To ruck or not to ruck?

First topic message reminder :

That is the question.

Now I'm not interested in specifically what Italy did and whether it was 'anti-rugby' or not - that's being debated to death elsewhere - I'm interested to talk about what this might mean for the future.

I can't see teams suddenly adopting the same tactic from minute zero as Italy did but it has certainly served as a reminder to coaches and players of when a ruck is not a ruck, and what you therefore can do.

In pretty much every game you get phases of play where the defence doesn't commit men to the ruck, therefore making it a tackle only. Sometimes it is because their defence is struggling to cope so they keep men in the line, and other times it is late in a game where a team is winning and they deliberately don't compete so they can fan out in defence.

Could we see players 'doing an Italy' in these situations?

How do you think this will affect the rest of the games?

Just watched Flatmate and Ben Kay also suggest on that one way round is to drag the opposition in. They then showed a few clips of Poite going against his rulings and fail to spot ruck vs tackle from earlier in the season. Again fair enough that Italy used a legal tactic but it sucks to watch when consistently used and as pointed out becomes a nightmare for the attacking team and the ref.

mid_gen wrote:Watched some of the game again and more and more I agree with EJ. I think as a one-off bit of soap opera if made for an entertaining match, mostly due to England's inability to react in the first half, but it really is utter dirge to watch. The tactic fundamentally changes the game into something different, and worse.

Rucking is a major facet of the game, always has been. If a team used some loophole in the laws to remove scrums, or lineouts from the game it would be just as much of a farce.

So, kudos for the one-off...but if it becomes a common tactic I want it legislated out of the game.

Rucking is not something you have to do, plenty of teams don't ruck and simply reload the defensive line so not sure why theres an issue all of a sudden because of one game

Because it was a consistent use of a rule everyone takes for granted marty. As I stated above there's a fair few examples of team not putting people into rucks fanning out then being penalised for offside. No one argues as it's pretty much assumed by teams there is an offside line. Really hard to spot for refs in general. The Italy tactic is easier to spot granted but it still sucks to watch.

marty2086 wrote:

mid_gen wrote:Watched some of the game again and more and more I agree with EJ. I think as a one-off bit of soap opera if made for an entertaining match, mostly due to England's inability to react in the first half, but it really is utter dirge to watch. The tactic fundamentally changes the game into something different, and worse.

Rucking is a major facet of the game, always has been. If a team used some loophole in the laws to remove scrums, or lineouts from the game it would be just as much of a farce.

So, kudos for the one-off...but if it becomes a common tactic I want it legislated out of the game.

Rucking is not something you have to do, plenty of teams don't ruck and simply reload the defensive line so not sure why theres an issue all of a sudden because of one game

Well there's at least a small issue in that although the tactic has been used before this was seemingly the first time that it has been refereed in this way (ie differently). So it's just common sense to sort that out.

Besides the reffing of the tactic, I don't think it is a big issue. I think what is making it more of an issue is the fact that on the scoreboard the game was close for 60 mins. That is giving it more airtime than perhaps it would otherwise get. I don't think it was that effective, I don't think England took long to adapt, I don't think England didn't know the rules (see above) but I do think England played poorly and made several unforced errors (which were nothing to do with the tactic).

I'll wager Eddie Jones thinks that too so he will be delighted everyone is talking about what Italy did rather than just how many unforced errors England made (in many facets of their play).

cascough wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

mid_gen wrote:Watched some of the game again and more and more I agree with EJ. I think as a one-off bit of soap opera if made for an entertaining match, mostly due to England's inability to react in the first half, but it really is utter dirge to watch. The tactic fundamentally changes the game into something different, and worse.

Rucking is a major facet of the game, always has been. If a team used some loophole in the laws to remove scrums, or lineouts from the game it would be just as much of a farce.

So, kudos for the one-off...but if it becomes a common tactic I want it legislated out of the game.

Rucking is not something you have to do, plenty of teams don't ruck and simply reload the defensive line so not sure why theres an issue all of a sudden because of one game

Well there's at least a small issue in that although the tactic has been used before this was seemingly the first time that it has been refereed in this way (ie differently). So it's just common sense to sort that out.

Besides the reffing of the tactic, I don't think it is a big issue. I think what is making it more of an issue is the fact that on the scoreboard the game was close for 60 mins. That is giving it more airtime than perhaps it would otherwise get. I don't think it was that effective, I don't think England took long to adapt, I don't think England didn't know the rules (see above) but I do think England played poorly and made several unforced errors (which were nothing to do with the tactic).

I'll wager Eddie Jones thinks that too so he will be delighted everyone is talking about what Italy did rather than just how many unforced errors England made (in many facets of their play).

The scoreboard was close because Italy failed to capitalise on the advantage it created for them

No 7&1/2 wrote:Because it was a consistent use of a rule everyone takes for granted marty. As I stated above there's a fair few examples of team not putting people into rucks fanning out then being penalised for offside. No one argues as it's pretty much assumed by teams there is an offside line. Really hard to spot for refs in general. The Italy tactic is easier to spot granted but it still sucks to watch.

Says you, some of us disagree just as some say it sucks to watch scrums etc. Different strokes for different folks

marty2086 wrote:

cascough wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

mid_gen wrote:Watched some of the game again and more and more I agree with EJ. I think as a one-off bit of soap opera if made for an entertaining match, mostly due to England's inability to react in the first half, but it really is utter dirge to watch. The tactic fundamentally changes the game into something different, and worse.

Rucking is a major facet of the game, always has been. If a team used some loophole in the laws to remove scrums, or lineouts from the game it would be just as much of a farce.

So, kudos for the one-off...but if it becomes a common tactic I want it legislated out of the game.

Rucking is not something you have to do, plenty of teams don't ruck and simply reload the defensive line so not sure why theres an issue all of a sudden because of one game

Well there's at least a small issue in that although the tactic has been used before this was seemingly the first time that it has been refereed in this way (ie differently). So it's just common sense to sort that out.

Besides the reffing of the tactic, I don't think it is a big issue. I think what is making it more of an issue is the fact that on the scoreboard the game was close for 60 mins. That is giving it more airtime than perhaps it would otherwise get. I don't think it was that effective, I don't think England took long to adapt, I don't think England didn't know the rules (see above) but I do think England played poorly and made several unforced errors (which were nothing to do with the tactic).

I'll wager Eddie Jones thinks that too so he will be delighted everyone is talking about what Italy did rather than just how many unforced errors England made (in many facets of their play).

The scoreboard was close because Italy failed to capitalise on the advantage it created for them

How did it create them an advantage?

England's indiscipline at defensive breakdowns, mauls, scrums and unforced handling errors, kicking errors, tactical errors (forcing offloads, farrell running it back when he should kick etc, standing flat footed watching a ball bounce back off the post) gave Italy an advantage. I'm not sure how the no ruck thing did. Italy first used the tactic at about 10 mins (Care was whipping the ball away before then so Italy never came "offside"). England started picking and going, thus negating the tactic, just after 20 mins.

You only think it caused confusion for longer because England were sh1t at lots of other things.

marty2086 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Because it was a consistent use of a rule everyone takes for granted marty. As I stated above there's a fair few examples of team not putting people into rucks fanning out then being penalised for offside. No one argues as it's pretty much assumed by teams there is an offside line. Really hard to spot for refs in general. The Italy tactic is easier to spot granted but it still sucks to watch.

Says you, some of us disagree just as some say it sucks to watch scrums etc. Different strokes for different folks

Agree with this.

Watching the play slowed consistently waiting for the big blokes to come in does suck. Pick and goes are part of the game but so is back play. The Italy game highlights what can happen with a consistent approach to no rucks but it could be used as a negative tactic to make teams play really narrow. The big issue for me is it makes it impossible for refs.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Watching the play slowed consistently waiting for the big blokes to come in does suck.

Completely subjective.

Oh come on. I haven't criticised Italy but nobody can pretend that was good to watch other than the curiousity/lol at England factor.

Refs jobs are already impossible, its why McCaw could do what he did for so long.

One of the reasons I dislike Wayne Barnes is his inability to make nor tail of what goes on at the breakdown and the scrum but hes one of many who struggle with it. The same with offside at rucks, plenty miss that too

Scottrf wrote:Oh come on. I haven't criticised Italy but nobody can pretend that was good to watch other than the curiousity/lol at England factor.

Who's pretending? Some can appreciate something different and a new challenge in front of a top team

True cascough. But it sucks to watch for me. I don't players having to wait for the refs call on ruck or tackle. It slows the game, it narrows the game and it's going to lead to so many mistakes from officials and players alike.

What does good to watch mean?

I thought it was absorbing.

When Leeds were in the premiership we played out a 3-6 home loss to Sale. It was 3-3 at half time. The skill levels and execution were terrible, but it was a really tight/desperate/intense game.

Later on in the season I saw us put 50 on Bucharesti oaks in the challenge cup. I can tell you which one was better to watch, and it wasn't us running tries in against dross!

I prefer an absorbing contest over an exhibition or procession (which is what the ITA-IRE game became, for example). I'm not saying you should prefer that, but like I said, It's completely subjective.

I don't like the uncertainty it could very well bring. The game is currently played with a lot of assumption about the offside line. The Italy game has brought that to the fore and could lead to smothering defence very quickly. I like all types of rugby but this could lead to a fundamental shift in how the game can be played and if that happens I would expect to see WR attempt a law change. If things go back t normal it'll be fine but I suspect a lot of defence coaches including Gustard will be busy right now.

If the England players didn't flop over and smother their own ball like beached whales at the uncontested non-rucks then they'd have been able to recycle quick as heck and spark up some magnificent and delightfully imaginative back line play. But alas, the England players aren't hardwired to think like that. They like the 5-10 seconds at the ruck to rub their brain cells together to think about what to do. It's an England problem. Some teams would relish a team trying to do what Italy did to them, because they are instinctive and aren't a bunch of pre-programmed robots.

cascough wrote:What does good to watch mean?

I thought it was absorbing.

I agree. But because it was a one off.

Even NZ struggle to adapt in new situations and like it or not that that consistent tactic is new. It took about 5 years for NZ to figure out they could use drop goals for example.

B2b RWCs 7.5

No 7&1/2 wrote:Just watched Flatmate and Ben Kay also suggest on that one way round is to drag the opposition in. They then showed a few clips of Poite going against his rulings and fail to spot ruck vs tackle from earlier in the season. Again fair enough that Italy used a legal tactic but it sucks to watch when consistently used and as pointed out becomes a nightmare for the attacking team and the ref.

Rewatch the Eng v It match, in particular when England are on defence, and see how many times Poite should be calling 'tackle only' because no England defender bar the tackler is involved - the remaining defenders simply fanning across the pitch. Probably happens at about 10% of rucks (just a very rough guesstimate). Obviously the difference is that it was being done 'on the fly' rather than as a deliberate strategy, and the rest of the England defenders weren't adopting the 'offside' positions that they could legally have done.

Taking this further though, I wonder how many penalties for offside actually shouldn't have been given because no ruck ever formed? And now of course players and refs are more aware of the situation, it's yet a further complication for the refs.

To be honest, I think it's a loophole that needs closing - probably by saying that the offside line is set at the point of 'tackle, brought to ground' rather than as the second player from each side enters the breakdown.

Scottrf wrote:

cascough wrote:What does good to watch mean?

I thought it was absorbing.

I agree. But because it was a one off.

Well then what's the issue? No-one is gonna use it regularly because it doesn't really work that well!! It certainly didn't on Sunday (see my earlier post)

So you'd accept they did finally adapt ebop.

Exactly dummy.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Even NZ struggle to adapt in new situations and like it or not that that consistent tactic is new. It took about 5 years for NZ to figure out they could use drop goals for example.

True. For the most part NZ are good are innovating and staying ahead of the game. Not realising (or being too pig-headed) to understand that drop-goals were viable options when they were struggling was staggering.

I guess all teams are a bit dim sometimes

dummy_half wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Just watched Flatmate and Ben Kay also suggest on that one way round is to drag the opposition in. They then showed a few clips of Poite going against his rulings and fail to spot ruck vs tackle from earlier in the season. Again fair enough that Italy used a legal tactic but it sucks to watch when consistently used and as pointed out becomes a nightmare for the attacking team and the ref.

Rewatch the Eng v It match, in particular when England are on defence, and see how many times Poite should be calling 'tackle only' because no England defender bar the tackler is involved - the remaining defenders simply fanning across the pitch. Probably happens at about 10% of rucks (just a very rough guesstimate). Obviously the difference is that it was being done 'on the fly' rather than as a deliberate strategy, and the rest of the England defenders weren't adopting the 'offside' positions that they could legally have done.

Taking this further though, I wonder how many penalties for offside actually shouldn't have been given because no ruck ever formed? And now of course players and refs are more aware of the situation, it's yet a further complication for the refs.

To be honest, I think it's a loophole that needs closing - probably by saying that the offside line is set at the point of 'tackle, brought to ground' rather than as the second player from each side enters the breakdown.

Some excellent points there. Poite's (and I'm sure any other ref's/human being's) tendency was to call it based on the information he had received before hand (ie Italy telling him what they planned). This opens up a can of worms as to how consistently the ruck tackle area is usually refereed and as you allude to, not very! Probably.

Just the shot in the arm the game needed – more and inventive ways of disrupting attacking, running play. Any new/different way of increasing the defensive aspect of the game should be applauded. Who the hell needs running/passing rugby anyway? Should be meat and drink to England’s 10-man style, doncha think? It’s not as if we have any pace merchants who can run-in tries…

While it was frustrating to watch (both as an England fan and as a viewer in general) I felt a fair bit of sympathy for Poite. He looked more confused than anybody and will probably have nightmares about that game!

A DG hasn't won a RWC for the ABs 7.5
But it has for England, surprise surprise

ebop, you might have another one in the cabinet if you were a bit more flexible

Good to see the SH fans back on the forum

Italy were taking the pisss and looked like idiots the way they went about it. It was a bit shameful the way they took the law to the nth degree. Good on them, but they looked like knobs, and had no sense of shame. But England looked like knobs as well.

Nurse, he's out of bed again!

Haha, can't find me bedpan

ebop wrote:Italy were taking the pisss and looked like idiots the way they went about it. It was a bit shameful the way they took the law to the nth degree. Good on them, but they looked like knobs, and had no sense of shame. But England looked like knobs as well.

Should have claimed we had food poisoning.

It's not too late

There's gotta be a reason, right?

Why did it take a coach to spell it out?

ebop wrote:Italy were taking the pisss and looked like idiots the way they went about it. It was a bit shameful the way they took the law to the nth degree. Good on them, but they looked like knobs, and had no sense of shame. But England looked like knobs as well.

Italys tactic was disrupted because a few days before WR changed the rules and forgot to tell people so they had to improvise

ebop wrote:It's not too late

There's gotta be a reason, right?

Our Kiwi captain doesn't know the laws. What are you teaching over there?

marty2086 wrote:

ebop wrote:Italy were taking the pisss and looked like idiots the way they went about it. It was a bit shameful the way they took the law to the nth degree. Good on them, but they looked like knobs, and had no sense of shame. But England looked like knobs as well.

Italys tactic was disrupted because a few days before WR changed the rules and forgot to tell people so they had to improvise

At least they werem made aware of the changes. England weren't.

You're a good sport Cyril, but Hartley is as English as they come. There isn't a hint of kiwi in that lad.

ebop wrote:You're a good sport Cyril, but Hartley is as English as they come. There isn't a hint of kiwi in that lad.

We're slowly reducing the Kiwi in him, ebop. He's pretty much stopped biting now.

He still doesn't like Wayne Barnes yet, so we've still got some work to do!

Cyril wrote:

ebop wrote:You're a good sport Cyril, but Hartley is as English as they come. There isn't a hint of kiwi in that lad.

We're slowly reducing the Kiwi in him, ebop. He's pretty much stopped biting now.

He still doesn't like Wayne Barnes yet, so we've still got some work to do!

He did accept some responsibility for the Italy game and didnt blame the ref, food or entire northern hemisphere so hes certainly been affected by his time with the Britlanders.

I've heard most of the main rugby podcasts, and I'd say about half of them explicitly take England to task for not grabbing hold of Italians to form a ruck. Pretty much all the Southern Hemisphere guys (Green & Gold etc) are in that camp.

I'm surprised so many people are oblivious to the fact that England tried to do that during the match but Poite wasn't having it. It also explains why Haskell's question of  "What do you need to see?" remains so misunderstood.

Among the professional pundits, Donal Lenihan and Rob Vickerman both just made that same point on separate podcasts. Vickerman went further, and pointed out that grabbing an opposition player remains a favoured trick in sevens, where the ruckless tactic crops up frequently.

It occurs to me that, so far, I've only heard Poite, Nigel Owens and Brian Moore (based on what Owens told him) say that grabbing an opposition player is not sufficient to form a ruck. Other officials have kept mum on the subject, and I didn't hear it discussed during Rugby Tonight. (By contrast, most officials have been prepared to say publicly that Lacey shouldn't have allowed Wales to kick for touch once they chose to go for goal.)

If World Rugby could do one thing in the immediate aftermath of this game, it would be to clarify that very point. It's quite possible some referees don't see it that way, especially on the sevens circuit. World Rugby have already given a vote of confidence to the way Poite handled the game, so presumably they support the interpretation he used, and which Owens immediately endorsed.

What you are missing RF though is that what England were trying to do, Haskell in particular, and its a tactic I remember Pocock doing in Super Rugby last season was he was trying to drag someone into the tackle area which is essentially an offence.

Can't remember who it was talking about it but what they said was England were waiting too long to do it, ie they were creating a tackle area then trying to make it into a ruck. What they should have been doing is dragging the Italians in before the tackle was complete which turns it into a ruck

Italy were being allowed to escape the tackle area too easily, how many games do we see tacklers not being able to roll away and get penalised when they are essentially being held there against their will. That's what England needed to do

marty2086 wrote:...What they should have been doing is dragging the Italians in before the tackle was complete which turns it into a ruck...

Not for Nigel Owens. He told Brian Moore on his Telegraph Full Contact podcast that he would not rule a ruck had formed if he saw what you described.

Rugby Fan wrote:

marty2086 wrote:...What they should have been doing is dragging the Italians in before the tackle was complete which turns it into a ruck...

Not for Nigel Owens. He told Brian Moore on his Telegraph Full Contact podcast that he would not rule a ruck had formed if he saw what you described.

He should read the laws then.

Rugby Fan wrote:

marty2086 wrote:...What they should have been doing is dragging the Italians in before the tackle was complete which turns it into a ruck...

Not for Nigel Owens. He told Brian Moore on his Telegraph Full Contact podcast that he would not rule a ruck had formed if he saw what you described.

That's in the cold light of day, the phrase that was used was dirty it up. If you have players falling everywhere and a lot going on it makes it harder to determine what is going on and if a defensive player is engaged post tackle its a ruck.

The point is though that Italy had it too easy getting away from the tackle

Yup there was a pile of bird sh^t

Italy had it easy to get away as Poite ruled unless they were engaging rather than England with them it wasn't a ruck.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Italy had it easy to get away as Poite ruled unless they were engaging rather than England with them it wasn't a ruck.

No Italy had it easy because England made it easy, I remember one instance of one of the Italian props making a tackle and 5 or 6 England players pile in and simply make pillars he was able to work his way back through them and get out. All it took was for one England player to pin him in, it happened plenty of times.

Why was it such a massive effort and delay for England to clear the ball from a massive pile of white shirts? Slow twitch brain fibres.

marty2086 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Italy had it easy to get away as Poite ruled unless they were engaging rather than England with them it wasn't a ruck.

No Italy had it easy because England made it easy, I remember one instance of one of the Italian props making a tackle and 5 or 6 England players pile in and simply make pillars he was able to work his way back through them and get out. All it took was for one England player to pin him in, it happened plenty of times.

It was easy because of Poite's interpretation, Launchbury and Haskell both tried the grab an Italian tactic but were specifically told that wouldn't constitute a ruck and what you're describing wouldn't be a ruck either as the players have to be on their feet.