Always a Wasp
General Category => Wasps Rugby Discussion => Topic started by: Brandnewtorugby on June 06, 2021, 03:52:21 PM
-
Just watched Courtney Lawes win a jackal after having his hands on the floor, actually looked off balance. We have been pinged quite regularly for slight touches of the ground, Dog recently getting pinged for touching the ground has he scooped up the ball in particular sticks in my mind.
I don't agree with the interpretation of touching the floor with a hand automatically assumes you are off balance, I wonder if it has been changed?
-
Just watched Courtney Lawes win a jackle after having his hands on the floor, actually looked off balance. We have been pinged quite regularly for slight touches of the ground, Dog recently getting pinged for touching the ground has he scooped up the ball in particular sticks in my mind.
I don't agree with the interpretation of touching the floor with a hand automatically assumes you are off balance, I wonder if it has been changed?
Biggest thing for me is Lawes is clearly also trying to wrench it up. Hands are on the floor because they're under the ball, which is also on the floor. It could have gone against him of course, but I think he's don't it well enough to be winning them, especially after the ref has set out his stall.
-
Yep, once on the ball he looked secure, but I thought I saw Lawes check himself with a hand on the floor before he went for the ball.
-
Yep, once on the ball he looked secure, but I thought I saw Lawes check himself with a hand on the floor before he went for the ball.
Yep, think that was on one where he still then had time to basically get both hands on it before an Exeter player touched him. Refs are often more lax if you're trying to turnover a guy with no support. He'd also earned some credit from previous ones at that point.
-
Jackle penalties have become hugely problematic since Jacks injury, we are not getting anywhere near enough for it to make any form of inroads into the game for us. However if we want to be competitive next week against Tigers we are going to have to correct this, if we are too passive in the ruck and simply spread the defence it will play straight into Tigers hands given how physical and abrasive they are. They will simply recycle and win the gain line time and time again.
This is going to need to be a balls out performance Saturday!
-
Pedantic point: "Jackal", spelt as in the opportunistic scavenging animal. ::)
-
Touching the floor shouldn't automatically mean a penalty, they are supposed to be looking for the "Jackaler" both being first to the breakdown and then supporting their own weight. If the team in possession get a man to the breakdown first and they remain on their feet (i.e. not diving straight off their feet to make a contest impossible or an "Exeter" as it's known) the "Jackaler" cannot use their hands as their presence means that a ruck is formed. It may look like that they are not supporting their own weight if they have a hand on the ground but obviously that's not necessarily the case, particularly with the likes of Jack Willis and others (Curry for one) who seem to be able to get in the most absurd positions whilst still supporting their own weight.
Given this all happens in a matter of seconds, referees can be forgiven for occasionally getting it wrong but if a try is scored immediately after you would hope that the TMO would check that the build up was entirely legal.
-
Pedantic point: "Jackal", spelt as in the opportunistic scavenging animal. ::)
Thanks, corrected!
-
Pedantic point: "Jackal", spelt as in the opportunistic scavenging animal. ::)
Thanks, corrected!
Oh I think the urban dictionary meaning brings on a whole new image to ‘Willis has a fantastic Jackle’ .
-
Oh I think the urban dictionary meaning brings on a whole new image to ‘Willis has a fantastic Jackle’ .
I'm not even going to risk Googling that!
-
Pedantic point: "Jackal", spelt as in the opportunistic scavenging animal. ::)
I was going to post the same. But you beat me to it.
-
The key problem with the whole of the breakdown is that whilst there is a reasonable way of officiating and playing that complies with the Laws and promotes faster and for me, safer play. The Prem is long way from that.
Whilst agreeing, in the main, with the above, the problem is too often caused before the potential jackaller even has a decision to make. Listening to a lot of SH and M10 rugby, you can hear the ref calling "tackle" "release" "roll" and "ruck". Those calls allow compliance (well for me) with the Laws to be easier and more consistent
What you see so often here is that the tackled player rolls and plays after being tackled, the tackler fails to release and get out of the way, and when a ruck if formed before a defender (jackal) gets hands on the ball (released by tackled player of course....or not) a competition is allowed, with the use of hands.
I'd recommend a read and look at the WR Laws, explanations and vids - as I've prob not explained v well. But a jackal really ought to be fairly rare given the Laws as written.....
-
I fully agree about the clarity of the calls in the SH.
I have postulated before that the English refs are uniquely harsh on jackals, and that they are playing a balancing game between allowing the jackals to compete, and teams keeping ball in hand, because the more you allow the former the more likely teams are to kick.
-
I fully agree about the clarity of the calls in the SH.
I have postulated before that the English refs are uniquely harsh on jackals, and that they are playing a balancing game between allowing the jackals to compete, and teams keeping ball in hand, because the more you allow the former the more likely teams are to kick.
It's why some commentators postulated that England were practicing kicking at the end of last 6Ns (they kicked over 40 times vs Italy....) and Autumn Cup. Why England don't look towards possession (they beat Australia in the RWC with 36%) and why the game plan (imo...) fails if you're not at 100%!
Watching M10 - a) the tackle is managed per the Laws release etc and b) only if clearly first to the tackle will defenders look to basically pick the ball up. And pull out as soon as ruck is called.
-
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.
-
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....
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!