Exeter v Wasps Sun 3pm

[Mellsblue]

It's a shame they left the last destination as I really quite liked it there.

[Digby]

I wasn't happy there either. I've not really been happy with rugby for 15 years or so, and then a lot of that was England playing well so maybe not about rugby per se

[kk67]

Exeter really are rather wriggly on the ground post tackle, it's not quite league but they're on the way. Hardly unusual Baxter has his side pushing what's acceptable rather than playing to the rules, but it's interesting. Given how easy it is now to form a ruck, what with there not needing to be any ruck, any forward movement on the floor is going to cause problems for any defence for teams who are good on attack coming around the corner, Waldrom will love what's going on if he comes back and it's still like this.

Of course it's early days with the new ruck in absentia of a ruck, and defences will be better at handing the situation in another 10 games time or so, and defences should only get better after that too. But if I were playing Exeter I'd be very keen to hear the ref say tackle and not allow those extra inches that stop my defence going forwards.

Not all the amendments might survive the next 12 months.
The entire equation of: tackle completed/tackler release/roll away/present/not releasing on the deck....... is always going to be a touch subjective.
For what it's worth,....I agree wholeheartedly with both you and Puja. If the two players are in contact when they hit the deck then tackle is completed.
I'm surprised the 7's move of release and regather is getting stick. It's a beautiful move. I get the feeling there's a bit of professional jealousy from the frontrow.

[Timbo]

I would be interested to see some stats...I feel like the law variations around the ruck have not made as much difference as you might think. Turnovers around the ruck and players getting in position to jackal effectively...I'm not sold on the fact that this is less prevalent than before.

Teams not committing to the ruck and having 14/15 men on their feet in the defensive line, this is just the way the game has been going for the last several years imo.

[Banquo]

I'm not happy with the thinking or process that's led to where we are right now, but I still think we need to allow defence a little chance to catch up. Defence will catch up, and then we can consider where next on the magical mystery tour

we keep tweaking season on season, rather than asking what are we trying to actually achieve long term. For me, rugby is not as enjoyable to watch as I once found it, maybe its just a surfeit.

[Banquo]

I would be interested to see some stats...I feel like the law variations around the ruck have not made as much difference as you might think. Turnovers around the ruck and players getting in position to jackal effectively...I'm not sold on the fact that this is less prevalent than before.

Teams not committing to the ruck and having 14/15 men on their feet in the defensive line, this is just the way the game has been going for the last several years imo.

maybe so, but when a side goes through nearly 30 phases on its first possession with barely sniff of a contest at the breakdown, you'd think there'd be questions.

And you may be right on your last sentence, but even so, its time to turn that tide, for me...and as you say its just an opinion both ways. I just find it a bit dull to watch a lot of the time.

[Timbo]

Not sure it's that unusual for Chiefs to rack up that many phases. They went over 170+ rucks in games a number of times at home last season. Against Wasps they were at about 130 odd.

[Puja]

I would be interested to see some stats...I feel like the law variations around the ruck have not made as much difference as you might think. Turnovers around the ruck and players getting in position to jackal effectively...I'm not sold on the fact that this is less prevalent than before.

Teams not committing to the ruck and having 14/15 men on their feet in the defensive line, this is just the way the game has been going for the last several years imo.

maybe so, but when a side goes through nearly 30 phases on its first possession with barely sniff of a contest at the breakdown, you'd think there'd be questions.

And you may be right on your last sentence, but even so, its time to turn that tide, for me...and as you say its just an opinion both ways. I just find it a bit dull to watch a lot of the time.

I think it's as much perception of the new laws as anything else and how sides are being coached. For some reason, everyone's being really cautious, like jackalling's been killed, whereas it's actually barely been affected by the new variations. I suspect when the Kiwis (and possibly England, given Eddie) get their hands on these laws, they're going to be given a more proper bending than the AP have been applying so far.

Puja

[Banquo]

Not sure it's that unusual for Chiefs to rack up that many phases. They went over 170+ rucks in games a number of times at home last season. Against Wasps they were at about 130 odd.

Well I thought that particular piece of play was remarkable, but hey. Still dull even if well executed and wasps very passive.
Do you not think the laws have tilted more in favour of the attacking side, again. I’m personally hacked off with tinkering.

[Banquo]

I would be interested to see some stats...I feel like the law variations around the ruck have not made as much difference as you might think. Turnovers around the ruck and players getting in position to jackal effectively...I'm not sold on the fact that this is less prevalent than before.

Teams not committing to the ruck and having 14/15 men on their feet in the defensive line, this is just the way the game has been going for the last several years imo.

maybe so, but when a side goes through nearly 30 phases on its first possession with barely sniff of a contest at the breakdown, you'd think there'd be questions.

And you may be right on your last sentence, but even so, its time to turn that tide, for me...and as you say its just an opinion both ways. I just find it a bit dull to watch a lot of the time.

I think it's as much perception of the new laws as anything else and how sides are being coached. For some reason, everyone's being really cautious, like jackalling's been killed, whereas it's actually barely been affected by the new variations. I suspect when the Kiwis (and possibly England, given Eddie) get their hands on these laws, they're going to be given a more proper bending than the AP have been applying so far.

Puja

Maybe- perhaps it’s just time the lawmakers stopped dicking about.

[Oakboy]

Maybe- perhaps it’s just time the lawmakers stopped dicking about.

Agreed but do they stop now or tinker with the stop-tinkering point?

[Banquo]

Maybe- perhaps it’s just time the lawmakers stopped dicking about.

Agreed but do they stop now or tinker with the stop-tinkering point?

[kk67]

Not sure it's that unusual for Chiefs to rack up that many phases. They went over 170+ rucks in games a number of times at home last season. Against Wasps they were at about 130 odd.

Well I thought that particular piece of play was remarkable, but hey. Still dull even if well executed and wasps very passive.
Do you not think the laws have tilted more in favour of the attacking side, again. I’m personally hacked off with tinkering.

Like others have said, the coaches take 6 months to bend the laws......and then the laws need amending.
After the 3rd Lions test when the scrums just became a farce there had to be some sort of amendment.

[kk67]

Maybe- perhaps it’s just time the lawmakers stopped dicking about.

When you say 'lawmakers'.....exactly who are you referring to ?. Eddie was the one who asked for the ruck amendment.

[Puja]

If there's one thing I'm happy with this season, it's the scrum laws. The feeds could still be straighter, but making the hooker hook and letting the 8 pick from the middle has made so much more ball available from them.

Puja

[Digby]

Maybe- perhaps it’s just time the lawmakers stopped dicking about.

When you say 'lawmakers'.....exactly who are you referring to ?. Eddie was the one who asked for the ruck amendment.

is that the one on the back of the Italy game?

a daft solution to a problem that never existed if ever there was one

[Banquo]

Maybe- perhaps it’s just time the lawmakers stopped dicking about.

When you say 'lawmakers'.....exactly who are you referring to ?. Eddie was the one who asked for the ruck amendment.

Those who make the laws, the clue is in the word , if they are daft enough to listen to coaches rambling after games, more fool them.

[kk67]

Maybe- perhaps it’s just time the lawmakers stopped dicking about.

When you say 'lawmakers'.....exactly who are you referring to ?. Eddie was the one who asked for the ruck amendment.

is that the one on the back of the Italy game?

a daft solution to a problem that never existed if ever there was one

Tend to agree and the expression 'one-man ruck' is not helping.

[kk67]

Maybe- perhaps it’s just time the lawmakers stopped dicking about.

When you say 'lawmakers'.....exactly who are you referring to ?. Eddie was the one who asked for the ruck amendment.

Those who make the laws, the clue is in the word , if they are daft enough to listen to coaches rambling after games, more fool them.

I think it's a bit more convoluted than just listening to post-match comments.
As with so much of the game there are endless committee meetings, and less formal meetings, where the elite panel and the coaches all kick the can about. Probably duller than ditch water but I can't really fault the fiddling they've been doing in the last few years. The pre-bind has made a huge difference.

[Banquo]

When you say 'lawmakers'.....exactly who are you referring to ?. Eddie was the one who asked for the ruck amendment.

Those who make the laws, the clue is in the word , if they are daft enough to listen to coaches rambling after games, more fool them.

I think it's a bit more convoluted than just listening to post-match comments.
As with so much of the game there are endless committee meetings, and less formal meetings, where the elite panel and the coaches all kick the can about. Probably duller than ditch water but I can't really fault the fiddling they've been doing in the last few years. The pre-bind has made a huge difference.

I know and I can.

[Puja]

When you say 'lawmakers'.....exactly who are you referring to ?. Eddie was the one who asked for the ruck amendment.

is that the one on the back of the Italy game?

a daft solution to a problem that never existed if ever there was one

Tend to agree and the expression 'one-man ruck' is not helping.

I don't see the problem with it. All it means is that you don't get the confusion of "No ruck" and the refs don't have to try and work out what's a ruck and what's a tackle. If there's a person there on their feet, then it's a ruck and there's an offside line. Nice and simple.

Puja

[kk67]

I don't see the problem with it.

Puja

I don't like muddying the term 'ruck' by separating it into two different things.
It's one syllable and everyone knows what it means.
The law is working.

[Puja]

I don't see the problem with it.

Puja

I don't like muddying the term 'ruck' by separating it into two different things.
It's one syllable and everyone knows what it means.
I just dislike them calling it a one man ruck.

It's not really separating it out into two things though is it? It refers to where there's been a tackle and one of more players from either side are competing on their feet for the ball.

Who calls it a one man ruck? And why? It's just a ruck.

Puja

[Digby]

is that the one on the back of the Italy game?

a daft solution to a problem that never existed if ever there was one

Tend to agree and the expression 'one-man ruck' is not helping.

I don't see the problem with it. All it means is that you don't get the confusion of "No ruck" and the refs don't have to try and work out what's a ruck and what's a tackle. If there's a person there on their feet, then it's a ruck and there's an offside line. Nice and simple.

Puja

Who is confused about there being no ruck, other than some idiots playing for England who deserved to look like idiots for their ineptitude?

[kk67]

Who calls it a one man ruck? And why? It's just a ruck.

Puja

One player bridging creates offside lines. Hence one man ruck.
You can't make all tackle situations into offside lines because tackles occur all over the shop.
It makes some degree of sense. Just taking me some time to get used to it.