No-one has ever died, ended up in a wheelchair or been seriously injured from a few tag marks on the back or arms from being rucked, unlike from a collapsed scrum or a badly executed tackle.
The objection to boots on bodies was largely a nanny state, PC over-reaction in the mid 1990's because in some quarters it was thought to be not a good look for the game; Mummies and Daddies might not like it when they see Little Johnny being raked back with a boot, and they might be dissuaded from allowing him to play with the other boys as a result.
I don't think exaggeration etc helps your case at all.
If you can't ruck ball killers out of the way, then I advocate dragging them out by their arms or legs or whatever bit you can get hold of them by (except the head and neck of course). Unlike rucking players, dragging them out of a ruck perfectly legal.
(OB.. - yes, yes we know about Ken Catchpole and Colin Meads. That was a Maul not a Ruck, and it IS illegal to drag a player out of a Maul)
I don't see that the difference between a maul and a ruck mattered to Ken Catchpole. It was dangerous play whichever way you slice it.
One of my principal objections is that it means players are taking the law into their own hands, and they are not properly qualified to do so. A referee might judge that a player is trapped; a player doesn't care, he just see an opportunity.
I don't expect we will ever agree on this, so I will just repeat that I see no value at all to the game in letting players use boots on other players.
