Law issues with the breakdown

[Braveheart81]

I thought it was worthwhile having a thread to discuss this as I think it is obviously topical following the red card on the weekend (and red cards in the Six Nations) and arguably the number one issue rugby is grappling with while trying to improve safety.

We have:

1. Keeping the jackal in the game
2. Not enforcing the shoulders not below the hips rule (which gets breached pretty much every pilfer).
3. Cleanouts targeting the head and resulting in red cards
4. The croc roll which destroys knees and ruins careers

 

[Finsbury Girl]

can be easily fixed by consistent interpretation and enforcing the laws especially as I mentioned in the other thread about binding, staying on your feet.

Proper referring of the tackle law as well especially allowing the tackled player to play the ball and remain on their feet.

 

[Braveheart81]

Strict enforcement of the existing laws would result in a very different looking breakdown.

I reckon pretty much every breakdown features players with their hips above their shoulders. Most of the other breakdown laws get broken frequently too.

 

[Forcefield]

So the Aus sides played regular old rugby last season. Super Rugby Ao actively sought to have referees police ruck details that normally get overlooked. Clear entry through the gate for example or players keeping their feet. Ultimately it led to a better spectacle and people saying the ABs would destroy the Wallabies. Those games ended up being fairly par for the course.

I'd really like to something similar trialled here.

 

[Tomikin]

From Mr Mehrtens

Andrew Mehrtens: Rugby refs simply aren’t good enough and they’re letting the game down (smh.com.au)

 

[Pfitzy]

From Mr Mehrtens

Andrew Mehrtens: Rugby refs simply aren’t good enough and they’re letting the game down (smh.com.au)

That went up in the Australian Rugby Referees group on Facebook and divided opinions nicely. Some *very* defensive responses

The red card against QLD on the weekend was a perfect example of cascading consquences: White 7 was never in a position to get the ball without infringing, because a Red player was over the pill (but maybe was off their feet). Red 18 was never going to effect a legal cleanout from that distance and that "flying" in action is one of the key things to watch at the ruck.

The problem is nobody ever went back to the original ruck laws which state you must be bound when joining the ruck. Stop the flying in fast and you'll stop the fluid situations where this happens to end up in a red card. Rugby needs a rethink in that regard, because if you make the forwards play a little tighter to effect ruck contests, you leave more space out wide.

It is also easy to blame the advantage Law in this case - an immediate whistle against White 7 would maybe have stopped Red 18.

When you think about it, playing advantage can slow the game down hideously in terms of overall effect.

 

[KOB1987]

The whole advantage thing needs a ‘use it or lose it clause’ IMO. These ridiculous situations where we see multiple phases and a 50m territorial advantage come back to the mark because there wasn’t a strategic advantage have to go. I’m not sure what the actual rule should be but that bullshit has to go.

 

[PhilClinton]

I think one of the most constantly abused areas is when a tackler effects a tackle and goes to ground with the ball carrier, if they’re in a strong position they usually get back to their feet, show the clear release of the ball carrier that a ref looks for, and have a play at the ball. Explosiveness off the ground is practiced by lots of forwards specifically to do this.

My issue is with the current rules, I believe they need to exit the ruck area completely by rolling away and re-enter through the gate. Maybe my interpretation is wrong here but I think this happens a lot.

 

[The Nomad]

That’s the tricky bit , it’s not a ruck if it only involves the tackler and the ball carrier . The tackler has to still come back around from an onside position , there is a gate , but no ruck yet formed. Might help if the refs regularly called when they believe a ruck has formed and any “flyers” from there get pinged for not joining safely ?

 

[Braveheart81]

The whole advantage thing needs a ‘use it or lose it clause’ IMO. These ridiculous situations where we see multiple phases and a 50m territorial advantage come back to the mark because there wasn’t a strategic advantage have to go. I’m not sure what the actual rule should be but that bullshit has to go.

I agree that we should have more concrete rules around advantage.

I like it that if the play is in the middle of the field then most referees will blow the whistle after a couple of phases of going nowhere so time isn't wasted.

I don't like that advantage inside the 22 is basically endless. Why should this be the case?

There is also a lot of inconsistency around when advantage is called over and it would seem that most referees will bring it back to the penalty if they didn't already yell out advantage over. I think this should cease. It should be possible to say that advantage was over after the event. If a break is made downfield the advantage is going to end very quickly so it is entirely plausible that advantage can be gained and then the ball turned over before the referee can call advantage over.

Overall, I think the game would be improved if less discretion was allowed around advantage. I also think the defensive team should get some reprieve when defending their tryline. Give them a reasonable chance for advantage to end so that they aren't defending for 10+ phases and still go back for a penalty so attacking teams know that they either need to roll the dice with a cross field kick or similar or that continuing to pick and go will result in it being advantage over.

 

[Braveheart81]

The red card against QLD on the weekend was a perfect example of cascading consquences: White 7 was never in a position to get the ball without infringing, because a Red player was over the pill (but maybe was off their feet). Red 18 was never going to effect a legal cleanout from that distance and that "flying" in action is one of the key things to watch at the ruck.

It is also easy to blame the advantage Law in this case - an immediate whistle against White 7 would maybe have stopped Red 18.

The problem here is that I don't think they can reasonably do this. If any time that any infringement (such as shoulders below hips) happened the whistle was blown, there would be a penalty at 50% of rucks.

You'd need to get rid of calling infringing players out to try and keep the game flowing.

If that was going to happen you'd need to adopt new guidelines over an offseason and make it clear that this was the way the game was going to be refereed as big adjustments would be needed. This certainly couldn't happen on the fly.

It would be interesting to run a trial with professional players with the game refereed like this though to see what it looks like when the laws are followed strictly and players are entirely aware of what they need to be doing.

 

[Pfitzy]

Can be done via changes to interpretation.

If we're in the red zone, don't bother with advantage. Put players in the bin and you'll see everything move a lot faster when the pick n go happens within 5m.

We treat players differently in the red zone already, so might as well ratchet it up.