The Ruck.

On Red Stag Rugby and 606, I have often expressed the view that the laws of the ruck need to be simplified. Recently I challenged a poster to list the contradictory breakdown laws in pairs e.g. Tackler must release the tackled player and roll away, tackled player can get up if he isn't held. On my challenge not being taken up I thought to have a go myself. I noticed a law I was previously unaware of:

16.2 JOINING A RUCK
(a) All players forming, joining or taking part in a ruck must have their heads and shoulders no lower than their hips.
Sanction: Free Kick

It occurs to me that if the referees enforced this rule a lot of breakdown skulduggery becomes impossible. How can you handle the ball on the floor whilst on your feet (under the IRB definition of being on your feet) whilst having your head above your hips?

Also the lower sanction is interesting. I feel creative Referees could use this to avoid games becoming penalty ridden whilst still cleaning up the breakdown.

Am I missing something obvious? What are your thoughts?

The main reason for that law (which i was told on my referee's level 1) is that it can become very unsafe when players start to put their shoulders below their hips. It is the same in the srcummage, but it might be a penalty. However it is not enforced very often at all at the top level, because it obviously contradicts other laws and ways that people play. I think the main reason that the IRB has this law is safety at the less elite levels.

Yes. I'm thinking particularly of the injury of Dr Gwyn Jones.

But that actually raises another question, why have a law nobody enforces? To say players play differently so you mist ignore the law is anathema to the laws surely?

I agree that the law is completely useless, but i can see it's point. It is obviously meant for safety maybe at lower levels. However because it is not enforced at the elite level of the game, hardly any referee's will in enforce on a saturday afternoon, which ismbad because that is where it will have most effective use. I think it is an example of how professional and amatuer drifting apart.

I'm all for them enforcing it. I don't want games to degenerate into a battle of the breakdown. Nobody can complain, it is a safety measure.

I think the breakdown laws are going to be constantly reviewed for as long as we play rugby, to keep up with new coaching techniques and the changing nature of the game.

Yes, but why have a review when you have a perfectly good but ignored law that would solve a lot of issues immediately?

One the things that annoys me at the moment is the way there is a distinction between a tackler and someone who joins the ruck after the tackle is completed. The tackled player must release before he attempts to claim the ball, but an entering player can immediately play the ball if on his feet. I have seen a lot of penalties given when the player thought they weren't part of the tackle and could therefore play the ball, but the referee blows the whistle and then says "Tackler must release" even though the actual tackler has rolled away. So how exactly do you distinguish between a player who assisted in the tackle and one who arrives just after? It can be a matter of a split second between a penalty and a turnover and depends on the referee's interpretation. Any rule that can give such different results from minor differences is in my opinion flawed.

hear, hear!

seeing McCaw players on the floor is not entertainment.

It would be if it was League

Just to follow up on my previous post, I think that there should be no requirement for the tackler to release the player before playing the ball provided he gets straight to his feet. If he doesn't he must roll away, and if he does he then should win the ball unless support arrives for the tackled player. I know that allows slowing the ball down to a certain extent, but if the attacking team gets supporting players to the ruck to clear out, they will get quick ball as the tackler will have to let go if they don't let him get to his feet. That's basically the way it used to be and it would help alleviate the penalty lottery.

Schrodingers cat

I agree totally with your first point about the distinction between tackler and the next man entering but I don't agree with your next point about the tackler being allowed to compete even if he doesn't release the tackled player. this would result in a massive debacle at breakdown time and defending teams would be too easily able to slow down attacking ball.

mckay - If there is no distinction between tackling players and arriving players, how would you propose to allow them to compete? The reason I suggested returning to not having to release the tackled player before competing is that that is the major distinction between the tackler and arriving player. I can't see how you can remove the distinction without removing the necessity to release, while still allowing a competition at the breakdown.

Sorry, I think what I was agreeing with is the confusion surrounding referees interpretation of this area. I can think of one very good example of this between Scarlets and Ulster where the Ulster man took the ball and was judged to have come through the middle and then the Scarlets man did virtually exacltly the same to steal the ball back and was penalised. there is confusion but I don't think allowing a free for all is the answer.

I didn't mean to imply that it should be a free for all. I'll try to lay out my proposal fairly comprehensively to see if it can be made to work (assuming it's refereed effectively).

- The tackler must get to his feet immediately to play the ball, but does not have to release first.

- If a player from the same team as the tackled player arrives to protect possession before the tackler is on his feet, the tackled player can only compete by rolling away and re-entering the ruck from the back foot. In other words, the tackler must get to his feet and before support arrives.

- In marginal cases, i.e. when the player is getting to his feet roughly as the supporting player arrives the supporting player is responsible for clearing out the tackler, i.e. he can't just stand over the ball, but if he moves the tackler, the tackler must stop competing.

I realise it's not perfect, but I think it's better than the current situation which is very open to interpretation.

So would the tackled player have to release before he regained his feet in the event that he finds himself isolated?

I suppose that would be the logical way to do it. If held, he is has to place the ball at once, and can't play it on the ground, so that would be equivalent to what you said.

Don't you think that would give the tackler a massive advantage though? If the tackled player has to release but the tackler doesn't then it's a totally one sided fight. tackler wins the ball every time unless support can get there quickly from the tackled players team.

Not meaning to do your idea down, just playing devils advocate.

Well, if the tackled player is isolated, they should in theory lose the ball. Since the release before trying to play the ball is a split second movement, I don't think it is particularly different to now in terms of the balance of advantage. As I see it, my method keeps things almost exactly the way the are now except that because there is no tackler release clause it is less complicated. Even if the tackler does release it is for so short a time as to be irrelevant. If the tackler doesn't try to play the ball on his feet, the rules would be the same as they are now.

god I'm confused

I'll see if I can make it more concise.

The only difference for the tackler would be that they don't have to take their hands off briefly, but can compete as soon as they are on their feet. Even under the current rules an isolated player will lose the ball if tackled and no support arrives, so I don't think it will disadvantage the attacking player more than now.

The main difference is that their is less interpretation needed.

Hope that is clearer. I typed the previous post in a bit of a rush, so apologies if it was unclear.