Counter rucking

[Cameo]

Sorry, another new thread from me but this is something that has been bugging me.

A lot of the difficult to police intricacies that cause issues in rugby (plus lots of injuries) come from the jackal, and there are periodic calls to outlaw it. Now, I love a good jackal and outlawing it as things stand would make it way too easy for attacks, but I think they could definitely reduce its importance and make the game more fun, less stop start, and safer by making counter rucking more worthwhile.

I think the key steps are:

1. Be harsher on supporting ruckers going off their feet and making them get up if they do go down. Ireland are the most obvious but everyone does it. On Saturday, there were rucks with no Scottish player in them and three Irishmen lying down. Why is this allowed? It just means there can be no competition. I get letting people off with tripping over or if the defender withdraws, but at least make them stand back up so they can be rucked against (or preferably make them roll away like you would a defender).

2. Be a bit more lenient on counter ruckers going off their feet. I don't want players diving over the ball but it pisses me off when there is a good counter ruck but then the ref penalises a player for tripping up, while letting the attacking team seal off at will.

3. Stop the attacking team picking up the ball. There was an example against Italy where DVDM counter rucked and was driving the Italy player off the ball, but the Italy player scooped up the ball and flung it out. The same happened the other way round against Ireland and seems to be allowed. Similarly, the player on the ground sometimes seems to be allowed to pop the ball to a teamate even if they have been rucked over. Once there is a ruck, you should only be allowed to pick the ball up or play it once it is at the back on your side.

4. Stop the attacking team from binding onto the ball carrier on the floor and dragging them back with them as they are being pushed back. You see it quite often where the ball carrier is dragged back five metres while holding the ball. What's the point of trying to counter ruck over the ball if the ball carrier can just keep moving the target?

5. Be harsher on the jackal. We all know that plenty of 'good' turnovers involve an elbow on the ground or someone only getting their hands on the ball after the ruck is formed.

More counter rucking would make the game scrappier but that makes it more entertaining. It leads to turnovers not penalties; it involves both sides committing players to rucks creating space; and it reduces dead time while we all stare at a ruck that consists of players lying on the ground trying to convince the ref that someone else lying on the groumd should be penalised for it.

Not sure I mean this but I'd be tempted to say you only get a penalty for the other side not rolling away once your players are all on their feet or out of the ruck (excluding the ball carrier, though it'd be fun if the ball carrier also had to roll away).

[General Zod]

Good suggestions. Might I also add

6. If an opposition player is lying on the wrong side of the ball, you can use your feet to ruck the Irish fecker out the way.

[Mikey Brown]

I'm not sure who can/can't stand this guy, but definitely feels like there's some relevant bits in here.

[Puja]

Sorry, another new thread from me but this is something that has been bugging me.

A lot of the difficult to police intricacies that cause issues in rugby (plus lots of injuries) come from the jackal, and there are periodic calls to outlaw it. Now, I love a good jackal and outlawing it as things stand would make it way too easy for attacks, but I think they could definitely reduce its importance and make the game more fun, less stop start, and safer by making counter rucking more worthwhile.

I think the key steps are:

1. Be harsher on supporting ruckers going off their feet and making them get up if they do go down. Ireland are the most obvious but everyone does it. On Saturday, there were rucks with no Scottish player in them and three Irishmen lying down. Why is this allowed? It just means there can be no competition. I get letting people off with tripping over or if the defender withdraws, but at least make them stand back up so they can be rucked against (or preferably make them roll away like you would a defender).

2. Be a bit more lenient on counter ruckers going off their feet. I don't want players diving over the ball but it pisses me off when there is a good counter ruck but then the ref penalises a player for tripping up, while letting the attacking team seal off at will.

3. Stop the attacking team picking up the ball. There was an example against Italy where DVDM counter rucked and was driving the Italy player off the ball, but the Italy player scooped up the ball and flung it out. The same happened the other way round against Ireland and seems to be allowed. Similarly, the player on the ground sometimes seems to be allowed to pop the ball to a teamate even if they have been rucked over. Once there is a ruck, you should only be allowed to pick the ball up or play it once it is at the back on your side.

4. Stop the attacking team from binding onto the ball carrier on the floor and dragging them back with them as they are being pushed back. You see it quite often where the ball carrier is dragged back five metres while holding the ball. What's the point of trying to counter ruck over the ball if the ball carrier can just keep moving the target?

5. Be harsher on the jackal. We all know that plenty of 'good' turnovers involve an elbow on the ground or someone only getting their hands on the ball after the ruck is formed.

More counter rucking would make the game scrappier but that makes it more entertaining. It leads to turnovers not penalties; it involves both sides committing players to rucks creating space; and it reduces dead time while we all stare at a ruck that consists of players lying on the ground trying to convince the ref that someone else lying on the groumd should be penalised for it.

Not sure I mean this but I'd be tempted to say you only get a penalty for the other side not rolling away once your players are all on their feet or out of the ruck (excluding the ball carrier, though it'd be fun if the ball carrier also had to roll away).

This, plus a comment elsewhere about how you were supposed to stop a jackal, considering their head is in the way preventing contact and you can't roll them away anymore, has made me wonder about a limited trial somewhere of no hands in the ruck at all - no jackal, no scrabbling for the ball, just drive over the top and get the ball back to your side. It would need to be refereed very differently - absolutely zero tolerance for attacks going off their feet to seal the ball and possibly remove the immunity of scrum-halves to being driven off the ball (probably best to still keep 'grabbing at them with outstretched arm' outlawed).

Trying to work out if it would make the game safer by removing the need to fly into rucks to remove a bent-double jackaller, or more dangerous because you'd have people like rutting stags over the ball. Very difficult to tell if it would speed things up or slow them down - would attacks need to commit too many players to secure their ball? Or would it open up defensive gaps by making them compete with several players?

Puja

[Cameo]

Sorry, another new thread from me but this is something that has been bugging me.

A lot of the difficult to police intricacies that cause issues in rugby (plus lots of injuries) come from the jackal, and there are periodic calls to outlaw it. Now, I love a good jackal and outlawing it as things stand would make it way too easy for attacks, but I think they could definitely reduce its importance and make the game more fun, less stop start, and safer by making counter rucking more worthwhile.

I think the key steps are:

1. Be harsher on supporting ruckers going off their feet and making them get up if they do go down. Ireland are the most obvious but everyone does it. On Saturday, there were rucks with no Scottish player in them and three Irishmen lying down. Why is this allowed? It just means there can be no competition. I get letting people off with tripping over or if the defender withdraws, but at least make them stand back up so they can be rucked against (or preferably make them roll away like you would a defender).

2. Be a bit more lenient on counter ruckers going off their feet. I don't want players diving over the ball but it pisses me off when there is a good counter ruck but then the ref penalises a player for tripping up, while letting the attacking team seal off at will.

3. Stop the attacking team picking up the ball. There was an example against Italy where DVDM counter rucked and was driving the Italy player off the ball, but the Italy player scooped up the ball and flung it out. The same happened the other way round against Ireland and seems to be allowed. Similarly, the player on the ground sometimes seems to be allowed to pop the ball to a teamate even if they have been rucked over. Once there is a ruck, you should only be allowed to pick the ball up or play it once it is at the back on your side.

4. Stop the attacking team from binding onto the ball carrier on the floor and dragging them back with them as they are being pushed back. You see it quite often where the ball carrier is dragged back five metres while holding the ball. What's the point of trying to counter ruck over the ball if the ball carrier can just keep moving the target?

5. Be harsher on the jackal. We all know that plenty of 'good' turnovers involve an elbow on the ground or someone only getting their hands on the ball after the ruck is formed.

More counter rucking would make the game scrappier but that makes it more entertaining. It leads to turnovers not penalties; it involves both sides committing players to rucks creating space; and it reduces dead time while we all stare at a ruck that consists of players lying on the ground trying to convince the ref that someone else lying on the groumd should be penalised for it.

Not sure I mean this but I'd be tempted to say you only get a penalty for the other side not rolling away once your players are all on their feet or out of the ruck (excluding the ball carrier, though it'd be fun if the ball carrier also had to roll away).

This, plus a comment elsewhere about how you were supposed to stop a jackal, considering their head is in the way preventing contact and you can't roll them away anymore, has made me wonder about a limited trial somewhere of no hands in the ruck at all - no jackal, no scrabbling for the ball, just drive over the top and get the ball back to your side. It would need to be refereed very differently - absolutely zero tolerance for attacks going off their feet to seal the ball and possibly remove the immunity of scrum-halves to being driven off the ball (probably best to still keep 'grabbing at them with outstretched arm' outlawed).

Trying to work out if it would make the game safer by removing the need to fly into rucks to remove a bent-double jackaller, or more dangerous because you'd have people like rutting stags over the ball. Very difficult to tell if it would speed things up or slow them down - would attacks need to commit too many players to secure their ball? Or would it open up defensive gaps by making them compete with several players?

Puja

Yeah, would be interesting to see. As you say, could only work with zero tolerance on sealing off. I'd actually be okay for them to get rid of the rule about taking out the 9 anyway. Fair enough, don't grab them from the ruck, but if you have rucked over everyone else, it seems unfair that you are then barred from carrying on, but can't really do anything else.

[Which Tyler]

Yeah, would be interesting to see. As you say, could only work with zero tolerance on sealing off. I'd actually be okay for them to get rid of the rule about taking out the 9 anyway. Fair enough, don't grab them from the ruck, but if you have rucked over everyone else, it seems unfair that you are then barred from carrying on, but can't really do anything else.

As a SH, I really don't feel qualified to talk much about rucking.
But...

I don't think you should be able to bring people into a ruck who aren't actually involved (not letting them leave is a different matter) - it's essentially tackling someone without the ball.
For me, that's the case whether it's the 9, or a guard, or whoever it is.
If you've driven through the ruck, you should be able to challenge the 9 for the ball though, whether to pick it up, kick it, or anything else. The 9's protection should be entirely about being tackled off the ball (or by a someone out of the game, either because they're off their feet, or they're offside)

[Cameo]

Yeah, would be interesting to see. As you say, could only work with zero tolerance on sealing off. I'd actually be okay for them to get rid of the rule about taking out the 9 anyway. Fair enough, don't grab them from the ruck, but if you have rucked over everyone else, it seems unfair that you are then barred from carrying on, but can't really do anything else.

As a SH, I really don't feel qualified to talk much about rucking.
But...

I don't think you should be able to bring people into a ruck who aren't actually involved (not letting them leave is a different matter) - it's essentially tackling someone without the ball.
For me, that's the case whether it's the 9, or a guard, or whoever it is.
If you've driven through the ruck, you should be able to challenge the 9 for the ball though, whether to pick it up, kick it, or anything else. The 9's protection should be entirely about being tackled off the ball (or by a someone out of the game, either because they're off their feet, or they're offside)

That makes sense. My issue is when a player gets through the ruck but the ref seems to be saying there is nothing they can do as the scrum half is standing there.

[Which Tyler]

Yeah, I believe the current laws are that if they ruck their way through legally, they have to not touch the 9 or put jands on the ball, and can only kick the ball back towards their own side, not forwards, which is... weird to me.

[Cameo]

Yeah, I believe the current laws are that if they ruck their way through legally, they have to not touch the 9 or put jands on the ball, and can only kick the ball back towards their own side, not forwards, which is... weird to me.

Yeah, especially when the ball is normally being held by the original ball carrier or wedged up against bodies so trying to kick it back (while being careful not to touch the nine leaning over it) is tough to say the least.

Sometimes refs let you pick it up but only if you are fully over it, but again hard to do that without touching the hovering nine)

[septic 9]

Yeah, I believe the current laws are that if they ruck their way through legally, they have to not touch the 9 or put jands on the ball, and can only kick the ball back towards their own side, not forwards, which is... weird to me.

Yeah, especially when the ball is normally being held by the original ball carrier or wedged up against bodies so trying to kick it back (while being careful not to touch the nine leaning over it) is tough to say the least.

Sometimes refs let you pick it up but only if you are fully over it, but again hard to do that without touching the hovering nine)

the biggest most frustrating occasions are when the 9 is standing there hands on ball but not lifted it. He is immune for reasons I have never understood.

You can hook the ball backwards (which back in the day was common in rucking). Kicking out was banned after some players made a habit of launching a leg over the ruck dangerously, to kick the ball free sometimes kicking the ball out of the 9's hands, sometimes the foot coming down on a prone player.

The trend setter in this was Itoje

[Mikey Brown]

Yeah I hate that one, and so often leads to a defender lunging offside because they have no idea when the scrum half (quite arbitrarily, as they already have the ball) becomes playable. Oddly enough I feel like that all comes back to refs trying to be more lenient on the team in possession due to the difficulty of dealing with persistent offsides in open play.

[Which Tyler]

Yeah I hate that one, and so often leads to a defender lunging offside because they have no idea when the scrum half (quite arbitrarily, as they already have the ball) becomes playable.

Not to mention the (illegal) foxing by the SH, ducking their head etc, to make the defenders think he's playing the ball

[septic 9]

Yeah I hate that one, and so often leads to a defender lunging offside because they have no idea when the scrum half (quite arbitrarily, as they already have the ball) becomes playable. Oddly enough I feel like that all comes back to refs trying to be more lenient on the team in possession due to the difficulty of dealing with persistent offsides in open play.

yet its easily dealt with. If the 9 has hands on ball ball is out; or 9 is illegally having hands on ball in ruck and pen against 9. Either way solves the problem. And as usual applying the aws and not interpreting will work