Ruck

[mojo]

a couple of time this season Scott Waldrom has advanced through the oppo ruck on his feet (from behind the last foot) and gone to pick the ball up only to be told 'hands off it is a ruck'.

Presumably he could actually kick the ball (forward or back)?

[Kirwan]

Yep, although I've seen a few people this year go through like that (through the gate) and pick it up after the ref has said hands off and then the ref has waved play on!

He could dribble the ball out of the ruck so it's not in front of the last foot, then pick it up? Isn't that how they used to ruck it the olden days anyway? All bound together on their feet and kicking the ball forward and crunching people in the way?

[Crucial]

Except to play the ball when it is in the ruck you need to be part of the ruck. When you walk through like that you aren't bound. If the ball is out you can play it however you like. Trouble is that judging when the ball is out is a subjective thing from the ref on the day, they all seem to apply a different standard. Andre watson used to say 'if a bird can shit on it, it's out', which IMO is a good rule of thumb. It is not good for the game if everyone can see the ball but the ref won't let the oppostion contest it and the half back can hover over it for ages.

[mojo]

Except to play the ball when it is in the ruck you need to be part of the ruck. When you walk through like that you aren't bound. If the ball is out you can play it however you like. Trouble is that judging when the ball is out is a subjective thing from the ref on the day, they all seem to apply a different standard. Andre watson used to say 'if a bird can shit on it, it's out', which IMO is a good rule of thumb. It is not good for the game if everyone can see the ball but the ref won't let the oppostion contest it and the half back can hover over it for ages.

When are players 'bound' in a ruck?

[Crucial]

Except to play the ball when it is in the ruck you need to be part of the ruck. When you walk through like that you aren't bound. If the ball is out you can play it however you like. Trouble is that judging when the ball is out is a subjective thing from the ref on the day, they all seem to apply a different standard. Andre watson used to say 'if a bird can shit on it, it's out', which IMO is a good rule of thumb. It is not good for the game if everyone can see the ball but the ref won't let the oppostion contest it and the half back can hover over it for ages.

When are players 'bound' in a ruck?

It's described in the 'Laws' (you know, those things that refs sometimes use)

Basically it is the same as being bound to a scrum. You must bind to one of your teammates when joining a ruck to be considered part of it.

[Goober]

This is an interesting one, Crucial has it about right. The other thing I'd mention is players off/on their feet. Usually they are all/most off their feet and therefore not part of the ruck.

So, technically, if everyone else is on the ground and you're not then there is no 'ruck' per se and you're probably more likely to get away with it. If the oppo are on their feet then you have to bind on and push them off, not just go through on your own.

Of course if ball is out then all bets are off. Inconsistency from the refs is moot here, it's not like the players are consistent in their perceptions of whether or not a ball is out here. What I mean is, the refs could be as consistent as you like and the players would still think they weren't, because they have personal investment in each case.

[mojo]

This is an interesting one, Crucial has it about right. The other thing I'd mention is players off/on their feet. Usually they are all/most off their feet and therefore not part of the ruck.

exactly - but refs don't call it that way.

[Crucial]

This is at the crux of why the 'ruck' is such a mess. If no one is on their feet their is no ruck, however there is usually a point in the contest where a ruck is formed (ie when a player from either side come into contact on their feet above the ball). Once that ruck is called any subsequent mess is still treated as a ruck. A late arriving player is in a quandry as their is no one on their feet to bind on to apart from the halfback, yet he can't contest possession. If he tries to step through and pick up the ball he is told the ball is in a 'ruck' and he can't play it with his hands. If he tries to step through and play it with his feet he is told he can't because he is not bound. The players going of their feet has turned the situation into one that can't be contested.
I just can't see why it insn't enforced that players stay on their feet or keep their shoulders above their hips.
(Cue Lee Grant with his story about how it was tried once and didn't work)
Surely a directive from the IRB that this law will be fully enforced plus allowing legal rucking would tidy things up so that the contentious ELVs aren't even required.

[Kirwan]

Maybe once all the players have left their feet and there is nobody in contact over the ball (eg the ruck has finished) the ref could wave/yell play on and people could come around to pick up the ball?

The incentive would be then to stay on your feet to maintain the offside line to protect the ball at the back of the ruck.

[taniwharugby]

Jerry Collins came form the side of a ruck v Auckland, and picked up the ball with his hands, right in fornt of the ref, he even stopped as if knowing the free kick would come; it didn't.

Rucks are still a mess.

[Goober]

Surely a directive from the IRB that this law will be fully enforced plus allowing legal rucking would tidy things up so that the contentious ELVs aren't even required.

This - exactly this - has just happened. Except that there will still be ELVs as well. Top refs that I have heard from seem to agree with what TR is getting at - the ELVs have done nothing to make the tackle/ruck quicker; easier; less complicated.

One interesting aspect of this is that they went from an initial ELVs trial of 'allow all hands in ruck' to the complete opposite, 'crack down on hands in ruck' which is what Chris White and Paul Marks were trying to do in the weekend.

There's a part refs can play, and it's mostly preventative to stop bodies being on the ground in the first place, so you don't have the 'messes' that develop. But it's pretty difficult to catch every guy purposely going to ground in a speedy contact situation.

I'd also reiterate something I said before:

Inconsistency from the refs is moot here, it's not like the players are consistent in their perceptions ... the refs could be as consistent as you like and the players would still think they weren't

[Knock On Wood]

My very first ever post on the Silverfern was to suggest they make a change to clarify or simplify the ruck. My suggestion was widely panned by other posters* :grin:.

The suggestion I made was that they should change the law so that:

- All the existing definitions of a ruck and what players must do (keep their feet, join correctly, bind, not use hands etc) remain as is.
- The ref's decision is final.
- A ruck does not begin until the ref shouts "ruck".
- The ruck continues to exist until the ref shouts "ball's out".
- The ref must always make these events clear or they are not deemed to have happened.
- A ref will not shout "get back blue", "roll away tackler" etc. These are givens when the ref shouts "ruck".

Most ref's already shout "ruck" and "ball's out" or something similar- this would just make it part of law. I think these directives would do more to clarify the game for viewers, fans, players and refs than any of the current complex ELV ideas. The main opposition to my suggestions seemed to be that players couldn't steal a march on their opposition by getting to the ball quicker because the ref would always be responsible for deciding when the ball could be played. I understand this point of view, but think it would be a small price to pay for clarity at the ruck...* how often does a player play the ball and then have the ref yell "no"? Nobody wants to see the ref coaching the players- it looks farcical especially to fans who are new to the game.

Players might argue that they couldn't hear the ref, but ignorance would not amount to an excuse for infringing. If a player is unsure he can always ask the ref.

On top of this, I might be in favour of them also considering a "use it or lose it" type of law being introduced, where the ref would shout "ball's out" after a designated time frame to prevent the delaying tactics and clock wasting techniques used by teams towards the end of a game. But this would only be a possible extra.

Thoughts welcome.

[Lindommer]

KoW, your suggestion refs be more proactive in getting a clean finish to rucks is an eminently sensible one.* Refs SHOULD call "ball's out" at every opportunity to stop this ridiculous practice of halfbacks looking an uncovered ball and waiting for it to hatch.* And also to give defending players a clear picture of what's happening so as to avoid unnecessary penalties.* We in Australia had to put up with George Gregan's interminably slow "point 'n' grizzle" routines designed to both cover up his advancing age and a manifestation of his control freak mentality.* It resulted in many refs reacting adversely to his mind-management and making poor decisions on their part.* Apart from a few, including Andre Watson.*

I'm thinking of putting together a longer missive on this point and sending it off to Paddy O'Brien at the iRB.*

[Bones]

I don't agree with that at all - more from a playing point of view than anything else.