Open play or ruck rules?

[menace]

Yes but ....1m from where????, Ball placed? Where held/unheld? Where landed? (before the twist jackknife placement ) etc?

Bit like a ruck....ie About 1m 'clear of bodies'. I think you know it when you see it. It's not a precise science.

 

[Taff]

Yes but ....1m from where????, Ball placed? Where held/unheld? Where landed? (before the twist jackknife placement ) etc?

I would say 1m from the centre of the tackle. Let's be blunt, none of us carry a tape measure, but I think the wording is there to try and keep a neat area around the tackle area as much as possible. If the "gate" disappeared as soon the BC released the ball (even if there was just a 5cm gap) there would be complete chaos as oppos could just run round and nick it.

The AB in the above clip was sailing close to the wind IMO. Imagine the BC had placed the ball back and kept his hand on it. He would have been PKd and (given where it happened) possibly :noyc: too.

Luckily for him the Argentinian either lost it backwards or rolled it backwards probably just enogh for the ref to consider it open play again.

 

[ChrisR]

This thread is interesting because you don't see it at the higher levels because defending players immediately contest for the ball and if they don't get there the BCs support will have ball in hand and be driving forward.

However, in the real world at lower levels players get "ruckitis", a disease that requires players at every breakdown to set a ruck. So they dutifully crouch over the set ball waiting for the ops to engage and form the ruck.

Stuartg said it early in this thread: "Technically, the "guards" are obstructing but we live with it so we can have a game". Or are they? They got there first and are basically saying to the ops:"You want the ball? You gotta go thru me and ruck me off it". If we don't allow them to do that then they have to wait for the ops to send a jackler so they can engage.

The key to continuity is beating your ops to the breakdown. I don't think I want to start penalizing them just because they are faster or fitter.

 

[OB..]

I don't want players to think they can form a line in front of the ball to prevent the opponents from getting to it.

 

[ChrisR]

Agree. But what about a support player, in the tackle area, with the ball under foot?

As I see it, if the BCs support get there first and are low over the ball then the defenders can elect not to challenge for the ball.

This is their choice and, although they will cede possession they gain in defensive numbers. The attacking team, should they put two players to guard the ball will have four players (BC, SH, 2 guards) just to recycle from the breakdown and are now attacking 11 vs. 15 (assuming tackler rejoins on his feet). In that scenario teams are playing out their strategies and I don't see a need to interfere.

 

[OB..]

Agree. But what about a support player, in the tackle area, with the ball under foot?

As I see it, if the BCs support get there first and are low over the ball then the defenders can elect not to challenge for the ball.

This is their choice and, although they will cede possession they gain in defensive numbers. The attacking team, should they put two players to guard the ball will have four players (BC, SH, 2 guards) just to recycle from the breakdown and are now attacking 11 vs. 15 (assuming tackler rejoins on his feet). In that scenario teams are playing out their strategies and I don't see a need to interfere.

Agreed.

I suppose that once the attackers realise what has happened they should just pick up the ball and drive. Might turn a poor tactic into a good one.

 

[Browner]

This thread is interesting because you don't see it at the higher levels because defending players immediately contest for the ball and if they don't get there the BCs support will have ball in hand and be driving forward.

However, in the real world at lower levels players get "ruckitis", a disease that requires players at every breakdown to set a ruck. So they dutifully crouch over the set ball waiting for the ops to engage and form the ruck.

Stuartg said it early in this thread: "Technically, the "guards" are obstructing but we live with it so we can have a game". Or are they? They got there first and are basically saying to the ops:"You want the ball? You gotta go thru me and ruck me off it". If we don't allow them to do that then they have to wait for the ops to send a jackler so they can engage.

The key to continuity is beating your ops to the breakdown. I don't think I want to start penalizing them just because they are faster or fitter.[/QUOTE]

If they are there early without anyone to ruck with/against ...They could always just pick the ball up ??? The game regains its 'on feet' ethos...

Law doesn't allow them to stand beyond the ball deliberately shielding/blocking/obstructing access to it

 

[Browner]

Agree. But what about a support player, in the tackle area, with the ball under foot?

As I see it, if the BCs support get there first and are low over the ball then the defenders can elect not to challenge for the ball.

This is their choice and, although they will cede possession they gain in defensive numbers. The attacking team, should they put two players to guard the ball will have four players (BC, SH, 2 guards) just to recycle from the breakdown and are now attacking 11 vs. 15 (assuming tackler rejoins on his feet). In that scenario teams are playing out their strategies and I don't see a need to interfere.

Far too detailed, our job is to merely to permit an 'equitable contest' for possession

 

[ChrisR]

Sorry Browner. Didn't mean to exceed your attention span.

 

[Browner]

Who said that ?!!?