Rucking is by definition reckless and dangerous

[Dixie]

In the 6N game between England and Ireland, Mike Brown found himself on his feet in a ruck - which in today's world proves that he is unfamiliar with that particular phase of play. He elected to use his feet to try to get possession of the ball - or more accurately, to prevent Ireland getting possession of the ball. In the Times, Jonathan Kaplan is quoted as saying:

WR has gone to great lengths to protect the player in the air; it should be no different for the player on the deck. Brown needed to exercise more care when putting his boot there in the first place, and a red card would have been more apt. I would be astonished if this wasn't cited.

The definition of "rucking" is:

[LAWS]Players are rucking when they are in a ruck and using their feet to try to win or keep possession of the ball, without being guilty of foul play.[/LAWS]

Kaplan seems to suggest that if there are players on the deck (pretty much a sine qua non in a professional ruck), it should be a red card to aim a boot at the ball.

Where does that leave the ruck as a contested phase of play?

 

[didds]

I exepct Brown to end up with some sort of punishment, not because I actually think what he did was "wrong" or illegal per se, but just because the use of feet in rucks now is basically not conceptually permitted whatsoever which has led to the current total mess that is a "ruck". Note that I'm not talking about deliberate raking or attacking the head here, just the use of feet in rucks near the ball.

Why wasn't the irish player that caught the boot PK'd for holding on/handling when he grabbed the ball in the ruck?

didds

 

[crossref]

it seems to me that RP was at fault -- he had an green player on the ground holding on the ball, and a white player trying to kick it free. That's a dangerous situation and the ref should blow his whistle and PK one or other of them, depending on exact circs.

In this case PK to England of course :biggrin:

 

[DocY]

The law also says the participants are on their feet!

I suspect Kaplan is just objecting to players trying to kick the ball out of a ruck, which I agree can be reckless.

I think the law is there to allow for genuine rucking - hooking the ball (and any unfortunate players) back towards your own team, rather than trying to kick it forward. It does seem inconsistent that actions such as Brown's aren't necessarily illegal, but "good-old-fashioned-rucking"TM is illegal.

 

[DocY]

Why wasn't the irish player that caught the boot PK'd for holding on/handling when he grabbed the ball in the ruck?

IIRC they were playing advantage to Ireland, though he didn't blow the whistle very promptly.

 

[crossref]

pro refs in the pro game seem to ref the ruck in two phases
1 - there is a brief phase where teams may compete
2 - then when the ball has been 'won' by one team the ref tells the other team to leave it.

phase 1 can be extremely short or even non-existent.

In phase 1 I'd expect the person on the ground to be PK, with word to the person rucking to be really careful about use of boot
In phase 2, once one team has been told to leave it, I would expect a boot swinging round a head to be PK'd

 

[didds]

Just caught on iplayer why Care was YCd for not releasing. I can't see what the difference was between that and the green tackler on hartley for the hartley-non try. Both within the 5m (ish) area

Could somebody enlighten me as to why one is a YC and the other not?

cheers

Didds

 

[Pegleg]

Rucking, in the traditional sense is only possible IF bodies, hands etc are not arround the ball. What bBrown did was dangerous and wouldfor me earn a reversal of the PK that would have gone against Ireland. A Red Card would also follow.

 

[crossref]

Yes. I thought the YC on DC was harsh.

My theory is
- in real time RP saw DC over the ball, and thought it looked like a PK offence. It was 5m from line so if it was a PK he's thinking YC
- the Brown swings his boot, first one was actually OK, ball was loose, subsequent ones iffy, he's playing adv to Ireland so he's not going to PK green, so he holds on a moment and doesn't blow.
- then he blows.
- he's got in mind that he's YC Danny Care. But first thing he has to do is watch the video of Mike Brown. He watches the video and it doesn't look good - but is he really going to issue two YC in one go ? And why didn't he blow his whistle much earlier before MB had a second/third/forth attempt??? He should have blown really and prevented it from being an issue. He decides not to issue a YC
- then he turns back to Care and looks at that one on the video. Bugger - that's not really a YC offence at all!!
- but he's just let MB off, on the grounds that he was already issuing a YC to Care -- so he has to go through with that card.

OK it's very hypothetical and probably not what happened at all, but it's a thought

 

[didds]

well that just means that he made two crap decisions!

especially in light of the hartley non-try non release!

didds

- - - Updated - - -

Rucking, in the traditional sense is only possible IF bodies, hands etc are not arround the ball. What bBrown did was dangerous and wouldfor me earn a reversal of the PK that would have gone against Ireland. A Red Card would also follow.

I would certainly agree that in the modern view of rucks Brown was phenomenally naive.

didds

 

[crossref]

I didn't think Poite had his best game.

I thought for the Ireland no-try where we couldn't see a grounding - I thought he should have asked "any reason not to"

but with my England hat on, I was glad he didn't

 

[crossref]

Rucking, in the traditional sense is only possible IF bodies, hands etc are not arround the ball. What bBrown did was dangerous and wouldfor me earn a reversal of the PK that would have gone against Ireland. A Red Card would also follow.

but with that view you would have blown your whistle MUCH earlier wouldn't you, after the 1st or defintely after the 2nd kick, and then your RC wouldn't have been needed. better result all round

 

[L'irlandais]

The telegraph had this to say.
I think RP bottled the card for MB, because as crossref pointed out, he had it in mind to YC Care. For a moment it seemed (on TV) that he was carding both. Then he sent Care off, for repeated infringements by White. IIRC

 

[didds]

Poite clearly says "cynical infringement, not rolling away". Nothing to do with "repeated infringements" Or at least not communicated as such to anybody.

Hence my query about the difference between that and the hartley non-try not rolling away ie tackler not releasing.

Total cock up.

Poite seems to have had a total melt down. Couldn't ref scrums or rucks, nor the immediate post tackle



didds

 

[Pegleg]

but with that view you would have blown your whistle MUCH earlier wouldn't you, after the 1st or defintely after the 2nd kick, and then your RC wouldn't have been needed. better result all round

I hope so. But assuming I did not, for any reason (usually too slow to spot the first offence :chair that is no reason for White to be a prat.

 

[SimonSmith]

Let's give Brown the benefit of the doubt and suggest that the contact with the head was accidental and not deliberate.

The issue that we have is that there have been citings and suspensions a-plenty that cater for the idea that whilst an act may not have been foul play, the player concerned ought to have known better and/or known that his action was likely to injure someone - in effect, the outcome, not the intent.

If there is consistency, Brown should be expecting a visit to the naughty step. Boots on heads, and the expectation that he should have known what was going on is tough to avoid. I won't hold my breath, but you never know.

 

[winchesterref]

Ball on the deck, he can kick it.

Murray grabbed the ball and pulled it back in to his upper chest; illegal and created a possible dangerous situation whereby a legal kick is now closer to the green player.

Never a YC for Care either.

 

[Pegleg]

The first one you could argue a cae. But he put the boot several time on to the player. That is not acceptable in my book. Woudl you condone a punch throw at a player that was doing something wrong?

 

[didds]

I can;t think of a single action in the game whereby a punch could be a legitimate tactic. (well, one maybe but an open palmed slap would probably be easier to move a ball out of an opponents grasp)

I can think of plenty where kicking is.

there's a starting point (but I agree MB was somewhat naive).

didds

 

[Pegleg]

We are discussing kicking a player. Far removed from most instances where kicking is acceptable.

16.3 (f) seems to cover it. I don't see any priviso for rucking a player illegally holding the ball.