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

General Rugby Discussion 3

14950525455163

Comments

  • Subscribers Posts: 42,997 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    fair enough, though i can think of much worst aspects of the game that are let go continuously.

    the one single aspect that i abhor that has creeped into the game is the rucking of prone players on the ground, usually the tackler.

    I think it would clean up and speed up teh game no end if 2 things happened:

    1. the tackler is not allowed to be the jackler and must visibly roll away from the tackle area immediately after the ball carrier is grounded.
    2. cleaners can only target players who are visibly on their feet when cleaning

    this has the effect of the tackled player being allowed to place as long as they can, reducing the ability of jacklers to latch onto the ball immediately, whilst at the same time allowing more time for the jackal to get over the ball due to the cleaners not being allowed ruck the prone player and cover the ball on the ground claim the ruck is already formed therefore the player on their feet is the second man. It make steh first arriving player very obvious, and make this arriving player make the choice of target the ball or target the cleaner and actually ruck, like rucks were initially contrived as being.



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 16,771 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    The one that gets me the most is when guys clearing out a ruck go off their feet past the ruck.

    If you can't clear the ruck and stay on your feet while doing it , then you shouldn't get the clear the ruck.

    I get guys lose their footing , but most of the time it's a glorified tackle not a clearout.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    They do, 5 seconds just seems incredibly long because the ref only calls it after the player has already been delaying.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,484 ✭✭✭sprucemoose


    absolutely, safety aspects are much more important for one, but i do think using the ball quicker from the ruck would help with the flow of the game - literally in terms of speed of ball leaving the breakdown and it also would make it more difficult to set up box kicks. id love to see 'caterpillar' rucks being outlawed too tbh but i dont really see how that could be possible

    or if they called it as soon as the ball is available rather than waiting 5 seconds (exaggeration) and then calling 'use it'



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 29,633 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    Yup, they almost always enforce it. I have a stupid habit of basically always counting when they call it and they play it within 5 seconds all the time. Its just quite a long time and comes after already slow ball.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,005 ✭✭✭✭AbusesToilets


    Refs should simple call the ball out, one area where they ought to stop coaching players. SHs knows what they're doing.

    Players off their feet at rucks are a blight. Only way that's likely to change to get rid of jackaling completely and make rucking over the only way to secure ball. Everything stems from it.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,200 ✭✭✭Yeah_Right


    When the scrum half is setting for a box kick, so many of them move the ball so its next to the last foot and not under the leg. They then pause for a couple of seconds. The ball is out. Refs should call it and let the defenders attack the SH. Put them under pressure and speed up play.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,633 ✭✭✭✭errlloyd


    Personally I don't think Ruck speed is a problem that needs to be addressed. Attacking teams already have all the incentive in the world to make rucks fast 90% of the time. It is only when angling for box kicks and killing the clock that changes. Killing the clock seems to backfire as much as it works (and I like the tension anyway), Box kicks are only a minor problem really. You could save 5 seconds by enforcing the law earlier, but if they have less time to set they're less likely to keep it on the park and you're going to end up waiting 90 seconds for a lineout anyway.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,564 ✭✭✭Lost Ormond


    Its not coaching. You cant just get refs to call the ball out as that will just cause problems elsewhere. see flashpoints emerge as the ball wont be out and players know that.

    removing jackal wont stop players off feet at ruck. just allowing ruck over changes a fundamental part of the sport which is allowing a contest for possession.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,005 ✭✭✭✭AbusesToilets


    Players are supposed to keep their shoulders above their hips in rucks, that never happens, as players go for the jackal bent over and clearers have to ballistically try to shift them. You can't fix rucks without addressing the fundamental source of the issue.

    I wholly disagree that refs need to coach players to use it. SHs know exactly what they're about. A ref calling the ball out once or twice would immediately speed up the messing that goes on and give defenses more opportunities to disrupt.



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 36,068 Mod ✭✭✭✭pickarooney


    Players going for a jackal are by definition not in rucks so the law about shoulders above hips doesn't apply.

    A ruck forms when two players are in a contest over the ball.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,066 ✭✭✭Jump_In_Jack


    Wasn't that changed to one person from either side after the Italian tactics in Twickenham one year?


    Edit: Law 15 currently states at least one player from each team:

    Forming a ruck

    1. A ruck can take place only in the field of play.
    2. A ruck is formed when at least one player from each team are in contact, on their feet and over the ball which is on the ground.
    3. Players involved in all stages of the ruck must have their heads and shoulders no lower than their hips. Sanction: Free-kick.




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,005 ✭✭✭✭AbusesToilets


    You're splitting hairs when the difference is a matter of secs between a tackle, a jackal and a clearer arriving. Jackaling puts the player in an unsafe position, frequently where they're not supporting their own weight, which then precipitates a more ballistic effort to clear out. An action that means the clearer is often making contact with the jackaler around their head/ neck. Said clearers then flop off their feet and seal off, making a counter ruck extremely difficult.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Players would need arms like Stretch Armstrong to be able to jackal a ball effectively with their shoulders above their hips!

    You'll hear a ref call a ruck when a ruck is formed. One player over a prone player trying to jackal the ball is not a ruck.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,469 ✭✭✭blackwhite




  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Apparently Karl Dickson (who didn't cover himself in glory in the Bristol-Harlequins game a few weeks ago) didn't even review it? Claimed it was too many phases back to review or something?

    At a minimum you'd have to think Farrell misses the European games, and hopefully some of the 6N too.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,706 ✭✭✭✭Clegg


    Farrell should be cited for that. It's very poor that the TMO hasn't pulled that up for the referee to review.

    I would hope that if he's suspended there's no leniency in his sentence. He has tackled high and with no arms many times.

    Edit: Apparently the TMO tried bringing it to the referees attention, but was told it was now too late to review.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,469 ✭✭✭blackwhite


    Salt firmly rubbed into the wounds as well



    Dickson seemingly got himself confused with the rules for looking at a try v looking at foul play. He’s really had a shocking few weeks



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Apparently the TMO did flag it as foul play but Dickson claimed it was too many phases back to review (which I haven't ever seen before for foul play).

    That's per the Gloucestershire Live match tracker: https://www.gloucestershirelive.co.uk/sport/rugby/match-reports/gloucester-rugby-v-saracens-live-7996101



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 38 Ernie McCracken


    What would you have Farrell do get down on his hunkers and make an ankle tackle? He’s gone for the hit to stop the player going forward. Not the run of the mill side on tackle but let the attacker get the gainline.

    The level of disguised protectionism and vitriol to foreign players around here stinks. Protectionism in that our players, kids and fans are swayed by comments on supposed dangerous play (which this is not) into playing protectionist, bog standard shoulder to hips tackles all game every game.

    It leads to stand offish boring encounters and very average levels of rugby played. Not high risk rugby played on the edge to a high velocity. More rugby by the numbers for you. It’s so inevitably boring.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,920 ✭✭✭✭stephen_n


    I am guessing they will say the first point of contact is the chest and the head hits the back of his shoulder because of it. I doubt it will be cited.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    What are you talking about?

    It's an indefensible tackle. Wasn't a high speed collision; he watched the guy pick the ball from the base of the ruck and actually hits up and in to him to ensure he catches him square on the chin with his shoulder.

    How do you possibly think that isn't dangerous play?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,706 ✭✭✭✭Clegg


    Hi Rape of Lucretia!

    Glad you've joined us again.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,920 ✭✭✭✭stephen_n


    I have watched it frame by frame and whatever else about it. He definitely doesn’t hit up into the tackle. He sinks and stays down only coming up well after the hit.

    It’s dangerous because he made absolutely no attempt to wrap and leads with his shoulder.

    He definitely made the attempt to get low and the Gloucester player slightly dips into contact.

    Compared to other hits by Farrell, that was only borderline.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,469 ✭✭✭blackwhite


    And he made a balls of it. The two phase rule only applies for reviewing if any infringements leading to a try.


    For foul play they can review anything up until play restarts after the next break in play or ball going into touch, etc.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Maybe it's the angle of the clip posted above, but if you look at these two stills from it, it absolutely looks like he hits up:

    image.png

    then two seconds later:

    image.png




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,920 ✭✭✭✭stephen_n


    That second one is well after the hit though. Watch it frame by frame in that clip and you’ll see it. I still think he should have been carded but it’s probably only a yellow.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    There is literally 2 seconds between those stills; granted in slow-mo but even still, it's hardly "well after" the hit, it's the immediate aftermath. If he's hitting down or level, he doesn't end up in an almost upright position.

    I rolled it frame by frame and there are two frames in the 7 second mark where you can clearly see he's rising slightly up to meet the guy on the chin.

    It's clear to me on the video.

    image.png image.png image.png




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,767 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    I mean this is just the rugby equivalent of anti-vax and deserves about as much attention and reaction as that.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,772 ✭✭✭RichieRich_89


    Not much in it, in my opinion. Probably yellow under the current guidelines.



Advertisement