Rucking is by definition reckless and dangerous

[didds]

In ndeed there isn't.

MB as I said was naive in his actions.

The end PK was fair enough for reckless play. The TMO confirmed it was no malicious intent.

Meanwhile what was Poite doing about the tackled player not releasing (which exascerbated the scenario) particularly after the first stab at the ball which wasn't that close to the player (boot was clear of body until withdrawn). Apart from of course SFA ? ;-)



didds

 

[Pegleg]

Agreed but a separate issue.

 

[SimonSmith]

The end PK was fair enough for reckless play. The TMO confirmed it was no malicious intent. didds

Nor was there in Finn Russell's actions last year, yet there was near unanimity that he deserved his suspension. Mike Brown gets away with kicking someone in the head because oops he didn't mean it? Or because we don't see that as bad as what Russell did?

Can I get a list of what acts of foul play will be excused because of the "oops" factor and which won't be, because my radar seems to be a little off.

 

[L'irlandais]

I agree. Also Eddie Jones saying there was nothing wrong with it (Brown kicking the ball on the ground.). Yeah right! He blamed Conor Murray for holding the ball on the ground. (Bit rich given how much England were infringing to slow down Irish quick ball.). Sorry player safety comes first before "he's not allowed to ..." Conor could easily have lost his eye, that folks on here thing "tough" in relation to that is shocking. Thankfully he got away with 9 stitches to the corner of his eye.
I hope the recklessness is cited! Spell it out for all pro players, the huge increase in injuries in the pro game stems (partly) from not taking player safety seriously. Partly from all the bulking up on the muscle front, making collisions more dangerous than ever.

The laws on rucking evolved in a game where players were on the feet contesting something more akin to the driving maul, expect with the ball on the deck. Once one team has driven away from both tackler and tackled player, any rucking would at worst created some sore ankles. The mess that is the breakdown in Elite rugby, is a farce, in a game for players on their feet.

 

[OB..]

I see Brown has not been cited.

When they replayed the incident on the big screen I commented to my brother that Brown's play was "utterly moronic". I was just hoping it would be no more than a YC. I certainly feel the wrong player was carded. In fact it was all so confused that for a while I thought two players had been carded!

 

[didds]

The laws on rucking evolved in a game where players were on the feet contesting something more akin to the driving maul, expect with the ball on the deck. Once one team has driven away from both tackler and tackled player, any rucking would at worst created some sore ankles. The mess that is the breakdown in Elite rugby, is a farce, in a game for players on their feet.

So why has rucking changed then? Why is that now in the elite game we no longer have "players [...] on the feet contesting something more akin to the driving maul, expect with the ball on the deck. "

???????

(This isn't any defense of Brown - its a straight general question]

didds

 

[didds]

I see Brown has not been cited.

When they replayed the incident on the big screen I commented to my brother that Brown's play was "utterly moronic". I was just hoping it would be no more than a YC. I certainly feel the wrong player was carded. In fact it was all so confused that for a while I thought two players had been carded!

It was ... daft ... in this era totally OB. It does raise the question though of what a player in Brown's position wqas actually supposed to do?

Poite appeared to indicate ball out, butg there was no access to the ball for Broiwn with his hands anyway and the now usual flop of bodies didnl;t give him access through the ruck small gap. Is he supposed to just look at the ball still being held by the player o the ground, hear "ball's out" (or see Poite wave both arms wide anyway) and just give up?

Frankly it was a total bugger's muddle and nobody was well served by it. Least of all care how basically got sandwiched between haskell and the tackled player and colnd;t do a think (care had been an initial attempted tackler).

didds

 

[crossref]

basically Poite should have blown his whistle earlier. before it became a complete buggers muddle.

 

[OB..]

It does raise the question though of what a player in Brown's position wqas actually supposed to do?

Play legally. 10.4 (l). Hard I know, but acting illegally only makes things worse. How often is the retaliator spotted and the original offence missed?

 

[Ian_Cook]

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?

The ruck, as we used to know it, is a dead duck. In the modern ruck, players on their feet (yes, Dixie, I know, I know) try to drive their opponents off the ball in order to expose it for the acting SH to pick it up.

The French call a scrum a "Mêlée ordonée", literally a "formal scrum", and the ruck they call a "Mêlée spontanée", literally a "spontaneous scrum". In that sense, the modern ruck more resebmbles the French description of it.

 

[Crucial]

Just for a moment ignore the technicalities. I find that a good way to look at these incidents is to place yourself as the 'wronged' player (albeit a rational experienced one).
In the MB incident I think that if I was the player that copped one in the head I would be 'mildly peeved' as it was a unnecessary deliberate act with a high degree of risk. Basically he wasn't looking out for a fellow player's welfare in a totally avoidable situation.
As a flipside to this, see the Super Rugby Crusaders/Chiefs match where Sam Whitelock had to leave the field for stitches near the eye after a stray boot at a ruck from Chiefs halfback Tawera Kerr-Barlow. TKB was simply planting his foot as halfbacks do and kicked Whitelock. In that case (as Whitelock himself said) this kind of thing is part and parcel of the game and accidental. It wasn't reckless.

 

[OB..]

The French call a scrum a "Mêlée ordonée", literally a "formal scrum", and the ruck they call a "Mêlée spontanée", literally a "spontaneous scrum". In that sense, the modern ruck more resebmbles the French description of it.

I think those are translations of the original English terms "set scrum" and "loose scrum". IIRC "ruck" was introduced in the 1969 re-write.

 

[MrQeu]

Ordonée and spontanée are meant to be understood as commanded or not. And, well, a ruck should be like an spontaneous scrum: pushing while on their feet and ball on the floor, isn't it?

 

[didds]

Play legally. 10.4 (l). Hard I know, but acting illegally only makes things worse. How often is the retaliator spotted and the original offence missed?

So what was it exactly that was illegal? The TMO said there was no case to answer. So nothing illegal; was done after all anyway?

Certainly the first stab at the ball was from onside when the ball was signalled out by Poite. The rest is a buggers muddle as green held on illegally and prevented any access.

So - what exactly should Brown have done?

didds

 

[L'irlandais]

So what was it exactly that was illegal? The TMO said there was no case to answer. So nothing illegal; was done after all anyway?

Certainly the first stab at the ball was from onside when the ball was signalled out by Poite. The rest is a buggers muddle as green held on illegally and prevented any access.

So - what exactly should Brown have done?

didds

he should have done as OB.. Suggests. Acted legally. For example, he was on his feet, simply put both hands on the ball. Automatic penalty against Green 9 for playing the ball on the ground.

By kicking repeatedly and indiscriminately ( if you feel it wasn't indiscriminate, then he has a more serious case to answer!) was most definitely :
[laws]10.4(l) Retaliation. A player must not retaliate. Even if an opponent is infringing the Laws, a player must not do anything that is dangerous to the opponent.[/laws]green 9 infringing does NOT in any way justify his giving Green 9 nine stitches in the eye, the only difference between eye gouging in terms of the danger to his opponent, is one of intent only. While he may not have intended to injury the scrum-half, it didn't require much imagination to realize it was the likely outcome of his use of the boot so close to heads on the ground.

 

[didds]

So you are saying Brown deliberately put 9 stitches in the green player's face?

allied to which, I can't find the law reference that says it is illegal to play the ball with the foot in a ruck? Your implication is that it is not legal to do so.

didds

 

[L'irlandais]

Ordonée and spontanée are meant to be understood as commanded or not. And, well, a ruck should be like an spontaneous scrum: pushing while on their feet and ball on the floor, isn't it?

i agree.

Au rugby à XV, la mêlée est une phase de jeu qui sanctionne une faute ... La mêlée est dite fermée ou ordonnée.

So it is a restart in an orderly fashion, players bound in a specific order.
Ruck is Mêlée spontanée ou mêlée ouverte, this is also a "scrum" put less orderly, players for any position may join the contest.

 

[L'irlandais]

So you are saying Brown deliberately put 9 stitches in the green player's face?

didds

Not at all. Read my post.

Once the ball is in the hands of Green 9 it is an infringement. To continue to kick at the ball can not be justified by saying (as Eddie Jones did post match) Green infringed. It is a clear cut case of 10.4(l) quoted above.

 

[Pegleg]

So you are saying Brown deliberately put 9 stitches in the green player's face?

allied to which, I can't find the law reference that says it is illegal to play the ball with the foot in a ruck? Your implication is that it is not legal to do so.

didds

Really?

Law 16. 3 (f) A player rucking for the ball must not intentionally ruck players on the ground. A player
rucking for the ball must try to step over players on the ground and must not intentionally
step on them. A player rucking must do so near the ball.
Sanction: Penalty kick

Are you suggresting after the first "unintentional" contact with the player. He did not understand what he was doing? If he did then it was intentional and at best a remarkable lasck of care.

 

[FatherFlipper]

The issue I had with it was that, if RP was already playing Irish advantage, what was Brown thinking he was going to achieve? Murray hanging onto the ball wasn't going to get the penalty overturned, and after the first swipe of the foot, then swipes 2 and 3 were kinda unneeded. Not saying for one second it was deliberate, and acknowledging the rough and tumble of the breakdown, but surely there is a duty of care to the player on the ground (as somebody pointed, the same as a player in the air)?

We were in the stadium as well, and also got horribly confused thinking Ireland were playing against 13 men for a while (Danny Care looks a lot like Mike Brown from 200 metres/6 pints away).