Counter rucking

[Cameo]

Sorry, another new thread from me but this is something that has been bugging me.

A lot of the difficult to police intricacies that cause issues in rugby (plus lots of injuries) come from the jackal, and there are periodic calls to outlaw it. Now, I love a good jackal and outlawing it as things stand would make it way too easy for attacks, but I think they could definitely reduce its importance and make the game more fun, less stop start, and safer by making counter rucking more worthwhile.

I think the key steps are:

1. Be harsher on supporting ruckers going off their feet and making them get up if they do go down. Ireland are the most obvious but everyone does it. On Saturday, there were rucks with no Scottish player in them and three Irishmen lying down. Why is this allowed? It just means there can be no competition. I get letting people off with tripping over or if the defender withdraws, but at least make them stand back up so they can be rucked against (or preferably make them roll away like you would a defender).

2. Be a bit more lenient on counter ruckers going off their feet. I don't want players diving over the ball but it pisses me off when there is a good counter ruck but then the ref penalises a player for tripping up, while letting the attacking team seal off at will.

3. Stop the attacking team picking up the ball. There was an example against Italy where DVDM counter rucked and was driving the Italy player off the ball, but the Italy player scooped up the ball and flung it out. The same happened the other way round against Ireland and seems to be allowed. Similarly, the player on the ground sometimes seems to be allowed to pop the ball to a teamate even if they have been rucked over. Once there is a ruck, you should only be allowed to pick the ball up or play it once it is at the back on your side.

4. Stop the attacking team from binding onto the ball carrier on the floor and dragging them back with them as they are being pushed back. You see it quite often where the ball carrier is dragged back five metres while holding the ball. What's the point of trying to counter ruck over the ball if the ball carrier can just keep moving the target?

5. Be harsher on the jackal. We all know that plenty of 'good' turnovers involve an elbow on the ground or someone only getting their hands on the ball after the ruck is formed.

More counter rucking would make the game scrappier but that makes it more entertaining. It leads to turnovers not penalties; it involves both sides committing players to rucks creating space; and it reduces dead time while we all stare at a ruck that consists of players lying on the ground trying to convince the ref that someone else lying on the groumd should be penalised for it.

Not sure I mean this but I'd be tempted to say you only get a penalty for the other side not rolling away once your players are all on their feet or out of the ruck (excluding the ball carrier, though it'd be fun if the ball carrier also had to roll away).

[General Zod]

Good suggestions. Might I also add

6. If an opposition player is lying on the wrong side of the ball, you can use your feet to ruck the Irish fecker out the way.

[Mikey Brown]

I'm not sure who can/can't stand this guy, but definitely feels like there's some relevant bits in here.

[Puja]

Sorry, another new thread from me but this is something that has been bugging me.

A lot of the difficult to police intricacies that cause issues in rugby (plus lots of injuries) come from the jackal, and there are periodic calls to outlaw it. Now, I love a good jackal and outlawing it as things stand would make it way too easy for attacks, but I think they could definitely reduce its importance and make the game more fun, less stop start, and safer by making counter rucking more worthwhile.

I think the key steps are:

1. Be harsher on supporting ruckers going off their feet and making them get up if they do go down. Ireland are the most obvious but everyone does it. On Saturday, there were rucks with no Scottish player in them and three Irishmen lying down. Why is this allowed? It just means there can be no competition. I get letting people off with tripping over or if the defender withdraws, but at least make them stand back up so they can be rucked against (or preferably make them roll away like you would a defender).

2. Be a bit more lenient on counter ruckers going off their feet. I don't want players diving over the ball but it pisses me off when there is a good counter ruck but then the ref penalises a player for tripping up, while letting the attacking team seal off at will.

3. Stop the attacking team picking up the ball. There was an example against Italy where DVDM counter rucked and was driving the Italy player off the ball, but the Italy player scooped up the ball and flung it out. The same happened the other way round against Ireland and seems to be allowed. Similarly, the player on the ground sometimes seems to be allowed to pop the ball to a teamate even if they have been rucked over. Once there is a ruck, you should only be allowed to pick the ball up or play it once it is at the back on your side.

4. Stop the attacking team from binding onto the ball carrier on the floor and dragging them back with them as they are being pushed back. You see it quite often where the ball carrier is dragged back five metres while holding the ball. What's the point of trying to counter ruck over the ball if the ball carrier can just keep moving the target?

5. Be harsher on the jackal. We all know that plenty of 'good' turnovers involve an elbow on the ground or someone only getting their hands on the ball after the ruck is formed.

More counter rucking would make the game scrappier but that makes it more entertaining. It leads to turnovers not penalties; it involves both sides committing players to rucks creating space; and it reduces dead time while we all stare at a ruck that consists of players lying on the ground trying to convince the ref that someone else lying on the groumd should be penalised for it.

Not sure I mean this but I'd be tempted to say you only get a penalty for the other side not rolling away once your players are all on their feet or out of the ruck (excluding the ball carrier, though it'd be fun if the ball carrier also had to roll away).

This, plus a comment elsewhere about how you were supposed to stop a jackal, considering their head is in the way preventing contact and you can't roll them away anymore, has made me wonder about a limited trial somewhere of no hands in the ruck at all - no jackal, no scrabbling for the ball, just drive over the top and get the ball back to your side. It would need to be refereed very differently - absolutely zero tolerance for attacks going off their feet to seal the ball and possibly remove the immunity of scrum-halves to being driven off the ball (probably best to still keep 'grabbing at them with outstretched arm' outlawed).

Trying to work out if it would make the game safer by removing the need to fly into rucks to remove a bent-double jackaller, or more dangerous because you'd have people like rutting stags over the ball. Very difficult to tell if it would speed things up or slow them down - would attacks need to commit too many players to secure their ball? Or would it open up defensive gaps by making them compete with several players?

Puja

[Cameo]

Sorry, another new thread from me but this is something that has been bugging me.

A lot of the difficult to police intricacies that cause issues in rugby (plus lots of injuries) come from the jackal, and there are periodic calls to outlaw it. Now, I love a good jackal and outlawing it as things stand would make it way too easy for attacks, but I think they could definitely reduce its importance and make the game more fun, less stop start, and safer by making counter rucking more worthwhile.

I think the key steps are:

1. Be harsher on supporting ruckers going off their feet and making them get up if they do go down. Ireland are the most obvious but everyone does it. On Saturday, there were rucks with no Scottish player in them and three Irishmen lying down. Why is this allowed? It just means there can be no competition. I get letting people off with tripping over or if the defender withdraws, but at least make them stand back up so they can be rucked against (or preferably make them roll away like you would a defender).

2. Be a bit more lenient on counter ruckers going off their feet. I don't want players diving over the ball but it pisses me off when there is a good counter ruck but then the ref penalises a player for tripping up, while letting the attacking team seal off at will.

3. Stop the attacking team picking up the ball. There was an example against Italy where DVDM counter rucked and was driving the Italy player off the ball, but the Italy player scooped up the ball and flung it out. The same happened the other way round against Ireland and seems to be allowed. Similarly, the player on the ground sometimes seems to be allowed to pop the ball to a teamate even if they have been rucked over. Once there is a ruck, you should only be allowed to pick the ball up or play it once it is at the back on your side.

4. Stop the attacking team from binding onto the ball carrier on the floor and dragging them back with them as they are being pushed back. You see it quite often where the ball carrier is dragged back five metres while holding the ball. What's the point of trying to counter ruck over the ball if the ball carrier can just keep moving the target?

5. Be harsher on the jackal. We all know that plenty of 'good' turnovers involve an elbow on the ground or someone only getting their hands on the ball after the ruck is formed.

More counter rucking would make the game scrappier but that makes it more entertaining. It leads to turnovers not penalties; it involves both sides committing players to rucks creating space; and it reduces dead time while we all stare at a ruck that consists of players lying on the ground trying to convince the ref that someone else lying on the groumd should be penalised for it.

Not sure I mean this but I'd be tempted to say you only get a penalty for the other side not rolling away once your players are all on their feet or out of the ruck (excluding the ball carrier, though it'd be fun if the ball carrier also had to roll away).

This, plus a comment elsewhere about how you were supposed to stop a jackal, considering their head is in the way preventing contact and you can't roll them away anymore, has made me wonder about a limited trial somewhere of no hands in the ruck at all - no jackal, no scrabbling for the ball, just drive over the top and get the ball back to your side. It would need to be refereed very differently - absolutely zero tolerance for attacks going off their feet to seal the ball and possibly remove the immunity of scrum-halves to being driven off the ball (probably best to still keep 'grabbing at them with outstretched arm' outlawed).

Trying to work out if it would make the game safer by removing the need to fly into rucks to remove a bent-double jackaller, or more dangerous because you'd have people like rutting stags over the ball. Very difficult to tell if it would speed things up or slow them down - would attacks need to commit too many players to secure their ball? Or would it open up defensive gaps by making them compete with several players?

Puja

Yeah, would be interesting to see. As you say, could only work with zero tolerance on sealing off. I'd actually be okay for them to get rid of the rule about taking out the 9 anyway. Fair enough, don't grab them from the ruck, but if you have rucked over everyone else, it seems unfair that you are then barred from carrying on, but can't really do anything else.

[Which Tyler]

Yeah, would be interesting to see. As you say, could only work with zero tolerance on sealing off. I'd actually be okay for them to get rid of the rule about taking out the 9 anyway. Fair enough, don't grab them from the ruck, but if you have rucked over everyone else, it seems unfair that you are then barred from carrying on, but can't really do anything else.

As a SH, I really don't feel qualified to talk much about rucking.
But...

I don't think you should be able to bring people into a ruck who aren't actually involved (not letting them leave is a different matter) - it's essentially tackling someone without the ball.
For me, that's the case whether it's the 9, or a guard, or whoever it is.
If you've driven through the ruck, you should be able to challenge the 9 for the ball though, whether to pick it up, kick it, or anything else. The 9's protection should be entirely about being tackled off the ball (or by a someone out of the game, either because they're off their feet, or they're offside)

[Cameo]

Yeah, would be interesting to see. As you say, could only work with zero tolerance on sealing off. I'd actually be okay for them to get rid of the rule about taking out the 9 anyway. Fair enough, don't grab them from the ruck, but if you have rucked over everyone else, it seems unfair that you are then barred from carrying on, but can't really do anything else.

As a SH, I really don't feel qualified to talk much about rucking.
But...

I don't think you should be able to bring people into a ruck who aren't actually involved (not letting them leave is a different matter) - it's essentially tackling someone without the ball.
For me, that's the case whether it's the 9, or a guard, or whoever it is.
If you've driven through the ruck, you should be able to challenge the 9 for the ball though, whether to pick it up, kick it, or anything else. The 9's protection should be entirely about being tackled off the ball (or by a someone out of the game, either because they're off their feet, or they're offside)

That makes sense. My issue is when a player gets through the ruck but the ref seems to be saying there is nothing they can do as the scrum half is standing there.

[Which Tyler]

Yeah, I believe the current laws are that if they ruck their way through legally, they have to not touch the 9 or put jands on the ball, and can only kick the ball back towards their own side, not forwards, which is... weird to me.

[Cameo]

Yeah, I believe the current laws are that if they ruck their way through legally, they have to not touch the 9 or put jands on the ball, and can only kick the ball back towards their own side, not forwards, which is... weird to me.

Yeah, especially when the ball is normally being held by the original ball carrier or wedged up against bodies so trying to kick it back (while being careful not to touch the nine leaning over it) is tough to say the least.

Sometimes refs let you pick it up but only if you are fully over it, but again hard to do that without touching the hovering nine)

[septic 9]

Yeah, I believe the current laws are that if they ruck their way through legally, they have to not touch the 9 or put jands on the ball, and can only kick the ball back towards their own side, not forwards, which is... weird to me.

Yeah, especially when the ball is normally being held by the original ball carrier or wedged up against bodies so trying to kick it back (while being careful not to touch the nine leaning over it) is tough to say the least.

Sometimes refs let you pick it up but only if you are fully over it, but again hard to do that without touching the hovering nine)

the biggest most frustrating occasions are when the 9 is standing there hands on ball but not lifted it. He is immune for reasons I have never understood.

You can hook the ball backwards (which back in the day was common in rucking). Kicking out was banned after some players made a habit of launching a leg over the ruck dangerously, to kick the ball free sometimes kicking the ball out of the 9's hands, sometimes the foot coming down on a prone player.

The trend setter in this was Itoje

[Mikey Brown]

Yeah I hate that one, and so often leads to a defender lunging offside because they have no idea when the scrum half (quite arbitrarily, as they already have the ball) becomes playable. Oddly enough I feel like that all comes back to refs trying to be more lenient on the team in possession due to the difficulty of dealing with persistent offsides in open play.

[Which Tyler]

Yeah I hate that one, and so often leads to a defender lunging offside because they have no idea when the scrum half (quite arbitrarily, as they already have the ball) becomes playable.

Not to mention the (illegal) foxing by the SH, ducking their head etc, to make the defenders think he's playing the ball

[septic 9]

Yeah I hate that one, and so often leads to a defender lunging offside because they have no idea when the scrum half (quite arbitrarily, as they already have the ball) becomes playable. Oddly enough I feel like that all comes back to refs trying to be more lenient on the team in possession due to the difficulty of dealing with persistent offsides in open play.

yet its easily dealt with. If the 9 has hands on ball ball is out; or 9 is illegally having hands on ball in ruck and pen against 9. Either way solves the problem. And as usual applying the aws and not interpreting will work

[Cameo]

I wish I hadn't started focusing on this now but it is winding me up in every game. I watched the Scotland Fiji game and the England New Zealand one. Neither of the refs were bad. However, they make it so hard to counter ruck.

We had the usual of:

- every attacking ruck being characterused by support players on the ground (either completely or at least with their hands down)
- defending players being penalised or told to get out as soon as a handtouched the ground (strangely, you can get away with this when jackling (see Ben Curry) but not when counter rucking.

We also had the other one of the defensive team counter rucking cleanly over the ball and the man behind going to pick up the ball from the ball carrier who was still on the ground and clinging to it only to be told to let go, presumably on the basis that a ruck had been formed. When wasn't clear was why the ball wasn't deemed to be out the back of the defensive teams side of the ruck (there were no attacking players even close to on their feet anywhere near the ball).

This might sound like nitpicking but I just don't get it. Allowing counter rucks promotes teams committing to the breakdown creating space elsewhere. It also leads to turnover ball that is actually used (rather than just jacklimg to try and win a penalty). But refs seem to see anyone counter rucking as a nuisance.

[Puja]

[paddy no 11]

Perfect example in Scotland game counter ruck and turnover penalised - results in sa try

[Cameo]

Might be the same one against Jamie Ritchie. Looked like a fairly orthodox example of taking out the nine but the ref said 'you can pick up the ball but you can't take out the nine'. I can guarantee if Ritchie had tried to pick up the ball without rucking over it then he would have been warned off it on the basis that a ruck had been formed.

So is he meant to ruck past it without touching the nine who is standing there and then pick it up?

I just think that if you come in through the gate and stay on your feet you should be able to ruck away anyone who is trying to protect or get the ball. Or to put it another way, if the nine's teammates have all been rucked off the ball (or have all disappeared off their feet) then the nine should either play it away ASAP or ruck over it. In either case prepare to get hit, that's on their teammates not the opposing team. I view that as very different from pulling the nine into a ruck or taking them out from round the side. At the moment, the success of a counter ruck seems to depend on finding an attacking rucker on their feet that you can use as a battering ram to get the nine out the way.

[Mikey Brown]

Yeah, I didn’t see that one back a second time but looked ridiculous on first glance. I thought it was great work by Ritchie but need to look at it again.

I don’t understand what purpose it is serving if that’s how the rules are intended, other than discouraging the counter ruck at all.

[septic 9]

Might be the same one against Jamie Ritchie. Looked like a fairly orthodox example of taking out the nine but the ref said 'you can pick up the ball but you can't take out the nine'. I can guarantee if Ritchie had tried to pick up the ball without rucking over it then he would have been warned off it on the basis that a ruck had been formed.

So is he meant to ruck past it without touching the nine who is standing there and then pick it up?

I just think that if you come in through the gate and stay on your feet you should be able to ruck away anyone who is trying to protect or get the ball. Or to put it another way, if the nine's teammates have all been rucked off the ball (or have all disappeared off their feet) then the nine should either play it away ASAP or ruck over it. In either case prepare to get hit, that's on their teammates not the opposing team. I view that as very different from pulling the nine into a ruck or taking them out from round the side. At the moment, the success of a counter ruck seems to depend on finding an attacking rucker on their feet that you can use as a battering ram to get the nine out the way.

if you ruck through a ruck and over the ball you would need retro thrusters to stop dead before hitting a 9 there with hands on ball. The application of laws in this is total nonsense

[Puja]

Might be the same one against Jamie Ritchie. Looked like a fairly orthodox example of taking out the nine but the ref said 'you can pick up the ball but you can't take out the nine'. I can guarantee if Ritchie had tried to pick up the ball without rucking over it then he would have been warned off it on the basis that a ruck had been formed.

So is he meant to ruck past it without touching the nine who is standing there and then pick it up?

I just think that if you come in through the gate and stay on your feet you should be able to ruck away anyone who is trying to protect or get the ball. Or to put it another way, if the nine's teammates have all been rucked off the ball (or have all disappeared off their feet) then the nine should either play it away ASAP or ruck over it. In either case prepare to get hit, that's on their teammates not the opposing team. I view that as very different from pulling the nine into a ruck or taking them out from round the side. At the moment, the success of a counter ruck seems to depend on finding an attacking rucker on their feet that you can use as a battering ram to get the nine out the way.

if you ruck through a ruck and over the ball you would need retro thrusters to stop dead before hitting a 9 there with hands on ball. The application of laws in this is total nonsense

When I'm playing, my tendency is to grab hold of a smaller person on their team on my way through and use him as a weapon to hit the scrum-half with. It's probably not the intended function of the law, but there's nothing preventing you from driving one of their players into the nine.

Puja

[Cameo]

Might be the same one against Jamie Ritchie. Looked like a fairly orthodox example of taking out the nine but the ref said 'you can pick up the ball but you can't take out the nine'. I can guarantee if Ritchie had tried to pick up the ball without rucking over it then he would have been warned off it on the basis that a ruck had been formed.

So is he meant to ruck past it without touching the nine who is standing there and then pick it up?

I just think that if you come in through the gate and stay on your feet you should be able to ruck away anyone who is trying to protect or get the ball. Or to put it another way, if the nine's teammates have all been rucked off the ball (or have all disappeared off their feet) then the nine should either play it away ASAP or ruck over it. In either case prepare to get hit, that's on their teammates not the opposing team. I view that as very different from pulling the nine into a ruck or taking them out from round the side. At the moment, the success of a counter ruck seems to depend on finding an attacking rucker on their feet that you can use as a battering ram to get the nine out the way.

if you ruck through a ruck and over the ball you would need retro thrusters to stop dead before hitting a 9 there with hands on ball. The application of laws in this is total nonsense

When I'm playing, my tendency is to grab hold of a smaller person on their team on my way through and use him as a weapon to hit the scrum-half with. It's probably not the intended function of the law, but there's nothing preventing you from driving one of their players into the nine.

Puja

Only issue is there are not many 'smaller persons' available in international rugby and they are normally wedged on the floor. Sometimes there is no one at all left in the ruck.

[septic 9]

When I'm playing, my tendency is to grab hold of a smaller person on their team on my way through and use him as a weapon to hit the scrum-half with. It's probably not the intended function of the law, but there's nothing preventing you from driving one of their players into the nine.

Puja

if you watch every game has a variation of what you describe Ruck forms, defending team do not commit many, attack scrum half is crouched to pick up ball, at that moment a big counter ruck from a big defender tries to hot any defender back to disrupt the 9
Fagerson is terrific at this
Main reason to do it is to slow the ball again and any fumble by the 9 a bonus - see Schoeman v Boks on sunday, he hit the ruck as described, bok forward's foot dislodged ball as Hendriks tried to lift it. Knock on Scrum Scotland

[septic 9]

Yeah, I didn’t see that one back a second time but looked ridiculous on first glance. I thought it was great work by Ritchie but need to look at it again.

I don’t understand what purpose it is serving if that’s how the rules are intended, other than discouraging the counter ruck at all.

having watched it again I've changed my opinion. At the time I had anger at Richie for what liked his now customary stupidity Now I think he barely made contact with the 9, Richie came through and put the brakes on, stopped and put his hands up to show he was not hitting the 9, but brushed him

One of a series of very marginal (AKA shit) decisions called by the officials