Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Rugby 101 - Know your rucks from your mauls!

Options
1…1112141617…23

Comments

  • Options
    #392
    pickarooney
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 35,099 Mod ✭✭✭✭pickarooney


    I don't see any contravention of the rules in doing that, provided the ball carrier is at the front, leaving him exposed to a chop tackle or being held up as eventually happened.

    I would have liked to see them advance really slowly, like the velodrome sprint chase event, rather than just stand still like fools.


  • Options
    #393
    locum-motion
    Registered Users Posts: 5,143 ✭✭✭locum-motion


    I saw this commented on elsewhere, and if I understood correctly:

    This is a line out.

    Until an opposing player binds, it doesn't become a maul.

    Until the ball or player holding it moves off the line of the lineout, the lineout is not over.

    Stalemate: The attacking side can't move forwards, as when they do, the lineout is over and the player can be tackled. This is what happened in the end. The defending side can't commit players, as when they do, it becomes a maul and they get driven over.


  • Options
    #394
    Losty Dublin
    Registered Users Posts: 12,972 ✭✭✭✭Losty Dublin


    locum-motion wrote: »
    I saw this commented on elsewhere, and if I understood correctly:

    This is a line out.

    Correct.
    locum-motion wrote: »
    Until an opposing player binds, it doesn't become a maul.

    Correct
    locum-motion wrote: »
    Until the ball or player holding it moves off the line of the lineout, the lineout is not over.

    Correct.
    locum-motion wrote: »
    Stalemate: The attacking side can't move forwards, as when they do, the lineout is over and the player can be tackled. This is what happened in the end. The defending side can't commit players, as when they do, it becomes a maul and they get driven over.

    Correct.

    With the players bound as they are they can't really go anywhere. Commit defenders and they'll not have the bodies to hold it up or else they'll infringe and give away a potential penalty try for stopping what would be a probable try, not to mention losing a man or two into the bargain. On the other hand the attackers needed to not drive at risk of creating a flying wedge or getting ahead of the ball carrier, both of which would have given away a penalty.


  • Options
    #395
    locum-motion
    Registered Users Posts: 5,143 ✭✭✭locum-motion


    Losty Dublin wrote: »
    Correct.



    Correct



    Correct.



    Correct.

    With the players bound as they are they can't really go anywhere. Commit defenders and they'll not have the bodies to hold it up or else they'll infringe and give away a potential penalty try for stopping what would be a probable try, not to mention losing a man or two into the bargain. On the other hand the attackers needed to not drive at risk of creating a flying wedge or getting ahead of the ball carrier, both of which would have given away a penalty.

    Kudos on your excellent use of the 'Quote' feature!


  • Options
    #396
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,016 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    Since ye lads are so eager to tell us what what is clearly happening in the clip....

    How about ye tell us what should have happened? Is this a loophole in the laws and if so what can the ref do to prevent it happening currently?
    Should the "use it or lose it" policy be extended to cover this situation? Personally I'd be in favour of that because its against the spirit of the game to refuse to play when in possession of the ball.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #397
    The Lost Sheep
    Registered Users Posts: 14,967 ✭✭✭✭The Lost Sheep


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    Since ye lads are so eager to tell us what what is clearly happening in the clip....

    How about ye tell us what should have happened? Is this a loophole in the laws and if so what can the ref do to prevent it happening currently?
    Should the "use it or lose it" policy be extended to cover this situation? Personally I'd be in favour of that because its against the spirit of the game to refuse to play when in possession of the ball.
    It isnt a loophole in the laws. A maul is created when 2 players, one from each side, as well as ball carrier are all bound and on their feet.
    No the use it or lose it shouldnt be applied here. A team shouldnt be penalised for wishing to use a maul and the opposition dont engage with it.


  • Options
    #398
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,016 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    The Lost Sheep wrote: »
    It isnt a loophole in the laws. A maul is created when 2 players, one from each side, as well as ball carrier are all bound and on their feet.
    No the use it or lose it shouldnt be applied here. A team shouldnt be penalised for wishing to use a maul and the opposition dont engage with it.

    So......
    We have 40 minutes of a stand off?

    Its quite clearly a loop hole, or more like an unintended consequence.

    For a guy who loves to ask "what would you do" you either think this is an acceptable play, or youre short of a suggestion as to how to make sure it doesn't happen.


  • Options
    #399
    The Lost Sheep
    Registered Users Posts: 14,967 ✭✭✭✭The Lost Sheep


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    So......
    We have 40 minutes of a stand off?

    Its quite clearly a loop hole, or more like an unintended consequence.

    For a guy who loves to ask "what would you do" you either think this is an acceptable play, or youre short of a suggestion as to how to make sure it doesn't happen.
    Its acceptable play and isnt a loophole in the law.
    Why should we put it in the game that this cant happen?


  • Options
    #400
    Losty Dublin
    Registered Users Posts: 12,972 ✭✭✭✭Losty Dublin


    The Lost Sheep wrote: »
    Its acceptable play and isnt a loophole in the law.
    Why should we put it in the game that this cant happen?

    Pretty much. All that needs to happen is for one team to make a move and go for the ball. Once that happens it's as you were.


  • Options
    #401
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,016 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    Losty Dublin wrote: »
    Pretty much. All that needs to happen is for one team to make a move and go for the ball. Once that happens it's as you were.

    Cos we could theoretically have 40 mins of a stand off

    Is that acceptable?

    Why is a scrum to the team in possession an acceptable conclusion?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #402
    Losty Dublin
    Registered Users Posts: 12,972 ✭✭✭✭Losty Dublin


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    Cos we could theoretically have 40 mins of a stand off

    Is that acceptable?

    Why is a scrum to the team in possession an acceptable conclusion?

    The ball is still in a line out. Neither team are obliged to commit or to play here. There's no time limit for a line out unlike a ruck or maul so the ref can't do anything. 40 minutes of stand off we could have but honestly, what two teams will do that before somebody cracks?


  • Options
    #403
    Interested Observer
    Registered Users Posts: 13,004 ✭✭✭✭Interested Observer


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    Cos we could theoretically have 40 mins of a stand off

    Is that acceptable?

    Why is a scrum to the team in possession an acceptable conclusion?

    I know I'm miles late to this discussion but I don't know why your ire is directed at the attacking team here. They wanted to maul which is obviously a legitimate tactic. The defending team has declined, there is no loophole to exploit here for the attackers because it's entirely based on what the defence do.


  • Options
    #404
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,016 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    Interested Observer wrote: »
    I know I'm miles late to this discussion but I don't know why your ire is directed at the attacking team here. They wanted to maul which is obviously a legitimate tactic. The defending team has declined, there is no loophole to exploit here for the attackers because it's entirely based on what the defence do.

    my ire is directed at the attacking team because I always want the team in possession to be positive.

    Retaining the ball in the lineout without moving it out of the line out zone because youre afraid of what the defence might do is the opposite of positive.


  • Options
    #405
    aloooof
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 10,225 Mod ✭✭✭✭aloooof


    I'm gonna wade in on this one, but I'm open-minded about this, would like to hear some opinions.

    My take is that, one of the benefits of a maul to the team attacking (aside from gaining territory and/or scoring from it in itself) is that it sucks in a number of defenders. When the ball comes out of the maul, the attacking team have more space to attack against fewer defenders.
    sydthebeat wrote: »
    Why is a scrum to the team in possession an acceptable conclusion?

    Mauls typically come from a lineout that the defending team have conceded (through either a penalty or clearing their lines). Why should they then get the benefit of forming a perfectly spaced 15 man defensive line?

    A scrum to the team in possession is the situation that most closely resembles that of a maul, so seems a fair enough outcome to me.

    There may be flaws to the above that I haven't thought about, so open to opinions. I guess the most obvious counter-argument is that an attacking lineout doesn't automatically entitle you to an attacking maul.


  • Options
    #406
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,016 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    aloooof wrote: »
    Mauls typically come from a lineout that the defending team have conceded (through either a penalty or clearing their lines). Why should they then get the benefit of forming a perfectly spaced 15 man defensive line?

    no, my question / point was that in THIS particular situation, ie the stand off, why is a scrum to the team in possession the acceptable conclusion to the situation.

    if a scrum is stationary the call is to use it, if a maul becomes stationary for a second time, the call is to use it.
    So in THIS particular situation, would it not be more pertinent to just shout at the attacking team to use it. so then they either maul forward at risk of tackle, or let the 9 take it and play.

    its a complete aberration of a play, but something that obviously has happened in a competitive game, so i think its needs a clarification.


  • Options
    #407
    aloooof
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 10,225 Mod ✭✭✭✭aloooof


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    if a scrum is stationary the call is to use it, if a maul becomes stationary for a second time, the call is to use it.
    So in THIS particular situation, would it not be more pertinent to just shout at the attacking team to use it. so then they either maul forward at risk of tackle, or let the 9 take it and play.

    I guess the answer there is that the defending team have done enough to halt the scrum (or maul), whereas in this situation, the defending team has effectively done nothing, and yet get the benefit of a near perfect defensive line if the ref calls to use it?


  • Options
    #408
    shrapnel222
    Registered Users Posts: 3,118 ✭✭✭shrapnel222


    Interesting one yesterday in a super rugby game.

    Maul is formed after a line out. Drive is on for team A, then the 4 from the opposing team, steals the ball, and is clearly in possession. The maul then collapses, and referee (who had seen the steal and flagged it as legal) awards the scrum to team B, the original defensive team.

    I personally thought team A should have got the ball, as maul was still formed, but possession had changed hands and was now a maul for team B.

    Thoughts?


  • Options
    #409
    Losty Dublin
    Registered Users Posts: 12,972 ✭✭✭✭Losty Dublin


    shrapnel222 wrote: »
    Interesting one yesterday in a super rugby game.

    Maul is formed after a line out. Drive is on for team A, then the 4 from the opposing team, steals the ball, and is clearly in possession. The maul then collapses, and referee (who had seen the steal and flagged it as legal) awards the scrum to team B, the original defensive team.

    I personally thought team A should have got the ball, as maul was still formed, but possession had changed hands and was now a maul for team B.

    Thoughts?

    The team in possession of the ball in a maul gains a scrum if the ball is unplayable after they have gone forward; otherwise the other team gets the put in. By the sounds of what you've described the call was correct.


  • Options
    #410
    shrapnel222
    Registered Users Posts: 3,118 ✭✭✭shrapnel222


    Losty Dublin wrote: »
    The team in possession of the ball in a maul gains a scrum if the ball is unplayable after they have gone forward; otherwise the other team gets the put in. By the sounds of what you've described the call was correct.

    No they don't. Collapsed maul with ball unplayable goes to the defending team. This is the reason why the choke tackle is so often used nowadays.


  • Options
    #411
    Losty Dublin
    Registered Users Posts: 12,972 ✭✭✭✭Losty Dublin


    shrapnel222 wrote: »
    No they don't. Collapsed maul with ball unplayable goes to the defending team. This is the reason why the choke tackle is so often used nowadays.

    Normally what you say is right. The principle of "Use It or Lose It" exists and in general the team who took it will want to make use of the ball.

    However in this case we have been told that possession of the ball has clearly changed over between teams. The principle of "Use It or Lose It" remain; the team who's onus it is to use the ball is what has changed.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #412
    Squatter
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,841 ✭✭✭Squatter


    Losty Dublin wrote: »
    Normally what you say is right. The principle of "Use It or Lose It" exists and in general the team who took it will want to make use of the ball.

    However in this case we have been told that possession of the ball has clearly changed over between teams. The principle of "Use It or Lose It" remain; the team who's onus it is to use the ball is what has changed.

    Correct - or at least that's what the Sky NZ "expert" Ian Smith said after his fellow commentators expressed surprise at the decision.


  • Options
    #413
    Muahahaha
    Registered Users Posts: 19,610 ✭✭✭✭Muahahaha


    Right nothing to do with rucks, mauls or laws. At the back of the Irish rugby jersey just below the neckline is a rectangular bit protruding from the jersey itself. Pretty sure Ive seen it on other nations jerseys too, perhaps its specific to a manufacturer. But is it anything more than just a design or does it have a function like holding a GPS tracker or some such?


  • Options
    #414
    Melodeon
    Registered Users Posts: 2,268 ✭✭✭Melodeon


    Muahahaha wrote: »
    Right nothing to do with rucks, mauls or laws. At the back of the Irish rugby jersey just below the neckline is a rectangular bit protruding from the jersey itself. Pretty sure Ive seen it on other nations jerseys too, perhaps its specific to a manufacturer. But is it anything more than just a design or does it have a function like holding a GPS tracker or some such?

    It's for this sort of thing:
    https://www.playertek.com/eu/rugby-solutions/


  • Options
    #415
    Synode
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,967 ✭✭✭Synode


    Murray Kinsella piece about a penalty that shouldn't have been awarded in the 2nd test

    http://www.the42.ie/david-pocock-offside-penalty-no-tackle-4080407-Jun2018/

    He says that the new laws state that a ruck can only be formed after a tackle. World Rugby haven't updated their laws page here (which is ridiculous) but I took the following from their site here:-

    A ruck commences when at least one player is on their feet and over the ball which is on the ground (tackled player, tackler). At this point the offside lines are created. Players on their feet may use their hands to pick up the ball as long as this is immediate. As soon as an opposition player arrives, no hands can be used.

    This doesn't specifically say a ruck can only be formed after a tackle but it does mention a 'tackled player' and a 'tackler'. What do people think? Can a ruck only be formed after a tackle?


  • Options
    #416
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,016 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    I've seen rucks form over a player who's dived onto a loose ball.


  • Options
    #417
    Squidgy Black
    Registered Users Posts: 21,605 ✭✭✭✭Squidgy Black


    When a player dives for a loose ball, and a player pushes him down and prevents him from getting back up and running with the ball, he's considered "tackled" or "held" I believe.


  • Options
    #418
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,016 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    Squidgy Black wrote: »
    When a player dives for a loose ball, and a player pushes him down and prevents him from getting back up and running with the ball, he's considered "tackled" or "held" I believe.

    If he's on the ground and being pushed down, it's a penalty


  • Options
    #419
    Dave_The_Sheep
    Registered Users Posts: 7,335 ✭✭✭Dave_The_Sheep


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    If he's on the ground and being pushed down, it's a penalty

    If he's trying to get up, sure, but if he's not, he's fair game, right? You have to let him up if he's trying to, but not if he's just lying there.

    And yeah, I realise that players can't hold the ball when lying on the ground, they have to release, but let's be real that doesn't always happen.


  • Options
    #420
    pickarooney
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 35,099 Mod ✭✭✭✭pickarooney


    Dave_The_Sheep wrote: »
    If he's trying to get up, sure, but if he's not, he's fair game, right? You have to let him up if he's trying to, but not if he's just lying there.

    And yeah, I realise that players can't hold the ball when lying on the ground, they have to release, but let's be real that doesn't always happen.
    No, you can take the ball but not tackle or pin down the player.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #421
    Synode
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,967 ✭✭✭Synode


    So what if a player falls on the ground after catching a high ball. His team mates create pillars to protect him - has a ruck been formed as there is at least one person over the ball?


Advertisement