opponent without a ball?

Inquiring minds want to know.

By the way, all this (and several more to come...) stems from all this bullshit coaches are teaching their kids / young men / adults because of what they see on TV. So Cal reffing is a mess right now.

I'm using this site and a couple other resources to clean up the breakdown in my neck of the woods.

Thanks,
Patrick

 

[ChrisR]

Wot, no Virginia Gentlemen? A fine libation, and only $14 at the ABC.

At the tackle the ball should be your reference point.

Over the ball you are prepared to defend your possession in a ruck. Over the ball includes where the ball is under the hindmost foot.

Ball behind you then you're obstructing if you engage an opponent coming in thru the gate.

Does that make sense?

It's not all coming from TV. There is a lot of Level II coach certification in Cal right now and coaches tend to pick up from each other and it's not always well understood.

USA Rugby suffers from a disease I call ruckitis, that is every contact/tackle ends in a ruck. Note Saturdays NZ vs. USA match.
Count the number of offloads at the tackle by the US. Very few compared to NZ. There are several reasons for this but one of them is because it's ingrained in them from youth/uni play.

Set the ball long and the first support player gets over it and that puts the ball at the ankles of the support player. So far, so good.
Then, if they are engaged by a defender a ruck ensues and they are in good shape to retain possession. Where it goes astray is that they are also coached to be pro-active and engage incoming players beyond the ball. Now they are obstructing.

In the 80's (?) this was allowed as 'scatter rucking'. Not sure when it died (OB?) but it was the rage for a bit.

 

[beckett50]

Uggg - I'm totally failing at describing my issue! My fault.

I typed a long explanation and hit submit and it was gone.

Unfortunately, I have a whisky tasting event I'm committed to attending this evening and need to leave. If I can see the screen when I get home, I'll start over.

Sorry for wasting your time guys.

Patrick

Hi Patrick and welcome. Hope the whiskey tasting event went well and that the Pelican didn't get lost

In essence, what you describe is one team advancing ahead of the tacked player/ball/tackle area to protect it because the opposition are too slow to arrive. There is nothing in Law to prevent this, but perhaps USA Rugby are looking to defuse potential flash points by issuing this guideline? Have you raised your questions with the SoCal hierarchy?

In reality, if situation occurs the ball carrier's #9 should have used the time to get the ball away.

If i were in your shoes I wouldn't get too hung up with the semantics.

 

[ChrisR]

"In essence, what you describe is one team advancing ahead of the tacked player/ball/tackle area to protect it because the opposition are too slow to arrive. There is nothing in Law to prevent this"

Try Law 10.1(d) Blocking the ball

If a player over the ball gets engaged by an opponent a ruck is formed. OK in my book.

If a player is ahead of the ball then he is blocking.

 

[Patrick]

Look, here's the thing - and I mean what I'm about to say in the most informative way - everything is important in So Cal rugby - 'getting hung up' is all about how you defend yourself amongst your peers here.

This is my 5th season of reffing (10th of coaching and played for about 15 years) and about half of the refs in my society are open to dialog and the others have no interest in changing their ways - NOT ONE BIT.

I do get hug up about it and everything about rugby - I see a real destruction of the sport in my own backyard due to the lack of backbone and some level of adherence to the laws.

Coaches routinely crush reffs if they don't like a call AFTER THE FACT.

Friends, GOOD friends think a tackled player must be 'held down' according to the law. When I ask them to show me the words 'held down' together in the laws they are SURE it's there until I show them it's not.

Yes, IRB is part of the problem - the heading of each law is labeled 'definition' when it should be labeled 'overview' or 'summery' - anything but 'definition' which completely contradicts every law that comes after it. AND, to make matters worse, many coaches (and reffs) only read the part in the green box and skip on.

The point of me jumping in HERE and NOW is to fill my gun with well intended bullets. The breakdowns are a total mess here and nobody is willing to stand up and say anything.

Well, shit, I am.

And, I'm counting on you guys to bolster my point or tell me when I'm wrong (and why).

So far, seems like I've found the right place.

- Patrick

 

[SimonSmith]

Do not, under any circumstances, use the Fbook page.

Far better, open advice here. Also, not only is it generally right - it's practical.

Diatribes about USA R are available, free, upon request. You are not alone

 

[Dickie E]

Flooding the Ruck:

 

[Patrick]

Do not, under any circumstances, use the Fbook page.

Far better, open advice here. Also, not only is it generally right - it's practical.

Diatribes about USA R are available, free, upon request. You are not alone

Yes, you are not the only person to tell me that - thanks for reiterating that point.

So far, I love this site and how concise and specific you guys are (siting laws, examples, etc.).

Yes, very funny about USR - we work with what we got - some days I feel like USR is trying to shoot itself in BOTH feet.

THAT being said, I also see some really bright pennies in there - change in rugby, as a whole, is NEVER pretty but I see some willingness to at least speak up.

You know what they say - time and pressure changes EVERYTHING.

Uggg - I'm watching the Mid-term elections and it's not pretty. Back to the depression....

- Patrick

 

[Patrick]

Flooding the Ruck:

View attachment 3063

Umm, no, this is a), not a ruck and b) not flooding what is not a ruck.

Looks a hell of a lot like a bald, white guy getting strangled.

I wonder if there is a law about that.....

 

[colesy]

Umm, no, this is a), not a ruck and b) not flooding what is not a ruck.

Looks a hell of a lot like a bald, white guy getting strangled.

I wonder if there is a law about that.....

It's Dickie E's little joke Patrick. Look at the name on the jersey of the white 10.