Exeter v Wasps Sun 3pm

[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?

Well, refs for a start. There are countless times where someone was called offside when there technically wasn't a ruck because no-one from the defence engaged and more than a few where a ref called "No ruck" even when there were people from voth sides, but the ball just came out really quick. Even in the Italy game, where Poite was specifically briefed that this would be happening and was watching for it, he still got some wrong. And this isn't just about the elite level - how many cockups do you think were made at amateur level by refs? It's much easier just to say "There is a person there, so there is now offside," than it is to say, "There are people there, so it looks like a ruck, but they're only from one side, so it's not and now someone's entering from the other side so it is a ruck and now there's offside, but the scrum-half played it while I was looking at that and I'm not sure if there were players from both sides there before it was played so maybe there was an offside oh bugger it I'll just guess."

And players too. How many times have you seen a player tackle someone in a position that looked offside but wasn't because there was no ruck and the attacking side are all hollering offside like they've got a good LBW shout?

More to the point, what ever was the purpose of having two separate stages of breakdowns? What additional function does it serve to the game? Why should we keep "Just a tackle" when all it does is, confuse refs, players and casual fans all just so that an occasional player can be clever and kill a fast-flowing attack.

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.

I get the feeling that you're complaining about being forced to use a new bit of terminology that no-one else has even thought of using. Just call it a ruck!

Puja

[Digby]

The whole point of rugby is it's built around having to compete for the ball, not that one person from one side is there. The no ruck ruck is just a bit league, and if refs didn't see something they should simply remain quiet, not guess, we shouldn't change laws in the face of bad reffing

[Puja]

The whole point of rugby is it's built around having to compete for the ball, not that one person from one side is there. The no ruck ruck is just a bit league, and if refs didn't see something they should simply remain quiet, not guess, we shouldn't change laws in the face of bad reffing

So the whole point of rugby is thwarted if a ruck is formed with one person rather than two? Given how fluid the laws have been over the years and how much the game has changed and adapted, this seems like a really odd place to draw a line in the sand.

Puja

[Digby]

The whole point of rugby is it's built around having to compete for the ball, not that one person from one side is there. The no ruck ruck is just a bit league, and if refs didn't see something they should simply remain quiet, not guess, we shouldn't change laws in the face of bad reffing

So the whole point of rugby is thwarted if a ruck is formed with one person rather than two? Given how fluid the laws have been over the years and how much the game has changed and adapted, this seems like a really odd place to draw a line in the sand.

Puja

This isn't fluid, the whole point of the game is to create a contest. There's a ruck when there's a contest, or it should just be open play. Instead because England had their one brain cell in their pack and scrum half go walkabout we've got this daft new ruling which sets offside with no contest. I don't mind the tackler losing their extra rights (I've posted about that coming for a number of years) that seems to me an adroit measure to clear up the tackle area and make the game simpler for refs, but a ruck that's not a ruck was going too far.

There were and are problems with the ruck, but those for me stem from scatter rucking, players not having to bind and so forth, and they could (and imo should) have enforced the laws as they already stood around those areas before giving into Eddie's rant that England should be excused for being so painfully stupid.

[Puja]

Offside already happens in several places when there's no contest - in front of the kicker, for example, or picking up the ball from offside after a knock-on. I don't get why it's so important to you that offside not exist until two people are in a tackle area. What have we actually lost?

And, while I get that you're annoyed with the Italy game, that's not the only reason that this law came into effect. The IRB's aim on this tranche was to simplify things for casual viewers and referees. The previous laws resulted in two situations which were nearly identical to a casual viewer (and a referee trying to keep his eye on a dozen things), but in one, a player making a tackle is committing a cynical foul and killing a promising attack, and in another, he is playing fairly. And the difference between those scenarios is nothing to do with the player in question!

Puja

[Mikey Brown]

What was it the scrumhalf was meant to do to fix it? I pretty much tried to wipe that game from memory.

[Digby]

It's soft (or pathetic), it's not rugby it's more a league plan of action, there was already a tidying up around the tackle law which they could have rolled out and seen how that cleared things up for refs, and it's not dealing with any of the important areas around the breakdown

Those other forms of offside don't really give rise to the shape/pattern of the game either, this one does. By fractions of a second only perhaps, but that's a lot

[Digby]

What was it the scrumhalf was meant to do to fix it? I pretty much tried to wipe that game from memory.

Just send the ball up the gut until the team defending get tired of conceding tries

[Banquo]

where does 'simplifying things for the casual viewer stop, and what is the intent in doing that, vs what it does to the game vs what impact it has on the core/non-casual viewer?

[Banquo]

It's soft (or pathetic), it's not rugby it's more a league plan of action, there was already a tidying up around the tackle law which they could have rolled out and seen how that cleared things up for refs, and it's not dealing with any of the important areas around the breakdown

Those other forms of offside don't really give rise to the shape/pattern of the game either, this one does. By fractions of a second only perhaps, but that's a lot

agreed, didn't want to dogwhistle, but RL seems where we are headed if not careful

[Mikey Brown]

What was it the scrumhalf was meant to do to fix it? I pretty much tried to wipe that game from memory.

Just send the ball up the gut until the team defending get tired of conceding tries

Err... are we talking about the same game? Where Care received every ball at the ruck along with 5 defenders?

[Puja]

It's soft (or pathetic), it's not rugby it's more a league plan of action, there was already a tidying up around the tackle law which they could have rolled out and seen how that cleared things up for refs, and it's not dealing with any of the important areas around the breakdown

Those other forms of offside don't really give rise to the shape/pattern of the game either, this one does. By fractions of a second only perhaps, but that's a lot

agreed, didn't want to dogwhistle, but RL seems where we are headed if not careful

What?! How does this affect competition at breakdowns? What have we actually lost?

How in the name of all the gods does this take us to RL?!

Puja

[Banquo]

It's soft (or pathetic), it's not rugby it's more a league plan of action, there was already a tidying up around the tackle law which they could have rolled out and seen how that cleared things up for refs, and it's not dealing with any of the important areas around the breakdown

Those other forms of offside don't really give rise to the shape/pattern of the game either, this one does. By fractions of a second only perhaps, but that's a lot

agreed, didn't want to dogwhistle, but RL seems where we are headed if not careful

What?! How does this affect competition at breakdowns? What have we actually lost?

How in the name of all the gods does this take us to RL?!

Puja

minimal competition at the breakdown as we have seen (and it may be that changes as coaches adapt), players strung out across the pitch, not rocket science. I didn't actually say 'take us to RL', I said it's where we are headed 'if we aren't careful', and ties into your point on simplification. Its a direction of travel I don't like aka dumbing down.

Calm down dear.

[Raggs]

What was it the scrumhalf was meant to do to fix it? I pretty much tried to wipe that game from memory.

Just send the ball up the gut until the team defending get tired of conceding tries

Err... are we talking about the same game? Where Care received every ball at the ruck along with 5 defenders?

? The same game where the defenders aren't allowed to touch the scrum half without giving away a penalty, as they did when they charged him down.

The same game where we worked it out after 20 minutes, went up the guts, made 30 easy yards and then May/Brown managed to screw up a simple try.

There really wasn't any need for it, it was very easy to overcome, and the england boys did, within 20 minutes, going up the guts, or forming mauls. The scoreline wasn't bad because of the italian tactics, it was bad because england played like crap, and it was easier to blame the italians.

[Mellsblue]

Just send the ball up the gut until the team defending get tired of conceding tries

Err... are we talking about the same game? Where Care received every ball at the ruck along with 5 defenders?

There really wasn't any need for it, it was very easy to overcome, and the england boys did, within 20 minutes, going up the guts, or forming mauls. The scoreline wasn't bad because of the italian tactics, it was bad because england played like crap, and it was easier to blame the italians.

This

[Digby]

The England boys sort of worked it out, but kept going back to the shape they'd worked on during the week and thus weren't always able to resource the plays up the middle. Generally we saw a lack of leadership and thought across the team.

What England have ensured this with this change is they're more able to rely on the shape they work on not being made redundant by the opposition.

[Mikey Brown]

Just send the ball up the gut until the team defending get tired of conceding tries

Err... are we talking about the same game? Where Care received every ball at the ruck along with 5 defenders?

? The same game where the defenders aren't allowed to touch the scrum half without giving away a penalty, as they did when they charged him down.

The same game where we worked it out after 20 minutes, went up the guts, made 30 easy yards and then May/Brown managed to screw up a simple try.

There really wasn't any need for it, it was very easy to overcome, and the england boys did, within 20 minutes, going up the guts, or forming mauls. The scoreline wasn't bad because of the italian tactics, it was bad because england played like crap, and it was easier to blame the italians.

I wasn't blaming the Italians at all. We played like shit. I just thought it a odd place to lay the blame, given there was basically nobody to pass to for large periods of the game. Several of the forwards looked utterly clueless and Farrell in particular set us back over and over and over.

Totally agree on lack of leadership too.

[Digby]

Err... are we talking about the same game? Where Care received every ball at the ruck along with 5 defenders?

? The same game where the defenders aren't allowed to touch the scrum half without giving away a penalty, as they did when they charged him down.

The same game where we worked it out after 20 minutes, went up the guts, made 30 easy yards and then May/Brown managed to screw up a simple try.

There really wasn't any need for it, it was very easy to overcome, and the england boys did, within 20 minutes, going up the guts, or forming mauls. The scoreline wasn't bad because of the italian tactics, it was bad because england played like crap, and it was easier to blame the italians.

I wasn't blaming the Italians at all. We played like shit. I just thought it a odd place to lay the blame, given there was basically nobody to pass to for large periods of the game. Several of the forwards looked utterly clueless and Farrell in particular set us back over and over and over.

Totally agree on lack of leadership too.

We had nobody to pass to because we kept setting up with a shape that was how we'd planned to play, rather than resourcing a game plan that accounted for what Italy were doing. Basically we complained the other side tried to make things hard (which really they didn't as it's stupid way to defend unless the other side are stupider still) and rather than the IRB saying duh! that's what they're bound to do the IRB said diddums and made some needless changes.

[Puja]

agreed, didn't want to dogwhistle, but RL seems where we are headed if not careful

What?! How does this affect competition at breakdowns? What have we actually lost?

How in the name of all the gods does this take us to RL?!

Puja

minimal competition at the breakdown as we have seen (and it may be that changes as coaches adapt), players strung out across the pitch, not rocket science. I didn't actually say 'take us to RL', I said it's where we are headed 'if we aren't careful', and ties into your point on simplification. Its a direction of travel I don't like aka dumbing down.

Calm down dear.

But none of that is caused by making a ruck when there's only one man in.

Puja

[Banquo]

What?! How does this affect competition at breakdowns? What have we actually lost?

How in the name of all the gods does this take us to RL?!

Puja

minimal competition at the breakdown as we have seen (and it may be that changes as coaches adapt), players strung out across the pitch, not rocket science. I didn't actually say 'take us to RL', I said it's where we are headed 'if we aren't careful', and ties into your point on simplification. Its a direction of travel I don't like aka dumbing down.

Calm down dear.

But none of that is caused by making a ruck when there's only one man in.

Puja

....there are other amendments though, which are having an effect. Perhaos we are talking at a slight cross purpose, my theme has been around continual tinkering, of which this is a part.....and it is definitely going down the simplification route (which you referenced) /dumbing down route, unnecessarily.

Original ruck laws, if enforced would do the job imo- I accept this particular one is a sideshow-ish.

[Puja]

minimal competition at the breakdown as we have seen (and it may be that changes as coaches adapt), players strung out across the pitch, not rocket science. I didn't actually say 'take us to RL', I said it's where we are headed 'if we aren't careful', and ties into your point on simplification. Its a direction of travel I don't like aka dumbing down.

Calm down dear.

But none of that is caused by making a ruck when there's only one man in.

Puja

....there are other amendments though, which are having an effect. Perhaos we are talking at a slight cross purpose, my theme has been around continual tinkering, of which this is a part.....and it is definitely going down the simplification route (which you referenced) /dumbing down route, unnecessarily.

Original ruck laws, if enforced would do the job imo- I accept this particular one is a sideshow-ish.

Right! That's where we're getting confused! I was trying to work out why you were castigating one tiny law change and the explanation was that you weren't.

Makes sense now.

Puja

[Banquo]

But none of that is caused by making a ruck when there's only one man in.

Puja

....there are other amendments though, which are having an effect. Perhaos we are talking at a slight cross purpose, my theme has been around continual tinkering, of which this is a part.....and it is definitely going down the simplification route (which you referenced) /dumbing down route, unnecessarily.

Original ruck laws, if enforced would do the job imo- I accept this particular one is a sideshow-ish.

Right! That's where we're getting confused! I was trying to work out why you were castigating one tiny law change and the explanation was that you weren't.

Makes sense now.

Puja

well I do think its a bit pointless, and shutting the door after a one time horse has bolted. I also don't especially like the 8 being able to pick the ball out from the middle of a scrum- helps one problem, but creates a different issue....

[Mellsblue]

Where's Gary Neville and his PowerPoint presentation when you need.

[Digby]

There's been a lot of talk about Gary Neville recently, this and the lack of chat about Paul Parker might explain p/d's lack of commentary on the situation

[Which Tyler]

There's been a lot of talk about Gary Neville recently, this and the lack of chat about Paul Parker might explain p/d's lack of commentary on the situation