New ruck rules great for Aussies

[Thomond78]

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.

Lee, my main objection isn't so much to the idea per se - I think it won't work, but I can see a certain logic to it - but to the manner in which it's introduced.

These aren't rulings clarifying the laws; they're changes to the laws, and let's not pretend otherwise. And they're being done on the sly. That it not on. Either the laws mean what they say, or they don't. If the former, then change them, leave them alone, but either way, enforce them and we'll all have consistency. The latter just means the laws are whatever the ref feels like at the time - and that sort of bullshit chaos is one of the biggest problems with the game at the moment.

Paddy O'Brien has been an unmitigated disaster as chief ref, no question about it.

 

[Cutter]

Cutter,

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, your point doesn't stand.

That is a forceful statement where history shows that it can go either way. As evidence, check out your gif where it did go the way you think it shouldnt have. Had there been more Wallabies there, we may not have lost the ball regardless of how much the ABs were trying to cheat to stop us. I'm not denying they were cheating, just that their cheating was the cause of the turnover. Sure it contributed, but even had they not been cheating, with 7 v 2.5, they would have got the ball back. If it had been 7 v 7, I think we would have kept it.

 

[PaarlBok]

I just hope Snor talk this one through with Lawrense before tomorrows test. Brussouw are going to make a killing with this.

 

[Gagger]

Cutter,

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, your point doesn't stand.

That is a forceful statement where history shows that it can go either way. As evidence, check out your gif where it did go the way you think it shouldnt have. Had there been more Wallabies there, we may not have lost the ball regardless of how much the ABs were trying to cheat to stop us. I'm not denying they were cheating, just that their cheating was the cause of the turnover. Sure it contributed, but even had they not been cheating, with 7 v 2.5, they would have got the ball back. If it had been 7 v 7, I think we would have kept it.

Yeah, I toned it down - but too late! :thumb

You can argue that you have to suck everyone into mauls to make up for the other sides cheating, but I then ask what the rules/regulations are for, especially in such a blatant case like this.

Having to overcommit to rucks hands the other side a significant advantage in slowing your momentum and limiting attacking options. The ABs did this deliberately here, and maybe you can't blame them - it was all or nothing at the end of the game. The pathetic thing is that it happened under Kaplan's nose.

Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[Cutter]

A bit of debate is healthy. I wouldnt come here if I was just going to agree with everything. Having said that, I seem to have hit a purple patch of people disagreeing with me!

 

[cyclopath]

A bit of debate is healthy. I wouldnt come here if I was just going to agree with everything. Having said that, I seem to have hit a purple patch of people disagreeing with me!

No, you haven't! ;D

 

[Biffo]

Pinching a line from "Philadelphia", rugby isn't played in a courtroom.

 

[Gagger]

A bit of debate is healthy. I wouldnt come here if I was just going to agree with everything. Having said that, I seem to have hit a purple patch of people disagreeing with me!

It's nothing personal Cutter, you just got yourself (sort of) defending Kaplan and the ABs at the breakdown - my two pet hates!

You're right though, opinions is what it's all about.

 

[Cutter]

A bit of debate is healthy. I wouldnt come here if I was just going to agree with everything. Having said that, I seem to have hit a purple patch of people disagreeing with me!

It's nothing personal Cutter, you just got yourself (sort of) defending Kaplan and the ABs at the breakdown - my two pet hates!

You're right though, opinions is what it's all about.

Dont worry, I'm not overly sensitive. I wasnt defending Kaplan and the ABs, just saying that wasnt the Wallabies problem.

 

[PaarlBok]

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.

You needed Bakkies to clean it out. :nta:

 

[Lee Grant]

Either the laws mean what they say, or they don't.

But the point is that the laws don't say everything that is needed, which is why the NZRFU and ARU asked for a ruling in the first place.

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?

Read the whole ruling yourself:

http://www.pdfdownload.org/pdf2html/pdf2html.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lionsrugby.co.za%2Fuploads%2FIRBRuling2009.pdf&images=yes


Note this part:

This does not appear to be covered by Law.

 

[Pfitzy]

Either the laws mean what they say, or they don't.

:lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

Oirish - I know you're a legal eagle, but have you ever read the Rugby Laws and tried to put them in any sort of context?

Firstly, Lee's right - they DON'T say everything they need to. My favourite is use of the word "immediately":

The Laws state that when a tackler goes to deck, he must IMMEDIATELY release the tackled player. But the tackled player must IMMEDIATELY release the ball. Which one comes first? Ah - that's when we need a directive or ruling - the ruling is that the tackler must release first, then the tackled player. But then we have a situation where no player is truly "tackled" because that defines a ball carrier brought to ground and held (at best, they're "tackled" for less than a second if the tackler does what they're supposed to). If someone is NOT held on the ground, they are not "tackled", and the cycle starts again.

Personally, I think the whole Law book needs a bit of a work over to lose some of the technicalities, and remove some of the immovable object versus irresistible force problems we have now.

 

[Lindommer]

Personally, I think the whole Law book needs a bit of a work over to lose some of the technicalities, and remove some of the immovable object versus irresistible force problems we have now.

Isn't that what the Laws Project Group were commissioned to do by the iRB? We all want clarity in the Laws so those other cheating bastards can be mercilessly pinged off the park. But when it comes to agreeing to implement said new Laws the stick-in-the-mud NH administrators refuse to budge.

I give up. All we can do, Nick, is to continue to pummel the bastards on the pitch.

 

[Thomond78]

Either the laws mean what they say, or they don't.

:lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

Oirish - I know you're a legal eagle, but have you ever read the Rugby Laws and tried to put them in any sort of context?

Firstly, Lee's right - they DON'T say everything they need to. My favourite is use of the word "immediately":

The Laws state that when a tackler goes to deck, he must IMMEDIATELY release the tackled player. But the tackled player must IMMEDIATELY release the ball. Which one comes first? Ah - that's when we need a directive or ruling - the ruling is that the tackler must release first, then the tackled player. But then we have a situation where no player is truly "tackled" because that defines a ball carrier brought to ground and held (at best, they're "tackled" for less than a second if the tackler does what they're supposed to). If someone is NOT held on the ground, they are not "tackled", and the cycle starts again.

Personally, I think the whole Law book needs a bit of a work over to lose some of the technicalities, and remove some of the immovable object versus irresistible force problems we have now.

They're a fucking shambles, self-contradictory, appallingly drafted and made worse by "but I had my fingers crossed so it doesn't count" "rulings".

They were advertising for a new counsel recently; having seen the drooling half-wit in charge of their legal stuff, I'd not hold my breath.

Occasionally, I do think about working a cross-forum project to re-draft the laws, and then send it in to the fuckwits in the IRB.

 

[PaarlBok]

Bliksem that lineout drive and try by the Bokke was impressive on saturday.