For Ruck's Sake

First topic message reminder :

Let's revisit this, because having just watched parts of the weekends entertainment, my frustration with what is being allowed to go on continues to escalate.

1. How to form a ruck:

"(b) How can a ruck form. Players are on their feet. At least one player must be in physical contact with an opponent. The ball must be on the ground. If the ball is off the ground for any reason, the ruck is not formed."

Note: a ruck is not formed by players diving on top of a tackled player.

2. How to join a ruck:

"
(a)
All players forming, joining or taking part in a ruck must have their heads and shoulders no lower than their hips.
"

Note: players cannot dive on top of a tackled player. Or leap onto the ground on the opposition side of the ruck.

3. How to join a ruck part 2:

"(b)
A player joining a ruck must bind on a team-mate or an opponent, using the whole arm. The bind must either precede, or be simultaneous with, contact with any other part of the body of the player joining the ruck."

Note: players cannot dive headlong onto a tackled player or fall into the space between the ruck and the opposition half back.

4. How to behave in a ruck:

"(d)
All players forming, joining or taking part in a ruck must be on their feet."

Note: players may not go down on one knee and then grapple at the ball, or lean over the ruck, support their weight weight with their hands or otherwise be off their feet shielding or grappling for the ball.

5. Other penalisable offenses:

"Players must not return the ball into a ruck.
Sanction: Free Kick

(b)
Players must not handle the ball in a ruck except after a tackle if they are on their feet and have their hands on the ball before the ruck is formed.
Sanction: Penalty kick12

(c)
Players must not pick up the ball in a ruck with their legs.
Sanction: Penalty kick

(d)
Players on the ground in or near the ruck must try to move away from the ball. These players must not interfere with the ball in the ruck or as it comes out of the ruck.
Sanction: Penalty kick12

(e)
A player must not fall on or over the ball as it is coming out of a ruck.
Sanction: Penalty kick

(f)
A player must not take any action to make the opposing team think that the ball is out of the ruck while it is still in the ruck.
Sanction: Free Kick"

Fairly clear.

Now let's examine what is happening during rucks:

A player is tackled. Attacking players are burrowing lead long individually through the ruck area, not bound to anyone and with their heads often lower then their hips. These players are then grabbing hold of approaching defensive players and wrestling with them. They will then often topple on top of the ruck, or into the space between the ruck and the opposition half back. They are making no attempt to roll away and often kicking at the ball with their legs or slapping at the ball as it is cleared whilst still offside or on the ground. Further unbound players (and Robshaw is my prime offender here) are standing unbound behind or over the ruck, and reaching around with one foot and kicking at the ball on the opposition side of the ruck. Players continue to arrive at the ruck from the side and launch themselves with one shoulder into opposition players also lying on top of the ruck. The ball is often handled by several attacking players all lying on the ground before it finally finds it's way to the back of the ruck.

None of this is legal. It's getting worse. Referees are allowing it to occur at every single breakdown. Two years ago super rugby had a big crack down on ruck behaviour where pretty much every offence was penalised by short arm free kicks (under ELVs) when the ELVs were watered down, these be game full arm penalties (mostly) and we had a brief penalty festival before all the constituent team managed to figure out that they needed to STAY ON THEIR FEET, BIND CORRECTLY, ROLL AWAY, NOT HANDLE THE BALL (unless they were the tackler, or on their feet and had their hands on the ball before the ruck was formed).

My particular pet peeve is this seemingly new law (not written down anywhere) where a defensive player/tackler gets his hands on the ball which fails to be released by the tackled player. Whilst he his wrestling for it one or more attacking players blow through the ruck (unbound, often going off their feet) at which point the defender is knocked over and then penalised for "not surviving the clean out". This ruling is just fantasy invention of certain referees which seems to be gaining popularity (Joubert, Owens) and it really gets on my wicket.

The ruck laws are clearly written, the intent is obvious. I agree reality is a complex situation but to continue to ignore these laws is to turn the game into a completely different sport.

The IRB need to sort this out, and NOW.

And before I get the three favourite response "the ABs/McCaw are the worst offenders" or "any ruck could be penalised either way" or "teams need to adapt to the referees interpretation" let's agree those are different discussions. This is a nation agnostic plea for referees to return to the clean, legal rucking that accelerated super rugby and turned rugby back into a rugby contest and not a mass pile up of bodies slowing ebbing up and down the pitch, punctuated by occasional inexplicable penalties.

englandglory4ever wrote:Oh god help. YES the ball will travel forward depending upon the pace and direction of travel of the passer. We all know that. Jeez!

But what is important in rugby is does the ball travel forward of the position of the passer at the time of passing. If it does then its a forward pass. By forward of the passer I mean forward of the passer's position towards the opposition try line. It's this last bit that GE doesn't like because if he agreed with it then half the tries given to Nz would have been disallowed. As I said Nz love a forward pass.

So the 3rd France try against Italy would be disallowed as would many others. We'd go to forwards pushing over tries which I don't mind but the reason I like rugby is the mixed nature of it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=box08lq9ylg

Official IRB interpretation of the forward pass law.

"I dont care what they say we all know they are wrong, they didnt write the laws I did!" - EG4FE

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:The laws exist but will always be open to interpretation, the elite referees follow the guidance on their implementation form the IRB. Those are the rules, which arent entirely public.
Enforcing the laws without any guidance would lead to an even messier game than is there at the moment, which is where the guidance comes from. Momentum passes being a good example.
This isnt so much refs making up their own rules as being guided as to what is and isnt acceptable and how the laws should be understood.
We have seen some examples of the guidance pushing back toward the laws, like refs being instructed to start enforcing straight feeds again. There was a push back toward being stricter on release of both players and ball a couple of years ago, thats slipped back.
I do agree theres many cases where they need to keep the pressure up to enforce more strictly.

Momentum pass laws are not a good example at all, different thing entirely. The law says the ball must not be "thrown forward". It gives no frame of reference. The IRB have clarified that the frame of reference is the passer. Whether go agree with that or not it's been clarified and is generally called correctly by referees - sometimes they make mistakes.

However the ruck laws are utterly different. They are clear as written - there is no need for clarification. They are merely being ignored.

I see many of you are still prepared to fall in to the "let's bend the rules to suit our own game"  crowd normally espoused by our SH brethren. They wanted drop goals banned after2003 RWC. They wanted scrums depowered when it got too tough for them and now they want us all to suck up forward passes and smile when they score from them.

As the law stands a forward pass is clear. However they have been clever to hoodwink most of the weak minded amongst us to accept a new "interpretation" because they also know they haven't got a snowball's chance in hell of getting the law changed.

It would just vastly reduce the amount of tries scored. Not many people want that.

englandglory4ever wrote:I see many of you are still prepared to fall in to the "let's bend the rules to suit our own game"  crowd normally espoused by our SH brethren. They wanted drop goals banned after2003 RWC. They wanted scrums depowered when it got too tough for them and now they want us all to suck up forward passes and smile when they score from them.

As the law stands a forward pass is clear. However they have been clever to hoodwink most of the weak minded amongst us to accept a new "interpretation" because they also know they haven't got a snowball's chance in hell of getting the law changed.

Nobody wanted drop goals banned. NZ and SA certainly don't want scrums depowered! Why NZ scored three tries in the last three games against England by pushing them off the ball at scrum time and won the game against France in the AI's by gaining a crucial penalty from a French scrum.

The forward pass law is referees exactly how it is written. It says the ball must not be THROWN forward. You are right it's petfectly clear. Nowhere does it say that it must not TRAVEL forward. Nobody is being hoodwinked by anyone. I suggest if the English backs learned to pass the ball to each other then they too could benefit from this amazing way of scoring points.

No need to bring England into this GE.

No 7&1/2 wrote:No need to bring England into this GE.

Merely retorting the pejorative accusations laid by the respondent. His suggestion that the "forward pass" is legalised to make up for SH team's collective inability to scrum is laughable and offensive. Especially given the declining state of the set piece north of the equator.

englandglory4ever wrote:Oh god help. YES the ball will travel forward depending upon the pace and direction of travel of the passer. We all know that. Jeez!

But what is important in rugby is does the ball travel forward of the position of the passer at the time of passing. If it does then its a forward pass. By forward of the passer I mean forward of the passer's position towards the opposition try line. It's this last bit that GE doesn't like because if he agreed with it then half the tries given to Nz would have been disallowed. As I said Nz love a forward pass.

That's still not how momentum works. If the ball has momentum to travel forward, it will be doing so as soon as it is released

As long as the player stays in front of te ball it has gone backward but this is made hard to tell as often they are hit borderline late or the pass is an offload

No 7&1/2 wrote:And how old are you? You don't need to bring England into every post.

Englandglory4ever brought NZ into it. I merely retorted. He is derailing this entire thread about ruck laws by banging on about forward passes - a topic well hashed in other threads. He's also the only one who still can't understand the basic physics of the situation and in his frustration is lashing out like the high school bully. Don't point the finger at me. How about you provide a few harsh words his way?

So it's ok for an Englishman to have a dig at NZ, but not the other way around?

I'm tired of this. If you want to talk about ruck laws, please do.

If you want to make personal attacks on me or talk about forward pass laws then go elsewhere.

GE, be calm. It's fine.

You just tend to attract trouble that's all. It may be your posting style. Worth having a look at it.

Just a bit of friendly advice

I think rucks need more input from assistant referees, and possibly bigger punishments for infringing.

GloriousEmpire wrote:Anyone want to talk about ruck laws? Ever? Or is it kindergarten now?

Things I'd like to see (in order):

Initial players involved in the tackle having to physically release the player before going for the ball.
Players arriving staying on their feet and not supporting their body weight with their arms/knees.
Penalizing offside (particularly pillars).

It allows the ball carrier to place the ball and players to compete.

englandglory4ever wrote:Oh god help. YES the ball will travel forward depending upon the pace and direction of travel of the passer. We all know that. Jeez!

But what is important in rugby is does the ball travel forward of the position of the passer at the time of passing. If it does then its a forward pass. By forward of the passer I mean forward of the passer's position towards the opposition try line. It's this last bit that GE doesn't like because if he agreed with it then half the tries given to Nz would have been disallowed. As I said Nz love a forward pass.

no it isn't

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=box08lq9ylg

blackcanelion wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:Anyone want to talk about ruck laws? Ever? Or is it kindergarten now?

Things I'd like to see (in order):

Initial players involved in the tackle having to physically release the player before going for the ball.
Players arriving staying on their feet and not supporting their body weight with their arms/knees.
Penalizing offside (particularly pillars).

It allows the ball carrier to place the ball and players to compete.

Yep, all the basic points made in the laws but for some reason ignored at the moment.

No change there then. They ignore any laws they like when it suits them. How else can a ref influence the outcome of a match. The ref of the sale v Saracens match last night was a Saracens supporter for sure. Appalling.

Eg4ever can you please stick on topic and contribute to the thread? At the moment you're not really adding much. First you divert us into a three day re-hash of the forums general consensus that forward pass laws are being implemented properly most of the time and now a substance free accusation of cheating from a referee at club level with no foundation or relevance to the topic? Not great.

GloriousEmpire wrote:Eg4ever can you please stick on topic and contribute to the thread? At the moment you're not really adding much. First you divert us into a three day re-hash of the forums general consensus that forward pass laws are being implemented properly most of the time and now a substance free accusation of cheating from a referee at club level with no foundation or relevance to the topic? Not great.

GE have you got religion lately? This holier than thou stuff is a bit rich coming from you. What I'm saying is that refs aren't playing to the law a lot of the time and yes that includes forward passes as well as the ruck laws and a whole lot more besides. Appalling really.

But you're wrong - the forward pass rule is called according to the law as written. The disgrace at the ruck is entirely different in that the clearly written rules are not being policed.

englandglory4ever wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:Eg4ever can you please stick on topic and contribute to the thread? At the moment you're not really adding much. First you divert us into a three day re-hash of the forums general consensus that forward pass laws are being implemented properly most of the time and now a substance free accusation of cheating from a referee at club level with no foundation or relevance to the topic? Not great.

GE have you got religion lately? This holier than thou stuff is a bit rich coming from you.  What I'm saying is that refs aren't playing to the law a lot of the time and yes that includes forward passes as well as the ruck laws and a whole lot more besides. Appalling really.

no you aren't…your argument was posited on the fact that if a ball moves forward in a pass it MUST be a forward pass. You were wrong.

No you are wrong. If a ball goes forward then its a forward pass. You guys make me laugh. Eg. If you are right then how much does a ball need to go forward before it is actually called forward? 1 metre, 5 metres, 20 metres? Come on say how far.

englandglory4ever wrote:No you are wrong. If a ball goes forward then its a forward pass. You guys make me laugh. Eg. If you are right then how much does a ball need to go forward before it is actually called forward? 1 metre, 5 metres, 20 metres. Come on say how far.

You see which direction it is thrown. Any snapshot of the pass being released will demonstrate this. It is a subjective judgement call not an objective one. Sometimes that is actually a better approach, in this case because physics will not allow a realistic way of objectively measuring forward passes, unless we say the ball can't travel forward at all in which case watch rugby become borderline unwatchable

The law says the ball can not be thrown forward. Full stop. It doesn't say it can be thrown forward a little bit, or 2 metres or according to how the ref on the day is feeling or depending on the weather or what he had for breakfast.

englandglory

I already sent you this video once, suggest you watch it and learn as your repeated ignorance of a basic law of the game sis now embarrassing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=box08lq9ylg

englandglory4ever wrote:The law says the ball can not be thrown forward. Full stop. It doesn't say it can be thrown forward a little bit, or 2 metres or according to how the ref on the day is feeling or depending on the weather or what he had for breakfast.

Thrown. The throw is the action of the player projecting the ball, not its projection! The angle of release is key. This has been made clear by the RFU and is nothing to do with rucks

Yes it's what GE calls travels as opposed to thrown. So we come back to my original question. How far can a ball travel forward before being called forward even if the throw was adjudged backwards? If it goes forward 20 metres I would bet it would get called forward. So where is the threshold? There isn't one and there never will be. The TMOs bottle it by saying it was not clear and obvious when asked to adjudge a forward pass. because they cannot say it went a little bit forward but I in my personal opinion it wasn't enough to call it forward.

englandglory4ever wrote:Yes it's what GE calls travels as opposed to thrown. So we come back to my original question. How far can a ball travel forward before being called forward even if the throw was adjudged backwards? If it goes forward 20 metres I would bet it would get called forward. So where is the threshold? There isn't one and there never will be. The TMOs bottle it by saying it was not clear and obvious when asked to adjudge a forward pass. because they cannot say it went a little bit forward but I in my personal opinion it wasn't enough to call it forward.

I think I specifically answered this point...

Scratch wrote:englandglory

I already sent you this video once, suggest you watch it and learn as your repeated ignorance of a basic law of the game sis now embarrassing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=box08lq9ylg

And I've already ignored it because it is an interpretation and not the law as its written. Suggest you read the law as published by the irb. It's very clear about a ball being thrown or passed forward. There is no mention of direction of hands or momentum or the moon's gravitational pull come to that.

englandglory4ever wrote:Yes it's what GE calls travels as opposed to thrown. So we come back to my original question. How far can a ball travel forward before being called forward even if the throw was adjudged backwards? If it goes forward 20 metres I would bet it would get called forward. So where is the threshold? There isn't one and there never will be. The TMOs bottle it by saying it was not clear and obvious when asked to adjudge a forward pass. because they cannot say it went a little bit forward but I in my personal opinion it wasn't enough to call it forward.

It's not "what I call", it's what the physical laws of nature dictate and the IRB sensibly observe. The pass must be thrown backwards (actually NOT forward) from the frame of reference of the passer at the point he passes it. Draw a vector representing his velocity, draw another vector representing the ball's velocity as it is passed and the resultant vector must not be towards the opposition goal line. Pretty simple stuff.

The IRB have clarified that this is what "not thrown forward" (an ambiguous term without a frame if reference) means.

Basically, even with bad ones, nobody has ever lost a Match they deserved to win purely due to a missed forward pass. Inconsistent rucking interpretations, whilst partially the fault of the team adapting less well, have far more impact

ChequeredJersey wrote:Basically, even with bad ones, nobody has ever lost a Match they deserved to win purely due to a missed forward pass. Inconsistent rucking interpretations, whilst partially the fault of the team adapting less well, have far more impact

South Africa probably lost their World Cup quarter due to the calling of a forward pass that never was.

Equally old Wayne Barnes did a great job of ignoring the law completely when he handed France a win in NZ's quarter in 2007 - he also ignored all ruck laws that day for France.

Both teams will always have more say in a match than the ref.

Normally, and thankfully. But unfortunately rugby history is littered with cases often in prominent games where that has not been the case!

No it's not. You can have a case or 2 where you have a few fans picking out 1 or 2 cases picking out mistakes from a ref but they generally ignore the mistakes from their players and place the whole match on the ref. Very short sighted.

Did France throw or pass a forward pass when they beat NZ in 07 RWC? What do you say GE?

To be fair E4E you either agree with the interpretation or not. Let it go.

You're right 7.5 I'll go to bed now.

englandglory4ever wrote:Did France throw or pass a forward pass when they beat NZ in 07 RWC? What do you say GE?

I think everyone in world rugby agrees they did.

I don't. I think it was this crazy "travel" or momentum thing. Nz hard done by imo.

englandglory4ever wrote:I don't. I think it was this crazy "travel" or momentum thing. Nz hard done by imo.

No eg4e - the "momentem" rule as You like to call it doesn't excuse a pass actually thrown forward. In that case it's obviously thrown forward about two meters.

If the forward velocity of the ball is faster than the forward velocity of the player throwing it then the ball has been thrown forward, yes?

At the point of impulse, yes. If there's a force ten gale hind wind, then it's possible that the "forward" velocity of the ball might be higher than that of the player when he releases it at some point during its flight. We saw this incorrectly called against Ireland a number of times recently, I don't reckon which exact match - might've been in the AI's from memory.

GloriousEmpire wrote:

englandglory4ever wrote:I don't. I think it was this crazy "travel" or momentum thing. Nz hard done by imo.

No eg4e - the "momentem" rule as You like to call it doesn't excuse a pass actually thrown forward. In that case it's obviously thrown forward about two meters.

Oh dear. When Nz do it they throw it backwards and when anybody else does it then its thrown forward. NOW I get it GE. If you had said that days ago I would have understood.

Eg4ever please stop disrupting this thread with your vociferous anti-NZ agenda and tangential forward pass nonsense. It's clear from
Posts here that you are alone in your confusion over forward pass laws. Perhaps revisit your opinion before you continue to isolate yourself further?

Now, back to ruck laws...

ebop wrote:If the forward velocity of the ball is faster than the forward velocity of the player throwing it then the ball has been thrown forward, yes?

Assuming the velocity of the passer is a constant, yesa

True CJ. I actually did some tests in the lab today. I joined my forefingers together and moved them forward. I released one of the forefingers (ball) and watched what happened. The ball forefinger didn't just stop whilst the player forefinger continued to move forward. Thus, it was proved that the ball does actually travel forward but at the same time traveling backwards relatively.

Now, back to the ruck laws

It is true that confusion and poor refereeing over forward passing has favored NZ over the last few years, that and the policing of the ruck has been their main advantage.

Along with Weetbix.