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…89111314…23

Comments

  • Options
    #302
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,103 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    The Lost Sheep wrote: »
    Ball is out of a ruck once it passes hindmost foot of all involved in the ruck and that includes those on the deck

    You have to be on your feet to form and play the ball in a ruck but if not on feet you can still be part of a ruck

    So if everyone falls over..... Does a ruck still exist?


  • Options
    #303
    Losty Dublin
    Registered Users Posts: 13,006 ✭✭✭✭Losty Dublin


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    So if everyone falls over..... Does a ruck still exist?

    If the ruck was formed before they all fell over then yes it does.


  • Options
    #304
    Dave_The_Sheep
    Registered Users Posts: 7,337 ✭✭✭Dave_The_Sheep


    And if someone else on their feet comes in, they supercede all those on the ground and can do what they like?

    You see it a lot where there's a ruck and somebody can opens the only protection off their feet and the ball is there with nobody on their feet protecting it. I don't understand why refs call hands off or "don't" in that case. Surely if everyone is off their feet then it's a free for all.


  • Options
    #305
    pickarooney
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 35,188 Mod ✭✭✭✭pickarooney


    Dave_The_Sheep wrote: »
    And if someone else on their feet comes in, they supercede all those on the ground and can do what they like?

    You see it a lot where there's a ruck and somebody can opens the only protection off their feet and the ball is there with nobody on their feet protecting it. I don't understand why refs call hands off or "don't" in that case. Surely if everyone is off their feet then it's a free for all.

    If there's nobody there, including the tackled player, as they've all been cleaned out beyond the ball?


  • Options
    #306
    MJohnston
    Registered Users Posts: 10,529 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    I see that a lot with Ireland - they'll do too good a job of clearing out rucks when they have possession, and then the ball is left basically unprotected. Is that still in the ruck in that case?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #307
    Dave_The_Sheep
    Registered Users Posts: 7,337 ✭✭✭Dave_The_Sheep


    pickarooney wrote: »
    If there's nobody there, including the tackled player, as they've all been cleaned out beyond the ball?

    No I mean there's people there, but they're all on the deck. Tackler tackles player with ball, rolls away, they're both down. Someone comes in to try get hands on the ball, is dragged off his feet just to the side say, both them now on the deck. Nobody on their feet, can a player just pick up the ball at that point? I mean there's nobody on their feet protecting it.


  • Options
    #308
    purpleisafruit
    Registered Users Posts: 508 ✭✭✭purpleisafruit


    Dave_The_Sheep wrote: »
    No I mean there's people there, but they're all on the deck. Tackler tackles player with ball, rolls away, they're both down. Someone comes in to try get hands on the ball, is dragged off his feet just to the side say, both them now on the deck. Nobody on their feet, can a player just pick up the ball at that point? I mean there's nobody on their feet protecting it.
    Ruck was formed when the 2nd player in was contacted by the attacking player attempting to protect the ball. Ruck is not over until it goes beyond the hindmost foot of players on the deck in my opinion.


  • Options
    #309
    Interested Observer
    Registered Users Posts: 13,021 ✭✭✭✭Interested Observer


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    Only players on their feet are considered part of the ruck.

    Quite often though it's reffed very loosely
    sydthebeat wrote: »
    So if everyone falls over..... Does a ruck still exist?

    The way I see it, if you go off your feet while the ruck is a contest (i.e. a defender still has a theoretical chance of winning a turnover) you could well get pinged. If everyone ends up off their feet after the contest at the ruck is over then the ref will just let it go. I think this is probably right or else you'd have a penalty at every single ruck.


  • Options
    #310
    Losty Dublin
    Registered Users Posts: 13,006 ✭✭✭✭Losty Dublin


    MJohnston wrote: »
    I see that a lot with Ireland - they'll do too good a job of clearing out rucks when they have possession, and then the ball is left basically unprotected. Is that still in the ruck in that case?

    For the ruck to end, the ball has to move on or both teams players have to move away from it.


  • Options
    #311
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,103 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    Losty Dublin wrote: »
    For the ruck to end, the ball has to move on or both teams players have to move away from it.

    How far beyond a ruck can a team push the offside line?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #312
    .ak
    Registered Users Posts: 30,308 Mod ✭✭✭✭.ak


    TBH it's really down to how the ref wants the game to flow, but technically speaking once you're off your feet in the ruck you're no longer in the game.

    However, no Ref is going to let someone step over a load of prone players to play the ball because then it'll just be a mess.

    To encourage positive play a ref will generally want to see a team shift the player past the ball before a defender can touch it, even if that means shifting a prone player back.

    Then again some refs are sadistic bastards and once there's day light on the ball they'll call "ball out" and then it's a free for all...


  • Options
    #313
    Losty Dublin
    Registered Users Posts: 13,006 ✭✭✭✭Losty Dublin


    .ak wrote: »
    Then again some refs are sadistic bastards and once there's day light on the ball they'll call "ball out" and then it's a free for all...

    That's libellously and defamatory talk, I'll have you know :pac:


  • Options
    #314
    delta_bravo
    Registered Users Posts: 4,567 ✭✭✭delta_bravo


    There was an old trick in the Rugby 08 games that if you got a penalty anywhere on the pitch you could go for a shot at goal and the opposition automatically went under the posts. You would then kick ten yards ahead of you with a grubber and sprint up the pitch to get ground.

    Anyway on a slightly related matter if you have a penalty in say the opposition 22 and you have called a shot is it actually legal to just tap the ball forward, pick it up and resume play normally?


  • Options
    #315
    shrapnel222
    Registered Users Posts: 3,118 ✭✭✭shrapnel222


    delta_bravo wrote: »
    There was an old trick in the Rugby 08 games that if you got a penalty anywhere on the pitch you could go for a shot at goal and the opposition automatically went under the posts. You would then kick ten yards ahead of you with a grubber and sprint up the pitch to get ground.

    Anyway on a slightly related matter if you have a penalty in say the opposition 22 and you have called a shot is it actually legal to just tap the ball forward, pick it up and resume play normally?

    if the kicker indicates kick at goal, he has to kick at goal, and the opposition have to stand still


  • Options
    #316
    Shelflife
    Registered Users Posts: 3,073 ✭✭✭Shelflife


    shrapnel222 wrote: »
    if the kicker indicates kick at goal, he has to kick at goal, and the opposition have to stand still

    Has to be a genuine attempt at goal.


  • Options
    #317
    Dave_The_Sheep
    Registered Users Posts: 7,337 ✭✭✭Dave_The_Sheep


    O'Gara asked a ref about that mid-game I think, he basically asked - can I miss horribly - in an attempt to hit Horgan cross out on the wing (I think) after he'd opted for goal. Ref rightly told him to bugger off and take his genuine shot at goal. Might have been Owens but I honestly can't remember.


  • Options
    #318
    purpleisafruit
    Registered Users Posts: 508 ✭✭✭purpleisafruit


    delta_bravo wrote: »
    There was an old trick in the Rugby 08 games that if you got a penalty anywhere on the pitch you could go for a shot at goal and the opposition automatically went under the posts. You would then kick ten yards ahead of you with a grubber and sprint up the pitch to get ground.

    Anyway on a slightly related matter if you have a penalty in say the opposition 22 and you have called a shot is it actually legal to just tap the ball forward, pick it up and resume play normally?
    All covered by Law 21.5 http://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=21.5&language=EN


  • Options
    #319
    Losty Dublin
    Registered Users Posts: 13,006 ✭✭✭✭Losty Dublin


    Dave_The_Sheep wrote: »
    O'Gara asked a ref about that mid-game I think, he basically asked - can I miss horribly - in an attempt to hit Horgan cross out on the wing (I think) after he'd opted for goal. Ref rightly told him to bugger off and take his genuine shot at goal. Might have been Owens but I honestly can't remember.

    Neil Jenkins pulled such a trick against Romania, I think in 1993. Quite rightfully it has since been removed from the Law Book.


  • Options
    #320
    connemara man
    Moderators, Sports Moderators, Regional West Moderators Posts: 6,773 Mod ✭✭✭✭connemara man


    So technically if a kicker was very good he could sky a kick towards the posts but in a way that it held in the air giving chasers time to get under to compete in the air


  • Options
    #321
    Quin_Dub
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 15,096 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    connemara man wrote: »
    So technically if a kicker was very good he could sky a kick towards the posts but in a way that it held in the air giving chasers time to get under to compete in the air

    In Theory , yes.

    There was a guy in Rugby league years ago that was well known for taking penalty attempts and deliberately aiming to hit them off the cross bar to allow his team regain possession and either score directly or at least get a new set of 6 tackles..

    He pulled it off way too often for it to be fluke.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #322
    Shelflife
    Registered Users Posts: 3,073 ✭✭✭Shelflife


    connemara man wrote: »
    So technically if a kicker was very good he could sky a kick towards the posts but in a way that it held in the air giving chasers time to get under to compete in the air

    Why would you do that ? It’s a pen , if you’re at your 22m you kick for touch and go for the lineout, a garryowen makes no sense.


  • Options
    #323
    Shelflife
    Registered Users Posts: 3,073 ✭✭✭Shelflife


    Quin_Dub wrote: »
    In Theory , yes.

    There was a guy in Rugby league years ago that was well known for taking penalty attempts and deliberately aiming to hit them off the cross bar to allow his team regain possession and either score directly or at least get a new set of 6 tackles..

    He pulled it off way too often for it to be fluke.

    I think you mean on the last tackle he would aim for the posts to try and hit it.
    If he had a pen the tackle count would be reset to zero anyway.


  • Options
    #324
    connemara man
    Moderators, Sports Moderators, Regional West Moderators Posts: 6,773 Mod ✭✭✭✭connemara man


    Shelflife wrote: »
    Why would you do that ? It’s a pen , if you’re at your 22m you kick for touch and go for the lineout, a garryowen makes no sense.

    But if you're 50 meters out and really trust your kick chase... ;) I know why you wouldn't but it's a fun hypothetical to think about


  • Options
    #325
    Quin_Dub
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 15,096 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    Shelflife wrote: »
    I think you mean on the last tackle he would aim for the posts to try and hit it.
    If he had a pen the tackle count would be reset to zero anyway.

    Perhaps.. I've not watched a whole lot of league tbh..


  • Options
    #326
    Interested Observer
    Registered Users Posts: 13,021 ✭✭✭✭Interested Observer


    I should probably know this but if you're defending a maul and you manage to legally swim through it all the way to the ball carrier are you allowed tackle him to the ground?


  • Options
    #327
    Stheno
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 51,687 Mod ✭✭✭✭Stheno


    I have a question from the La Rochelle match yesterday.

    In the first half near the try line Harlequins pulled down multiple rucks and were given a few warnings about that and coming in from the side and LAR kept being awarded scrums.

    After the fifth or sixth instance of this the ref awarded a penalty and told LAR that they could just have a lineout if they wanted

    Can a ref just decide to award a lineout if they feel like it?


  • Options
    #328
    Losty Dublin
    Registered Users Posts: 13,006 ✭✭✭✭Losty Dublin


    Interested Observer wrote: »
    I should probably know this but if you're defending a maul and you manage to legally swim through it all the way to the ball carrier are you allowed tackle him to the ground?

    Taking a maul down deliberately is illegal, IO, so the answer is no. On the wrong day it could earn you a ten minute break.


  • Options
    #329
    .ak
    Registered Users Posts: 30,308 Mod ✭✭✭✭.ak


    Losty Dublin wrote: »
    Taking a maul down deliberately is illegal, IO, so the answer is no. On the wrong day it could earn you a ten minute break.

    Doesn't seem to be reffed that way in most cases. I've seen loads of guys latch onto the ball, then just let their weight cause the ball carrier to go to deck and then they're awarded a scrum...

    Also what's different to that then when you hold up a player in open play? Why am I allowed to bring that to deck when it's called a maul? Is it only legal when you've made contact with the initial ball carrier?


  • Options
    #330
    .ak
    Registered Users Posts: 30,308 Mod ✭✭✭✭.ak


    Stheno wrote: »
    I have a question from the La Rochelle match yesterday.

    In the first half near the try line Harlequins pulled down multiple rucks and were given a few warnings about that and coming in from the side and LAR kept being awarded scrums.

    After the fifth or sixth instance of this the ref awarded a penalty and told LAR that they could just have a lineout if they wanted

    Can a ref just decide to award a lineout if they feel like it?

    No, a kicker must kick to touch to be awarded a lineout from a penalty... So unless the ref was just suggesting if they wanted to kick for a lineout? i.e he wasn't budging on awarding something MORE for their scrums and suggested well tough, if you don't like it, take the lineout?

    The only time the team get a 'choice' of lineout is if a loose ball from a knock on goes into touch, then in that case the team with the advantage have a choice of either lineout or scrum.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #331
    Losty Dublin
    Registered Users Posts: 13,006 ✭✭✭✭Losty Dublin


    .ak wrote: »
    Doesn't seem to be reffed that way in most cases. I've seen loads of guys latch onto the ball, then just let their weight cause the ball carrier to go to deck and then they're awarded a scrum...

    Also what's different to that then when you hold up a player in open play? Why am I allowed to bring that to deck when it's called a maul? Is it only legal when you've made contact with the initial ball carrier?

    There is a difference between a maul naturally or accidentally going to ground and it been taken down wilfully. See here; looks okay on first view but play it twice and it's a clear pull down.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCtMvAFCPCw


    In the case of open play it's fine to bring a man to ground unless the ref calls for a maul. After that nature takes it's course.


Advertisement