Well done Nigel Owens! But...please stop pinging the dynamic attacking ruck.

Well a great performance with the whistle today by Nigel Owens against a lot of predictions. It's probably appropriate to mentioning the referee when they do a good job for a change! I thought he was excellent in letting the game evolve to it's own tempo and refereeing with great empathy to the game. Even when he pinged McCaw a few times, the old warhorse had to agree that Owens was on to his tricks! He seems to be a very experienced referee who can watch what is going on with a wry knowing grin and pull up the underhanded activities to keep everyone on message without making himself the centre of attention!

My one reservation is again the northern referees don't have empathy for the "dynamic ruck" that I like to call it. That is, when a huge fast moving clearout takes place. They are still calling the technicalities like it is a "static ruck". Again this week NZ had one massive dominant ruck that blew over the tackled player in huge numbers and with great momentum. Owens pinged NZ for going off their feet even to the dismay of the commentators! My feeling is the northern hemisphere referees are used to the static northern hemisphere rucking style which is all about protect the ball and set up the next phase, but SH rugby has moved beyond that and go a lot of times to blow right past the ball and move on the same phase. SH referees are atuned to it and referee the going off the feet only if there is genuine obstruction to some genuine chance of the opposition retaining the ball. Is this idea just against the laws? or are the NH referees lagging behind the evolving game?

By dynamic ruck you mean everyone diving over it and either killing the ball or becoming offside ? Yes, this should definitely be adopted in the NH...

Yes I thought you would not understand what I was talking about.

I do, one way is against IRB rules, one isn't.

There are no rules, just laws and interpretations. There are two different interpreations currently. Some of the more rigid (and less fit to be honest) referees like to keep the game to a slow pace. The more dynamic and fitter referees such as Joubert and Walsh referee this with some empathy and it really rewards the dominant team by allowing them to build momentum. This is why it is an interesting topic to debate...

anotherworldofpain wrote:Yes I thought you would not understand what I was talking about.

To be honest, it's been easier to understand you since you ditched the Borat filter.

Laws are rules , they are one and the same. And we are debating.

I love watching great defence as much as silky attacking. The static ruck let's the defenders stage a defence , sometimes a turn over. I have no idea for Union to turn into a bastardized Rugby League

sugarNspikes wrote:

anotherworldofpain wrote:Yes I thought you would not understand what I was talking about.

To be honest, it's been easier to understand you since you ditched the Borat filter.

I work hard at it sugar N spikes! In my work it is most important to having control of the perfect English to be professional and I appreciate all the help I get from 606v2 members!

anotherworldofpain wrote:

sugarNspikes wrote:

anotherworldofpain wrote:Yes I thought you would not understand what I was talking about.

To be honest, it's been easier to understand you since you ditched the Borat filter.

I work hard at it sugar N spikes! In my work it is most important to having control of the perfect English to be professional and I appreciate all the help I get from 606v2 members!

Ah, it seems the filter is back again

Not a fan of Owens normally but he did seem ok in this game. He still annoys me though. His voice is like nails on a chalkboard!

munkian wrote:Laws are rules , they are one and the same. And we are debating.

I love watching great defence as much as silky attacking. The static ruck let's the defenders stage a defence , sometimes a turn over. I have no idea for Union to turn into a bastardized Rugby League

The dynamic ruck would not be allowed in Rugby League Munkian! In fact it is very rugby union, it is all about continuity and not stopping after every tackle!

He has a good point here. And if there's one thing that sums up Rugny Union it is "playing the referee" to the furthest extent possible.

anotherworldofpain wrote:

sugarNspikes wrote:

anotherworldofpain wrote:Yes I thought you would not understand what I was talking about.

To be honest, it's been easier to understand you since you ditched the Borat filter.

I work hard at it sugar N spikes! In my work it is most important to having control of the perfect English to be professional and I appreciate all the help I get from 606v2 members!

Aw come on Grey Ghost working all day at a call centre has doner nothing.

Based on the current laws it is illegal. That doesn't mean that there shouldn't be room for change. I do however hate seeing 7 players blast over and fail to stay up. It's poor technique and should be penalised. it should be possible to ruck an opposition player without falling over and blocking any chance of a counter ruck which is obviously the point of that tactic and therefore also why it is illegal.

Oh nonsense. If one guy lose his feet because he trip over the player lying on the ground there is no foul. It penalises fitness and quickness to the ball and is rubbish. Most good referees let it go which is in keeping with ideals about the game.

One guy is different to everyone piling on top of the ruck .

But that's not what I'm talking about. There is no ball killing going on, the ball is often well clear when the "infringement" is penalised. The referee is just evaluating the wrong thing in this situation because they are unfamiliar with it. I'd like Owens or Rolland to explain exactly how they think the player losing his footing in this scenario is denying the opposition any opportunity to get the ball.

I think you are making a silly mountain out of a molehill.
2 NH refs have done it once each in a game where the players clearly went off their feet. I'm pretty sure many SH refs would have made the same decision.
I too think they should have been play on moments but so what sh!t happens sometimes. Learn to stay on your feet and move on. Why start a NH vs SH stupid fight.

Isn't a discussion forum all about making a mountain out of a molehill? Should we not discuss anything?

It's like a scrum, AWOP, in that the first priority of the rules shouldn't be about whether the ball produced is "clean" or not but rather to avoid situations with a high risk of injury. That's why collapsed scrums are not allowed and that's why doing something likely to collapse the ruck is not allowed. The ball is irrelevant when player safety becomes a real issue

Erm. It's not unsafe.

If the ruck collapses, and that is more likely when players "lose their footing" I.e deliberately go in off their feet, then yes, it is unsafe

Look I'm sorry but the whole point of this tactic is to ensure possession. Is not an accidental fall over due to being pushed or tripping. Its deliberately designed to stop opposition players having a chance of getting ball back our disrupting quick possession. Whichever way you look at it its against the laws and should be penalised.

criticize the players who give away the penalty through poor technique rather than the ref who correctly interprets the law

That's just not true in the cases I am talking about. We had three cases where there was one or two Australia defenders facing 5 or 6 all blacks. There is simply no legal way the defender can win the ball against those odds. The all black players just walked over the top and cleared the ball, but one of the players get tangled in a prone Aussie lying on the ground and as the ball is cleared (or in one case a try scored - and disallowed) the referee is pinging the technical indiscretion but losing the context. This is just poor refereeing. Now what I suggest is happening is that the defending outnumbered players are deliberately pulling the advancing players down to milk the penalty rather than the other way around as suggest by McKay. There is no benefit in going to ground, they want to stay on their feet and keep playing!

Ghostie/AWOP,

I'm not often on the same page as you, however now and then the heavens are in alignment. As you have mentioned, this is not a situation where there is a counter-ruck where its a real arm-wrestle and then one of the counter-ruckers falls over the ruck and seals off the ball.

What has happened on the occasions you have spoken about is the AB's have counter-rucked and driven the Aussies a good metre or two backwards off the ball and due to the numerical advantage they had in the counter-ruck one AB has tripped over, been dragged down well past the ball and has been pinged for that - those calls were shockers as the Aussies were completely blown away from the ruck and had no chance to win the ball and the falling player in no way prevented a legal opportunity for the Aussies to get the ball. There is an argument on those occasions that there is no longer a ruck when the player fell over as the ball is free and well out of the ruck which is now a good metre or two beyond where the ball is lying. As you say, this is a matter of interpretation as I'm not sure a NH ref will have often seen this type of counter-rucking up North.

Phew [wipes brow] I thought I was alone there for a minute!

Yes my observation is in the NH they like to arrive at a ruck, set up a posse, build a small fence, get out the maps and plan their navigation to the try line, have the half back chair a short committee meeting about the tactics amongt the forward units, have the minutes typed and dispersed to the backs and then chip the ball into the air and chase it like labradors after a frizbee. Whereas there is a growing trend south of the equator to attack the area 5 meters past the ball and then have everyone behind that scuffle get on with the game. Clash of cultures, all though I did see Saracens try to adopt a more southerly approach last year to some effect.

I also think Quins tried to do it a bit as well - maybe this is Nick Evan's influence with him wanting quick clean ball.

It appears to me that in the NH the approach seems to be "look lads, there's a ruck, lets lean against the other guys and we'll have a rest for the next minute or so".

I think you have to consider the other side to the bigger picture as well.  Most laws/rules are designed as much to allow overall function rather than determine right or wrong in a single case.  If you go to court and listen to 10 assault hearings, at least one will present a set of facts where you will think "yes, the gentleman deserved it as he is of unsavory character".   The hero who threw the punch still has to be guilty though.   You can't have a functioning society where it sometimes ok if people are punching each  in the face.  Not everyone's judgement is sound, and you can't trust people not to take the urine, so  you have to set the boundary further back than that. 

 In rugby I don't think you can trust teams and fans to respect the spirit of such a law.  It would take a matter of games to see porpoises diving all over the place, and fans would add accusations of empathy bias to everything else that is already thrown at referees. 

I give our referees more credit for the abilities than that! Joubert and Walsh for exsample do a good job in interpret this law with some empathy to the context.

I have to say I'm with on this one. It's not that I'm going to whinge about Owens (I'm nonplussed about his game). I think that penalising players going off their feet is highly variable within and between games. It's not ideal but it is what it is. But pinging players for going off their feet, when there is little opposition and does little to affect the outcome of s ruck is pointless. It's a bit like pinging a crooked scrum, when they're all on an angle, you have to ask yourself why?

I thought Owens had a good game, he was less pedantic than Rollaind and what I liked was the fact that he is one of the few referees that penalises the All Blacks when they counter ruck and go off their feet.

They got pinged a few times for doing that and they completely block access to the ball when they do that.

So what you're saying is don't actually stick to the laws unless you're going to be consistent every time. I agree with that and think crooked scrums should always be reset. I have to chives that I didn't see the game and so can't comment on the specific incidents that you are discussing so I'll bow out of it here.

Biltong wrote:I thought Owens had a good game, he was less pedantic than Rollaind and what I liked was the fact that he is one of the few referees that penalises the All Blacks when they counter ruck and go off their feet.

They got pinged a few times for doing that and they completely block access to the ball when they do that.

Just to be clear here are three incidents:

0:36:08 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6qzWACarl8
0:31:13 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6qzWACarl8
1:11:00 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmoFYc-Yhes


Simply ridiculous refereeing. Both cases the Wallabies are woefully outnumbered and the All Blacks who go to ground is simply because there is no defender for him to push against and they trip over the player on the ground.

There are at least 4 or five other incident exactly the same. What is happen is that the desperate outnumbered defensive team is being save by technicality instead of favour to the team who successfully get the numbers at the ball.

Simply ridiculous refereeing. Both cases the Wallabies are woefully outnumbered and the All Blacks who go to ground is simply because there is no defender for him to push against and they trip over the player on the ground.

Yes, I remember the commentators talking about the exact point you are refererring to. However I disagree with you, how many times do you stand overa ruck trying to steal the ball and your teammate hits the ruck with force and you fall over, only to be penalised for going off your feet?

The same principle applies here, you counter ruck, you need to stay on your feet, as soon as you go off your feet you are killing the contest for the ball.

Ever tried to ruck away 4 guys lying on the floor?

Sorry AWOP, but I disagree with you.

Ever tried to stay on your feet while running at full pace bound to five other team mate, over the top of three guys lying on the ground?

This just encourage the defensive team to jump on the ground at the ruck and make a nuisence of theyselves to slowing down the play. This interpretation encourage negativity and cynicism over dynamism, optimism and attack. It belongs circa 2003 not 2012.

And going off your feet once you have rucked over the ball does the exact same thing.

Counter rucking by it's nature is rucking players back, not walking over them.

I disagree. The objective is to get to the ball. The ball is played beyond the prone players with the feet. This is legal. The players on the ground are then off-side and need to roll away and get onside. The advancing players then fall over them as the half back is clearing the ball (or scoring the try). It is the grounded defending (in this case Australian) players who are in the wrong first so it should be play on. The fact is, the defending ruck has too few players to defend it and so penalising the advancing players is simply miss the point.

mckay1402 wrote:So what you're saying is don't actually stick to the laws unless

it suits New Zealand.

That as usual is exactly what AWOP is saying.

Even if he does have a point about this specific law being problematic when it comes to distinguishing genuine attempts to drive over the ball aggressively and attempts to seal it off

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

mckay1402 wrote:So what you're saying is don't actually stick to the laws unless

it suits New Zealand.

That as usual is exactly what AWOP is saying.

Even if he does have a point about this specific law being problematic when it comes to distinguishing genuine attempts to drive over the ball aggressively and attempts to seal it off

spot on.

I'm using the example of NZ because these are the best examples I have.

SA v ARG was so messy that it was impossible to make any conclusion to the breakdown, and Walsh was certainly not being pedantic so there was nothing to raise.

NZ did the same thing against Ireland and it was allowed, hence the difference in scoreline I suggesting.