Rucking in Junior Rugby

Tim Robbins

This is a thread to just talk about rucking. This is always a complex part of the game where things aren't always black or white. It's a place where players can get frustrated very easily.

As a ref, I think one thing that causes problems at the rucks (at J2, J3, J3, J4 and J5 levels) is that arriving players tend to get a bit over enthuastic for the ball and tend to go for the ball rather than protect it.

More specifically, say Reds play Blue. Red have the ball, a tackle has just been completed. In my view the 2nd, 3rd and maybe even the 4th Red players should be trying to protect the ball and present it nicely for the scrum half.

What I notice is that the 2nd or 3rd attacking players sometimes try to put their hands on the ball in the split seconds before the ruck starts. Now, technically they can do this before the ruck starts but as soon as the ruck starts they can only have their hands on the ball if they had both their hands on it before the rucks started - which is unlikely. If they do have their hands on the ball legally, they can of course keep them there. But it's difficutt for them to present clean ball for the scrum half.

Another thing making it messy, the split seconds after the tackle, Reds don't form a ruck, they try to use their hands to get the ball. This means the blue player can also use their hands (because no ruck has formed).

So you have both red and blue player on their feet contesting for the ball with no ruck formed. Then a split second later, a bit of forward momentum from reds and / or blues and all of sudden there is contact between the blue and red players and hence we have a ruck. Or, a red (or blue player) gets clear possesion of the ball before the ruck and hence we have a very messy maul - not a ruck.

As you can see things get very messy.

What I'd be saying is if you are 2 / 3 / 4 player your job is to protect the ball. Even if you see the ball and you think you can rip it quickly and drive forward - don't. Protect it.

This way you have cleaner ball and lower unexpected penalaties.

What are your views? As a player, ref, fan, coach whatever... ?

Daragh86

I don't see why anyone with half a brain, or any sort of basic rugby knowledge would go for the ball rather than clean out the treat at the breakdown especially with the new law interpretations. Two cleaners, maybe three should be enough to get quick ball from a ruck. If it's very quick and clean ball third man, if it's on, might favour a pick and go rather than over committing and slowing down fast ball.

I don't understand the circles ruck laws are going in. Everyone harped on about wanting a fair contest at the breakdown which it isn't at the moment. I understand that the suits want the game to be faster which is fine but the new law interpretations make referring the breakdown a mess and refs north and south hem won't ref the breakdown the same, this can be seen already. This is making the gap between northern and southern hem styles even bigger.

I say bring back bridging your own ball and get rid of releasing the tackled player before having a second go at the ball. If you have good technique at the opposition breakdown you can undo someone bridging quite easily...fair contest at the breakdown.

Tim Robbins

Parts of Rugby are counter intuitive.

It is counter intuitive when you have the ball, to try to draw players in and create space for other players.

It is counter intuitive when you see the ball to not put your hands on it but to protect it and present clean ball for someone else.

As you say there are times when you can rip it and go but that's split second judgement. Not always easy.

Daragh86

I suppose thats the best part of rugby and maybe the most difficult, trying to keep 100% focus for 80 minutes. A lot of rugby is mental. One lapse of concentration could cost 3 points, could cost a game.

I think in therory the new law interpretations have made the game more enjoyable to watch but definately have done anything on enjoyment playing wise.

What do you think of the situation where a ball carrier might get themselves into trouble on their feet and need to get to ground asap to recycle ball - defence has done well to stand the attacker up and contest for ball while both the ball carrier and tackler are on their feet. Ball carrier takes a knee causes it to be tackle made (by law books), tackler has to release then the ball carrier can get up and go again. I've seen this happen a couple of times so far. I suppose in therory also that the ball carrier once tackled must release the ball but in practise he is still upright with just one knee on the ground. It's not pretty rugby by any means but an easy get out of jail card for ball carriers in trouble - this is what the new law interpretations have produced, more uncertainty in the breakdown.

j4supporter

The thing that really gets at me at the moment at both J4 & J5 level is the way in which the tackler rolling away is interpreted. Having seen a game at the weekend, where players were clearly not rolling away from where they were. The referee told the captain twice that his players weren't rolling away and that the next time he would give a penalty yet this continued.

However, one of the opposition players at the next ruck came in, the tackler was clearly in the way, the player used the top six studs and raked in a backward motion as required by the laws, had a penalty given against him and got a yellow card for his troubles. The official line from the referee was too much aggression. I was right beside it on the sideline. The player was doing it to the side of the player around his torso so he had done nothing illegal.

Apart from that, is it just me or are the better rucking teams not only arriving in units but also getting their body height spot on. Seems to be the higher level teams are low enough to cover the ball and stop opposition players, getting even their boot to the ball.

2nd Row Donkey

I have a head ache just reading that! Who'd be a referee eh! not me!

2nd Row Donkey

j4supporter wrote: »

The thing that really gets at me at the moment at both J4 & J5 level is the way in which the tackler rolling away is interpreted. Having seen a game at the weekend, where players were clearly not rolling away from where they were. The referee told the captain twice that his players weren't rolling away and that the next time he would give a penalty yet this continued.

Now that all scrums must be contested @ J4 where's an auld fella like me supposed to get a rest if he can't take it after making a tackle !

j4supporter

2nd Row Donkey wrote: »

Now that all scrums must be contested @ J4 where's an auld fella like me supposed to get a rest if he can't take it after making a tackle !

Rolling subs ha ha

Tim Robbins

Apart from that, is it just me or are the better rucking teams not only arriving in units but also getting their body height spot on. Seems to be the higher level teams are low enough to cover the ball and stop opposition players, getting even their boot to the ball.

Interesting...
I heard that the Leinster coaching courses are trying to get coaches thinking this way. But it wasn't a reliable source. It would be very interesting if anyone whose on these courses could tell us.

Tim Robbins

j4supporter wrote: »

The thing that really gets at me at the moment at both J4 & J5 level is the way in which the tackler rolling away is interpreted. Having seen a game at the weekend, where players were clearly not rolling away from where they were. The referee told the captain twice that his players weren't rolling away and that the next time he would give a penalty yet this continued.

I have to say reffing J4, J5 rugby is one of the most challenging things I have ever done. The ruck is much more complex. The player frustration is way higher. Sometimes I think refs who do this don't get the respect they should be getting.

I'd love to see Rolland do a J4 or J5 game. No touch judges, no TMO. Loads of back chat and of course a know it all assessor telling him he did everything wrong.

Daragh86

j4supporter wrote: »

The thing that really gets at me at the moment at both J4 & J5 level is the way in which the tackler rolling away is interpreted. Having seen a game at the weekend, where players were clearly not rolling away from where they were. The referee told the captain twice that his players weren't rolling away and that the next time he would give a penalty yet this continued.

However, one of the opposition players at the next ruck came in, the tackler was clearly in the way, the player used the top six studs and raked in a backward motion as required by the laws, had a penalty given against him and got a yellow card for his troubles. The official line from the referee was too much aggression. I was right beside it on the sideline. The player was doing it to the side of the player around his torso so he had done nothing illegal.

Apart from that, is it just me or are the better rucking teams not only arriving in units but also getting their body height spot on. Seems to be the higher level teams are low enough to cover the ball and stop opposition players, getting even their boot to the ball.

I think the biggest problem with what your talking about isn't the players because it's only cheating if your caught. It sounds like the refs are the ones at fault. I'd lie all over every ball if I thought the ref wasn't going to ping me for it.

As for the yellow for rucking I don't understand. I've got pulled up on this several times and definately don't understand "too much agression" part. If your rucking legally you can be as agressive as you want? Wouldn't get pulled up for this in the southern hem.

Body position is vital at the ruck. Good body position and technique makes the job a whole lot easier on everyone, meaning less numbers committing to the breakdown.

d'Oracle

I think its coaching.
When I played at that level there was virtually no coaching, so people were just trying to keep up nearly.

Downtime

j4supporter wrote: »

However, one of the opposition players at the next ruck came in, the tackler was clearly in the way, the player used the top six studs and raked in a backward motion as required by the laws, had a penalty given against him and got a yellow card for his troubles. The official line from the referee was too much aggression. I was right beside it on the sideline. The player was doing it to the side of the player around his torso so he had done nothing illegal.

He raked in a backward motion on the players body? Thats what he did illegally. You cannot touch the players body with your boot - only the ball.

Daragh86

Downtime wrote: »

He raked in a backward motion on the players body? Thats what he did illegally. You cannot touch the players body with your boot - only the ball.

You can get on up there and do a wee little tap dance all over the idiot if he is in the way of the ball coming back and has the ability to roll away. Once the foot is in a backward movement when it strikes the player. They say forward motion is a kick, down a stamp and backwards is rucking.

Absolutely nothing wrong with rucking somebody once they are in the vicinity of the ball.

Downtime

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I have to say reffing J4, J5 rugby is one of the most challenging things I have ever done. The ruck is much more complex. The player frustration is way higher. Sometimes I think refs who do this don't get the respect they should be getting.

I'd love to see Rolland do a J4 or J5 game. No touch judges, no TMO. Loads of back chat and of course a know it all assessor telling him he did everything wrong.

I don't think it is more complex - just messier. Rucking at senior level is far more difficult to referee as it is much quicker and infringements are harder to spot. Also the speed of the game is 3 or 4 times quicker that J4/J5 so you are working a lot harder to get there. I also think the players understand more what they are trying to achieve and also where the referee is (no offence to J4 or J5 rugby).

Well done on the Late Late show.

Downtime

Daragh86 wrote: »

You can get on up there and do a wee little tap dance all over the idiot if he is in the way of the ball coming back and has the ability to roll away. Once the foot is in a backward movement when it strikes the player. They say forward motion is a kick, down a stamp and backwards is rucking.

Absolutely nothing wrong with rucking somebody once they are in the vicinity of the ball.

I understand where you are coming from and most referees will let it go if it is a light reminder of the players responsibility to roll away. However I point you to 16.3(f) in the law book where it states that you must not intentionally ruck a player.

Tim Robbins

Downtime wrote: »

I don't think it is more complex - just messier. Rucking at senior level is far more difficult to referee as it is much quicker and infringements are harder to spot. Also the speed of the game is 3 or 4 times quicker that J4/J5 so you are working a lot harder to get there. I also think the players understand more what they are trying to achieve and also where the referee is (no offence to J4 or J5 rugby).

Well done on the Late Late show.

Complexity refers to the amount of possible problems. You can call that "messier" by all means

stephen_n

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I have to say reffing J4, J5 rugby is one of the most challenging things I have ever done. The ruck is much more complex. The player frustration is way higher. Sometimes I think refs who do this don't get the respect they should be getting.

I'd love to see Rolland do a J4 or J5 game. No touch judges, no TMO. Loads of back chat and of course a know it all assessor telling him he did everything wrong.

You really sell the job of a ref very well for anyone thinking of taking it up

Hands in the ruck is definitely the most frustrating thing about J4 rugby and sometimes ref's just don't seem to use common sense and instead stick to the view if I didn't see it then it didn't happen, even though there is no logical or plausible way that the ball could have come back on the defending teams side without them handling in the ruck. After continuously loosing the ball this way things always get volatile in the rucks!

Daragh86

Downtime wrote: »

I understand where you are coming from and most referees will let it go if it is a light reminder of the players responsibility to roll away. However I point you to 16.3(f) in the law book where it states that you must not intentionally ruck a player.

My apologies so, didn't realise that.

So can you accidentally on purpose ruck a player and pretend it wasn't intentional?