All Blacks - From Pillars to Stonewalls

[Blue]

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.

 

[Dam0]

I must confess I don't really follow you too well.

Perhaps if you could cite the law they are breaching and provide a clip or two, or at least some times during recent games where they have done this illegal tactic it might be a bit clearer.

 

[Blue]

Must be my pigeon English.

I don't have video feed on my computer.

Not sure how I can explain it other than the simple fact that supporting All Black players take the space quickly beyond the tackle point.

This is not intended as just having a go at the AB's

I think it is a genuine tactic they are using to bend the law with some good effect.

As for a specific law I am working under the assumption that attacking players can't go and build a wall on the defensive side of the ruck. That seems logical no?

I'll trawl through the laws when I get time though.

 

[Kangaroo Sausage]

Umm, so the ABs are entering the tackle area and pushing the opposition backwards so that they cant get the ball? And this allows the ABs to retain the ball and recycle it quickly? And they're not falling over so they can trick the ref in to not penalising them?

The cheating bastards!

 

[cyclopath]

The pillars were a pet hate of mine for years, and to be fair, not only the ABs did it, but they were the masters. The fact is, they did it well, and got away with it, so kudos to them. It is for the refs to sort this out, not the teams to do. In any event, the ability of good NZ Test and provincial teams to adapt means they find a new advantage.
The stonewall is a nice term. One way to look at it is that the players come through the gate ( fine) but then advance in front of the "ruck" so almost become a separate entity, so I would imagine it could be called obstruction, as they are in front of the play and preventing a contest. Problem is, if the feet of the wall are over the ball / player (or even one foot), then it is probably OK, even if it looks wrong, which I agree it does.
The latter is probably OK, while the former is not, but hard to differentiate from being OK.
Clear as mud!

 

[Dam0]

Must be my pigeon English.

I don't have video feed on my computer.

Not sure how I can explain it other than the simple fact that supporting All Black players take the space quickly beyond the tackle point.

This is not intended as just having a go at the AB's

I think it is a genuine tactic they are using to bend the law with some good effect.

As for a specific law I am working under the assumption that attacking players can't go and build a wall on the defensive side of the ruck. That seems logical no?

I'll trawl through the laws when I get time though.

I didn't read your post as a crack against the AB's as I think you may well be raising a legitimate offence and one of theoretical as well as practical interest. I have heard others raise this point and I want to get at precisely what the offence is before the conversation gets a bit sidetracked.

Judging by your original post I assume that we are primarily talking about the situation at a tackle, rather than one after a ruck has formed. At a tackle, the law regarding other players (ie other than the tackler and the tacklee) is covered by law 15.6. Here is what I think is the relevant law regarding this situation (anyone can see for him or her self by going to the IRB laws page)

15.6 OTHER PLAYERS
(a) After a tackle, all other players must be on their feet when they play the ball. Players are on
their feet if no other part of their body is supported by the ground or players on the ground.
Sanction: Penalty kick
...

(c) Players in opposition to the ball carrier who remain on their feet who bring the ball carrier to
ground so that the player is tackled must release the ball and the ball carrier. Those players
may then play the ball providing they are on their feet and do so from behind the ball and
from directly behind the tackled player or a tackler closest to those players’ goal line.
Sanction: Penalty kick

(d) At a tackle or near to a tackle, other players who play the ball must do so from behind the
ball and from directly behind the tackled player or the tackler closest to those players’ goal
line.
Sanction: Penalty kick


...

(g) Any player who first gains possession of the ball at the tackle or near to it may be tackled
by an opposition player providing that player does so from behind the ball and from directly
behind the tackled player or the tackler closest to that player’s goal line.
Sanction: Penalty kick

15.7 FORBIDDEN PRACTICES
...
(c) No player may fall on or over the players lying on the ground after a tackle with the ball
between or near to them.
Sanction: Penalty kick

(d) Players on their feet must not charge or obstruct an opponent who is not near the ball.
Sanction: Penalty kick

If I understand your issue correctly, you are concerned about players who come through a tackle and stand over the ball or slightly past the ball in order to obstruct opponents from getting at it. Whilst it is true that such players are obstructing the opposition from playing the ball, this is only illegal if the opponent is not near the ball (15.7(d)). Of course this is a matter of interpretation as to what is "near the ball".

We really need to take a look at some examples to see whether what they are doing is illegal. If they are obstructing players not near the ball then its illegal. This would happen when they go way past the ball and form a wall or hold onto would be tacklers/ruckers. If they are simply standing over the ball or slightly past it then opposition teams have to drive them out of the way to get at the ball. Or get to the tackle sooner.

 

[cyclopath]

Dam0 - well spotted. 15.7 (d) looks the likely one. The trick is to determine when they are a separate, obstructive entity, rather than part of the tackle cum ruck area so entitled to be there.

 

[Dam0]

Dam0 - well spotted. 15.7 (d) looks the likely one. The trick is to determine when they are a separate, obstructive entity, rather than part of the tackle cum ruck area so entitled to be there.

I think that is a pretty good distinction. I take it as axiomatic that a player who is (a) on his feet and (b) comes from between "the gate" can protect the ball which necessarily involves "obstructing" an opposition player who wants to play it. The opposition player can drive into that player and attempt to remove the protector (generally forming a ruck). The question is what limits we put on the obstruction before the ruck is formed.

 

[ACR]

I know exactly what you are referring to and noticed it this morning as well. The AB's are doing all of their ruck work past the ball, and subsequently past the supposed ruck itself. It's difficult to say which attempts are legal and which are not, considering there is an infringement at almost every single ruck in rugby.

Some of them are just from sheer numbers and literally walking over the opponents ruck and others are just swarming messes where the referee forgets that a 'gate' exists. Undoubtedly a large number of these instances are infringements but it also has the appearance of a 'dominant pack', and a referee is never going to consistently rule against that.

I remember maybe three or four weeks ago reading an article (source forgotten) that highlighted the AB pattern on defensive rucks, the AB's often consciously drive over the ball where just about every other team in the same situation would try and fetch the ball (under duress). It's similar on attack, watch the AB's and you'll notice there are usually no wasted forwards bridging at the back of the ruck. They are usually either clearing out, picking the ball up or 1-man bridging well in front of the ball. I think it's a symptom of the AB's simply committing players to the ruck, not by numbers but in concerted effort.

I have a sneaking suspicion that Steve Hansen may have referenced this as well, don't have a quote or source but it was along the lines of 'we're better at winning the collisions ahead of the ball'. As for legality, that's not the AB's problem until the referee or IRB makes it so.

 

[Blue]

Umm, so the ABs are entering the tackle area and pushing the opposition backwards so that they cant get the ball? And this allows the ABs to retain the ball and recycle it quickly? And they're not falling over so they can trick the ref in to not penalising them?

The cheating bastards!

Read the post again.

You missed what I am saying completely.

 

[Blue]

Dam0:

Thanks for getting the laws.

Exactly. As Cyclo suggests, the problem is when they will be deemed to obstruct.

The issue is also that the obstructing players are not deemed to come through the gate of from the side. They are already there, allowing other teammates extra time to protect the ball.

ACR:

I think by the time the ref started to look at he gate, a couple of guys are already in front of the tackled player.

It's just the next iteration of problems because of the fact that the ruck laws and what happens on the lark are often so hard to bring together.

All good points. Bugger of a problem if it's hard to define the problem.

 

[Dam0]

I know exactly what you are referring to and noticed it this morning as well. The AB's are doing all of their ruck work past the ball, and subsequently past the supposed ruck itself. It's difficult to say which attempts are legal and which are not, considering there is an infringement at almost every single ruck in rugby.

Some of them are just from sheer numbers and literally walking over the opponents ruck and others are just swarming messes where the referee forgets that a 'gate' exists. Undoubtedly a large number of these instances are infringements but it also has the appearance of a 'dominant pack', and a referee is never going to consistently rule against that.

I think part of the problem might be that some people are too quick to assume the bolded sentence is an offence, rather than just good ruck play.

In any case, unless I am mistaken, the issue here is the actions of a player(s) - normally a team mate of the ball carrier - prior to any opposition players getting there and forming a ruck.

Perhaps I'll have a look through some old games and find some clips with examples that are:

a) clearly legal
b) clearly illegal
c) up for debate.

 

[cyclopath]

Dam0 - the bolder bit is good counter-rucking. But once the players have advanced beyond the ball, and are no longer "connected" but hold the wall with a clear space between them and the tackled player / ball, and the ref does not let players come around and attack the ball, they are obstructive, I think. The onus should be on the team that has counter- rucked to use the ball, or risk losing it themselves. It really becomes a new breakdown??

 

[Kangaroo Sausage]

Dam0 - the bolder bit is good counter-rucking. But once the players have advanced beyond the ball, and are no longer "connected" but hold the wall with a clear space between them and the tackled player / ball, and the ref does not let players come around and attack the ball, they are obstructive, I think. The onus should be on the team that has counter- rucked to use the ball, or risk losing it themselves. It really becomes a new breakdown??

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.

 

[Dam0]

Blue:

Is this what you had in mind by "taking the space"?

http://www.sareferees.com/laws/view/2829674/


This is slightly different to what I had in mind by your description. I was picturing other players who come legally from behind who move up slightly past the ball. SARefs seem to be using it to refer to the actions of the tackler.

 

[Dam0]

Dam0 - the bolder bit is good counter-rucking. But once the players have advanced beyond the ball, and are no longer "connected" but hold the wall with a clear space between them and the tackled player / ball, and the ref does not let players come around and attack the ball, they are obstructive, I think. The onus should be on the team that has counter- rucked to use the ball, or risk losing it themselves. It really becomes a new breakdown??

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.

 

[cyclopath]

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.

That's pretty much the point I was making. Refs seem to not allow players to do this. So it is an issue.

 

[Baldric]

You are allowed to ruck over the ball and beyond the ball, but the laws state that you bust bind onto a team mate or an opposition player. The AB's do not do the binding part which is why they end up with players "on the wrong side" of the the ruck.

 

[Dan54]

I would think if players have driven past the ball and are still bound whether forming a wall or not, it would be legal as they are just really a ruck where ball has been won, though I will try and take more notice, I actually have a real beef with the one I have been noticing this year, where a ball is won and the halfback puts his foot on ball and gently rolls it back into ruck, I noticed Genia doing this in a test a few years back, and have seen at least one other in the RC tests played so far. My argument would be by pushing ball back into ruck because you are not ready for it, you must surely be putting all your playerts in ruck off side.

 

[Dam0]

I imagine the halfback pushing the ball back into the ruck will be a thing of the past when the 5 second rule is introduced universally. In any case it is prohibited by 16.4 "Players must not return the ball into a ruck", and possibly you are putting them unintentionally offside.