All Blacks - From Pillars to Stonewalls

[Inside Shoulder]

This is the dancing on the head of a pin bullshit drives me nuts.

It's clear - if you're a tackler on the ground, get the fuck away from the ball and don't impede others getting to it. McCaw put his back between the Ball and the saffas to obstruct them as he got up. That's why he got pinged. Ruck or tackle, didn't actually matter - he was deliberately obstructing.

In this case he forced Becker to clear him out and expose the ball - it's a the deliberate tactic employed here to disrupt the attacking team's breakdown.

Until there is a ruck he is entitled to be there whatever intention he had.

 

[cyclopath]

Little wonder causal fans of the game lose interest.
Reading this thread, well, the last several pages highlight the unnecessary complexity of the laws for me.
Gagger distilled it best for me - if you are wilfully getting in the way and impeding play (whoever the fuck you are, I don't care if it's McCaw, Pocock, Simmons, Robinson, some Saffer or so on), you are not improving the game, so don't, ruck, tackle or otherwise.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Little wonder causal fans of the game lose interest.
Reading this thread, well, the last several pages highlight the unnecessary complexity of the laws for me.
Gagger distilled it best for me - if you are wilfully getting in the way and impeding play (whoever the fuck you are, I don't care if it's McCaw, Pocock, Simmons, Robinson, some Saffer or so on), you are not improving the game, so don't, ruck, tackle or otherwise.

I think everyone agrees with that but the problem is that the laws do not say that.

 

[cyclopath]

I think everyone agrees with that but the problem is that the laws do not say that.

Er, I know. That's my point.

 

[Gagger]

IMO the problem is (like with all law making) trying to legislate for all eventualities.

One man breaks away, he gets chased down and tackled. No-one's near them. Should the tackler be able to get up and play the ball without having to do some strange dance? Yes

Then go to this McCaw break down. One team clearly in possession, ball on the ground, bodies over the ball - bridging. The attacking team is looking to recycle and play on. Should the tackler be able to stand up in this situation and do whatever the fark he wants - get in the way, obstruct, get hands on ball? No

I'd say the current wording tries to accomodate for both of these situations, but when you have people try and wedgie themselves between every comma and full stop you'll get inconsistencies and vagaries.

Just like Aussie teams relying on fetchers at the ball rather than over it being more likely to get pinged, so too this tactic of pretending there isn't a ruck forming or formed will get pinged too.

 

[ChargerWA]

The problems with the complexity of the laws, is that they are used to hide behind by teams using tactics not in the spirit of the game. All teams do it and they are obliged to by the high expectations the fans place on them.

If the IRB is reluctant to change the laws they need to publish regulations guiding referees in how to administer the laws in the spirit of the game.

 

[Blue]

One man breaks away, he gets chased down and tackled. No-one's near them. Should the tackler be able to get up and play the ball without having to do some strange dance? Yes

Doesnlt that take us back two years when the defending team had the advantage and everyone just hoofs the thing and attack the ball carrier?

 

[Gagger]

I'm not sure that's ever changed - if you're the tackler and there's no one else involved you could always get on your feet and play the ball?

 

[Top Bloke]

It's giving a fetcher who gets his hands on the ball the right to keep playing it if a supporting attacker tries to clean him out.

.....

Jay - I understand that but the way the law is written seems to suggest that can only occur when 2 players both have their hands on the ball, basically it's poor sentence construction IMO.
Should have read "Providing any player on their feet after a tackle who complies with all aspects of Law 15 and has the ball in their hands prior to contact with an opposition player on his feet those players may continue with possession of the ball"

 

[Jay]

Jay - I understand that but the way the law is written seems to suggest that can only occur when 2 players both have their hands on the ball, basically it's poor sentence construction IMO.
Should have read "Providing any player on their feet after a tackle who complies with all aspects of Law 15 and has the ball in their hands prior to contact with an opposition player on his feet those players may continue with possession of the ball"

I see what you're getting at - it is a bit confusingly worded, but I'm not sure it's as bad as that.

"A player from either side" doesn't have to mean "A player from each side", in this case it just means "either a defender or an attacker". Stating "Have the ball in their hands" is poorly worded as it does suggest two players, though - I see your point.

 

[Bullrush]

I don't think there's anything wrong with the Laws as they are. The sport is about competing for possession and I think it's impossible to get wording that will unequivocally make every situation in a game clear-cut and easily definable.

I don't think McCaw actually broke a any Laws in the incident we've discussed here but I can also understand that we've got the benefit of going back over it and watching it frame-by-fame and in slow mo etc. AR didn't and when you're playing right at the edge (and sometimes beyond) as ALL GOOD 7's DO, you will win some and you'll lose some......that's just rugby.

 

[Scarfman]

I disagree with three things there:

- there's plenty wrong with the laws as written
- McCaw broke the law in letter and spririt
- no position in rugby should have their primary objective to break the law

George Smith basically invented the 7 position as it is played today. He found a hole in the rules which made a new style of defence possible. Instead of tackling hard and aggressively, you guide the ball carrier to ground and, while remaining standing, get your hands on the ball straight away. The iRB have been fiddling with the rules ever since, and either a lack of intellect or a lack of courage is holding them back from fixing it. The elephant in the room is rucking, and the iRB banned the central aspect of our game without thinking hard enough about what to replace it with.

My solution is to bring back the "hands-in-the-ruck" rule form the Stellenbosch ELVs, and which was used in the ARC. It allowed the tackle/ruck to be an areas of genuine physicality, without the fairly ridiculous level of danger involved in rucking.

 

[Bullrush]

1. Rucking isn't banned.

2. What is this 'genuine' physicality you're looking for? Is the tackle/ruck area currently an area of feigned physicality?

 

[Dan54]

I am gobsmacked about the number of people who say rucking is banned, I really wonder where their heads are. We all talk who is off side etc at ruck all the time so it obviously isn't banned. The thing that is barred is rucking the body, or actually I think even that still legal if you doing it in backwards motion. I will also say whatever rule is made good players/team/coaches will find way to stretch them.
As a case in point look what Wallabies have been doing with Fatcat and substituting him on and off, they seem to be breaking the rules but hey noone is stopping them, so they carry on.
I will continue to say what I said when way back we used to here the old secondary runners arguments that Brumbies and Wallabies used to use, they did it all the time, if the refs considered it illegal they would have penalised them, they didn't , and what all the fools that continue to moan and groan should realise , the Referee is supposed to be the sole arbitrator of the rules in any game of rugby, I said it then and I say it now when I hear the continual whinges about Richie or whoever. I would also add there is no opinion in here that I have ever read that has lead me to believe the poster knows more about the laws of rugby than the refs. And bollocks to saying look at this frame by frame, the bloody game isn't played frame by bloody frame, it's played at a reasonably quick tempo which is why so many rules HAVE to be discretionary, or up to the ref to arbitrate!!

 

[Scarfman]

When I say "rucking" I obviously mean rucking the body. FFS, at least debate in good faith. Do you think I am unaware that something called "rucks" exist in rugby?

The "fatcat" rule is obscene, and unlike Kiwis with their side's infringements, you'll find that all the Aussies on here are calling it out to be stopped.

Apart from that, I'm unclear about what you are actually arguing about, or with whom?

I made two points, if anyone wants to debate them. (1) The ruck laws need an overhaul. (2) The Stellenbosch ELV about hands in the ruck worked really well.

 

[FrankLind]

I disagree with three things there:

- there's plenty wrong with the laws as written
- McCaw broke the law in letter and spririt
- no position in rugby should have their primary objective to break the law

To what address do I send 100 copies of his biography, life sized posters, blow-up Richie doll, and the Richie dartboard for you, your family and friends?

 

[ChargerWA]

To what address do I send 100 copies of his biography, life sized posters, blow-up Richie doll, and the Richie dartboard for you, your family and friends?

We'll just assume you don't have reply worthy of consideration.

 

[Bullrush]

Again, I don't think the ruck rules need an overhaul. I don't see where the big need for it is and I don't know what it would achieve because, as I said before I think it's impossible to get wording that will unequivocally make every situation in a game clear-cut and easily definable.

I still don't understand your comment about the lack of 'genuine physicality'. There is plenty of physicality in the ruck as it is. If there isn't genuine physicality in the ruck, why would one of the criticisms of the Wallaby pack in recent times be their lack of physicality?

"McCaw broke the law in letter and spririt" - you're welcome to that opinion but my opinion is that he did neither. He was the tackler, he got up immediately and looked to contest for the ball as any good player should. It's debateable whether there was a ruck or not but AR seems to think there was and he penalised RM for it. What's the problem again? If you want Kiwis here to call for a stop to contesting for the ball then you better exhale now.

I never saw the Stellenbosch ELVs so can't comment but again, I'm personally happy with the Laws as they are. It is allows for very physical and skillful play and it still promotes the contest for the ball.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

To what address do I send 100 copies of his biography, life sized posters, blow-up Richie doll, and the Richie dartboard for you, your family and friends?

bugger - If youd posted yesterday I could have avoided paying $13 AUD to get it from fishpond.co.nz.
Still anything to help to NZ economy

 

[Blue]

To what address do I send 100 copies of his biography, life sized posters, blow-up Richie doll, and the Richie dartboard for you, your family and friends?

Too late. Doll's already an item at Target.

I believe that every time it hears a whistle a pre-recorded voice says "Join me offside big boy".

S to XL, dingle dongle attachment optional for those so inclined.