World Rugby issues breakdown law application guideline

[Heathen]

https://www.world.rugby/news/568557

Will the Premiership refs will let the perpetual offenders continue to get away with it? The exocet clearout, for example?

[DGP Wasp]

2 players on the panel. One of which is a certain Josh Beaumont. Wonder how he got that gig???

[BG]

2 players on the panel. One of which is a certain Josh Beaumont. Wonder how he got that gig???

Nepotism still going strong.

The leading shoulder, no arms (no binding), exocet type of clearing out needs to be banned (or the current laws being applied properly) but this action is taking place because refs are allowing a defender to hang on to a ball in a ruck situation for far to long.. oftern players are waiting for a ref to shout "release".

I really fear for players like Willis and Young receiving a high impact shoulder to neck injury

The refs should stop advising of when a player should release by telling them and simply ping them for a penalty.. the players will quickly learn.

The other option is to allow "proper" rucking (a shoeing) again but that's never going to happen

[mike909]

It seems - amazingly - that World Rugby's conclusions - referring to Laws 14 and 15 - we what I've been droning on about here and elsewhere for ages

recommending a strict reinforcement of existing law

If the Laws around what the tackler must do and what happens when a ruck of formed are applied - then the breakdown mainly works a lot more often than not

The guff about "on feet" or "good competition for ball" were both irrelevant if its a ruck. Only first person to the tackled player had ball handling rights and only before its a ruck, i.e. "unless they were able to get their hands on the ball before the ruck formed and stay on their feet"

Too many times in the Prem, a continued competition for the ball with hands was allowed, even when it was a ruck and when no one had hands on ball (not just pinning the player down). This then provided a clear incentive for the "clear out"  - as it was virtually the only way of removing a player going for the ball in a ruck....using their hands. Either they had handling rights and had the ball or its a ruck and no hands allowed.

So - adherence to Laws and you get faster ball, lower risk to players and frankly, easier reffing

And as I've said far too often, this was the how the game was more often played and reffed in NZ Provincial games (Mitre 10) or at least the ones I watched last year.

[westwaleswasp]

Did the current interpretation arise from the fact that teams like Munster would go phase on phase and literally ride out the last ten minutes of a game with the defending team having zero chance of  getting the ball? IIRC we started to get the "on feet/good competition" interpretation as teams literally put 25 very slow phases together and rode out five to even in extremis ten mins of the game.  The ruck would form, but without "proper rucking"referred to below  the ball kept coming back on one side, killing the game as a spectacle. They definitely tried to dis-incentivise that behaviour by allowing more chance of a turnover- hence today's grey area.
I would certainly like to see an end to the ridiculous and dangerous clear out, but don't want to see no competition for the ball. In the old days there were the old "shoeings" but without them, does the ball always come back to one team? How do you ensure a competition for the ball?

[mike909]

I don't know.

My experience of watching the NZ Provincial games was that it wasn't that there was no competition, but competition within the rules. You could probably say the same maybe, about the maul. Currently, as the Laws are interpreted - its virtually undefendable

I think to work - as I suggested - requires strict referring of that contest immediately post tackle. It also (to me at least) gave an incentive to smaller, faster, backrowers who got in first and if you were in first - the ref had to cooperate - or apply the Laws....

But I think its worth seeing

Re rucking. You can still ruck as in pushing per the Laws, again, needs reffing clearly, so that if you are being pushed back, you can't lift the ball.

[westwaleswasp]

I think at the time when Munster were doing their thing phase on phase the SH saw no such tactics. I am wondering if it is just an attitude thing, like we had most teams who would try to hold the ball in the scrum to get a pen, and by and large down there they used scrums to restart the game. Similarly, their breakdown has always been to me at least cleaner than ours. Now whether that is better reffing or a different mindset of the players I don't know, I suspect the latter, and  I also suspect that whatever we try to eliminate the current debacle there will be teams up here who use it to try and put twenty phases together to go ten meters in five minutes.
I think the maul is another area where we seem to either have indefensible or, if it can be dragged down, useless and we have not found that goldilocks area of decent weapon but can be defended.

[Heathen]

Re rucking, if you can get 3 or 4 players quickly to the breakdown, they can drive straight over the top and get the turnover.

[westwaleswasp]

That certainly works when the tackle is made during a normal offensive play where the aim is to move the ball well away from the tackled player in order to make meters and get to the opposition try line, but once it became "move the ball one inch closer to Berlin" in an attempt to wind the clock down but not make meters-  i.e. the ball picked up normally by a forward supported by two others with more behind, with the next group setting up to rinse and repeat the defending team could not get their 3/4players there first in order to drive over. 

This is not quite what I mean, but here are Munster's rather famous 33 phases down this neck of the woods.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kud2hEgn0Tc

I think this is what they were trying to avoid with their current lenient interpretation.

[Heathen]

Why not limit the number of pick and gos to say 5?

[RogerE]

Why not limit the number of pick and gos to say 5?

Yes

[BG]

Why not limit the number of pick and gos to say 5?

Yes

Lets give each team 5 attempts with the ball.. how about uncontested scrums to restart the game quickly avoiding constant resets.. get rid of lineouts and competition of the ball at the tackle area.

Where have I seen that before?

[Vespula Vulgaris]

In MMA, when the fighters are on the ground grappling. The ref has the option to stop the fight and stand them both up to start again if it looks like there is no advantage to either person.

They brought it in because high level grappling is boring if you dont understand the fine nuances, and they wanted to create something that was enjoyable to watch for the masses.

I'd love to see something similar in Rugby. Give the ref the option of stopping the clock if no clear advantage is visible, and force the side with possession to take a scrum. That way a team who is using the pick and go to actually gain ground would be fine, but not if they were just sitting on the gainline again and again to let the clock tick down.

[Chunky24]

Just watching SA v Lions 1997 series on Sky sports, was fortunate to be at 2nd and 3rd tests, some interesting rucking still plenty of off feet, in at the side etc but also scrums that form in seconds and stay up!

Although when my 11yo joined me his first comment was "Did they have different rules then?"

[westwaleswasp]

Why not limit the number of pick and gos to say 5?

Damn, now I need to find that applaud button on my mobile...

I enjoyed watching that Munster clip, btw, which is why I shared it-  it was noticable they actually  threw the ball further than they would today, even though their intent was to go nowhere. Today the ball would have far less air!

Not sure we want more scrums- I think refs do all they can to avoid it.

I personally would consider a fiddle with the rolling maul too- only allow it to five m, perhaps, or even only allow certain penalties to be kicked to touch and the possession retained. Chiefs benefit far too much from it, no team should have a primary game plan like theirs. That said there was criticism that they maul illegally last year iirc. Forget which coach picked up on it.

I think pick and go to five could probably yield  five, followed by the scrum half passing it, and then another five. They might have to do a "no return in 3 hours' in parking parlance.