Toulouse vs Wasps

[JohnP]

I've can't find the video of this but not long before cipriani had his brain fart in trying to chip on his try line there was a ruck to the right of the posts as Wasps played. Robson was trying to pass the ball away for it to be cleared but a Toulouse player was standing in the way and moved to block the pass to I assume cipriani. He was in the space between them. Clancy didn't do anything and then I think I overheard him say he wasn't part of the ruck but won't swear that's correctly heard.
Anyone else notice it when they watched the game?

 

[chbg]

Was there really a ruck (players on their feet over the ball on the ground)? If not, it would have been continuation of open play.

 

[JohnP]

https://youtu.be/3s-1iuqyHD4
Minute 43. Wasps set up after lineout, tackle not sure that it's a true ruck as no white player on feet. white 6 essentially goes over to wasps side of tackle and deliberately stands in way ( and moves around) of black 9s pass route to 10, metre or so from tackle. Legal?

 

[Shelflife]

No ruck formed, tackle only so theres no offside line.

Smart play from Toulouse and well spotted by George.

 

[The Fat]

https://youtu.be/3s-1iuqyHD4
Minute 43. Wasps set up after lineout, tackle not sure that it's a true ruck as no white player on feet. white 6 essentially goes over to wasps side of tackle and deliberately stands in way ( and moves around) of black 9s pass route to 10, metre or so from tackle. Legal?

Well it's an interesting one for a couple of reasons.

No ruck was formed so it was a tackle only situation and therefore no offside lines. White player was entitled to be where he was and seemed to be well aware not to approach the tackle and encroach the "tackle zone". Clancy is right there.
When the Wasps player "knocks on" and the Wasps players complain about the white player, Clancy says there was no ruck so he wasn't offside. All good except for one thing. It sounds like Clancy actually tells the white player to "Go around", which he starts to do, just as the pass is thrown. If Clancy was happy that he wasn't offside, why would he tell him to basically get away from there?

On a side note, did the last Wasps player actually knock the ball on? It looks as though the ball hits him in the stomach and goes forward and he then falls on the ball. I only mention it as a side note because at full speed it may have looked like he touched the ball with his hand or arm. But technically..................

 

[Christy]

https://youtu.be/3s-1iuqyHD4
Minute 43. Wasps set up after lineout, tackle not sure that it's a true ruck as no white player on feet. white 6 essentially goes over to wasps side of tackle and deliberately stands in way ( and moves around) of black 9s pass route to 10, metre or so from tackle. Legal?

i agree with the fat wording ( except for me it was a knock on / loss forward ).
Intersting tactic , ruck not formed , so players goes to opposition side ( isnt this a new zealand tactic ).
but for me he was material in standing where he did , because he forced the acting scrum half to not pass ball out when he 1st tried to..there was a delay , change in pass which then resulted in knock on.

i have a question .
what about loitering ,,or does that only apply to an actual off side player ,,staying off side ,,not iinterfeering, but staying there until he is legally put on side..

wheather im right or wrong ,,im sure my instinct would of been to schoo him away .

 

[didds]

what's the issue with loitering if there is no offside because there is no ruck?

didds

 

[Ian_Cook]

what's the issue with loitering if there is no offside because there is no ruck?

didds

[LAWS]11.9 LOITERING
A player who remains in an offside position is loitering. A loiterer who prevents the opposing
team from playing the ball as they wish is taking part in the game, and is penalised. The
referee makes sure that the loiterer does not benefit from being put onside by the opposing
team’s action.[/LAWS]
No offside so no loitering

In this situation such as the one under discussion, Wasps players might not be allowed to do what the Toulouse players did, because they would be putting themselves into a position where they were ahead of a team-mate who last played the ball..

[LAWS]LAW 11 DEFINITIONS
In general play a player is offside if the player is in front of a team-mate who is carrying the ball, or in front of a team-mate who last played the ball.[/LAWS]

... I would be quite happy to interpret that is meaning they cannot run to position themselves, or remain in front of their own tackled player. That would at least deal with part of the problem.

This situation needs to be addressed because once teams catch on to this tactic, they will be able to stifle back play at any breakdown where a ruck is not formed. Around 1/4 of all tackles do not end in a ruck, either because the ball is cleared away too quickly, or because defenders choose not to form a ruck. Part of the reason for the trial breakdown Laws in NZ this season was to address this issue; it made offside lines appear immediately, through the ball, when any player arrived at the tackle, and while it stopped loiterers at the tackle, the rest of it failed to live up to expectations. The breakdown became messy, the jackler disappeared from the game, and we ended up with a "procession of possession", as it became almost impossible to turn the ball over. The word I have heard is that the players, coaches and referees have not been happy, and these experimental laws are going to be abandoned.

Of course, teams can get around the problem of players loitering at the tackle by picking and driving when they see a loitering opponent. They would do so with two players (one directly behind the other but not in contact), the ball carrier takes the tackle and the follow-up player grabs the nearest opponent to form a ruck. The loitering player is then forced to retire. If he doesn't, a quick recycle and pass the ball at him will buy a PK. If there is no opponent to grab to form ruck, keep picking and driving until there is one.... sooner or later the opposition has to commit to the breakdown or they will concede a try.

IMO, one way to address the issue of players loitering at the tackle is to revisit the "offside at the tackle" Law that was experimented with in 2008. The problem with that Law was that, as it was written, it became almost impossible to defend a clean break.

Breakdown (tackle/post tackle)
1. Players entering the breakdown area must do so through the gate.
2. Immediately the tackle occurs there are offside lines
3. The offside lines run parallel to the goal lines through the hindmost part of the hindmost player at the tackle
4. The half back is not be touched until he lifts the ball.

If a player broke away and was tackled, and the ball was recycled quickly before a ruck was formed, retreating defenders would not be allowed to tackle any player receiving the ball.... here is an example of how it worked in practice, the result in this case was a PT.

There must surely be a way around that... perhaps an exception could be included in a similar vein to the 10m offside law; players who are offside at the tackle must not loiter there but must keep retreating. If the the ball is cleared while they are retreating, then they are free to take part in play, but if they are standing there loitering or not making any attempt to retreat, then they are pinged for offside.

 

[JohnP]

So I have a question now having watched a weekend of rugby and the feedback above. Many occasions ( more than 25% I would say) now we see a tackle made and then no defending player making a ruck, i.e. Not competing for the ball. So other than defenders standing close to the tackle area all the other defenders could take multiple steps forward to be closer to the attackers and not be considered off side? What we see normally is the organised line across the pitch for a defensive process that applies to a ruck situation. I'm understanding this correctly?

By the way thought I saw bath S/h try to do what the Toulouse player did in the first half today.

 

[chbg]

Pavlovian conditioning?

But it is safer if you are not quite sure whether it will be a ruck or not / whether the referee considers it a ruck or not.

 

[Taff]

... Many occasions ( more than 25% I would say) now we see a tackle made and then no defending player making a ruck, i.e. Not competing for the ball. So other than defenders standing close to the tackle area all the other defenders could take multiple steps forward to be closer to the attackers and not be considered off side? What we see normally is the organised line across the pitch for a defensive process that applies to a ruck situation. I'm understanding this correctly?

IMO a lot of players don't know exactly what needs to happen for a ruck to form - they see a pile of bodies on the ground and just assume it's a ruck. It's wrong, but I'm sure that's what they're thinking.

Don't forget that even if it's a tackle, a player can still create a ruck by staying on his feet and grabbing an opponent also on his feet in the tackle zone and effectively arching the ball which is on the ground, whether the opponent wanted to create a ruck or not - as you only need "physical contact" to create a ruck and not a proper full arm "bind" to create a maul. If the opponent were to pull away, I assume the ruck offside lines remain - just like the maul offside lines remain if the opponents leave the maul; so I guess that even the players know the laws, they probably think there's little point in standing the "wrong" side because they may need to go back to their own offside line at any second.

I am surprised though that we don't see what you described being coached.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Don't forget that even if it's a tackle, a player can still create a ruck by staying on his feet and grabbing an opponent also on his feet in the tackle zone and effectively arching the ball which is on the ground, whether the opponent wanted to create a ruck or not - as you only need "physical contact" to create a ruck and not a proper full arm "bind" to create a maul. If the opponent were to pull away, I assume the ruck offside lines remain - just like the maul offside lines remain if the opponents leave the maul; so I guess that even the players know the laws, they probably think there's little point in standing the "wrong" side because they may need to go back to their own offside line at any second.

Yes, and you do not want to have your line of defenders all a couple of metres ahead of where the offside line will be if a ruck does form that way, especially if it happens just as the ball comes out. Your entire defensive line will be offside and will be back-pedalling to get to the offside line while your opponents are running at you - bang goes your rush defence and your attacking weak shoulders and all that good stuff.

In short, its a good tactic to use occasionally, but you don't want to make a habit if it. You need to pick when to use that tactic and when not to.

 

[talbazar]

In short, its a good tactic to use occasionally, but you don't want to make a habit if it. You need to pick when to use that tactic and when not to.

Exactly... For 15-a-side...

If you watch a bit of Sevens, or have to ref some games with players who play Sevens (and not "fast-15") you will see a lot more of this. And the defense then become more of a 1-on-1 as you would see in other sports...

As mentioned by Taff above, that works because in Sevens, after the tackle, the defending side will move away from the tackle area, avoiding being caught in.

My 2 cents,
Pierre.