Refusing to ruck should be outlawed

All things Rugby
Post Reply
User avatar
Womack
Posts: 5523
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: By the mighty beard of Adam Jones

Refusing to ruck should be outlawed

Post by Womack »

It's blatantly against the spirit of the game and anyone who's ever played the game damn well knows it.

Teams refusing to ruck will hasten the day that Union becomes League, end of.

Made for quite a comical/entertaining game though, in fairness
Hawk97
Posts: 14171
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 8:47 pm
Location: Westerlands

Re: Refusing to ruck should be outlawed

Post by Hawk97 »

All the favourites like Pocock, McCaw and now Hamish Watson effectively become redundant. We don't want that x( rugby IS rucking.
User avatar
maverickmak
Posts: 5711
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 11:18 am

Re: Refusing to ruck should be outlawed

Post by maverickmak »

Daws? Is that you?
User avatar
nicebutdim
Posts: 3327
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 3:38 pm

Re: Refusing to ruck should be outlawed

Post by nicebutdim »

Agree.
User avatar
openclashXX
Posts: 15165
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Investigating racism in the NHS

Re: Refusing to ruck should be outlawed

Post by openclashXX »

the ruck is a contest. refusing to participate is as valid a tactic as any
User avatar
grubberkick
Posts: 5391
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: no longer at this address

Re: Refusing to ruck should be outlawed

Post by grubberkick »

Womack wrote:It's blatantly against the spirit of the game and anyone who's ever played the game damn well knows it.

Teams refusing to ruck will hasten the day that Union becomes League, end of.

Made for quite a comical/entertaining game though, in fairness
Being allowed to go round "offside" is the problem, not refusing to ruck.
User avatar
Womack
Posts: 5523
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: By the mighty beard of Adam Jones

Re: Refusing to ruck should be outlawed

Post by Womack »

openclashXX wrote:the ruck is a contest. refusing to participate is as valid a tactic as any
It will kill the game stone dead. It simply isn't a viable game without an offside line, and if that isn't defined by a ruck then it'll be defined by the tackle. Hey presto, League. Cheers Openclash, you personally have killed Union. Hope you're proud.
User avatar
nicebutdim
Posts: 3327
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 3:38 pm

Re: Refusing to ruck should be outlawed

Post by nicebutdim »

openclashXX wrote:the ruck is a contest. refusing to participate is as valid a tactic as any
I have no issue with not wanting to participate, however if the team in possession sends in player/s to protect the ball from a rucking attempt then I think a ruck should be called and the offside line set,
Hawk97
Posts: 14171
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 8:47 pm
Location: Westerlands

Re: Refusing to ruck should be outlawed

Post by Hawk97 »

Womack wrote:
openclashXX wrote:the ruck is a contest. refusing to participate is as valid a tactic as any
It will kill the game stone dead. It simply isn't a viable game without an offside line, and if that isn't defined by a ruck then it'll be defined by the tackle. Hey presto, League. Cheers Openclash, you personally have killed Union. Hope you're proud.
It would become a game of entirely pick-and-go. Zzz.
User avatar
nicebutdim
Posts: 3327
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 3:38 pm

Re: Refusing to ruck should be outlawed

Post by nicebutdim »

grubberkick wrote:
Womack wrote:It's blatantly against the spirit of the game and anyone who's ever played the game damn well knows it.

Teams refusing to ruck will hasten the day that Union becomes League, end of.

Made for quite a comical/entertaining game though, in fairness
Being allowed to go round "offside" is the problem, not refusing to ruck.
:thumbup:
Tim.
Posts: 6505
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Refusing to ruck should be outlawed

Post by Tim. »

Meh it's not as bad as the choke tackle abomination. At least it doesn't lead to 2-3mins of scrums and the ball is live.

I'm pretty neutral on it. They had to create offside in the tackle area to stop it ruining games fairly recently. That seems enough.
User avatar
DragsterDriver
Posts: 24648
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Big Willi Style

Re: Refusing to ruck should be outlawed

Post by DragsterDriver »

'Underarm bowling'
New guy
Posts: 4542
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Refusing to ruck should be outlawed

Post by New guy »

It wont work again.

Italy were probably only expecting it to work a couple of times. Not their fault England didn't have the nous to just pick and go.
User avatar
Boxcar Ira
Posts: 12353
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Refusing to ruck should be outlawed

Post by Boxcar Ira »

Hawk97 wrote:
Womack wrote:
openclashXX wrote:the ruck is a contest. refusing to participate is as valid a tactic as any
It will kill the game stone dead. It simply isn't a viable game without an offside line, and if that isn't defined by a ruck then it'll be defined by the tackle. Hey presto, League. Cheers Openclash, you personally have killed Union. Hope you're proud.
It would become a game of entirely pick-and-go. Zzz.
Only if the opposition is stupid enough to keep employing the tactic. It's obviously not as effective as actually competing in the ruck. It was the element of surprise that caught England and the funny part was England not knowing what was going on.
User avatar
maverickmak
Posts: 5711
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 11:18 am

Re: Refusing to ruck should be outlawed

Post by maverickmak »

If the players understand what the fudge is going on, then it doesn't become an issue. Just go through the middle, and you will kill them through the gainline.

Just because England were f**king clueless for 35 minutes doesn't mean we should outlaw it.
User avatar
DragsterDriver
Posts: 24648
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Big Willi Style

Re: Refusing to ruck should be outlawed

Post by DragsterDriver »

It wouldn't work against an intelligent side like Ireland, Italy did well to save it for us.
Monk Zombie
Posts: 4458
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Refusing to ruck should be outlawed

Post by Monk Zombie »

Sides declining the invitation to ruck are susceptible to other attacks
User avatar
Diego
Posts: 20176
Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2013 10:14 am

Re: Refusing to ruck should be outlawed

Post by Diego »

Hawk97 wrote:All the favourites like Pocock, McCaw and now Hamish Watson effectively become redundant. We don't want that x( rugby IS rucking.
Image
User avatar
Womack
Posts: 5523
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: By the mighty beard of Adam Jones

Re: Refusing to ruck should be outlawed

Post by Womack »

It didn't kill this game because England's confusion (and eventual realisation) was an entertaining sub plot. It will kill Union as we know it though, there has to be an offside line or the game just doesn't work. So how is that offside line defined?
User avatar
covrich
Posts: 2133
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Middle England

Re: Refusing to ruck should be outlawed

Post by covrich »

There were a couple of occasions where Italy were in the ruck and still came around.
User avatar
Womack
Posts: 5523
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: By the mighty beard of Adam Jones

Re: Refusing to ruck should be outlawed

Post by Womack »

I hasten to add, Italy didn't take nearly as much advantage as they could have. Mostly limited themselves to ineffectual arm waving on the England 'side'
Tez
Posts: 246
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2015 10:54 am

Re: Refusing to ruck should be outlawed

Post by Tez »

Why didn't the Italians go for the ball instead of blocking the SH from passing? When England did it they went at the ball.
User avatar
Boxcar Ira
Posts: 12353
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Refusing to ruck should be outlawed

Post by Boxcar Ira »

Womack wrote:It didn't kill this game because England's confusion (and eventual realisation) was an entertaining sub plot. It will kill Union as we know it though, there has to be an offside line or the game just doesn't work. So how is that offside line defined?
I bet it won't because we won't see it again for a while. Next time we see it we'll have forgotten it was used several times in the past and marvel at it's genius.

Unless our own team is on the receiving end and we'll want it banned...
User avatar
Raggs
Posts: 18569
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2013 8:49 am

Re: Refusing to ruck should be outlawed

Post by Raggs »

As soon as England realised there were easy meters to be made through the middle of the tackle area, Italy stopped.

We had the same complaints when teams stood off a lineout maul, that lasted as long as it took a team to realise that if they kept it at the front, they could just keep rumbling forwards buying easy meters.

It's a great tactic for the odd tackle, to keep the attack guessing, but it's never going to form the backbone of a strategy because in the end, as much as it confuses the attack, all it did was reduce Englands attack, it didn't benefit the Italians that much, and they gave away a good number of offside penalties when they got it wrong.
User avatar
JM2K6
Posts: 37186
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Refusing to ruck should be outlawed

Post by JM2K6 »

Tez wrote:Why didn't the Italians go for the ball instead of blocking the SH from passing? When England did it they went at the ball.
At a tackle or near to a tackle, other players who play the ball must do so from behind the ball and from directly behind the tackled player or the tackler closest to those players’ goal line.
Sanction: Penalty kick
User avatar
theo
Posts: 13023
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Refusing to ruck should be outlawed

Post by theo »

Tez wrote:Why didn't the Italians go for the ball instead of blocking the SH from passing? When England did it they went at the ball.
well quite. Surely if it is only a tackle the ball is fair play. That is why I think Poite made a bit of a mistake all afternoon. It was a complete muddle.
iarmhiman
Posts: 40130
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Dublin

Re: Refusing to ruck should be outlawed

Post by iarmhiman »

Womack wrote:It didn't kill this game because England's confusion (and eventual realisation) was an entertaining sub plot. It will kill Union as we know it though, there has to be an offside line or the game just doesn't work. So how is that offside line defined?
(1)By setting up a maul

or

(2) changing the maul laws where the team going forward gets the scrum collapsed or not

Point 2 eliminates the choke tackle and if anything makes rugby old school and further away from league.
Last edited by iarmhiman on Sun Feb 26, 2017 7:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
JM2K6
Posts: 37186
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Refusing to ruck should be outlawed

Post by JM2K6 »

theo wrote:
Tez wrote:Why didn't the Italians go for the ball instead of blocking the SH from passing? When England did it they went at the ball.
well quite. Surely if it is only a tackle the ball is fair play. That is why I think Poite made a bit of a mistake all afternoon. It was a complete muddle.
Oh theo.
Tim.
Posts: 6505
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Refusing to ruck should be outlawed

Post by Tim. »

Tez wrote:Why didn't the Italians go for the ball instead of blocking the SH from passing? When England did it they went at the ball.
You have to enter the tackle area through the gate. You can't whip around the side of the tackle area and sack the 9.
Created a horrorshow around ELV time until it was prescribed iirc.
Tim.
Posts: 6505
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Refusing to ruck should be outlawed

Post by Tim. »

iarmhiman wrote:
Womack wrote:It didn't kill this game because England's confusion (and eventual realisation) was an entertaining sub plot. It will kill Union as we know it though, there has to be an offside line or the game just doesn't work. So how is that offside line defined?
(1)By setting up a maul

or

(2) changing the maul laws where the team going forward gets the scrum collapsed or not

Point 2 eliminates the choke tackle and if anything makes rugby old school and further away from league.
:uhoh:
User avatar
Gospel
Posts: 13724
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: West of Londinium

Re: Refusing to ruck should be outlawed

Post by Gospel »

maverickmak wrote:If the players understand what the f**k is going on, then it doesn't become an issue. Just go through the middle, and you will kill them through the gainline.

Just because England were f**k clueless for 35 minutes doesn't mean we should outlaw it.
England were "clueless" because they were clearing past the ruck just as it formed only for Poite to declare it was a tackle only. The second Italian player was either being blitzed or disengaging voluntarily so the decision came down to timing.
User avatar
Mahoney
Posts: 4097
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Refusing to ruck should be outlawed

Post by Mahoney »

Womack wrote:It didn't kill this game because England's confusion (and eventual realisation) was an entertaining sub plot. It will kill Union as we know it though, there has to be an offside line or the game just doesn't work. So how is that offside line defined?
In the ELVs there was an offside line at every tackle, but that meant a pass out of the tackle after a line break was ludicrously effective because all the defenders were offside.

My theory at the time was to declare an offside line when the ball is placed on the ground after a tackle, as that seems the most intuitive moment for an offside line to exist. Gets rid of the weird anomaly of a tackle area.
User avatar
theo
Posts: 13023
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Refusing to ruck should be outlawed

Post by theo »

JM2K6 wrote:
theo wrote:
Tez wrote:Why didn't the Italians go for the ball instead of blocking the SH from passing? When England did it they went at the ball.
well quite. Surely if it is only a tackle the ball is fair play. That is why I think Poite made a bit of a mistake all afternoon. It was a complete muddle.
Oh theo.
Sorry. My mistake, surely once Poite had a put is hands in the air it was fair game.
User avatar
Womack
Posts: 5523
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: By the mighty beard of Adam Jones

Re: Refusing to ruck should be outlawed

Post by Womack »

Boxcar Ira wrote:
Womack wrote:It didn't kill this game because England's confusion (and eventual realisation) was an entertaining sub plot. It will kill Union as we know it though, there has to be an offside line or the game just doesn't work. So how is that offside line defined?
I bet it won't because we won't see it again for a while. Next time we see it we'll have forgotten it was used several times in the past and marvel at it's genius.

Unless our own team is on the receiving end and we'll want it banned...
I am outraged by your inference :x

As ever, I am solely motivated by the good of the game
User avatar
Mahoney
Posts: 4097
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Refusing to ruck should be outlawed

Post by Mahoney »

It was still a tackle, and a non-tackler / tackled player can only enter a tackle area from immediately behind it ("through the gate").
User avatar
happyhooker
Posts: 23122
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Refusing to ruck should be outlawed

Post by happyhooker »

Jesus Womack
User avatar
JM2K6
Posts: 37186
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Refusing to ruck should be outlawed

Post by JM2K6 »

theo wrote:
JM2K6 wrote:
theo wrote:
Tez wrote:Why didn't the Italians go for the ball instead of blocking the SH from passing? When England did it they went at the ball.
well quite. Surely if it is only a tackle the ball is fair play. That is why I think Poite made a bit of a mistake all afternoon. It was a complete muddle.
Oh theo.
Sorry. My mistake, surely once Poite had a put is hands in the air it was fair game.
He was doing that to say that the Italian players weren't offside, not to say that the ball was out and playable from any direction. Note that Italy never went for the ball directly when they came up round the sides, they were just blocking passers and cutting out options.
bimboman
Posts: 66410
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Refusing to ruck should be outlawed

Post by bimboman »

covrich wrote:There were a couple of occasions where Italy were in the ruck and still came around.

More than a couple, polite was actually shot in that first half.
User avatar
Womack
Posts: 5523
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: By the mighty beard of Adam Jones

Re: Refusing to ruck should be outlawed

Post by Womack »

happyhooker wrote:Jesus Womack
I thought we had a quorum when my trolling line was discussed?
iarmhiman
Posts: 40130
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Dublin

Re: Refusing to ruck should be outlawed

Post by iarmhiman »

JM2K6 wrote:
theo wrote:
JM2K6 wrote:
theo wrote:
Tez wrote:Why didn't the Italians go for the ball instead of blocking the SH from passing? When England did it they went at the ball.
well quite. Surely if it is only a tackle the ball is fair play. That is why I think Poite made a bit of a mistake all afternoon. It was a complete muddle.
Oh theo.
Sorry. My mistake, surely once Poite had a put is hands in the air it was fair game.
He was doing that to say that the Italian players weren't offside, not to say that the ball was out and playable from any direction. Note that Italy never went for the ball directly when they came up round the sides, they were just blocking passers and cutting out options.
Had Care knew what Italy were up to, he would have sniped. When players come up like that , there is usually a gap.
Post Reply