tackle or ruck?

[Browner]

"Cynical encroaching"?

How about "Realizing that no ruck had formed he was free to challenge the first receiver"?

Im presuming you think he must therefore be free to challenge the acting SH? Is he free to stand alongside the first receiver?

If defenders dont ever jackal/ruck at a 1v1 tackle ( thereby never creating a offside line ) then presumably your saying defenders are permitted to intermingle with attackers , if so this won't be an attractive code for any watcher.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Im presuming you think he must therefore be free to challenge the acting SH? Is he free to stand alongside the first receiver?

If defenders dont ever jackal/ruck at a 1v1 tackle ( thereby never creating a offside line ) then presumably your saying defenders are permitted to intermingle with attackers , if so this won't be an attractive code for any watcher.

Well I don't like it either, but that is precisely what the Law says, or rather doesn't say. The offside lines appear when the ruck is formed. If a ruck doesn't ever form, then there are no offside lines. Simples

Perhaps a modified version of the previously failed "offside at the tackle" could be trialled.

Rather than the tackle offside lines appearing the moment the ball carrier is grounded (which is what happened in the 2008 ELV), perhaps they could appear the moment any player gets their hands on the ball, either by taking it off the tackled player, or by picking it up after the tackled player releases it. i.e.,

1. The jackler grabs the ball = offside lines appear

2. In the event there no-one attempts to jackle (i.e. the scenario The BFG outlines in post 20) then offside lines appear when the acting SH picks up the ball.

 

[ChrisR]

This thread could have some legs!

Situation we see every match, white player tackles a red player, 2 red support runners arrive and "bridge over/" their tackled mate and yes they're supporting their own weight! (tackler has got up and left the area). The ball has been placed back and is between the feet of the 2 bridging players, SH arrives sorts his next runners and the white players spread out waiting to make the tackle.

At no point has there been a ruck, so we have no off-side lines, but yet white hold their defence lines until the SH lifts the ball???

The game is evolving but old habits die hard. A flat defensive line is still the standard for good reasons and the game is still mired in a malady I call "Ruckitis", a disease that has afflicted the game for some time. The symptoms are readily recognizable as ball carriers with supporters in tow take on the nearest opponent and happily go to ground, set the ball back out of reach of any threatening jackler and a couple of teammates add insurance over the ball.

This tactic produces reliable continuity, meager go forward and a ho-hum spectacle of the game. For some time teams have realized that if a quick jackle attempt doesn't produce then stay out of the ruck so as to benefit from a numbers advantage on defense. Teams are getting smarter in recognizing when real opportunities to compete for the ball exist (or don't) so we'll see more instances of ruckless tackles.

If referees will acknowledge when no ruck forms I expect we'll see teams pressing up. This scenario is going to challenge referees.

 

[ChrisR]

Im presuming you think he must therefore be free to challenge the acting SH? Is he free to stand alongside the first receiver?

If defenders dont ever jackal/ruck at a 1v1 tackle ( thereby never creating a offside line ) then presumably your saying defenders are permitted to intermingle with attackers , if so this won't be an attractive code for any watcher.

Remember that players entering the tackle area must approach through the gate so I don't see the SH as being the target but the receivers. If players press up it will open up space behind them that can be attacked.

 

[ChrisR]

Well I don't like it either, but that is precisely what the Law says, or rather doesn't say. The offside lines appear when the ruck is formed. If a ruck doesn't ever form, then there are no offside lines. Simples

Perhaps a modified version of the previously failed "offside at the tackle" could be trialled.

Rather than the tackle offside lines appearing the moment the ball carrier is grounded (which is what happened in the 2008 ELV), perhaps they could appear the moment any player gets their hands on the ball, either by taking it off the tackled player, or by picking it up after the tackled player releases it. i.e.,

1. The jackler grabs the ball = offside lines appear

2. In the event there no-one attempts to jackle (i.e. the scenario The BFG outlines in post 20) then offside lines appear when the acting SH picks up the ball.

I wouldn't be in too much of a hurry to fiddle with the laws. I think the tactics of the game are always in flux. The first teams that deliberately apply selective rucking will likely cause some disruptions.

It's not that easy to avoid creating a ruck. A BC with close support is a threat and defenders will meet the threat with a tackler and one or more tackle-assists. As the BC hits the deck those assists will be clearout targets and, bingo, a ruck. Without assists in the picture the defenders will be very vulnerable to offloads.

So let the game percolate for a bit. Just be prepared to handle it when it happens.

 

[Browner]

The game is evolving but old habits die hard. A flat defensive line is still the standard for good reasons and the game is still mired in a malady I call "Ruckitis", a disease that has afflicted the game for some time. The symptoms are readily recognizable as ball carriers with supporters in tow take on the nearest opponent and happily go to ground, set the ball back out of reach of any threatening jackler and a couple of teammates add insurance over the ball.

This tactic produces reliable continuity, meager go forward and a ho-hum spectacle of the game. For some time teams have realized that if a quick jackle attempt doesn't produce then stay out of the ruck so as to benefit from a numbers advantage on defense. Teams are getting smarter in recognizing when real opportunities to compete for the ball exist (or don't) so we'll see more instances of ruckless tackles.

If referees will acknowledge when no ruck forms I expect we'll see teams pressing up. This scenario is going to challenge referees.

But at the moment referees arent officiating this way. It will be a MAJOR departure from whats happening. Look at this clip, https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6MgsZx-Ovg

on 65:32 on game clock Burger takes a tackle , Reds do not create a ruck, yet this WR Panel referees arm is pointing clearly expecting (requiring) a HMF compliance. And this is currently how the game is played to my eye.

So, unless there is change of referee message/interpretation communicated to the whole game from top down, then you can't criticise the decisions made by these officials.

However if WR want the game refereed that way, then they must firstly trial it and then clearly communicate it, after which the referee would be fairly criticised by SAReferees and their supportive frame by frame analysts.

 

[ChrisR]

Why would you trial something that is currently, and clearly, defined by Law?

Referees need to figure out how they communicate the tackle/ruck status. How frequently do we see it? If it's not a ruck, the usual development, should they call "tackle" or if the practice of not contesting becomes common should they call "ruck".

Or nothing and put the onus on the players.

 

[Browner]

Why would you trial something that is currently, and clearly, defined by Law?

Referees need to figure out how they communicate the tackle/ruck status. How frequently do we see it? If it's not a ruck, the usual development, should they call "tackle" or if the practice of not contesting becomes common should they call "ruck".

Or nothing and put the onus on the players.

trial to assess & compare whether current referee convention needs to amend to then align with law, or whether law should amend to align with what is happening.

 

[Taff]

... If defenders dont ever jackal/ruck at a 1v1 tackle ( thereby never creating a offside line ) then presumably your saying defenders are permitted to intermingle with attackers , if so this won't be an attractive code for any watcher.

The team in possession can always create a ruck mind, just by touching an opponent - you only need "physical contact".

And if the opponents cotton on to that and stand well back - then just pick up the ball and run with it. :biggrin:

 

[ChrisR]

The team in possession can always create a ruck mind, just by touching an opponent - you only need "physical contact".

And if the opponents cotton on to that and stand well back - then just pick up the ball and run with it. :biggrin:

Easy to say, harder to execute and most difficult to adjudicate. How do you interpret "close around the ball" in definitions of Law 16? Is that "close' as in "in the vicinity of" "close" as in "encapsulate"? We often, on this forum, refer to players rucking "in contact over the ball" yet "over the ball" is not really a requirement.

Remember 'scatter rucking' from the 1980's? Before the 'table top' concept of a tackle area any opponent within shouting distance of a tackle was a target. It made for some very quick ball.

So, in today's game, if a BC support player going through the gate clears out an opponent on the edge of the tackle area has a ruck formed?
If teams adopt a "don't form a ruck on defense" strategy you'll see that kind of response. Good luck on determining if that's 'forming a ruck' or 'playing the man without the ball'.

 

[Ian_Cook]

So, in today's game, if a BC support player going through the gate clears out an opponent on the edge of the tackle area has a ruck formed?
If teams adopt a "don't form a ruck on defense" strategy you'll see that kind of response. Good luck on determining if that's 'forming a ruck' or 'playing the man without the ball'.

I agree. I'm sure we have also all noticed that elite level referees are cracking down on players who clean out opponents "past the ball", i.e. running through or past the tackle area and taking out opponents who are defending centrally behind the tackle and not attempting to enter it.

 

[Taff]

Easy to say, harder to execute and most difficult to adjudicate. How do you interpret "close around the ball" in definitions of Law 16? Is that "close' as in "in the vicinity of" "close" as in "encapsulate"? We often, on this forum, refer to players rucking "in contact over the ball" yet "over the ball" is not really a requirement.

Sorry Marauder, but I think the phrase is "around the ball" and yes, IMO it is a requirement, otherwise we don't meet the definition of a ruck.

Ruck: A ruck is a phase of play where one or more players from each team, who are on their feet, in physical contact, close around the ball on the ground. Open play has ended.

If the team in possession push over the ball, then the ruck is over and we're back in open play surely. And I assume the team in possession don't want to push over so fast that their SH gets caught out. I'm sure they would rather have a slightly more controlled ruck so their SH has a bit more time and ruck offside lines remain.

 

[ChrisR]

Taff, re-read what I said. The phrase is "close around the ball". As in near? How near? Anywhere in the tackle area? Beyond the ball? (See Ian's post above)

If the tacklers's team don't want to form a ruck then they will stay out of the tackle area. The BC's team, to form a ruck will go after them on the fringes and beyond the ball (see Ian's post above).

The smart coaches will figure out how to exploit the new dynamic.

Let's see how it plays out.

 

[ChrisR]

Ian, I've been thinking about your proposed law mod:

Perhaps a modified version of the previously failed "offside at the tackle" could be trialled.

Rather than the tackle offside lines appearing the moment the ball carrier is grounded (which is what happened in the 2008 ELV), perhaps they could appear the moment any player gets their hands on the ball, either by taking it off the tackled player, or by picking it up after the tackled player releases it. i.e.,

1. The jackler grabs the ball = offside lines appear

2. In the event there no-one attempts to jackle (i.e. the scenario The BFG outlines in post 20) then offside lines appear when the acting SH picks up the ball.

Scenario 1. If there's an attempted jackle then they'll be a rapid response from the BC's team, subsequently a ruck, and so offside lines.

Scenario 2. In this scenario has two problems. A 'Gotcha' if the defenders come up beyond the tackle area when the SH picks up the ball. Also on a line break and tackle the trailing support player would have a 5m 'Ha,ha you can't tackle me' head start on all defender chasing (coz they'd be offsides).

I don't see a 'fix'. And really don't want WR to come up with the kind of solution they ordained for the 'non-maul from lineout'.

 

[Taff]

Taff, re-read what I said. The phrase is "close around the ball". As in near? How near? Anywhere in the tackle area? Beyond the ball? (See Ian's post above).

In this context, I don't think "close" means in close proximity or near; I read it to mean "close" as in enclose or to surround the ball.

 

[ChrisR]

I think you're right but I find that a strange phrase. Why not "in contact over"?