[Law] Law Book cut in half

[_antipodean_]

Crusaders? Was it used in more than one match? The counter is now known, so a one-off occasional disruption is all it might achieve.

That's enough to keep it; there is more than one way to skin a cat and that's part of the great attributes of the game.

Well, not quite. In league a tackle takes place when..

(a) when he is held by one or more opposing players and the ball or the hand or arm holding the ball
comes into contact with the ground.

(b) when he is held by one or more opposing players in such a manner that he can make no further
progress and cannot part with the ball.

(c) when, being held by an opponent, the player makes it evident that he has succumbed to the tackle and wishes to be released in order to play the ball.

(d) when he is lying on the ground and an opponent already grounded places a hand on him.

And in league, a ruck takes place when..?

The abandoned ELV was offside at the tackle. The current ruck requires two players from opposing teams to form a ruck, this is halfway between... I don't think there is anywhere else to go with it if this won't work.

The ELV used in the Mitre 10 cup/ Heartland Championship made a mockery of the central tenet of the game; a contest for possession.

This sounds like a solution to a problem entirely of their own making. The spectacle of rugby would be greatly improved if players were forced to stay on their feet.

 

[Dixie]

I read about this on Friday/Saturday, here

http://www.punditarena.com/rugby/rmurphy/england-opposed-law-change-redefine-ruck/


...

Two of the changes are good ones IMO

1. ...

2. Only one player (attacker or defender) will be needed to form a ruck. So as soon as a jackler arrives and goes for the ball, a ruck is formed and offside lines appear

Ian, you may have more information that I do. However, text from the link you gave as your source says:

Under the proposed new version of the law, an attacker or defender on their feet over the ball now create a ruck*and therefore, the offside line. It currently requires both.

Based on that, the text shown in red in your post appears superfluous. As soon as the jackler arrives, a ruck is formed. Unless there is another fairly major tweak to Law 16.4(b), then the jackler is prevented from handling in the ruck his own arrival formed. We need a new Law 23 - the Law of Unintended Consequences.

 

[Camquin]

Rucks as we would like to see them:



Rucks we actually get:



So how do you write a law to cope?

 

[Treadmore]

Rucks we actually get:

View attachment 3587

So how do you write a law to cope?

It seems you get what you allow, however well-intentioned. Law 16.3 and video examples therein give you the tools to cope with what's in that image, however it arose.

 

[didds]

Rucks as we would like to see them:

View attachment 3586

Rucks we actually get:

View attachment 3587

So how do you write a law to cope?

You could do worse than implement the existing laws correctly for a start and penalise players off their feet. What a radical idea!

Didds

 

[Dickie E]

You could do worse than implement the existing laws correctly for a start and penalise players off their feet. What a radical idea!

Didds

Its the concept of the jackler that causes the pile up. Player goes in low to jackle ball => opposition players try to get underneath him to clean out or over the top causing a general collapse.

Not that I would want to get rid of the jackle - it is the only real way the opposition can have a crack at a turnover.

 

[FlipFlop]

You could implement the current laws:
1) Shoulders above hips
2) Stay on feet
3) Tackler to roll away
4) Tackled player to roll away

Then arriving players from both teams can try and win the ball with their feet. They could try and "ruck" the ball back.

Isn't that what the law actually implies is supposed to happen?

As soon as you allow anyone to remain on the floor, near the ball , (i.e. the tackled player these days), you create a barrier to prevent the ball being stolen. And that means players have to use hands to steal the ball, so shoulder go down, so we end up with players more and more likely to go off feet and create a mess.

The other issue you see too often is: Tackle happens, defence go to drive over, tackled player then re-plays the ball, and it is allowed.

 

[didds]

well what happens is player is tackled, and before tackler has time to release and tackler to roll away the jackler is on the ball so whilst the tackler may be able to release the tackled player is now trapped between body and arms. He can;t roll out cos that is where the ball is with the jackler's hands, so his only exit is sideways which isn't always possible. Meanwhile the jackler may be suporting his own weight, but certainly has shoulders below hips and the whole thing just gets messy.

didds

 

[thepercy]

Ian, you may have more information that I do. However, text from the link you gave as your source says:

Under the proposed new version of the law, an attacker or defender on their feet over the ball now create a ruck*and therefore, the offside line. It currently requires both.

Based on that, the text shown in red in your post appears superfluous. As soon as the jackler arrives, a ruck is formed. Unless there is another fairly major tweak to Law 16.4(b), then the jackler is prevented from handling in the ruck his own arrival formed. We need a new Law 23 - the Law of Unintended Consequences.

The relevant GLT says "...A player on their feet may use their hands to pick up the ball as long as this is immediate. As soon as an opposition player arrives no hands can be used."

 

[Pinky]

Rucks we actually get:

View attachment 3587

So how do you write a law to cope?

That is a mess, and not just the ruck. Both teams in red shorts and why would anyone choose to wear a scrum cap that looks just like the ball!

 

[didds]

more to the point why does anybody MAKE a scrum cap that looks like ball? And why does WR give it a stamp of acceptance?


didds

 

[VM75]

Oh dear, oh no....

Another step toward the reunion of the codes into a LeagueStyle game, possession steals are becoming less and less ! so once this evolves further & you can't realistically challenge for possession at the tackle the game will then need an enforced turnover. Without cultivating the SmashDislodge challenge how exactly will opponents take possession? or will we be reliant on knock ons only??

#dismayed

 

[VM75]

I suspect it's a knee jerk reaction to the England Italy game ?

I doubt that, more likely the Cheifs exploitation of the 'loophole' started such thinking ages ago.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Oh dear, oh no....

Another step toward the reunion of the codes into a LeagueStyle game, possession steals are becoming less and less ! so once this evolves further & you can't realistically challenge for possession at the tackle the game will then need an enforced turnover. Without cultivating the SmashDislodge challenge how exactly will opponents take possession? or will we be reliant on knock ons only??

#dismayed

He's the thing that you have to keep in mind.

In the contest for possession, a balance needs to be struck between making the contest fair, so that a really excellent fetcher/pilferer will be able to turn the ball over IF he picks and chooses the right occasions, while allowing the team with the ball to have continuity of possession so that they can play constructively.

If you are wishing for that contest to be evenly balanced, so that the pilferers have a 50/50 chance to turn the ball over, then be careful what you wish for., because it will be Back to the Future; when your modified De Lorean DMC-12 gets to 88 mph and the Flux Capacitor kicks in, you will arrive in 2009, a time when Rugby was known for its endless games of aerial ping pong... up to 150 aimless kicks per game (one kick about every 30 seconds)

The reason this happens is that when players and coaches know they have only a 50/50 chance of retaining possession, they will avoid taking the ball into contact. They will kick it away, back their defensive line and wait for a mistake to capitalise on. Teams found that to play winning rugby, it was best to not have the ball at all. Winning teams often had less possession, less territory, and made less passes, run metres and line-breaks than their losing opponent.

This is was a borefest frankly, and I would not like to see the game go back there.

 

[SimonSmith]

True Ian.

But there is still a balance that needs to be struck, and I think they've overswung so far as to disadvantage the defence too much. I'm not sure I see where the poach is going to come from now.

A lot of these changes strike me as unnecessary and driven by the way the game is handled at the Elite level.

How many of us, on a week to week basis, have problems that these changes will fix?

 

[Ian_Cook]

I don't see how these Laws will seriously affect the breakdown turnover rate.

Currently, how often do we actually see the tackler get to his feet quickly enough to play the ball from whatever direction he is facing? Most times, he is cleaned out or the ruck forms before he has the chance to get hands on the ball anyway; its the arriving jackler who gets most of the turnovers (either by a straight pilfer or by a PK for the tackled player not releasing). The arriving player seems to be completely unaffected by the changes... the first player to the tackle is still allowed hands on the ball (as before) and opposing arriving players would have to go though the gate regardless of the quicker appearance of the ruck offside line. This offside line formation is only going to affect those who want to hang back and wait on the wrong side; and although I concede that it will make defending a line beak more difficult than currently, its still not nigh on impossible the way it was with offside at the tackle.

 

[Dickie E]

How many of us, on a week to week basis, have problems that these changes will fix?

Currently refs like me see a player on the wrong side of the tackle and think "Farck! Was he the tackler and did he go to ground before getting to his feet and competing? Can't remember! Farck!". Gotta help that

 

[Dickie E]

And why does WR give it a stamp of acceptance?

its not the WR stamp I'd be worried about

 

[VM75]

But there is still a balance that needs to be struck, and I think they've overswung so far as to disadvantage the defence too much. I'm not sure I see where the poach is going to come from now.

Exactly.

It's been a slow evolution toward ... that seems to have been given a jolt of acceleration. How many possession steals in RL ?