New ruck rules great for Aussies

[disco]

I didn't know until last night that it is now legal to keep your hands on the ball if you are on it before the ruck has formed.

So this is great news for the Aussies with players like Pocock, Smith, Hodgson & Waugh all being great ball pilfers.

I think the new law is a big advantage for the us during the Tri-nations as the Kiwis & Saffas don't really have brilliant ball scavangers.

Schalk Burger & Richie McCaw are both good openside flankers but aren't as good on the ball as our lads.

 

[Lee Grant]

It is not a new law, it's a new regulation, and I hope it works out better than some of the previous brainwaves have worked out.

They come out with these IRB protocols last August and one of them was that the law that prescribes that the ball should be thrown into the middle of the tunnel of the scrum, should be observed. It is not observed 9 months later; so I hope that this new one is not a 9 day wonder.

We will have to see if this regulation will have it's desired effect - to facilitate the earlier delivery of ball by the first arrival at the ruck, regardless of which team took the ball into it.

We are all aware that referees allow a couple of heartbeats after players are in contact over the ball before players have to release the pill. We have to suppose that there will be a couple more heartbeats allowed to the first arrival with hands on and will hope that the 2nd arrival, from the other team, is not allowed those extra heartbeats also. If so, there will be no change in effect, except that penalties will be awarded 1 second later.

If the first arrival is allowed the leeway exclusively then this theoretically based regulation will work, but I do not trust the IRB praetorians, the referees, to implement this regulation in the manner intended. I think they will allow both sides to have the extra time with the hands in. Colour me cynical.

If I'm wrong, and I hope I am, then good specialist opensiders will be advantaged, as disco indicates. It will therefore disadvantage those teams that don't have good fetchers - such as the SAfricans who typically use two flankers who bash people off the ball rather than fetch it.

Stegmann at the Bulls and Brussow at the Cheetahs will be looking forward to playing under this regulation.

 

[Gagger]

This "regulation", or the application of it, was the key decider of our 3N games last year (OK, maybe not the one in Joburg).

 

[disco]

This "regulation", or the application of it, was the key decider of our 3N games last year

The key decider was Stephen Donald sleeping on top of the ball for about 10 seconds then waking up & throwing it off the ground for Weepu to kick out.

All legal of course.

 

[Gagger]

Would this be what you're referring to?

We had a comp to spot the AB infringements on the blog when it happened.

How many can you spot that Kaplan couldn't? Answers below.

 

[Spook]

;D

Tackler not rolling away
Coming in from the side (multiple times)
Going off feet (multiple times) and sealing
Playing ball on ground (multiple times)

 

[Newb]

the more i watch that the more i'm puzzled by king cheat buggering off so quickly. of all the people to be the cause of that debacle you'd think he'd be in there. but ritchie has a hit at the ruck and scampers off like he heard a dinner bell.

 

[Gagger]

Yeah, I think we spotted 9 alltogether. There weren't many infringments they didn't tick off in that ruck, the majority of which were right under Kaplans nose.

McCheat was getting the fuck out of dodge because there was no D out wide. We were about to win the Beldisloe....... :'(

 

[disco]

That was it Gagger, what a disgrace that Donald wasn't penalised & then binned for deliberate infringements.

It's almost beyond belief that there wasn't even a free kick given.

 

[Thomond78]

Basically, this is Paddy O'Brien deciding, not for the first time, that the Laws of rugby are a mere irrelevance that Paddy can throw aside as he wants.

This isn't a regulation; it's making up a new law, and saying that the law on hands in the ruck doesn't apply. Only without actually going through the process to get the laws changed.

Now, whatever else about the ELVs, there was a debate on it, and it was up-front and in the open. Heated, but people could have their say.

This is legislating by fiat, with no say, and should be condemned on that basis alone.

It isn't working, by the way; it just means slower ball, and while there are turnovers, you get a lot more scrums, looking at the Lions games. The simple answer is, as we found out in the NH last autumn and winter, to blow it as the laws say; you get one shot to nick it, but as soon as someone is in contact, all hands out and everyone on their feet - and if you don't comply with that, you'll be penalised until you do.

And when you ref it like that, suddenly you get proper rucking and fast ruck ball back. It's as simple as that.

 

[Lee Grant]

This isn't a regulation; it's making up a new law, and saying that the law on hands in the ruck doesn't apply. Only without actually going through the process to get the laws changed.

Now, whatever else about the ELVs, there was a debate on it, and it was up-front and in the open. Heated, but people could have their say.

Technically it's not a new law.

The laws say that scrummies can't put the ball into the scrum skew; that the same gentlemen can't fish the ball out of the ruck with their hands until it emerges; that you are not allowed to have players on the attacking team in front of the ball as pillars, to use an expression, to stop defenders getting at the scrummie; that players can't bridge over the ball resting their weight on their knuckles, Dayglo style; that players can't throw themselves down on the other side of the other side of the player they have just tackled, McCaw style..... yarda, yarda, yarda .... we can all add a dozen more without thinking too hard.

Those laws don't apply either - the fact that this regulation implies that the hands in the ruck law does not apply, as you say, is therefore neither here nor there.

Can't agree that penalty kicks get the hands out every time that players don't comply, but I can't judge yet, whether or not this regulation is a better bet than the law without it.

 

[Thomond78]

This isn't a regulation; it's making up a new law, and saying that the law on hands in the ruck doesn't apply. Only without actually going through the process to get the laws changed.

Now, whatever else about the ELVs, there was a debate on it, and it was up-front and in the open. Heated, but people could have their say.

Technically it's not a new law.

The laws say that scrummies can't put the ball into the scrum skew; that the same gentlemen can't fish the ball out of the ruck with their hands until it emerges; that you are not allowed to have players on the attacking team in front of the ball as pillars, to use an expression, to stop defenders getting at the scrummie;

They do; offside in a ruck isn't the ball, it's the hindmost foot. Pillars are there to stop defenders getting at your outhalf, mostly.

that players can't bridge over the ball resting their weight on their knuckles, Dayglo style;

And we started penalising it - why stop now?

that players can't throw themselves down on the other side of the other side of the player they have just tackled, McCaw style.....

Actually, they don't say this. They just say you have to roll away - nothing about in which direction.

Penalties for slowing the ball down, whether off your feet or hands, work. So, enforce them; don't give into those getting hands in all the time.

 

[Cutter]

Would this be what you're referring to?

We had a comp to spot the AB infringements on the blog when it happened.

How many can you spot that Kaplan couldn't? Answers below.

Gagger you dont really think we lost the ball because the ABs infringed do you? We lost it because there was only one wallaby who tried to protect the ball carrier and that was McMenimen who did a pretty good job in the circumstances. Cordingley turned up but didnt do anything. In the last minutes of a game the desperation to secure ball or contest opposition ball is crucial. There were 7 ABs at that ruck before Horwill arrived as the third Wallaby to get involved. We lost it because the ABs were more desperate and got more numbers to the breakdown.

 

[Gagger]

Gagger you dont really think we lost the ball because the ABs infringed do you?

How do I put this......FUCK YEAH

You're telling me Vanilla Gregan wouldn't have pulled that ball out of there if Donald hadn't been lying on the wrong side wrapped around it?

 

[Cutter]

Gagger you dont really think we lost the ball because the ABs infringed do you?

How do I put this......FUCK YEAH

You're telling me Vanilla Gregan wouldn't have pulled that ball out of there if Donald hadn't been lying on the wrong side wrapped around it?

Cordingley didnt get there until 2 or 3 more ABs had arrived.

We both know Gregan would have been telling the ref about all the infringements rather than getting the ball out. Burgess on the other had would have had a dig for it, maybe got it, and then passed it behind Gits.

 

[Gagger]

Have another look.

MMM is over the ball (which is also being protected by Smith) and has already repelled one would be AB flopper when Cordingly arrives. So wrapped around the ball is Donald that Cordingly can't even see it. He does however have a full couple of 'beats' before the next wave of flopping ABs arrive.

Actually this footage, along with his record against the Tahs, is what firmly put Kaplan in the "Cheating c*nt" box for me. A box from where there is no escape. Just look where the prick is standing as this all goes on.

 

[Spook]

Gagger you dont really think we lost the ball because the ABs infringed do you?

How do I put this......FUCK YEAH

You're telling me Vanilla Gregan wouldn't have pulled that ball out of there if Donald hadn't been lying on the wrong side wrapped around it?

Cordingley didnt get there until 2 or 3 more ABs had arrived.

We both know Gregan would have been telling the ref about all the infringements rather than getting the ball out. Burgess on the other had would have had a dig for it, maybe got it, and then passed it over behind Gits head into touch.

Fixed.

 

[Lee Grant]

T78 on pillars being in front of the ball ..... offside in a ruck isn't the ball, it's the hindmost foot. Of course; have known that for several decades - too many. Forgive a mistype; it was what I meant.

Pillars are there to stop defenders getting at your outhalf, mostly. And the scrummie because big pillars are so difficult to get around to nab him, but your comment was sophistry: the point was that the pillars are invariably ahead of last feet and are allowed to stay there without being penalised enough. Watch the first few rucks in the next match.

T78 on players bridging with hands on the ground And we started penalising it - why stop now? Bridging is alive and well and is not penalised enough either. Sometimes they make a show of trying to get the ball but they can't get the ball back to their side half the time because they would fall on their faces once they lost support from their hands to grab it. Mind you, they are often helped out by bearing some weight on their bellies in contact with fallen players, which is also illegal and lightly penalised.

T78 on players throwing themselves down on the other side of the other side of the player they have just tackled, McCaw style.....Actually, they don't say this. They just say you have to roll away - nothing about in which direction. I know that T78, always have, but I just mentioned the most infamous practice that the law should cover. Let's watch and see how many times per test we see it not penalised this weekend. I'm going for 5.

T78 - I was just responding to your comment that the IRB regulation, sorry, the ruling, was saying that the hands in the ruck law didn't apply, and pointed out that we shouldn't get our knickers in a knot if that were the case because so many other laws are not observed enough by refs anyway. And silly me for not mentioning the non-observance of putting the ball into the scrum straight, sorry, throw it in straight.

It's not a law: it's a ruling to overcome something that is not covered by the laws. When a player who has obeyed all the other laws regarding the tackle, and is on his feet, has his hands on the ball and then one or more opponents come in contact with him over the ball (thereby forming a ruck) the laws are silent on the matters of:

- whether or not he can continue to play the ball with his hands, and
- at what point does he have to release the ball?

The ruling was in response to a question from the NZRFU and ARU. It says that the player may continue to play the ball with his hands after opponents contact him over it to form a ruck, and if one from either side have their hands on the pill before the ruck was formed, then they can both try to rip it out afterwards. Of course, players who don't have their hands on the pill when the ruck is formed can not do so afterwards.

 

[Cutter]

Have another look.

MMM is over the ball (which is also being protected by Smith) and has already repelled one would be AB flopper when Cordingly arrives. So wrapped around the ball is Donald that Cordingly can't even see it. He does however have a full couple of 'beats' before the next wave of flopping ABs arrive.

Actually this footage, along with his record against the Tahs, is what firmly put Kaplan in the "Cheating c*nt" box for me. A box from where there is no escape. Just look where the prick is standing as this all goes on.

You might be right but its one of those things that can go either way. The best way for the Wallabies to ensure they didnt put themselves in the position where the ref can determine what happens would have been to get more players to the breakdown. If someone else had been there helping MMM battle 3 ABs on his own then Cordingley could have made a show of trying to drag Donald away and we would have been awarded the penalty.

So, my point remains, we lost the ball because we didnt get enough players to the breakdown not because of the AB indiscretions.

 

[Gagger]

1) As I described above and as is plain from the gif, if Donald wasn't wrapped around the ball, it would have been sitting under MMMs legs. Even Cordingly could have cleared it

2) Even if the above hadn't have happened, you're clearly not allowed to lie on the wrong side of a ruck with your body wrapped around the ball, and you're sure as fuck not allowed to then pick it up and throw it out of the ruck to your halfback. It's a penalty and our ball.

Either way, it's our ball, without more bodies.