All Blacks - From Pillars to Stonewalls

[Gagger]

Great thread Blue and excellent timing (it's not a whinge if you get it in ahead of time... ). Also nicely argued so far all.

I'd noticed the 'taking up the space' call more in S15 this year and so my hopes had been raised.

Here is where i disagree. If the players have advanced past the ball, so what? They are no longer part of the ruck so go around them. The ball is out. If the ref isnt allowing that to happen that is his fault, not the laws or the players pushing past the ball. Ref it properly and the advantage of going past the ball is not there. A non issue.

I'm really not sure what you're disagreeing with here - just about everyone's point is that refs should be reffing it but aren't, which is what you've just said?

Nevertheless, a point to remember is just how little time you need to buy yourself for this tactic to be successful. Saying "they can go around" (if the refs let them) misses the point because the literal 0.5 seconds that might take is the difference between getting hands-on or counter-rucking, and arriving at a set ruck - which is partly what makes it such a cunning ruse.

Even worse is that stone wall can wrongly be seen to set the offside line for the now defending team at the ruck.

As I've said for a while this is one of the best ruses you can use at a ruck because refs are understandably so focused on what's going on with the ball, that anything more than a metre or two away from it is really unlikely to get pinged.

It's guilty as sin though.

 

[Scarfman]

As with the previous discussion, Dam0, I think you are using tackle laws in a ruck situation.

I don't know which incidents Blue is talking about, exactly, but the ones I think about are rucks, i.e., New Zealand's opponents have joined or are attempting to join the tackle, forming a ruck, and the New Zealand players take 3 or 4 steps past the ruck to set up a wall of defence.

 

[DPK]

It's kind of like the opposite of the "human centipede" move used in the NH and SA sometimes: instead of defending the ruck at the site of the tackle, you extend the ruck area by progressing past the tackled player.

 

[Kangaroo Sausage]

Great thread Blue and excellent timing (it's not a whinge if you get it in ahead of time. ). Also nicely argued so far all.

I'd noticed the 'taking up the space' call more in S15 this year and so my hopes had been raised.



I'm really not sure what you're disagreeing with here - just about everyone's point is that refs should be reffing it but aren't, which is what you've just said?

Nevertheless, a point to remember is just how little time you need to buy yourself for this tactic to be successful. Saying "they can go around" (if the refs let them) misses the point because the literal 0.5 seconds that might take is the difference between getting hands-on or counter-rucking, and arriving at a set ruck - which is partly what makes it such a cunning ruse.

Even worse is that stone wall can wrongly be seen to set the offside line for the now defending team at the ruck.

As I've said for a while this is one of the best ruses you can use at a ruck because refs are understandably so focused on what's going on with the ball, that anything more than a metre or two away from it is really unlikely to get pinged.

It's guilty as sin though.

My point is rucking past the ball isnt illegal and shouldnt be. The only genuine issue i can see here is allowing or not allowing players to go for the ball once it is out. To be honest i cant say ive seen the ref stopping anyone. The offside line moves because the ruck has moved. The opposition has equal chance to do the same.

The "taking up space" call is something different (as highlighted in Damos link) this is the tackler standing up on the oppositions side of the ruck and obstructing players entering the tackle area. But this is not rucking and is rightly illegal.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Interesting questions. Here is a clip I made to discuss another context entirely, but which I think is relevant to your point. Obviously in this clip Crockett should have been penalise for playing the ball on the ground, but lets move past that.

Assume that Crockett just lies there and does not play the ball. The Wallaby forwards have won the ruck and it is over. As far as I am concerned, Mealamu is perfectly entitled to come around and play the ball. He does not have to worry about stepping over the players in front of him. This would not be changed if the Wallaby players were still on their feet and 'forming a wall' as you put it. The emphasis should be on the halfback to clear it quickly or you will lose the benefit of your successful counter-ruck.

I agree with what Kangaroo Sausage says above.

Provided he was behind the hind most extremity of that ruck prior to it ending, which I don't think he was, but that's just my interpretation of the video and not a disagreement about the law.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Scotty]

Hello (says he nervously as he attempts to start a new thread about rugby.)

We had a good moan last year about the likes of the Franks brothers creating those pillars around the ruck but now we're dealing with an all new tactic from the blicks.

Who needs pissy little pillars if you can have a whole bloody stone wall?

They got done for it only once last night. As soon as a black player is tackled, whoever is nearest take as much space beyond the ball as they can. At times it almost has the comical look of them swarming over their own player as if they were defenders.

Actually the one time Peyper got them was when Nonu took the space but lost his feet and was deemed to go off his feet. The Blicks support players do well to stay on their feet, fooling the ref into thinking that they are doing nothing but support at the ruck. A cunning stunt indeed. I get why the ref misses it so easily.

As a result:

• Defenders have little chance of getting to the ball to create a turnover (something the Argies do well but had no chance in this match).
• The "gate" is not where it used to be, it's suddenly a meter or more down the garden path so the defenders lose time or are far more inclined to come in from the side (and the side extends further back now)
• Quick ball because there is no real contest except for the tackler himself.

Now whilst it gives me the shits I have to commend it. For now, the only ref who has picked it up is Joubert who warned them repeatedly a few weeks back not to take space but as you might remember after all those repeated warnings he never produced a card.

It is being used as a cunning (but illegal) tactic. The refs will cotton on but for now it aids the Black Bastards' quick game perfectly and the reset of us numpties can just sit, watch and spill beer on ourselves.

Cheating Kiwi bastards.

This sounds quite similar to the try the boks scores in the weekend off a lineout/maul. A couple of boks players broke off the front of the maul and took Hooper a good 2-3 m past the tryline, as well as shielding Phipps from being able to defend. I thought it was a pretty obvious penalty at the time, however the maul doesn't always conform to the 'normal' rules of rugby.

 

[Scarfman]

For me, the situation is that a ruck has formed (or is forming) and the attacking team has guys standing, not joined to anything, on the opposition side of the ball. Is anyone talking about anything different?

Since I made the ABs at the Breakdown video, all I have received is a stream of abuse and some absolutely pathetic excuses ("there's no offside line at the ruck" was one I received from several people). The only person to actually suggest something half-credible is Dam0, who seems to consider these situations "tackles" and not "rucks." By the letter of the law, he has a point.

However, everyone in this thread (Blue, Gagger, Kangaroo, DPK, etc) except Dam0 is talking about "rucks," and I find it incredible that a situation with at least two guys from each team, on the ground, could be considered anything but a ruck, but when you read the tackle laws there's a case to be made. If people like Rolland are allowing the ABs to pillar, and enter from the wrong side, on the grounds that it's just a tackle, then we need to rethink everything.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

This sounds quite similar to the try the boks scores in the weekend off a lineout/maul. A couple of boks players broke off the front of the maul and took Hooper a good 2-3 m past the tryline, as well as shielding Phipps from being able to defend. I thought it was a pretty obvious penalty at the time, however the maul doesn't always conform to the 'normal' rules of rugby.

totally agree - except that had no legitimacy at all - Phipps and Hooper both prevented from participating in the play - the boks players seemed to just peel off from one side of what was a properly formed and opposed maul.

 

[Dam0]

We need to define a little better what we are talking about. Are we talking about the actions of arriving players immediately after a tackle and before a ruck is formed (which is the customary usage for "taking the space")? Alternatively, are we talking about the actions of players who have successfully gone past the ball at a ruck? They really are two different issues.

If a team decides to commit numbers to a ruck and drives the other team back a metre or 2 (or 3), I don't see where the illegality is, provided they only drive onto opposition players that were bound onto the ruck. If those players then subsequently obstruct other players who now wish to play the ball then that is illegal.

By the same token, though, I don't think there is any obligation for players who have successfully gone through a ruck to suddenly get out of the way and allow anyone to go through the middle of their formation. Anyone wishing to play the ball which is now out of the ruck needs to go around them. I don't think they should expect the successful ruckers to suddenly get out of the way. It is a balancing test and to be refereed sensibly.

Lets look at a clip or three.


1. How many of you would want Roncero to be penalised here?

2. The three All Blacks after this maul are probably the best example of what you all are talking about, and is a probably a penalty, although Roncero ends up making the tackle anyway.

3. Here's one that was penalised (advantage given) for taking out the halfback.

4. Here's one that might be described as "building a wall". Would any of you penalise here?

5. This is one that I know we will disagree about:

6. And just to show that I can whinge too, how about Samo the offensive tackle (not really related, but funny all the same)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMTUjhQEN64&feature=channel&list=UL


So how many of these are penalties?

 

[Lindommer]

So how many of these are penalties?

All the black ones.

 

[Scarfman]

Dam0 - I haven't got time to look at these clips right now. Maybe later. But this statement I think is odd:

I don't think there is any obligation for players who have successfully gone through a ruck to suddenly get out of the way and allow anyone to go through the middle of their formation.

By the same token you could say when you make a dominant tackle, there's no obligation to roll away.

When a ruck is formed, an offside line is formed, and if you are standing on the wrong side of it, you need to get out of the bloody way! In fact, you need to retreat. How can you tell that story any differently?

 

[DPK]

I think the tactic may be more obvious next week against a side that commits more to the breakdown.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

"rucks," and I find it incredible that a situation with at least two guys from each team, on the ground, could be considered anything but a ruck, but when you read the tackle laws there's a case to be made.

Well heres the tackle law:http://www.irblaws.com/downloads/EN/Law_15_EN.pdf
and here's the ruck law: http://www.irblaws.com/downloads/EN/Law_16_EN.pdf

and, as i understand it, the critical point to the formation of a ruck is:
"At least one player must be in physical
contact with an opponent. The ball must be on the ground. "

So 2 or more blokes lying on the ground after a tackle is not a ruck and i cannot see any doubt about it.
In the Mealamu video it is a ruck because there are 3 ozzies and 1 kiwi all of whom are in contact on their feet.

Or have I misunderstood your point?

 

[Inside Shoulder]

1. How many of you would want Roncero to be penalised here?
2. The three All Blacks after this maul are probably the best example of what you all are talking about, and is a probably a penalty, although Roncero ends up making the tackle anyway.
3. Here's one that was penalised (advantage given) for taking out the halfback.
4. Here's one that might be described as "building a wall". Would any of you penalise here?
5. This is one that I know we will disagree about:
6. And just to show that I can whinge too, how about Samo the offensive tackle (not really related, but funny all the same)



So how many of these are penalties?

1 - because Rancero did not come through the gate;
2 - agree
3 - agree - except in the 2 rucks prior Carter and McCaw both fail to come through the gate
4 - looks OK to me
5 - Smith comes through the gate and makes contact with an Argie player - so its a ruck: no problemo although he is at the outer limit of being what i consider to be sufficiently close to the ball. given there is no wrestling and the ball comes out quickly I reckon its ok. If there had been wrestling and he remained disconnected form the players who were actually over the ball then i think it would be a problem.

 

[BPC]

It appears that much of confusion (grey area open to interpretation) comes from the definition of a ruck which is: "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."
The phrase "close around the ball" is quite ambiguous. It suggests that you can form a ruck and then drive over the ball but you can't form a ruck too far in front of the ball to stop the opposition competing (the stonewall that Blue identified). But how far in front is no longer "close around the ball"? Example 5 by Dam0 seems to raise the problem squarely.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

It appears that much of confusion (grey area open to interpretation) comes from the definition of a ruck which is: "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."
The phrase "close around the ball" is quite ambiguous. It suggests that you can form a ruck and then drive over the ball but you can't form a ruck too far in front of the ball to stop the opposition competing (the stonewall that Blue identified). But how far in front is no longer "close around the ball"? Example 5 by Dam0 seems to raise the problem squarely.

See my 5 and Dam0's videos and express your conclusions

 

[Blue]

We need to define a little better what we are talking about. Are we talking about the actions of arriving players immediately after a tackle and before a ruck is formed (which is the customary usage for "taking the space")? Alternatively, are we talking about the actions of players who have successfully gone past the ball at a ruck? They really are two different issues.

If a team decides to commit numbers to a ruck and drives the other team back a metre or 2 (or 3), I don't see where the illegality is, provided they only drive onto opposition players that were bound onto the ruck. If those players then subsequently obstruct other players who now wish to play the ball then that is illegal.

By the same token, though, I don't think there is any obligation for players who have successfully gone through a ruck to suddenly get out of the way and allow anyone to go through the middle of their formation. Anyone wishing to play the ball which is now out of the ruck needs to go around them. I don't think they should expect the successful ruckers to suddenly get out of the way. It is a balancing test and to be refereed sensibly.

Lets look at a clip or three.

The bit in bold was what I was initially referring to. 4 and 5 in your videos are good examples. A host of other issues have been uncovered in this thread.

There were a few ones in the AB/Bok test where the supporting runners were actually scrambling to get ahead of their tackled teammate before the ruck had formed. If I had a video feed on my PC I could get the clips.

Joubert is the only ref I have seen so far who has blown it.

 

[Dam0]

Dam0 - I haven't got time to look at these clips right now. Maybe later. But this statement I think is odd:



By the same token you could say when you make a dominant tackle, there's no obligation to roll away.

When a ruck is formed, an offside line is formed, and if you are standing on the wrong side of it, you need to get out of the bloody way! In fact, you need to retreat. How can you tell that story any differently?

I think what I am getting at is that rugby is a game that needs to actually be played out on the field and not on paper. If a team rucks successfully and the ball emerges from back of the ruck quickly, very often there will be a whole host of players who are in front of the ball. They were legal whilst the ball was still in the ruck, and I don't see how the instant the ball is out of the ruck, or the instant they go too far past the ruck, they are liable to penalty for offside. I think they should only be penalised if they do some overt act to obstruct a defender.

To put it another way, I would be particularly interested in hearing whether you think clips 4 and 5 are offences.

 

[Dam0]

1 - because Rancero did not come through the gate;
2 - agree
3 - agree - except in the 2 rucks prior Carter and McCaw both fail to come through the gate
4 - looks OK to me
5 - Smith comes through the gate and makes contact with an Argie player - so its a ruck: no problemo although he is at the outer limit of being what i consider to be sufficiently close to the ball. given there is no wrestling and the ball comes out quickly I reckon its ok. If there had been wrestling and he remained disconnected form the players who were actually over the ball then i think it would be a problem.

I agree with the bolded part. If Conrad* had kept holding on and wrestling with the Argie so far past the ball there would be an issue, but he pulls back. I also think he is close to the borderline in terms of being "near to the ball" in terms of 15.7(d) [of course it is a ruck the instant they touch, but before they touch its a tackle].

As for your rider to point 3, well, there are plenty who would agree, but I should point out the standard set by Peyper here is pretty much in line with every other ref around these days. I think that you will be constantly disappointed if you want those entries to be illegal, particularly the second one.


* I consider Conrad Smith to be awesome enough that he needs no second name.

 

[BPC]

See my 5 and Dam0's videos and express your conclusions

I will qualify my comments by saying that Youtube is blocked at my work so I watched the footage again on a smartphone screen so it was hard to see the finer details.

I think that is it close to the edge but (with the benefit of hinsight and six replays) I would say Smith formed the ruck illegally. There is no test for "close around the ball" but I think that Smith forming the ruck in front of the tackled player was too far from the ball. My gut reaction is that when the ruck is formed that far in front of the tackled player, as the tackled player will place the ball behind them, there is no way Argentina could have contested for the ball.