Interesting one

[Browner]

If the 9 picks up and moves forward , then the players ahead of him ( those that positioned expecting the ruck that never happened ) would ( if the nearest white defender sitting behind the non-ruck moved/bumped into them ) be obstructing the blue 9 from being tackled ??

In other words they would have to move outta the way PDQ ?

 

[Ian_Cook]

I think people are really making heavy weather of this.

If defending team are intent on avoiding a ruck or a maul, then their only weapon is a tackle (and a very quick, accurate tackle at that, lest a maul develops)

If the attacking team simply pick and go after each tackle then tackle by tackle they are going to slowly make ground (yes, perhaps not every sinlge tackle, but on average)

Sooner or later the defenders are going to have to create a ruck, or a maul.

Perhaps so, but,

a. Why don't treams do this all the time anyway if they are so guaranteed of making ground, and

b. sooner or later, as the ball-carrying team are inching their way up-field, tackle by tackle, they are not quite going to get one of them right, and an opposition jackler will pounce, turning over the ball or winning a PK for not releasing. Statistically, the more tackles that take place, the more chance of a turnover happening, if the ball carrying team keep presenting the opposition with turnover opportunities, eventually, the opposition will take one.

 

[Dixie]

a. Why don't treams do this all the time anyway if they are so guaranteed of making ground

I suggest this is because they are very rarely given the opportunity by teams standing off all tackles to avoid creating offside lines. If it became more common, I've no doubt coaches would coach this technique, which would very quickly halt the defensive practice

and

b. sooner or later, as the ball-carrying team are inching their way up-field, tackle by tackle, they are not quite going to get one of them right, and an opposition jackler will pounce, turning over the ball or winning a PK for not releasing. Statistically, the more tackles that take place, the more chance of a turnover happening, if the ball carrying team keep presenting the opposition with turnover opportunities, eventually, the opposition will take one.

And this is an argument against the pick-n-go to wind down the clock, or indeed against the uniform tactic at a long kick-off or after you've taken the ball into your own 22 and so can't kick direct for touch. Yet we still see, at almost all levels, coaches drilling the drive onwards in these situations, to tie in the oppo and give yourself an opportunity to make a long, direct touch finder. So coaches aren't terrified of it - they just haven't got around to it in the context of the still-rare standoff tactic

 

[crossref]

Perhaps so, but,

a. Why don't treams do this all the time anyway if they are so guaranteed of making ground, and

b. sooner or later, as the ball-carrying team are inching their way up-field, tackle by tackle, they are not quite going to get one of them right, and an opposition jackler will pounce, turning over the ball or winning a PK for not releasing. Statistically, the more tackles that take place, the more chance of a turnover happening, if the ball carrying team keep presenting the opposition with turnover opportunities, eventually, the opposition will take one.

it's not a method for gaining ground, it's a method for forcing a ruck or a maul to take place, and for the desired offside lines to form, to get the oppo behind the ball.