Rules question - the tackle / breakdown / forming a ruck

WithCheesePlease

Ok, I've been checking to see if this was covered already but can't see it.

With all the discussion recently about the interpretation of the Wallace / O'Driscoll double tackle in the Wales game and Wallace being penalised - can someone please explain the steps between a player being tackled right up to a ref calling that a ruck has been formed and what has changed in interpretation between before and now, as suddenly brought to light by Northern Hemisphere referees.

Thanks!

allprops

I think that they are trying to make a distinction between the tackle and the ruck. Once the player is tackled and then goes to ground they want the tackler to release him before contesting the ruck and then trying to get the ball back. They don't want it to be all one motion but two distinct ones. I don't think the problem was with Wallace as he was 3rd man in. (After the tackler and the tackled). I think that it was with O'Driscoll tackling, bringing him to ground and then not releasing him before he got up on his feet.
The idea is to give more protection to the tackled and to encourage more running rugby as opposed to ping-pong. The problem is that it might solve the problem but only until kiss or some other defensive coach comes up with a way around it.
It's not the worst idea in the world to enforce it except for the fact that they are changing the interpertation midway through a season

allprops

think that they are trying to make a distinction between the tackle and the ruck. Once the player is tackled and then goes to ground they want the tackler to release him before contesting the ruck and then trying to get the ball back. They don't want it to be all one motion but two distinct ones. I don't think the problem was with Wallace as he was 3rd man in. (After the tackler and the tackled). I think that it was with O'Driscoll tackling, bringing him to ground and then not releasing him before he got up on his feet.
The idea is to give more protection to the tackled and to encourage more running rugby as opposed to ping-pong. The problem is that it might solve the problem but only until kiss or some other defensive coach comes up with a way around it.
It's not the worst idea in the world to enforce it except for the fact that they are changing the interpertation midway through a season

Tim Robbins

allprops wrote: »

think that they are trying to make a distinction between the tackle and the ruck. Once the player is tackled and then goes to ground they want the tackler to release him before contesting the ruck and then trying to get the ball back. They don't want it to be all one motion but two distinct ones. I don't think the problem was with Wallace as he was 3rd man in. (After the tackler and the tackled). I think that it was with O'Driscoll tackling, bringing him to ground and then not releasing him before he got up on his feet.
The idea is to give more protection to the tackled and to encourage more running rugby as opposed to ping-pong. The problem is that it might solve the problem but only until kiss or some other defensive coach comes up with a way around it.
It's not the worst idea in the world to enforce it except for the fact that they are changing the interpertation midway through a season

To complicate matters, I think the ref got that one wrong. Neither O'Driscoll nor Wallace went to ground so technically weren't tacklers. From memory, the welsh player had a knee had on the deck which means he was tackled. It should have been penalty Ireland for not releasing.

The big difference I think is that usually NH refs will shout "roll away tackler" and give the tackler a split second to roll away. The ref on Saturday didn't do that.

Usually I argue that there is no difference between interpretation. There was on Saturday. He was really pinging in the opening quarter. If I was doing that in a J3 match in Leinster, an assessor would pull me up on it.

d'Oracle

Interesting piece on Off the Ball last night about this.

Matty Williams was saying that the Southern Hemisphere refs are actually playing a different interpretation. Something about the second man into the tackle having to release the ball before playing it.

I haven't had a good look at the tackle in question. I was in a poor location for watching the match, and didn't get to see the match a second time.

But the point Matty and Donal Lenihan made was that its a good thing, but that the fact that 1) only half the refs are doing it and 2) It changed mid comp is tantamount to a cluster****

irishbucsfan

The ref got that particular breakdown wrong, so I think it's probably just going to add to the confusion if we start to analyse that as an example of the new interpretations of the rules.

The best way to understand how the breakdown is being reffed now is by watching some Super 14 rugby, it's quite easy to pick up then. The new interpretations are great, I'm delighted to see them come in, it's going to make for much more exciting rugby to watch.

WithCheesePlease

There's a piece in today's times about it by the way.

Tim Robbins

WithCheesePlease wrote: »

There's a piece in today's times about it by the way.

Tackle law is here incase anyone wants to read it.
http://www.irblaws.com/downloads/EN/law_15_en.pdf

toomevara

d'Oracle wrote: »

2) It changed mid comp is tantamount to a cluster****

100% agree. Paddy O' Brien and Co are bang out of order introducing a new interpretation half way through the 6N. Imagine soccer doing the same midway through the Euro or world cup? Inconceivable. You have the incredible spectacle of BOD being applauded for excellent play two weeks ago and then being threatened with a yellow card for doing the exact same thing on Saturday. Its crass stuff and I wonder what kind of pressure has been brought to bear on the iRB by Sanzar and how bound up with the introduction of argentina to the tri-nations this is.

Tim Robbins

toomevara wrote: »

Its crass stuff and I wonder what kind of pressure has been brought to bear on the iRB by Sanzar and how bound up with the introduction of argentina to the tri-nations this is.

It's a bit of a farce alright.

They need to just get rid of ping pong. Apparently Ireland kicked it 45 times.

d'Oracle

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Tackle law is here incase anyone wants to read it.
http://www.irblaws.com/downloads/EN/law_15_en.pdf

That is probably the most interpretable piece of text I have ever read.:)

thomond2006

Les Kiss gives his honest views on the new interpretations, definitely worth a listen. He's not happy at all.

http://ruggamatrix.heavensgame.com/main/archives/972

Listen from 40 minutes on.

chimchimney

Thought I'd bring this up again as we've had another round of matches to look at.

Pretty divisive issue...george hook sees it as a conspiracy theory :rolleyes:, matt williams sees it as a positive thing for the game.

Questions i have are:

Will there be less turnovers in the game? Probably. Until the change in interpretation, the easiest ways to force a turnover were

1. a singler tackler makes a strong tackle and in the one movement without letting go of the ball carrier, swings back up to his feet and competes for the ball.

2. 2 tacklers tackle the ball carrier, where one of them attacks the ball while bringing the player to ground, and forces a turnover.

These 2 types of turnover will prety much cease to happen.

Players may become better at forcing turnovers without being in contact with the ball carrier as he goes to ground, but the overall number per game will surely reduce.

Will teams choose not to compete at the breakdown? I dont think so, because going on the evidence of yesterday's games, it is still possible for the defending team to slow down opposition ball. So I think we will not see 15 men fanning out across the field, and a merging of the two codes, as george believes. I'll be gutted if I'm wrong about this.

Will this improve the game? I'm optimistic. At the breakdown, attacking teams will retain more ball and get quicker ball. Defences will have less time to organise themselves. There will be more gaps and more mismatches. When teams are fielding, they may be more likely to attempt counter attacks instead of kicking the ball, because there will be less risk of losing the ball at the breakdown. Liam Toland's 'jackel' will no longer pose as much threat to ball retention. Hopefully less ping-pong!!

Tim Robbins wrote: »

To complicate matters, I think the ref got that one wrong. Neither O'Driscoll nor Wallace went to ground so technically weren't tacklers. From memory, the welsh player had a knee had on the deck which means he was tackled. It should have been penalty Ireland for not releasing.

I disagree. I think Wallace was penalised under rule 15.6 (c) in the irb laws. I admit I had no idea this rule existed until I looked at the link posted above!

Did anybody notice that when BOD put in that big hit on Roberts near the touchline last week that he purposefully released roberts for a split second before trying to compete for the ball? I was impressed that he had the presence of mind to do that given that all his instincts would have been to go straight for the rip.

irishbucsfan

chimchimney wrote: »

I disagree. I think Wallace was penalised under rule 15.6 (c) in the irb laws. I admit I had no idea this rule existed until I looked at the link posted above

Well in that particular case he couldn't have been penalised under that rule because he turned the ball over before the tackled player went to ground (he ripped it off the Welsh guy) and then went to ground himself. So in that case I guess he becomes the tackled player.

Very tough one for the ref to see from where he was though, so tough luck on Wallace I guess.