New ruck/tackle etc.

Balones

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/england.p
#1
Apologies for starting a new thread on this but I have been reading various threads on the new laws dealing with this matter in various ways and didn’t know where to really post it. At the same time didn’t want it to be missed by those that might be interested.

I sent the following to the RFU:-
At the 'mono ruck' does the first player have to actually step over the ball to create the offside?

A lot of people have seen this video:- (Which was published by WR.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9xHTCUCm0I&feature=youtu.be&t=451

The WR website video doesn't mention it. Rather it shows a scenario from a game that took place before the new law was introduced so the players didn't try to step over and only brace themselves for contact by defending players.

Some have seen this where Wayne does not mention stepping over the ball but in the example the ball is certainly between his feet and not between the tackler or tackled player.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfEz8lCj4BE

If a player just leans over the ball which has been presented and hasn't stepped over as in the WR Youtube video, (I.e. The ball is under his stomach/chest.) is the ball out? In which case can the defending team be allowed to come around the tackle and pick it up?

Needs a definitive statement in my opinion.

The response I got was this:-

A well raised point, we are seeking clarification from WR, as there are two versions at the moment. The current RFU view is that there is no need to step over the ball, if/when we get clarification I will be circulating.

Because it is a rather crucial point (I have seen various interpretations at the games I have been observing this season so far; some leading to critical decisions and scores.) I am hoping the WR response/clarification will not take too long.
 

Balones

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/england.p
#2
I have sent some further supplementary questions because the above does not cover every scenario that I have been observing and which have been giving rise to some inconsistency. I will update as soon as I know any more.
 

ChuckieB

Rugby Club Member
#3
If the law change was purely to prevent the tactic adopted by the Italians then the RFU view would surely be considered right? As such the ball is not out.

From a game situation perspective, I ask myself why Mr Monoruck would not seek to step over the ball if he was trying to act as guard?

It could also be questioned whether the opposition would actively just concede the contest should he not do so. Him not being over the ball should make it much easier to t/o.

Would coaches seriously consider not attacking the breakdown in such a situation?

If they don't want rucks they should say so and look to remove them from the game entirely just like like RL?
 
Last edited:

Taff

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/wales.png
#4
... From a game situation perspective, I ask myself why Mr Monoruck would not seek to step over the ball if he was trying to act as guard?
Mr Monoruck may not be able to step over the ball without stepping on players who are in the way.

There was no obligation to "step over" the ball before - why create one now?
 

ChuckieB

Rugby Club Member
#5
Mr Monoruck may not be able to step over the ball without stepping on players who are in the way.

There was no obligation to step over the ball before - why create one now?
We are talking about a limited number of players here, again a game situation, for our monoruck to be likely. He might still seek to step over but can't, and if he is not obliged to (fine by me, as I agree he has no obligation), why is he not looking to attack the ball as the first arriving player. Not doing so doesn't make for great reading of gameplay on his part.
 
Last edited:

ChuckieB

Rugby Club Member
#6
We are talking about a limited number of players here, again a game situation, for our monoruck to be likely. He might still seek to step over but can't, and if he is not obliged to (fine by me, as I agree he has no obligation), why is he not looking to attack the ball as the first arriving player. Not doing so doesn't make for great reading of gameplay on his part.
Perhaps at the higher levels of the game there is more likely the situation where teams are just happy to not bother contesting even the mono rick.

I hardly think that is the spirit yet it is something those who advocate free flowing rugby at any cost would seek to promote?

As you go down the levels it likely has much less relevance.
 

ChrisR

Player or Coach
#7
The purpose of the monoruck is to create off-side lines in uncontested ruck situation, negating the Italian play. Why complicate it by requiring any arriving player to step over the ball baffles me. We don't require that in a contested ruck.

For me the monoruck exists if a player is over the ball. That is the ball lies somewhere between his head and his hind-foot.

Smart opponents of the tackled player will only contest for the ball when there is a chance for the turnover. If the tackled player's support gets there first, creating the monoruck, then they (opponents) can only win it by counter-rucking so they'll disengage and get the numbers advantage in the next phase. This was the strategy before the monoruck arrived.

What I think will happen is the possession team will risk putting only one player over the ball and the defending team will then jump on the opportunity and counter-ruck. Let's see what plays out.
 

Balones

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/england.p
#8
Posters are touching on some aspects of my supplementary questions so I thought I’d mention one of the things I have observed this season.

There is no difficulty with just leaning over when the ball is between the tackler and the ball carrier. I have a video clip which shows the ball being presented to the outside of the tackle which is very quickly followed by a supporting player leaning over the ball with the ball under his chest/stomach. A player comes from an on-side position and dives on the ball to gather it. Penalty awarded by referee for offside twenty metres in front of the post – three points – game won. The player that came round was in my opinion quite rightly aggrieved because it looked as if the player creating the ‘monoruck’ might be just slowly going to attempt to pick the ball up. It was not clear to all concerned if the ball was out or still in.

What is needed is a statement from WR saying that for the monoruck to exist the supporting player (first arrival) MUST make contact with the players with his hands (long arms) to create this ‘ruck and not simply lean over. With all the proviso of course of heads above hips etc, otherwise we will have claims of ‘bridging’ or ‘going past the ball’.

Stepping over the ball makes the scenario much clearer but I think we can all accept that to do so is not always possible for both safety and practical reasons.
 

crossref

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/england.p
#9
Are you sure that PK was for offside ? Sounds more like a PK for falling on the ball in a tackle
 

Simon Thomas

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/england.p
#10
Thanks for raising these issues. WR be not made it easy for any of us, and Allain's video really is most unhelpful.

I saw Steve Harland explain the law trial at both SWG and SEG pre-seasons and other colleagues saw the explanation at Panel Technical meetings - itvwas clear and precise, and we all get it.

Unfortunately at our Society meeting there was a lot of confusion, even with a physical demo, statement of Law and specific wording (dancing on pinheads), and reference to Allian Roland's video as some sort of official WR reference.

Both Steve and Clare Daniels are good on video explaining Law - maybe they could do one on this specific area of confusion ?
 

ChuckieB

Rugby Club Member
#11
Are you sure that PK was for offside ? Sounds more like a PK for falling on the ball in a tackle
....or that rarely applied law, falling on the ball as it is coming out of a ruck, I.e. Existing ruck laws apply.

Setting aside the offside call, either way, more inclined to feel a penalty was the right call. WR will presumably argue that head above hips Ruck entry conditions are applicable and they don't need to be restated. In some ways it helps to make sense of A Rolland's video assertion that where he stands past the ball he must step back before he seeks to pick it up.

it was an uncalled for change in my opinion and I hope it is a short lived trial.
 
Last edited:

Balones

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/england.p
#12
Are you sure that PK was for offside ? Sounds more like a PK for falling on the ball in a tackle
Offside is what the referee called. There was some confusion by other observers that it might have been falling on the ball as it came out of a ruck. But there was some confusion as to whether it was a ruck or a tackle. Under old criteria it certainly was not a ruck.

I was not at the game physically but was sent the question/clip.
 

Balones

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/england.p
#13
Thanks for raising these issues. WR be not made it easy for any of us, and Allain's video really is most unhelpful.

I saw Steve Harland explain the law trial at both SWG and SEG pre-seasons and other colleagues saw the explanation at Panel Technical meetings - itvwas clear and precise, and we all get it.

Unfortunately at our Society meeting there was a lot of confusion, even with a physical demo, statement of Law and specific wording (dancing on pinheads), and reference to Allian Roland's video as some sort of official WR reference.

Both Steve and Clare Daniels are good on video explaining Law - maybe they could do one on this specific area of confusion ?
Yes went through the process as well. These sessions were pre-season and the nuances are only being observed since then.
It is hoped the WR will respond around the end of the month. Partly because this is when they tend to issue clarifications and partly because the European games start not long after. At the level at which I have asked the questions I am sure that Steve is aware of the issues and like everyone else is waiting for a response before issuing further guidance and sorting out training material via video etc.
 

didds

, Resident Club Coach
#14
Are you sure that PK was for offside ? Sounds more like a PK for falling on the ball in a tackle
Balones said the player came from on onside position.

But then it appears the ref awarded an offside PK.

So who knows wtf was going on in reality (or at least in that ref's head).

didds
 
Last edited:

Christy

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/ireland.p
#16
....or that rarely applied law, falling on the ball as it is coming out of a ruck, I.e. Existing ruck laws apply.

Setting aside the offside call, either way, more inclined to feel a penalty was the right call. WR will presumably argue that head above hips Ruck entry conditions are applicable and they don't need to be restated. In some ways it helps to make sense of A Rolland's video assertion that where he stands past the ball he must step back before he seeks to pick it up.

it was an uncalled for change in my opinion and I hope it is a short lived trial.
Hi chuckie .
We were advised , if still mono ruck ,
And un contested , let the mono rucker pick up ball & play , if it is between his own 2 feet ( he cant reach back ,,but he can of course take a step back ). .
Only at this point , with ball lifted , he can be tackled through gate only .
Hope this helps .
 
Last edited:

ChuckieB

Rugby Club Member
#17
That WB Suggests that these elements of the changes came about after a gathering of tier 1 nation coaches and top referees sort of serves to suggest there was little, if any, consideration of the impact at the lower levels of the game where the priorities might actually be deemed different. Scrum feeds are a problem. Italian beating the no offside tactics are not a problem!
 

Paule23

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/scotland.
#18
This took me some getting used to yesterday, at multiple tackle situations the defending team did not engage in the ruck and I was constantly thinking "I wonder why they don't come round the side with no ruck formed', they were right as a ruck had been formed under the new rules as attacking players were over the ball. Taking a while for my head to get around this.....

I did get to penalise someone for my pet hate of standing next to a ruck in front of the ball, maybe with a hand on the ruck, obstructing defenders. Always pleased to blow up for that, I tell them in the PMB, and they always look at me with a "What was that for' expression when I penalise them.
 

Thunderhorse1986

Moderator Attention - New Usergroup Required
#19
This took me some getting used to yesterday, at multiple tackle situations the defending team did not engage in the ruck and I was constantly thinking "I wonder why they don't come round the side with no ruck formed', they were right as a ruck had been formed under the new rules as attacking players were over the ball. Taking a while for my head to get around this.....

I did get to penalise someone for my pet hate of standing next to a ruck in front of the ball, maybe with a hand on the ruck, obstructing defenders. Always pleased to blow up for that, I tell them in the PMB, and they always look at me with a "What was that for' expression when I penalise them.
If you're going into that much detail in PMB they have probably switched off by the time you get to it, hence why they still do it :chin: