RugbyRebels

Digby wrote: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.

Digby wrote: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

Timbo wrote: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 wrote:

Timbo wrote: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 wrote: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 wrote:

Banquo wrote:

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

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote:
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 wrote:

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

kk67 wrote:

Banquo wrote: 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.

kk67 wrote:

Banquo wrote: 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.

Digby wrote:

kk67 wrote:

Banquo wrote: 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 wrote:

kk67 wrote:

Banquo wrote: 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 wrote:

Banquo wrote:

kk67 wrote:
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.

kk67 wrote:

Digby wrote:

kk67 wrote:
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.

Puja wrote: I don't see the problem with it.

Puja

kk67 wrote:

Puja wrote: 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.

Puja wrote:

kk67 wrote:

Digby wrote:
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

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

Puja