Not contesting the ruck

[lawsons]

What are your thoughts on this:

http://www.the42.ie/analysis-chiefs-super-rugby-tactics-2013507-Mar2015/

Thanks
simon

 

[Phil E]

Interesting article.

I would expect World Rugby to come out with a clarification, as they did for not contesting at the lineout.

It's negative play and contrary to everything rugby is trying to achieve (space and running room).

I anticipate that it will die out as a tactic by next season.

 

[didds]

Negative play? As opposed to players off their feet/sealing off and whatever else that effectively prevents defenders from any meaningful contest for possession post breaksown?

The tactic above is totally within the laws of the game. Whereas I don't care what weasel words are used to justify players putting their hands on the ground beyond the ball, with shoulders lower than hips, players flopping all over the ball etc etc etc - that isn't within the laws as writ.

If "we" don't like what "we" see then i suggest the better method is to create a situation whereby rucks are genuine contests again, ratjher than legislate against a tactic that is a reaction to the fact that rmost "rucks" cannot be contested in any meaningful manner.

Keep players on their feet and we are a long way towards that goal.

First principle of play anyone?

didds

 

[OB..]

Jackling was intended to improve the game by increasing the opportunities for a turnover. It has certainly complicated matters. Time to re-evaluate?

 

[Blue Smartie]

If we look at the non-formation of mauls at the lineout the instructions coming down are that it is contrary to the spirit as there is no contest for the ball. As such we should look at prior offences (such as leaving the lineout early) and 'accidental' offsides rather than 'undeserved' penalties.

Without the construct of the lineout with its particular offside laws I'm not sure that there are so many get outs to reduce the impact (as opposed to make illegal).

Of course we may revisit the ELV offside line at a tackle...

 

[RobLev]

If we look at the non-formation of mauls at the lineout the instructions coming down are that it is contrary to the spirit as there is no contest for the ball. As such we should look at prior offences (such as leaving the lineout early) and 'accidental' offsides rather than 'undeserved' penalties.

Without the construct of the lineout with its particular offside laws I'm not sure that there are so many get outs to reduce the impact (as opposed to make illegal).

Of course we may revisit the ELV offside line at a tackle...

I don't understand this argument. It is entirely true of course that the lineout tactic of the jumper immediately handing back the ball to another player while the rest of that player's lineout gathers round in a proto-maul prevents any possible contest for the ball, but I'm not sure why not penalising that tactic for what it is - obstruction - and instead penalising clever play by those confronted with that illegal tactic improves the situation.

 

[menace]

In the Brumbies example - I did find it ironic that they classified this not being a ruck...looks like 2 players in 'contact' to me? Walsh just missed it I'd say.

View attachment 3206

I think the Chiefs ploy is risky...because a ruck can form quickly by a simple touch.

 

[didds]

If we look at the non-formation of mauls at the lineout the instructions coming down are that it is contrary to the spirit as there is no contest for the ball.

But there often is no meaningful contest available at a lineout "maul". If the sack isn't on/works then that's it.

Why should a team engage a maul they cannot win because there is no way to stop it? Seems to me the WR law makers are more disgruntled that coaches and players can find a way around their ill conceived at times attempts to make the game work "their way".

didds

 

[didds]

I think the Chiefs ploy is risky...because a ruck can form quickly by a simple touch.

Not a full bind? I appreciate that the working says "in contact", but an elbow knocking an opponent, or a hand laid on very briefly constitutes is what is meant by that?

didds

 

[Browner]

Sources tell us that SANZAR officials have contacted the Kiwi franchise in relation to this tactic, outlining their beliefs that it is against the Spirit of the Game.

Interesting .

Remember,

http://www.irbofficiating.com/?module=1&section=15&subsection=72
http://laws.worldrugby.org/index.php?charter=all

 

[matty1194]

My thoughts after watching this and reading the artucle are actually in support of the Chiefs and there coaches and players, god knows how many players around the World don't understand the Laws, yet the Chiefs have managed to use the Laws legally and actually got players to buy into it, understand and play to a set piece game plan.

We applaud teams's options and use of the ball/field in attack but now certain areas of the game/media are appalled by the Chiefs use of these non-committment tactics at the the breakdown.

People cant have it both ways. Applaud D as much as A.

 

[Browner]

My thoughts after watching this and reading the artucle are actually in support of the Chiefs and there coaches and players, god knows how many players around the World don't understand the Laws, yet the Chiefs have managed to use the Laws legally and actually got players to buy into it, understand and play to a set piece game plan.

We applaud teams's options and use of the ball/field in attack but now certain areas of the game/media are appalled by the Chiefs use of these non-committment tactics at the the breakdown.

People cant have it both ways. Applaud D as much as A.

I get that matty, but the rapid evolution of this code into 'uncontestedness' seems so distant from the game I knew. 'netball defending' no thanks matey, I hope something forces this development to be eradicated.

 

[John3822]

There have been a number of discussion about this tactic on various forums. I may be being a bit simple here having proposed this idea elsewhere and got no takers.
Why don't the side in possession of the ball simply pick and drive. Ball carrier makes contact with the first defender and goes straight to ground. Player in support of ball carrier then makes contact with defender over the ball, ruck formed(?) Everybody behind the ruck e.g in this instance Liam Messom is offside.
Does this work?
Thoughts?

 

[Browner]

There have been a number of discussion about this tactic on various forums. I may be being a bit simple here having proposed this idea elsewhere and got no takers.
Why don't the side in possession of the ball simply pick and drive. Ball carrier makes contact with the first defender and goes straight to ground. Player in support of ball carrier then makes contact with defender over the ball, ruck formed(?) Everybody behind the ruck e.g in this instance Liam Messom is offside.
Does this work?
Thoughts?

9 might be caught with an "access to him obstructed" PK, .......Let's wait and see, TBContinued ............

 

[menace]

Not a full bind? I appreciate that the working says "in contact", but an elbow knocking an opponent, or a hand laid on very briefly constitutes is what is meant by that?

didds

I ask you...in the normal sense of the word is touching someone are you making 'contact'?

Additionally the laws are very specific to use the word 'bind' for the formation of the maul, so if they intended there be a bind to form a ruck then surely they would have used bind? Or they could have even used 'grasp'?

 

[didds]

I hear what your saying... but the laws are also full of oddities. Did the law makers really mean that somebody putting one hand on a shoulder of an opponent standing over the ball and then removing it really means a ruck exists?

didds

 

[menace]

You are probably right Didds, and normally it wouldn't be an issue because mostly there would be a bind or contest for the ball so the contact looks to be 'active'. And so convention means we treat it as a ruck when it's more than a fleeting touch. But the example I point out the Chiefs #3 deliberately and purposefully puts his hand on the shoulder and keeps it there for some time. I see that as a means of wanting to form a ruck....problem is his mate (and Walsh) didn't and deemed it a tackle only.

 

[Dixie]

There have been a number of discussion about this tactic on various forums. I may be being a bit simple here having proposed this idea elsewhere and got no takers.
Why don't the side in possession of the ball simply pick and drive. Ball carrier makes contact with the first defender and goes straight to ground. Player in support of ball carrier then makes contact with defender over the ball, ruck formed(?) Everybody behind the ruck e.g in this instance Liam Messom is offside.
Does this work?
Thoughts?

You are not alone - Crossref strongly feels this would be a sensible response to the tactic, and I agree. If the defence continue to stand off after tackling the picker'n'driver, repeat until you score. Sooner or later, the defence will have to engage.

 

[irishref]

By all means try to avoid the ruck - one would think the coaching ethos is to prevent the offside line forming - but at a tackle there is always a gate. Coming around the tackle area and hanging around the half-back is not permitted.

Why don't the chiefs hang around the potential pass receiver in order to apply pressure? As they do in Sevens.

 

[Dixie]

at a tackle there is always a gate. Coming around the tackle area and hanging around the half-back is not permitted.

A statement of opinion not backed up by authority. Does it not depend on where the half-back is? The alleged "gate" law needs revision - as written, it applies only to players who play the ball. In the clear interests of the game, we have all become comfortable with its extension to mean that you can't enter the tackle zone at all without coming from directly behind the ball and the tackled player. But there seems to be a lot less uniformity about the contention that you can't hang around near the back of a tackle. Even if there is an area around the back you can't encroach in, it surely doesn't extend 8 metres to the #10. If the tackle zone is 8m wide, all those pillars are to be pinged off the park!