By Andrew Logan
February 19th 2008 @ 12:24am
RIP rucking — and rugby
I was sitting in the sun recently, dreaming idly, when I started trying to remember the last time I saw a real, solid, honest-to-goodness ruck in a game of rugby.
My mind turned the years over like pages on one of those desk calendars and eventually I had to admit that, aside from some noteworthy rucks in various great games I had watched on video (the 1988 19-19 Bledisloe Cup draw at Ballymore had some fantastic footwork), I couldn’t think of one.
“Hang on” I hear you say, “there were hundreds of rucks in the Super 14 last week!”. But I say no way Jose.
When I say ruck, I don’t mean a maul that’s on the ground. I mean ruck as in rucking. As in rucked. As in feet churning over some unfortunate lying on a ball until he gets spat out the back like chaff from a haybaler. Jersey torn, stripes criss-crossing his back like a whipping from some biblical scourger, and hobbling to the next breakdown as though he’d just gone a few rounds with a rotary hoe.
If the defining characteristic of rugby is the contest for the ball, then the most defining characteristic of that contest was the use of feet on an opponent who was obstructing the passage of that ball.
The ruck was quintessentially rugby, and it meant that there were actually only two types of players in the game – the ruckers, and the ruckees.
The ruckers were invariably forwards. Very often loose forwards who were charged with freeing up the ball for their backs. The ruck was as close as any sport came to allowing the players to deal out justice to opponents, and generally the referee stayed well out of it, reasoning that if someone was lying close enough to the ball to cop a shoeing, they probably deserved it.
This is turn created a race of maniacs for whom the ruck was a place to show their daring to the world. Impervious to pain, and feeling that they hadn’t really done anything unless they threw themselves into a 16-footed tree-shredder, breakaways the world over were the benchmarks by which a willingness to absorb punishment was measured. The ruck was their home, and they inhabited it gladly.
Backs mainly stayed out of it, but were occasionally drawn in as collateral damage. A memorable anecdote from All Black winger Stu Wilson had him copping a stray boot and finishing a match with a single livid mark on his ribcage. Anxious to show off his trophy, and his toughness, Wilson entered the shower, where he hissed in a deep breath to draw attention from his fellows, and then turned so that his ruck mark could be fully observed. In the act of turning, he says, he was just in time to see the legendary All Black flanker Mark “Cowboy” Shaw enter the area, covered from shoulder to thigh in bleeding gouges. Shaw turned on the hot water and soaped up with nary a whimper. Wilson remembers skulking away without another word. The ruck was no place for the fainthearted.
However, as much as the ruck was a frontier where the laws where barely observed, it filled a useful function. In the old days, it was simple. The players policed the ruck, and if you wanted to lie over the ball, you would pay the price. The referee was there simply to make sure that the unofficial rules of rucking were observed, and that heads were left alone. This meant that ruck ball was quick ball, continuous ball, and aside from offside or foul play, ruck penalties were relatively rare.
When feet in the ruck were gradually outlawed, in the lead-up to the 1999 World Cup, the game began to grapple with the fallout.
All of a sudden, games were being decided by penalty shootouts because players knew that lying on the ball, particularly in defensive situations, would often result in 3 points rather than 7. And they wouldn’t have a boot laid on them anyway.
Chris Hewett, rugby writer for The Independent in London, said in 1999: “While no one in authority is willing to say as much, the ruck — the single most dynamic mechanism in the attacking armoury, and the phase that provides union with a continuity unique among handling games — will effectively be outlawed during this year’s showpiece event because the administrators fear the negative impact of “boots on bodies” on the TV audience.”.
So television has become the master of rugby, not once, but twice, because the demise of the ruck as we used to know it has now led to the ELV’s in an attempt to remove the blight on the game of kicking from breakdown penalties and return continuity to the sport.
The continuity has come at a price. Phil Kearns at a recent Super 14 preview function was asked: “What differences will we see this year with the new ELV’s?”. His answer? “Skinny players”. Kearns was not joking. The fact remains that under the new laws, players need to be fitter than they have ever been before, and the balance has decisively swung away from the strongman set piece specialist like Andy Sheridan, to a loose utility who can run all day, like Stephen Hoiles.
This is not to denigrate Hoiles, who is a wonderful player. But it is the first step on the road to uniformity in player shape, whereby we lose yet another defining characteristic of rugby.
Which brings me back to that most definitive element of rugby, the ruck.
Had feet in the ruck not been outlawed (under duress from those paying for TV rights), then continuity at the non-maul breakdown would have been maintained. The penalty shootout in its awful modern form would not have evolved to put pressure on the existing laws, and some of the ELV’s at least (certainly free kicks instead of long-arm penalties at the ruck) would never have needed to have been conceived.
Consequently, the quick tap would not have come into vogue with the ELV’s and rugby may have remained Marxist, drawing “from each according to his abilities”, rather than creating die Herrenrasse (the master race) of super fit, super lean automatons.
It is hard to argue with the weekend comments from Springbok half Fourie du Preez: “Rugby is now a different game. It’s like Sevens, with constant counter-attacking. There are not enough set-pieces,” Du Preez said. “It’s less enjoyable to watch and to play.” Even Lote Tuqiri compared the Waratahs vs Hurricanes game to a touch football match.
Rugby is flirting with danger in changing it’s very fabric. It is losing the elements which made it unique in the first place. Sure, restore the continuity in rugby. But do it by maintaining the essence of the sport, rather than playing with the laws.
Bring back feet in the ruck.
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(74)
David Glesson said | February 19th 2008 @ 12:46am | Report comment
A lot of rugby fans would concure about rucking but its gone the same way as women being virgins on their wedding nights, never to return. Many of the ELVs are good like the 5m back at scrums and not being able to throw the ball back into your 22 for a kick out on the full etc. Being able to pull the maul down like in the ARC and Currie Cup is ludicrious though.
Jack Mac said | February 19th 2008 @ 2:59am | Report comment
Andrew - good point . I would like to put forward something I think has been overlooked in the commentary on this site and others on this issue. Another factor in the demise of continuity at the breakdown, i think, has been relaxation of the laws regarding release of the ball at the tackle . Watching over old games you notice how it used to be enforced extremely strictly and as such a ruck would be won or lost relatively quickly with posession either recycled or turned over almost instanteanously.
The release laws were relaxed in the mid 90’s in order to reward attacking play (I assume) by making it easier to build attacks over multiple phases of possesion. In my view, over time they have had the ultimate effect of encouraging direct rugby i.e. “hit-ups” , “pick and go” and one off runners as attacking sides could be more certain of retaining possesion. In other words rugby league with an unlimited tackle count, so often culminating in a crash over try from short range
Under the ruck laws of the 80’s and early 90’s such direct play could much more easily result in conceeding a turnover, so sides in attack were more likely to “use” possesion, by passing, offloading, varying the point of attack ( the ensemble play Spiro referred to in another thread) or admittedly kicking it upfield. At the very least, sides choosing to run the ball would be either building a meaningful attack with quick ball and defence on the back foot, or exposed to turnover ball and possible counter attack, which quite often made for a more open game.
BPM said | February 19th 2008 @ 8:35am | Report comment
I only saw 3 of the first round games in the Super 14. I agree with Tuqiri to an extent that the games were generally more free flowing than previous years. I think this is a case though of coaches and players still experimenting and adapting to the new laws. When a free kick is given there is always the option of the scrum rather than a quick tap as demonstrated by the Waratahs in the second half of their game on Saturday night.
Getting back to feet in the ruck, I agree Andrew it should be brought back. As long as the player rucking, is making a deliberate effort to free the ball, the referee should keep the whistle in his pocket. Unfortunately there were a few “hard men” around in the ’90s who thought it was ok to ruck heads and this may have spoiled it for everyone.
The Boar said | February 19th 2008 @ 9:01am | Report comment
So Andrew, either way rugby union is doomed in Australia to remain a minor sport..or worse….
If the IRB brings back old rules (or at the very least ignores the new ELVs), the game remains a joy for the diehards, but, as a result, fails to to garner any new fans in Australia and new TV markets internationally.
Alternatively, the new ELVs become permanent, rugby union becomes a 15 man game of league or touch footy, the diehards become disenchanted dinosaurs and fade away, while the new rugby fights on against the other codes (and, perhaps, may become more popular than the old form of the game).
Ah, the joys of changing from an amateur sport, where the rules are made for the players, to a professional sport, where the corporates and the fans’ dollars win out.
Either way, rugby as we once knew and loved it in Australia, will soon be a thing of the past.
Either it will go on in an emancipated form of a once great noble beast, or it quietly fade away and become an exhibit in the natural sporting history museum.
David Glesson said | February 19th 2008 @ 9:36am | Report comment
The Boar, how on earth can ELV Rugby be like Rugby Lite? The last time i looked Rugby Union still had 15 players per side, lineouts, a contest at the tackle for possession, real scrums, mauls etc etc. As opposed to the simplistic 13 man per side with the teams 10m apart and the tackled player rolls the ball between his leg to another player in his side * 5 followed by the obligatory kick.
Ian Noble said | February 19th 2008 @ 10:06am | Report comment
Andrew
Excellent article, there are many in the NH, who fear that the proposed changes in the laws will further change the game of union to the extent it will lose it’s uniqueness and merge into League. I think The Boar has a point that the game is being sacrificed for the demands of the spectator in the SH, or should I say Aus. I am pleased to see that a number of players in the SH are now expressing their reservations, the latest being Brian Habana.
Judging from the games last weekend the ELV’s made very little impact on the game. Although, God forbid there appears \to be an increase in aimless kicking. If you were lucky to see Bath v Wasps at the weekend you will appreciate why some of us in the NH are so reluctant to see any changes and a dumbing down of the game to the lowest common denominator!!
The Boar said | February 19th 2008 @ 10:20am | Report comment
To David Gleeson. Ask Bryan Habana about what the new Elves Rugby is all about:
“It’s got a lot more of a rugby league feel on it,” Habana told reporters at the Laureus World Sports Awards, where the World Cup-winning Springboks were nominated for Team of the Year.
“There’s no stop-start, the essence of what rugby is, anymore.”
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23236878-5006067,00.html
Choke on that!
Ben C said | February 19th 2008 @ 10:27am | Report comment
Ian
I agree with you about the aimless kicking. While kicking has changed inside the 22 so there should be fewer kicks out from the 22, in all the weekend matches I watched (4) there seemed to be a lot of aimless kicking in midfield. Why? The ELV’s haven’t changed anything with regard to running with the ball in hand so why did several matches degenerate into endless rounds of “forcing back”.
I think a lot of it is uncertainty and it should hopefully settle down over the next few weeks as coaches and players develop a better feel for the impact of the ELV’s. (Except, perhaps the Brumbies and Fisher).
Other than that I think it is beneficial to have more free kicks to speed up infringements at the breakdown rather than the usual bore of a penalty, team congregates to decide what to do (have a breather), captain motions toward kicker, kicker points to spot marked by ref (usually about 3 metres ahead of where penalty actually awarded or as much more as kicker thinks he can get away with), kicker bounces ball then stops to pull up socks (important for wind resistance) before lining up for kick, rest of team having drink and chat, kicker finally puts ball over sideline (actually kicking about another 2 meetres past the mark) and players amble up to lineout so even heavyweight props have recovered their breath and are ready to go. Meanwhile the punters have had enough time (even with stadium queues) to have a toilet break, stop for a chat, pick up a few more beers and make their way back to the seat while all this is going on. At least things keep moving and we see a bit more actual football rather than players meandering from set-piece to set-piece at a leisurely pace.
Terry Kidd said | February 19th 2008 @ 10:34am | Report comment
Two very good points from Andrew and Jack …. both worth long pondering before a hip shot comment here. I have taken a while to reply and actually agree with both however I don’t think TV rights with feet on bodies being the problem, more likely where those feet were on the bodies being the main problem ….. the Richard Loes of that time have quite a lot to make up for.
El Capitan said | February 19th 2008 @ 10:35am | Report comment
I for one would love to see rucking brought back in. I was one of those players who enjoyed to ruck and to be rucked. I used to show off my “tags” after every match and compare them with other players. I felt that I didn’t have a good game unless I came off with battle scars. There was an unwritten law between players that heads were to be left alone and if you did ruck a head by accident there were no hard feelings after the match. I’m not really that old (28 actually), and it taught players a lesson. You were on the other side of the ruck, then you deserved to be punished for trying to kill the ball. Today, players know they can get away with it, like Andrew said and cough up 3 points. Perhaps refs need to use more yellow cards to teach players from killing the ball, if players can’t use their feet?
David Glesson said | February 19th 2008 @ 10:59am | Report comment
The Boar, have you ever seen a game of Rugby League?? With Habana being a Japie its very unlikely that he has played it and only ever seen glimpses of it on tv here.
The Boar said | February 19th 2008 @ 11:02am | Report comment
“Waratahs wing Lote Tuqiri compared it to a touch football match”
http://www.news24.com/News24/Sport/Super14/0,,2-9-2331_2272356,00.html
David Glesson said | February 19th 2008 @ 11:05am | Report comment
No i didnt think you would answer it.
The Boar said | February 19th 2008 @ 11:22am | Report comment
David Gleeson. I wrote that “rugby union becomes a 15 man game of league or touch footy”. I did not say it would become 13 man rugby league.
Clearly, John O’Neill wants it to take an evolutionary path that brings it closer to rugby league:
http://www.theroar.com.au/2007/10/24/rugby-union-should-adapt-like-rugby-league-oneill/
David Glesson said | February 19th 2008 @ 11:33am | Report comment
The ELVs are designed to give players time and space. If O’Neill wanted the game to be more like Rugby Lite then he would be advocating to get rid of the contest for possession which im sure you know, rugby has at the tackle, lineouts, real scrums etc. He didn’t state this. This fundamental part of the game makes the difference between the codes quite profound and RL is closer to NFL than proper rugby in that respect.
rob mccourt said | February 19th 2008 @ 12:06pm | Report comment
just curious but can anyone tell me if a law has actually been changed making rucking illegal ? if so what is the new law of rugby that outlaws it. it seems to me that if rucking were back in vogue many of the problems in the game would be solved. too many of the problems seem to come from referees who seem to ignore existing laws ( e.g. straight scrum feed and taking out the man nowhere near the ruck ) or create penalties for things that are not an offence ( e.g rucking ? ). the crowds would love the return of rucking. the game has become a bit sanitised. players would stay on their feet more. the only problem with rucking from my playing experience is the head kicker. but with replays , camera angles and touchies the problem would be eliminated. and if there was any doubt a 1-2 year stretch for deliberate head kicking would soon sort out the cowards.
Terry Kidd said | February 19th 2008 @ 12:10pm | Report comment
Rob, I agree entirely and good point about the rule change …. I don’t know if there was one, or if it was just referee interpretation directions by the IRB. There are a few refs among the Roar subscribers …. could they let us know?
spiro zavos said | February 19th 2008 @ 12:17pm | Report comment
Like Andrew Logan I am sad that the old rucking game has gone. A quick ruck, the pack going in tight together with their feet whirring like blades and spitting out anyone stupid enough to lie on the ball was a thing of beauty, and efficiency. This type of ruck evolved from the law that said the ball could only be played after a tackle if it had been played with the foot. Rugby league, curiously enough, retains this law as a sort of fossil from the days when league players played union before creating their own code of laws.
When the foot-first law after a tackle was abolished, the point of the ruck was also abolished. Rugby became a game that was played, or supposed to be played, on its feet with mauls supplanting rucks.
There is no way back to the old rucking laws, unfortunately. And there is still some way to clarifying what happens at the tackle so that a fair contest for possession between the defenders and attackers can take place.
As for the impact of the ELVs. I believe that Bryan Habana et all who see the dreaded ‘rugby league’ approach as a consequence from them are sadly deluded. Scrumming sides have the opportunity to have far more scrum, with their feeds, than in the past, if they want to. Teams with good opportunistic lineouts can kick to touch and put pressure on the opposition throw. The ball is in play longer than in the past, which must be a good thing.
Finally, can any one of the ELVs sceptics point to flaws in the brilliant way the Crusaders used the ELVs as evidence that the true nature of rugby - the continual contest for possession, set piece efficiency, fierce tackling, and ensemble play with many phases - was in any way compromised?
Andrew Logan said | February 19th 2008 @ 12:55pm | Report comment
Spiro, I agree with your comments overall, however regarding your comment that “Scrumming sides have the opportunity to have far more scrums, with their feeds, than in the past, if they want to.” and “Teams with good opportunistic lineouts can kick to touch and put pressure on the opposition throw.”. I’m not sure that this tells the full story.
I believe it might be more accurate to say… “Scrumming sides have the opportunity to have far more scrums, with their feeds, than in the past, if they want to - as long as they are prepared to risk taking a heavier, scrummaging pack onto the field in the first place, against what is likely to be a mobile, running opposition”.
Also more accurate…”Teams with good opportunistic lineouts can kick to touch and put pressure on the opposition throw - assuming of course that they get a long-arm penalty. If they are awarded a free kick, then they cannot kick out on the full, so opting for the lineout is unlikely”.
You are right in saying that teams have these options, however I still believe that the fierce, physical combative nature of the scrum will be devalued because the players must be lighter and faster to compete in other areas of the game. It is a little like boxing….the skills, rules and techniques are all the same across divisions, but there is nothing like the thrill and massive impact of a true heavyweight bout, when compared to the featherweights.
jock said | February 19th 2008 @ 1:17pm | Report comment
The aimless kicking seems to come from the teams that are afraid to use the ball, some may say lack the skill to use the ball , It is with some doubt in the SH players skills that we should look at the Northern v Southern games from the weekend , where a Bath team prepared to try 14 phases in their own 22mtr to retain possession and gain ground , or as earlier in the game wasps with 19 phases of play , it is possible that Queensland may have come close but with the aimless kicking, the poor handling skills, the dropped balls, and weather there were no other games that even remotley tried - The aimless kicking seems to have come from teams that either lack the skill to run with the ball and retain possession or are running with a poor game plan, not yet in full sinc with the new laws
What happened to wet weather rugby - grind it out with a few rucks and a maul or two and the odd well placed kick
what is happening to play what you see in front of you - retaining possession
The old adage of Go forward , retain possession, apply pressure, and continuity , was not well used over the weekend
all in all a somewhat dissapointing weekend of rugby FROM THE WELL PAID PROFESSIONALS OF THE GAME.
stillmissit said | February 19th 2008 @ 1:24pm | Report comment
If I remember the rucking law changed at about the same time there were a lot of players suffering neck injuries and there was a general push to make the game safer for younger players. I think it got a bad rap.
My impression of rucking was that it was a good thing and I can’t remember any of my teamates or myself getting badly injured at a ruck through rucking for the ball. Most injuries at ruck was due to putting your head where there wasnt a gap for it or getting twisted in a ruck collapse. If there was a ‘head kicker’ around they became known far and wide and sorted out by some of the hard men of the game.
Rucking would stop the very annoying slowing down of the ball in the 22 and clean up the ruck in one foul law change.
Ref’s who don’t march players for slowing the ball down are doing the players and supporters no good. I would make it a red card offence for repeated offenders.
David Glesson said | February 19th 2008 @ 1:29pm | Report comment
Spiro, I read keenly your history of the Bledisloe book that addressed how Rugby League got its foothold in the QLD/NSW market by continuing during the Great War unlike rugby that rightly had a sabbatical. This should be highlighted publicly during their centenary year.
Scuub said | February 19th 2008 @ 1:33pm | Report comment
Hang on, regarding the scrum, since when was rugby about 195cm, 130kg monster props like Carl Hayman and Andrew Sheridan?
I thought the fluency and helter skelter nature of the first weekend of professional ELV experimentation seemed a lot like the older (pre 90’s) version of the game.
These changes will reverse the recent trends of only giants playing Rugby at the highest level. Comparing the lumbering balls of muscle in the current game to the slim pre professional versions shows just how different the game has become.
The amount of scrums has not changed in any of the previous trials, so props are going to remain just as vital as before, all that will happen is they will spend less time on the benchpress and more time on the treadmill.
Not all teams (if any) have a proper grasp of these new laws just yet. The Crusaders appeared to be the most advanced, in terms of adapted strategies, although the old strengths of a rugby side are still just as vital.
I found the use of Richie McCaw as a primary lineout target very interesting. This adds to my only real fear of the ELV’s in that the truely tall men will become less important, as the number of lineouts diminish. But then, as Sheek has stated, you can still kick for touch from a free kick, but you just won’t get the throw in.
As everyone else has said, it will take a few weeks for most teams to figure out how best to play under the ELV’s. But the game will certainly not transfor into touch rugby. Just ask the Hurricanes about what happens when you try that tactic, even with an amazingly talented squad.
I certainly am looking forward to watching the second round of S14 as much as the first. At this stage Deans’ Crusaders appear to be the benchmark for what can be achieved under the ELV’s. Their tussle with the league fearing Bulls will be a great litmus test for the ELV experiment.
Terry Kidd said | February 19th 2008 @ 1:45pm | Report comment
I agree Scuub. Going back a few years Steve Finnane and Topo were not 130kg monsters but both were wonderful props.
David Glesson said | February 19th 2008 @ 1:52pm | Report comment
Spiro, i noted your article on Rugby Heaven on Kurtley Beale. I don’t know how he could be used at the international level at this juncture without learning how to tackle properly.
Sam Taulelei said | February 19th 2008 @ 1:56pm | Report comment
Another change introduced to improve rugby’s continuity and unintentionally helped contribute to the demise of the traditional ruck was the “use it or lose it” philosophy. Previously the team moving forward last at the ruck or maul won the feed to the scrum. Forwards had to ruck en masse to ensure they either won quick ball or the scrum feed and there was less congestion in the backline and therefore more space and time for the backs to attack. There isn’t any incentive to send all your forwards into the breakdown so instead we have the formation of the straight defensive lines either side of the breakdown a la rugby league.
The counterruck, reintroduced by the All Blacks, is a small homage to the game of yore when forwards strove to blow the opposition off the ball rather than meekly resting on players preparing to make another tackle in close.
Long are the memories growing up in NZ watching forwards performing sweeping rucks up and down the field. The ruck was the signature trait of NZ rugby - our climate and types of players meant we were better at it than anyone else. I remember every overseas tour to the UK being dogged by press controversy over NZ style rucking, the nadir being the tour to England and Scotland in 1993 when they held a farcical summit between the RFU and NZRU to discuss outlawing the ruck for the remainder of the tour after a controversial incident involving Jamie Joesph.
Guess the lawmakers finally got their wish in the end. As you said Andrew, RIP the ruck.
Andrew Logan said | February 19th 2008 @ 1:57pm | Report comment
Scuub/Terry Kidd…..that’s an interesting point. I’ll take that on board.
counterruck said | February 19th 2008 @ 2:24pm | Report comment
rob,
Rule 16.3 (f) states:
A player rucking for the ball must not ruck players on the ground. A player rucking for the ball tries to step over players on the ground and must not intentionally step on them. A player rucking must do so near the ball.
Penalty: Penalty Kick for dangerous play
http://www.irb.com/mm/Document/LawsRegs/0/070110LGLAW16red_712.pdf
Chas said | February 19th 2008 @ 2:54pm | Report comment
Dave Glesson;
Thanks for your comments. What is Rugby Lite?
Glenn Condell said | February 19th 2008 @ 2:57pm | Report comment
‘David Glesson said | Today
Spiro, i noted your article on Rugby Heaven on Kurtley Beale. I don’t know how he could be used at the international level at this juncture without learning how to tackle properly.’
Yes I read that too and thought ‘I hope Spiro hasn’t put the mockers on Kurtley as he did poor old Manny Edmonds’. Still I guess it wasn’t Spiro’s fault Manny couldn’t tackle and that Kurtley can’t either. It’s true all great teams have great five eighths but great five eighths can all tackle (with ther possible exception of Barry John) Ella could, Larkham could, Dan the man can. Until Kurtley can nail his man regularly he won’t be in the same league. Speaking of which, perhaps a few years as a mungo would have rounded him off nicely. Too late now.
stillmissit said | February 19th 2008 @ 3:06pm | Report comment
Glenn Condell
Not too late for Kurtley, I reckon he’ll be gone in the next 2 years. As an ex league player when young, he must know the value of a tackle, he just chooses to avoid some of them where he can’t wrestle them to the ground.
Great talent but he really looks like a leaguey in their first year in rugby. I guess he must have played rugby like a league player at St Joesph’s and was a star. Different game and different skills in S14 and Internationals.
stillmissit said | February 19th 2008 @ 3:14pm | Report comment
counterruck
Therefore the problem with the death of rucking is not a player issue, or a lawmaker issue but a referee issue. If you don’t penalise them for laying there the ruck is dead.
A couple of penalty tries would also change a few things in terms of laying on the ball 5m from the try line.
Ben C said | February 19th 2008 @ 3:51pm | Report comment
Stillmissit
I agree. I dislike endless penalties but players cynically lying on the ball or using hands in the ruck to kill an attacking drive because 3 points is cheaper than 7 points really annoy me. It might be a bit difficult to justify a penalty try in most cases but I would have thought that throwing around a yellow card or two for cynical play (and reds if it persists) would get the message through.
My only concern about the ELV’s is whether referrees will be willing to go for the yellow card for cynical infringements when smothering the ball is a free kick rather than a penalty. Psychologically there may be a reluctance to bin someone on a short-arm penalty. I hope not.
David Glesson said | February 19th 2008 @ 4:33pm | Report comment
Chas, Rugby Lite is an artificial and stripped back version of rugby better known as Rugby League
I actually dont have a problem with RL the game, however i do have a problem with its incorrigble culture from the players, coaches, admin and last but not least, its fans.
Glenn, i suspect that one of Beale, Barnes and Cooper will be playing the Lite code within a year or two.
Darryl said | February 19th 2008 @ 6:11pm | Report comment
I’m glad rucking is no longer popular. I think it’s a gutless act to attack a person lying on the ground with studded boots who clearly have no way of defending themselves. I put rucking in the same category as a shoulder charge in league. No courage is involved in either and I hope both codes remove them completely.
onside said | February 19th 2008 @ 6:23pm | Report comment
stillmissit
Not a word about Beales tackling shortcomings in last seasons ARC
He would not have needed to tackle at school (within reason), too big and too fast.
I reckon the ARU need to take a firmer stance in negotiations, even more so with a potential star being groomed for
a possible pivotal role in the Wallabies .The ARU need a long term commitment . Either one year ,with the option of
a further three, or a straight four years (untill next RWC). Two years is ‘no mans land’.'The ARU should have said
‘one year, and then if you want to play League fair enough’.It then would give the ARU a little more time to groom
another player.The Wallabies need long term commitments from young players being given an apprenticeship. If
they will not do it, then get rid of them ASAP. Whats to loose. Its this simple,”are you in for the long haul or not”
If not,”here’s your headgear ,what’s yoiur hurry”
stillmissit said | February 19th 2008 @ 8:33pm | Report comment
Onside
Yeah I watched a lot of ARC and felt his tackling was a bit of a throw but it worked. Last Saturday with the big boys I think he took a second option.
What a sensible suggestion a 2 year contract, its so simple I havent heard it mentioned here or on Rugby Heaven. We need to have a couple of top quality options at 10 at least a year before the next world cup and if the guys dont want to commit to that 3 years out then we need to be looking elsewhere. I agree a 2 year contract is stupid.
Beale just worries me. I heard some bad tales about him during the ARC last year and I think he will revert to type and get on the piss and biff with his mates in league. Still, he is very young and maybe an old head will grow where a babies brain lives at the moment.
He also knows that his value will grow if he learns how to tackle and makes it to the Wallabies. This is another tricky situation for Robbie Deans to tackle.
Darryl
I guess you havent been there or, if you did it was from the backs and not from the forwards. I have never spoken to a forward who played with rucking who felt it was dangerous or gutless, you were sometimes handing it out and other times taking it. Strangely enough you never felt it on the field only as Sam T said in the shower afterwards. It was always your choice to be there and not an unprotected white feather waver as you suggest. There was also a sub rule that if a back wanted to get out you let them go if they chose to hang onto the ball they were fair game.
Dangerous is a grapple tackle in league or dumping a player on his head.
Micko said | February 19th 2008 @ 8:46pm | Report comment
Darry, as a Kiwi who grew up as a forward and with rucking, if you were on the ball, it was your fault. If the conditions were wet and players couldn’t clear due to this, players invariably didn’t ruck. I was never rucked when I wasn’t guilty and was never rucked in the head. The easiest and only defence was to get off the ball “in a timely manner”. Usually it was when the players would warn you that you were about to get it, either verbally or with a boot resting on your back as a 1 second warning. If you were trapped, you’d either be okay, or the person lying on you would get removed first. If you didn’t get off, you were intentionally trying to slow the ball down. Simple. Everyone knew the rules. It’s not difficult. It was fun.
Michael C said | February 19th 2008 @ 9:36pm | Report comment
I never really understood the Rugby Ruck - having grown up with Aust Footy ‘ruck’.
Having read this, I now think I understand……it……and why it really did look ridiculous to me, because, it was.
but - reading of those who have been there and thought it to be fun - good luck to you, that’s all I can say.
Ian Noble said | February 19th 2008 @ 10:39pm | Report comment
Sam T
The Joseph incident was pre professional era in the NH and as it was an obvious case of somebody rucking a head as against the ball. The game has moved on but in those days it was considered ungentlemanly. Nowadays it would be at least a yellow card offence.
As we all know the scrum in the NH is considered an intregal part of the game and the ferocity of the challenge at the breakdown is an exciting element of the game. Counter rucking is a particular art form but the forwards have to be careful with the use of the boot. It was interesting hearing Peter Hewat’s take on the game on the NH as featured on a Tah radio podcast where he noted in particular the ferocity of the NH game at the breakdown compared to S14.
In the NH many are concerned that the introduction of the ELV’s will lessen the importance of the scrum and it is seen as as a SH plot to dilute this very important part of the NH game.
Ian Noble said | February 19th 2008 @ 11:11pm | Report comment
Andrew and Spiro
A take on the news laws by Mike Cleary of the Telegraph seems to sum up a NH take on the ELV’s
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml?xml=/sport/2008/02/19/srtalk119.xml
Darryl said | February 20th 2008 @ 7:10am | Report comment
Regardless of whether the person lying on the ground should be there or not, the fact that someone can feel it is ethically okay to attack a person with boots on the ground is a cowardly stain on the game.
I’v been rucked in the head when I thought I had no chance of getting out from under the ruck. If a stray stud struck me in the eye, I’d be screwed. If an over enthusiastic rucker kicked me in the temple, I could easily not be here. I know rucking on the head is not on, but you can’t tell me it won’t happen regularly if everybody took the cowards option.
The game is great wiithout rucking, why give a gutless player another option.
Terry Kidd said | February 20th 2008 @ 7:19am | Report comment
Gee Daryl, that is a hard view.
Yes, there was the occasional mongrel who rucked a head but they got sorted out real quickly, and often by their own team mates, to the point where contact to the head from rucking was definitely a rare exception …. at least in my experience. Call it the law of natural selection if you will but it was an example of self regulation that actually worked, refs saw it worked and they left it alone.
Very rarely was I caught at the bottom of a ruck with no way out. Invariably, if you were trying to get out then you were allowed out. If you made no attempt, you were warned, and then you were rucked.
Yes, the game was hard but there were ‘rules’ …… remember the old adage? Rugby Union - a game for thugs played by gentlemen.
I honestly believe that rucking was less dangerous than it is to pack into a scrum with the ‘hit’ that is allowed at engagement these days. I also honestky believe that rucking allowed far quicker ball and much more clean ball more consistently than we ever see these days.
I’m all for it, bring it back !!!!!
Darryl said | February 20th 2008 @ 9:55am | Report comment
Yeah fair enough - let’s bring back eye gauging as well.
Nothing is going to be more appealing to parents of potential rugby payers then seeing a bit of boot on back action. In modern times there is no such thing as a thugs game played by gentlemen. It’s either a mans game played in a spirit where every player attacking or defending has an opportunity for a contest or it’s a game for cowardly thugs that will be lost to other codes.
How are you going to justify it to yourself or your wife when another kid kicks the crap out of your kid when they are on the ground defenceless?
stillmissit said | February 20th 2008 @ 10:31am | Report comment
Darryl
We all knew you’d revert to the Mum arguement and that is why it got the chop in the first place nothing to do with it being dangerous just the appearance of danger which the average mum always respond to no matter how much logic you try to apply.
Don’t get too emotional “Eye Gouging” I think you protest too much. The only time in 30 years I have seen an eye gouged in rugby was a tackle that was too high and dangerous. I sent him off (red card) for that and he got 6 weeks.
Players have complained a couple of times over the years about being grabbed in the mouth at the bottom of rucks and I am sure it happened along with biting but I havent seen anybody bleeding from these injuries. There might have been some eye gouging at the bottom of rucks but no player has complained to me about such an assault.
Mark said | February 20th 2008 @ 10:36am | Report comment
You guys are on drugs…….rucking belonged in an era with king hits & people getting stretchered off from mostly illegal acts ! As for it getting sorted out ‘in house’ if someone was a bit over eager, sometimes yes, but just as often they got away with it. As for the ‘battle scars….well take up dueling if you’re that stupid. The issue has been that the current enforcement of the laws has assisted teams who want to lie on the ball, there’s 3 options
1) Continue the way it is
2) Enforce or change the rules
3) Bring back rucking
I’ll vote for 2 & leave the rucking to those who don’t have the guts to take up boxing. Oh yeah, I am emotional as I know two people who had to give up rugby at schoolboy level after getting ‘tap danced on’.
Cheers
Mark
Terry Kidd said | February 20th 2008 @ 10:48am | Report comment
Thanks for that Mark, but I am not stupid ….. just expressing an opinion like you have just done …. the only difference is that I didn’t deride anyone else or question their intelligence.
Mark said | February 20th 2008 @ 10:56am | Report comment
Ok, I’ll re-phrase that - if you’re crazy enough to want scars take up skate baording ! Is that better ??
Sorry for deriding people (don’t be so precious girls) but you guys are supporting ILLEGAL tactics & saying how tough you were showing off you’re scars & that it should be bought back into the game. Get real lads, this is the sort of rubbish that has the Mum’s taking their kids to play soccer instead of rugby. If you can’t recognise that fact & see that it’s detrimental to the long term health of rugby then I’ll stick by my original s****d comment.
Cheers
Joshua Carmody said | February 20th 2008 @ 11:34am | Report comment
Mark
I absolutely agree with you - I’m glad someone else thinks this rucking debate has become a bit mindless, despite the fact that there’s a good number of commentators above who, apart from this debate, have something intelligent to say.
As I’ve said in previous blogs on this site, it’s the mums and dads who are the hidden force behind kids playing sport. I only say ‘hidden’ because they reality of their impact on playing numbers in the younger grades doesn’t seem to be recognised. Mums in particular will have the final word if they think their kids are likely to get harmed. To further the issue, young boys and teenagers are highly influenced by their idols, and they often aren’t physically developed enough to handle the battering and scarring.
Rucking can so easily be an excuse for cheap shots, with the result that players can be wounded and leave the field. This isn’t ‘tough’, this is absolutely cowardly. (I agree with Mark, if you want to wound someone, put yourself in the ring so that your opponent can hit back). It only reinforces the ugly side of ‘mob’ behaviour, rather than collective competitiveness and intelligence.
It is clear, however, that the demise of brutal rucking has encouraged spoiling play…the ruck needs to be heavily policed - is it possible an extra referee will help here?
Josh.
Mark said | February 20th 2008 @ 11:40am | Report comment
joshua,
Mark said | February 20th 2008 @ 11:43am | Report comment
Whoops, Joshua, how about next time I want to write something I send it to you & you can then present it without the emotion & insults !
Beautifully put. Unfortunately with what I see as thuggery in rugby (or any other sport) I get emotive as it’s often used to slow down or remove some of the oppositions better players by thouse that can’t keep up with them.
Cheers
Terry Kidd said | February 20th 2008 @ 11:58am | Report comment
G’day Joshua and Mark,
Please lets get this back in perspective. I , and no others on this site who have advocated rucking, have not advocated ‘intentionally wounding’ anyone. What rucking did was punish someone who tried to slow or stop delivery of the ball, sustained rucking of a player was not allowed and referees did police this and did step in. Please remember that a player being rucked was generally the exception and not the rule, most players who made a tackle were immediately trying to regain their feet so that they could contest the ball and gain possession. Lying on, or over the ball, to slow it was generally a cynical act when their defence was in trouble.
Yes, I am mindful of what is needed to get kids into the game these days, and rucking is very unlikely ever to return. I think that all any of us were trying to say was that in past times rucking had a purpose and was controlled but that its removal has had an unintended detrimental effect by slowing ball, causing a proliferation of penalties, allowing defences to become too dominant, closing the game up ….. and the ELVs are the next measure to try and open the game up again.
I wonder what unintended effect the ELVs might have?
Please guys, this was discussion …. not a mindless exercise designed to reintroduce rucking. Also please note that I have made no attempt to criticize other opinions or the people who made them. Discussion doesn’t need to get personal.
Mark said | February 20th 2008 @ 12:06pm | Report comment
But Terry, that’s what it was used for. Are you suggesting that if rucking was allowed that people would be gentleman & not ruck illegaly ??
El Capitan said | February 20th 2008 @ 12:18pm | Report comment
Mark,
How can rucking be slowing down the play? If the guy is stupid enough to try and slow down the play then he gets what he deserved. As for it being brutal, it was deemed in the time as a necessary part of the game. Would you call John Eales a dirty player of thug? He was playing when the rules allowed rucking, and I’m sure he did his fair share to clean the players out to get clean ball. Yes your going to get some twat who will go overboard (prime example look at the Western Force, does the whole team have a drinking problem, because some players can’t control themselves on the drink?) but they don’t count for the larger population.
And with the parents roles, well I knew what I signed up for when I started to play. I knew that I could be hurt, but choose to play on. My parents supported me in my desisions. Parents today protect their childen too much, and wrap them in cotton wool and they come out like that twat “Corey”.
And in any sports there are cheap shots, look at boxing (kidney punch), RL (shoulder charge), Soccer (tackle from behind at the knees), and darts (getting your opponent pissed). Name me one sport where there is no cheats.
Terry Kidd said | February 20th 2008 @ 12:28pm | Report comment
No. I, and no one else, has ever said it was never done illegally. What we did say was that someone who did ruck illegally was generally sorted out and that it was the exception not the rule. Just like every other facet of play, some players at times will commit illegal acts …. eg high tackles.
Both of you called for tighter policing of rucks. Referees have been doing that since rucking was outlawed and it has resulted in a proliferation of penalties and a slowing of the game.
Please remember the original thought of this post, the gist of which was that rucking achieved pretty much what we are now trying to achieve via the ELVs. There was no more to it than that.
I was a forward in years past. I rucked and was rucked. When I was rucked I deserved it. I have to make this clear though …. the vast majority of people I played with, and against, at all levels and in all locations had the ball as their objective in rucks, their objective was not to injure other players. When an opposing player was rucked the objective was to get them to move, not to injure them. If I wanted to hurt a player I always found that the best method was to drive my shoulder, in the act of a tackle, into their rib cage, and to continue to drive the tackle with my legs so that I smashed the player into the ground. That was far more satisfying than running my spriggs down someones back.
Enough, no offense guys but I’ve explained as much as I want and am moving on.
Andrew Logan said | February 20th 2008 @ 12:30pm | Report comment
Well, it is always nice to write something which engenders debate amongst passionate people, however I feel that perhaps the initial sentiment has been twisted somewhat.
My original point was that if the ruck had been left in place as it had been for decades, then many of the subsequent changes to rugby laws would not have been required. I do not condone violence or thuggery, but the ruck in its truest form was hardly this. In fact, in most cases, feet being actually used in the ruck were the exception rather than the rule because the very possibility encouraged potential ruckees to get the hell out of the way. As for people having to give up rugby permanently after a rucking? After 250+ games at various levels, I haven’t heard of such a thing happening. It seems extreme, and perhaps just proves that rugby is not for everyone, which is perfectly OK.
In any case, if we start changing the fabric of rugby to remove all possibilities for foul play, then there is barely a game left at the end. Opportunities for vicious, thuggish behaviour abound in the scrum, the maul and the tackle - the ruck is certainly not unique.
In my view, rugby made excessive compromises around the ruck to cater for an unspecified audience. Exactly who was offended by the occasional footage of a rugby player being rucked? Was there a focus group? Were surveys done? Did a mothers group band together and prevent their sons from playing until rucking was outlawed? It is a bit of a furphy in my view.
If it was an effort to cater for the female audience, rugby would do well to remember that very few ladies sit down and consume rugby in the same way men do. There are some, but not many. It is hardly an expanding market. If it was about attracting youth to the game, well, most young men who really wish to try rugby or league will end up trying it at some stage, regardless of their mothers wishes - in fact, many young men I know would play just because their mother asked them not to!
My point? Rugby shouldn’t be changing its underlying fabric to cater for a wider audience which may or may not exist. It should be investing effort in exposing the game in its true form to as many people as possible, so they can make the decision for themselves, especially mothers and their sons. It’s much harder than taking vague and hopeful stabs at law changes as was done before the 1999 World Cup, that’s for sure, but ultimately it is infinitely more sustainable and rewarding.
Just ask the AFL.
Mark said | February 20th 2008 @ 12:32pm | Report comment
El Capitan, please re-read my post “used to slow down or remove some of the oppositions better players by thouse (sp) that can’t keep up with them” -I didn’t say it slowed down the ball, but a well placed boot can slow down a player when they get back up. As for the rest of your points. What is your point ? Is it because you can punch in the groin in boxing, then foul play should be allowed in rugby ? You lost me dude.
As for protecting kids, it’s a fact of life these days that for a lot of people what Dad played isn’t always what the kids will play. I boxed & played rugby but I don’t know if my lad will ever be signed up to get punched in teh head in eitehr sport (living in Vic might have something to do with the rugby part though as all his mates are into AFL).
As for John Eales, I’ve never called him anything other than one of the best ever. Although, IF in his entire career he NEVER ONCE illegaly rucked someone who WASN’T impeding the ball then he probably deserves a sainthood, or at least a halo.
So do me the courtesy of not putting words in my mouth. I’ve simply pointed out that rucking was used FREQUENTLY in a dangerous & illegal fashion, & the lovely “in my day” nmemories tend to forget the people who got damaged.
Terry, if you think you can hurt someone more with as driving tackle than with a rucking then you don’t fully understand how much damage can be done with the boot.
Mark said | February 20th 2008 @ 12:34pm | Report comment
ASndrew,
Joshua Carmody said | February 20th 2008 @ 12:39pm | Report comment
Mark - oh, no, don’t ask me to edit anything…I’m as guilty as the next bloke in going off the handle on this site!
However, Terry I don’t remember insulting anyone this time mate!
Re; the ‘exception, not the rule’; this has only occurred through changing the rules and social attitudes about rucking. Not the other way round. Lowe would not have got away with his pathetic attack on Carrozza by today’s standards. Have South African and French behaviour in regard to gouging changed on its own? No. It needed to be treated with strict, judicious penance. I’m aware this seems to be tangential to the main theme, but the link is a clear one.
The changes to onfield behaviour had to occur via a ‘package’ of changes, including to the rucking area. Which mean’s that ‘professional spoilers’ have become a pestilence on the game. Notice in RL, however, the penalising of players dumping on the tackle to slow the game down, have sped the game up - people love the speed of RL and the quick decision making it now requires. It is arguable that the natural talent of RL players are allowed a lot more expression in today’s game.
Terry I like you am very interested in how the game will change under the ELV’s - I think we need to wait two years for a final judgement - one year to get comfortable, and the next to really hone and utilise them (apart from Cantebury!…and prospectively the Wallabies?…). Tiquiri made a great point recently opposing Habana’s ‘rugby league’ statement (how the hell would he know how RL feels?). And Tiquiri was right to point out that players like Habana will defintely benefit from the changes. We’ll see…I’m hopeful.
J.