[Ruck] Should the ladder/caterpiller ruck be outlawed?

[CrouchTPEngage]

https://www.rugbypass.com/news/exeters-use-of-controversial-ladder-rucking-loophole-criticised

Interesting article about the use of the caterpiller or "ladder" ruck.
Slowing down the game. Giving the 9 lots of space and time to box=kick with no pressure.
Is this clever, entertaining or boring and time-wasting ?
Should we be doing something to discourage it ?

 

[didds]

I suppose the real question is .. IF it was to be outlawed how would it be worded such that

* it prevents what is wanted to be stopped
* with no confusions, succinctly and clearly
* without any unintended consequences?

That's the rub with many of rugby's laws .

And lest face it when they can't get something as simple as putting a ball into the scrum "straight" sorted how on earth are they going to acheive the above?

didds

 

[CrouchTPEngage]

I wonder how many refs on here often give turnovers once the 5 seconds after the "Use!" is called ?

 

[SimonSmith]

I never have No 9s delay, so it isn't an issue for me

 

[Jarrod Burton]

It needs to be addressed, but as the others have said, how would you enforce it? Change the definition of what is bound in a ruck if a player is not in contact with an opposition player? Opens a can of worms.

 

[Ian_Cook]

There's a simple, straightforward solution to the caterpillar ruck - ENFORCE THE BLOODY OFFSIDE LAW AT THE RUCK (Law 15.4)

The only reason that caterpillar rucks started happening in the first place was because referees failed to keep the pillars onside, resulting in the SH's time to pick up and box kick being cut down.

Enforce Law 15.4, and the reason for the caterpillar ruck goes away.

 

[crossref]

Or enforce the 9 to be behind the back foot, so that the ball has to heeled back along the caterpillar

 

[Rich_NL]

I wonder how many refs on here often give turnovers once the 5 seconds after the "Use!" is called ?

I've only once had a call go to 5 seconds, and that was because I was standing in the passing lane. Oops.

 

[didds]

Or enforce the 9 to be behind the back foot, so that the ball has to heeled back along the caterpillar

I may have missed your nuance here CR but that wont get rid of the CR, just changes who slowly toes it along the length of the caterpillar? Until it reaches the final player in the CR and the the SH can jiggle it about with HIS toe until its where he wants it anyway.

Ian's point is a good one. Many silly issues could be sorted - or at least start to be sorted - by insisting the laws are followed in the first place. then review what THEN needs addressing.




didds

 

[Marc Wakeham]

What "phase" are win in in the picture? Is it:

1: a Post tackle (TWOL)
2: A ruck

If it is a tackle why give 5 seconds. At a tackle the ball must be made available "immediately". That is not happening.

If it is a ruck where the "defenders" have detached. The ball is available and Law 15.17. should apply.

Of course, Ian is right, if we enforce the various offside lines the problam will largely resolve itself.

 

[frenchie851]

Or enforce the 9 to be behind the back foot, so that the ball has to heeled back along the caterpillar

I agree with this. I think this would stop it because the 9 wouldn't trust the clumsy forward to heel the ball back through 5 people.

 

[didds]

I agree with this. I think this would stop it because the 9 wouldn't trust the clumsy forward to heel the ball back through 5 people.

FWIW I don't think it would stop it at all.

didds

 

[crossref]

I agree with this. I think this would stop it because the 9 wouldn't trust the clumsy forward to heel the ball back through 5 people.

That is what I was thinking..

 

[crossref]

Cut Down the "use it" time from 5s to 2s would help
(Or even to immediately)

 

[Marc Wakeham]

FWIW I don't think it would stop it at all.

didds

Indeed. The whole point of the tactic is to create a gap for the 9 to use. Therefore he wants to be near the back. There is no point in the 9 pushing too far up the side.

 

[Arabcheif]

FWIW I don't think it would stop it at all.

didds

Disagree, if you're giving away a penalty every time you do it, then you'll soon stop it. Especially if you're giving away 3 points min each time you do it.

 

[DocY]

It seems to me to be an unintended consequence of the TWOL - no opposition players to push the back foot back, so the can stand that much closer. I don't see much of a problem with it, though - if a team want to commit another four forwards to a ruck then take the kick from three metres further back then good luck to them.

But agree with Ian - proper policing of offside lines would make this a non-issue.

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

For me this is the refs fault at the top level, if the ball is at the back foot and clearly available they need to call use it. Sadly they don't.
If you have a two man caterpillar and you call use it and somebody else joins in, tough luck.
The other way I would stop it as an opportunity would be to get two men or more, arriving at the ruck leagally and hit the prone lead man hard. They would certainly think twice about trying it again

 

[WoodyOne]

The other way I would stop it as an opportunity would be to get two men or more, arriving at the ruck leagally and hit the prone lead man hard. They would certainly think twice about trying it again

I'm not sure that course of action is available to us as refs!! ;-)

I'm definitely in the "use it" camp: the ball tends to have been clearly won quite some time before a picture like this emerges, and I'd take the view that the ball is available to be played at any point that it's being managed back... just not always by the 9 in the way they might like.

 

[Elpablo73]

I agree with the "Use it" camp, once it has been secured and is available then you have 5 seconds to do something with the ball. Leaving it in the TWOL/Ruck and moving it back is negative play and should be discouraged.