Jackal Penalties

[mike909]

I think they were right over England kicking.
For my money, sooner or later you kick the ball away and the other team don't kick it back and play tennis, and they run it past you eventually. Kicking it away can lead to disproportionate time defending.
It is exactly as you say, if you are just off your game in any way, with that plan you are toast. Other game plans are less forgiving on a bad day.

The other problem - least as an observer - was seen vs Scotland....If you kick the ball away, and don't follow up well and their back three is happy and confident ball in hand.....you have a v hard day! Vs Scotland, kicked proportionately, twice as often as Scotland and made 163 tackles......and nil clean breaks....

[Nigel Med]

I'm a bit of a broken record regarding this but the key at the breakdown is making sure players stay on their feet. The Jackal doesn't necessarily have to be first to the tackle, he has to be the first to the tackle remaining on his feet. Far too often the team in possession send the first one or two players to secure the ball by flopping over the top of it then adopting a sort of "press-up" position to make it look they made an attempt to stay on their feet. I don't fall for it, these players are sealing off, preventing a contest for the ball so if an opposition player gets to the breakdown and stays on his feet he is entitled to go for the ball. If any of those players off their feet try to stop him they should be penalised.

Classic example was just before half time in the premiership final. Chiefs attacking, ball carrier tackled, Launch gets his hands on the ball, 2 or 3 Chiefs players try and drag him off but all of them were off their feet. Clear penalty for Wasps. Maxwell Keys of course, pings Joe.

Keep ALL arriving players on their feet and the whole situation is far, far easier to officiate. It would take a significant change in coaching but that's how the game evolves, they're already presumably adapting their tackle coaching to try and avoid red cards.

[mike909]

Agree. To be pedantic, the defender does have to be first - assuming that the team in possession arrive legally. At that point it is a ruck and no hands allowed.

The flop is a penalty (ought to be) You secure the ball within a ruck situation by arriving legally. The first defender arriving cannot use their hands if its a ruck. Law 15.11 etc is really clear. In many ways the NH style "clear out" isn't really allowed...either you are looking to tackle the defender - who was first and picked up the ball, or you are looking to bind and push, as it's a ruck. Again, I think this is v poorly officiated in the NH especially.

It's not about coaching for me, so much, as enforcing the Laws as currently written. The play would quickly follow.

[Nigel Med]

Agree. To be pedantic, the defender does have to be first - assuming that the team in possession arrive legally. At that point it is a ruck and no hands allowed.

The flop is a penalty (ought to be) You secure the ball within a ruck situation by arriving legally. The first defender arriving cannot use their hands if its a ruck. Law 15.11 etc is really clear. In many ways the NH style "clear out" isn't really allowed...either you are looking to tackle the defender - who was first and picked up the ball, or you are looking to bind and push, as it's a ruck. Again, I think this is v poorly officiated in the NH especially.

It's not about coaching for me, so much, as enforcing the Laws as currently written. The play would quickly follow.

Absolutely. My point about players arriving from the team in possession not remaining on their feet is that they have either committed an offence if they've prevented a contest for the ball, or they're not part of the game as they're off their feet, either way, the arriving player who IS on his feet is still entitled to go for the ball.

The thing about forcing all players to remain on their feet is that it clears up so many other contentious issues. As you say, the clear-out couldn't happen. You could only tackle the arriving player once he'd picked up the ball, do it to any other player in the ruck and you've gone off your feet. The "crocodile roll" that crippled Jack also would disappear as it cannot be executed if a player remains on his feet.

Another thing thing I keep saying, there's no need for new laws or bloody "interpretations", just officiate what's written in the IRB World Rugby law book.

What I meant by coaching was that teams would have to reconsider their approach to the breakdown or risk being pinged off the park.

[Rossm]

Classic example was just before half time in the premiership final. Chiefs attacking, ball carrier tackled, Launch gets his hands on the ball, 2 or 3 Chiefs players try and drag him off but all of them were off their feet. Clear penalty for Wasps. Maxwell Keys of course, pings Joe.

Remember it well. Absolutely staggering.

[mike909]

Agree. To be pedantic, the defender does have to be first - assuming that the team in possession arrive legally. At that point it is a ruck and no hands allowed.

The flop is a penalty (ought to be) You secure the ball within a ruck situation by arriving legally. The first defender arriving cannot use their hands if its a ruck. Law 15.11 etc is really clear. In many ways the NH style "clear out" isn't really allowed...either you are looking to tackle the defender - who was first and picked up the ball, or you are looking to bind and push, as it's a ruck. Again, I think this is v poorly officiated in the NH especially.

It's not about coaching for me, so much, as enforcing the Laws as currently written. The play would quickly follow.

Absolutely. My point about players arriving from the team in possession not remaining on their feet is that they have either committed an offence if they've prevented a contest for the ball, or they're not part of the game as they're off their feet, either way, the arriving player who IS on his feet is still entitled to go for the ball.

The thing about forcing all players to remain on their feet is that it clears up so many other contentious issues. As you say, the clear-out couldn't happen. You could only tackle the arriving player once he'd picked up the ball, do it to any other player in the ruck and you've gone off your feet. The "crocodile roll" that crippled Jack also would disappear as it cannot be executed if a player remains on his feet.

Another thing thing I keep saying, there's no need for new laws or bloody "interpretations", just officiate what's written in the IRB World Rugby law book.

What I meant by coaching was that teams would have to reconsider their approach to the breakdown or risk being pinged off the park.

My apols - we're def on the same page...I've been going on about this btl on the Guardian for some time!