I often hear the old boys going on about rucking and why it should be re-instated. As someone who played back when rucking was allowed, I can see both sides of the argument.
In New Zealand, the consensus seems to be, among the older generation at least, that rucking was a vital part of the game. I am interested to know if this opinion is shared elsewhere?
Personally, I am in favour of rucking. It would help sort out the mess that is the breakdown. We still call it a ruck, yet rucking is illegal?
I remember being on the bottom of rucks and I can assure you I was very motivated to roll out the way on my own before I received assistance from the oppositions’ sprigs.
The last thing anyone did on purpose was lying on the ball or lying in the way to slow the ball down, as happens all the time now. Rucks seldom became unplayable and hands were kept off from the ball.
When players were allowed to ruck, quick ball was more readily available to teams with skilled forwards.
On the other hand, I also remember taking a shower with stripes of missing skin down my back and chest when I wasn’t able to get clear in time. I remember seeing more then a few players get carried away with their feet.
The difference between a stomp and legal rucking is a fine line which, under the stress and adrenaline fueled excitement of an aggressive game like rugby, was often crossed.
Rucking looks horrific and barbaric to those unfamiliar with rugby. In a sport already seen as quite barbaric to most of the world’s population, rucking was just a bit too brutal for the marketing types to expand rugby’s audience.
But I would like to know if the constant chorus to bring back rucking comes from the older generation everywhere or just here in New Zealand?
Recommend this story.
- Explore:
- rucking rugby, Rugby Union
December 3rd 2009 @ 10:10am
Hoy said | December 3rd 2009 @ 10:10am | Report comment
I would say the Welsh halfback was doing stamping. We were always told that the difference was rucking had a backward motion to bring the ball to the back of the ruck, however stamping, as I think the Welsh 9 was doing, is in the forwad motion, and serves no other purpose but to shoe a bloke.
December 3rd 2009 @ 10:26am
mattamkII said | December 3rd 2009 @ 10:26am | Report comment
My lord this site is a rotation of the same handfull of topics over and over again….
ARC, Rucking, League Players, Robbie Deans…blah blah blah…
But, in answer to your question, full scale rucking should be part of our game for good.
December 3rd 2009 @ 1:49pm
IronAwe said | December 3rd 2009 @ 1:49pm | Report comment
I’m all for rucking. You should be able to move a player out of the way if he is in the wrong place. Everyone loved getting rucked when I was at school, no one ever complained, and no one was ever seriously injured by it either. Loved it when I saw it in the wales game, brought back good memories of better times.
December 3rd 2009 @ 2:05pm
Jock M said | December 3rd 2009 @ 2:05pm | Report comment
The ruck and a true contest must be brought back.
The tackled player must also release the ball on making contact with the ground and must not be allowed to play the ball on the ground(place or roll over and place).
The problem with the game now is that all advanage at the breakdown lies with the attacking side hence the lack of committment from the defence and a defensive wall forming in the backline.(made up of backs and uncommitted forwards).
Rucking is not all about the use of feet but about drive,committment and forward impetus.
Is there a chance that our great game may yet return to its former glory?
Will we once again hear the gutteral roar of the NZ crowd as the All Blacks drive into the ruck?
My hair stood up as I wrote that last sentence!
December 4th 2009 @ 7:07am
mitzter said | December 4th 2009 @ 7:07am | Report comment
Jock now the argument is that the advantage in the breakdown is to the defending side with the tackler allowed to come from any direction that teams are afraid to take the ball into a ruck for fear of losing it
December 3rd 2009 @ 4:00pm
JohnB said | December 3rd 2009 @ 4:00pm | Report comment
As another refugee from the 70s and 80s it’s hard not to be nostalgic for how things were then. I think there’s a lot to be said for rucking (as permitted I think by the wording of the current Laws, if not by their usual interpretation), and at the higher levels of the game there is enough scrutiny to be reasonably confident that stamping or rucking of the head wouldn’t go unpunished. Whether you can say that at levels below Super 14 is another matter.
As a slightly left field observation – if the ruck law was re-written or re-interpreted, it may be that the law relating to the boots you can wear would also be changed, so that players can no longer wear long metal or hard plastic tags. Mandating a soccer style moulded sole with multiple softer and shorter tags than those on rugby boots might be the compromise arrived at to assuage the injury reduction lobby – and realistically those considerations can’t be ignored.
December 3rd 2009 @ 4:11pm
gurudoright said | December 3rd 2009 @ 4:11pm | Report comment
I, as an ex-prop love to see the reintoduction of rucking. Although I was never one who felt comfortable doing it, I understand the need for it in the game. I find it hard to believe it will stop the few ruck warriors, players of the likes of McCaw, Burger and Waugh who will forgo personal pain for victory, it will stop those guys who have in the last few year hidden behind the new rules slowing down the play where the ref can’t see. Plus it will give back the piggys some pride after the game when they take their jersey off to display their ‘battle scars’
December 3rd 2009 @ 8:07pm
bennalong said | December 3rd 2009 @ 8:07pm | Report comment
Rugbyguy
Thanks for writing a article on a subject I’ve been promoting in comments all this season. I got few supporters and almost as many baggers but you’ve unearthed a whole swag in support (hey OJ)
My point is the dangers of rucking which led to its demise were exaggerated and could be controlled by pre game sprig checks and design considerations
But the act of “clearing out”, which may include diving full tilt into a player who is not bound, is obviously much more dangerous and contributes F-all to the game except for promoting bodies everywhere.
Games more than ever before, depend on the interpretations of the laws, especially at the breakdown where a call can usually be made either way.
Forgive me for stating the unpalatable obvious but this makes it possible for a ref to engineer a result by calling infringements in front of the posts. At present it’s easy …………..isn’t it?
Rucking gives a clearer off-side and “hindmost feet” rules which can be modified to create more space between backlines.
But it WAS rugby and the new model sucks. Before the next ELV’s or other change, let’s try going back to the old rules
December 3rd 2009 @ 10:21pm
JEFF said | December 3rd 2009 @ 10:21pm | Report comment
I have always thought there was more chance of injury from players clearing the opposition out from the present ‘ruck area’ than from a genuine ruck where rucking was allowed. However, in reality no major injury seems to occur from either, it is just that the ball stays locked in the ‘ruck’ for a much longer period nowadays. Players did not usually linger or hold on to the ball when rucking was allowed unless they wanted to be rucked out with the ball. If a player holds on to the ball then he is fair game. I would far rather see him scarred for a few weeks than receive a penalty for ‘dangerous play’. Any genuine thuggery is punished by the players if the ref misses it – yes bring back the ruck. The absence of rucking is without doubt the single biggest blight on the game today.
December 3rd 2009 @ 10:41pm
Ian Noble said | December 3rd 2009 @ 10:41pm | Report comment
There is increasing support in the UK for the return of rucking as a number of commentators including Brian Moore, Jeremy Guscott have all written recently in support. However there still is a perception that it is dangerous and if there was some way in which the over exuberance of racking someones head can be avoided then perhaps it will be more acceptable.
Anyway you might be interested in these thoughts from Brian Moore
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/6599168/Brian-Moore-IRB-must-act-to-safeguard-rugbys-future.html
December 3rd 2009 @ 11:31pm
Sam Taulelei said | December 3rd 2009 @ 11:31pm | Report comment
Like everyone else who has already commented on this piece we are all in favour of restoring rucking to our game. Together with the use it or lose it law change it has unintentionally changed the shape of rugby.
When rucking was in vogue, the feed to a scrum because the ball was unplayable at a ruck was awarded to the team last moving forward. Forwards would always be engaged so that even if they weren’t in possession they could force the scrum feed, you never saw forwards fanning out in defensive lines across the field and that provided less congestion and more space for the backs.
However I find it a touch ironic to read former players from the UK campaign for rucking to return as they were more often than not outspoken in the British press in their criticism of NZ rucking although it has to be said that some All Black players skirted dangerously close to the edge and crossed the line with their rucking technique.
Any back will tell you that the best ball to use in attack is won from a quick ruck as the defensive line isn’t properly set, you can see the ball emerging and time your run on to the ball. Halfbacks love it as the ball is sitting on the deck, after the forwards have driven over the ball and there are no opposition players close enough to interfere with your pass. It also enabled players to mete out natural justice when the opposition were determined to lie all over the ball and kill it. After copping a few sprigs on your back or hand you quickly learnt there would be physical consequences if you tried it again, as well as conceding points if the referee recognised your intent to stop the ball coming back.
The head was always considered sacrosanct when rucking and that should be an easy offence to be punished on and off the field by officials.
December 4th 2009 @ 3:20am
Ai Rui Sheng said | December 4th 2009 @ 3:20am | Report comment
I enjoy your wise comments and elegantly literate hand, but may I ask how many tries were scored in those days? Perhaps I should cushion my question with the insight that, except in Australia, you could kick out on the full.
December 4th 2009 @ 8:47am
Sam Taulelei said | December 4th 2009 @ 8:47am | Report comment
I’ll have to do some research to provide you with the info but as a quick reference point you can analyse the tryscoring stats of the All Blacks from 1987-1990.