So by extension, IMO that would mean any defending player bound in the ruck that wasn't intentionally 'crabbing' also now cannot "play on" and defend when the ruck ends purely because they're now in front of the hindmost feet and would be offside??? That can't be right but that's what the clarification will result as a consequence.
Could this clarification be any more contradictory, confusing and ridiculous?
Why WR had to do anything is beyond me?
As I see it the only way crabbing can be effective a
while player stays bound is if it is slow ball? That's usually only happening if the team in possession for eg is dicking around with caterpillar rucks and taking an age to set up for a box kick.
IMO, I bet if they let crabbing go, which IMO is perfeclty legal by the current laws as writ, then teams in possession will start to clear the ball from the ruck quicker so there won't be time to crab? Wouldn't that be a good thing to get ball back into play quicker?
And if they still want to create slow ball for themselves then they will lose space with legal crabbing?
I reckon they should just leave it alone and see if this strategy will stick or not rather than issuing clarifications about legal plays.