Who supports the return of rucking?

One thing I will add, because this I do know - my sister in law is a rabid fan of the Blackness and the older of my two nephews is both fanatic in his enthusiasm for playing and lofty in his ambitions (like any good little Kiwi). Nonetheless she has specifically told me that, were they to reintroduce rucking, she would do whatever she had to to push him into another sport. Call it soft or whatever, but we now live in a world where kids aren't trusted to walk to school unattended and have to wear helmets if they want to ride a bike. The world has moved on, more's the pity.

Sam, It is not that I am against it, as I also remember how much more the game flowed. I more question the practicality and whether it would now have the effect everyone assumes. My recollections are based on a game that was entirely amateur and that is no longer the case. So my point on professionalism was that, with so much more on the line, professionals and professional teams would explore all possible means to absorb or circumvent the effect of rucking - it is their job. And other professionals would seek to make it effective again, proportionate to the importance of the match. I wouldn't argue that the pride shown by many amateurs was often disproportionate to the rewards by an outside estimation, but nor would I say that those things no longer form part of the professional make-up. Do you think Waugh wouldn't take whatever he had at the bottom of a ruck if it improved his chances of another jersey? And it wouldn't be just because it is a job... "But to use that as an argument to legislate against rucking as a form of protection against incurring serious harm and injury on the sporting fields is no different to legislating against drinking alcohol to prevent drunken disorderly behaviour in public and at home." - Hmmm, I would have said more like legislating against street drinking or driving while drunk. Or maybe scrumming if you don't have an appropriately trained front row. On the insurance premiums, the current premiums would reflect the insurance industry's perception of current risk. So I suppose it would depend how they viewed the increased potential for injury, the nature of those injuries and their consequent liability. No idea how they'll view it, but generally view them with as much trust and affection as bankers and tax men. But the enquiry about actual premiums was genuine curiosity - I do seem to remember reading somewhere that insurance premiums were a major consideration in what sports the schools offer, but I don't have any specific reference.

Whilst I'm in favour of bringing rucking back, I would not want to be the person responsible for its re-introduction. Can you imagine the first Saturday after the law change. The poor referees will be in an unenviable situation. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it can't be done but the management of its re-introduction will be critical to not only the player's safety but the ability to control what actually constitutes rucking as we who have seen it all before know it to be. I would also think it would be unwise to have it apply in under 19 law. Thoughts?

Andy Your response is multifaceted and it's clear from this and previous posts that you are not in favour of a return to rucking. Fair enough. "So the question would have to be, if amateurs took a slippering when playing for nothing of intrinsic value, what would professionals be prepared to take for their livelihood, various trophies, glory and wodges of cash? " I don't see the relevance of whether players from the professional age would react differently to being rucked because of the risk to their livelihood than players from the amateur era. An injury sustained from playing the game is going to affect you regardless of whether you're paid to play or not. As for amateurs playing for nothing of intrinsic value I would argue quite the opposite. Sure there were no tangible financial gains (apart from boot payments, ghost writing and under the table deals) or world cups but players from the amateur era had a keener sense of who and what they were playing for because they toured, played in test series and most significantly worked for a living and were more accessible to the public and had to manage themselves to find time to do extra training and conditioning. In fact I would argue that some "amateur players" showed more professionalism than some professional players today. " Everyone now, hand on their heart – everyone you have ever played with has always played hard but fair, never got carried away in the heat of the moment and done something silly or dangerous" What can I say,we are emotional creatures and at times we can and do let our passions and emotions get the better of us, especially when it comes to sport. But to use that as an argument to legislate against rucking as a form of protection against incurring serious harm and injury on the sporting fields is no different to legislating against drinking alcohol to prevent drunken disorderly behaviour in public and at home. Insurance premiums? I don't know what they would be at the moment, are you suggesting that they would increase if rucking returned to the game? I'd say that you would be no more at risk from serious injury at the bottom or a ruck than a collision while taking a high ball in the air, being assisted in a lineout and then dropped, a high or late tackle, being cleaned out in a ruck and a scrum collapse. There are always risks in a contact sport but I haven't seen any quantative data to link an increase in serious injuries caused by rucking than any other aspect of the game. Perhaps you've read or seen something?

So just to clarify - even with things as they were when rucking was allowed, everyone is or knows a guy who wore the stripes with pride. And today we have modern jerseys which may or not provide more protection than the old cotton numbers (although in a world with fabrics that can literally stop bullets, there would doubtless be all manner of technology to investigate) and boots that would perhaps reduce the chances of serious laceration and puncture (although tell it to this guy - http://www.odt.co.nz/sport/rugby/51692/rugby-club-coach-rejects-foul-play-factor-ruck-injury). So the question would have to be, if amateurs took a slippering when playing for nothing of intrinsic value, what would professionals be prepared to take for their livelihood, various trophies, glory and wodges of cash? Moreover, if technology or intestinal fortitude did enable the hard men to grit it out, would "accidents" really not happen? Every year there are still gouging incidents despite all contact being completely banned, so when boots could be used and would routinely be in close proximity to heads and jewels in the dark places...? And sure, the professional game is heavily monitored and all naughtiness might eventually be punished (probably after the match once the game is won), but what about down the local park? Everyone now, hand on their heart - everyone you have ever played with has always played hard but fair, never got carried away in the heat of the moment and done something silly or dangerous? As a totally unrelated aside, what are the rugby insurance premiums running at these days?

Rubbish - the actual wording is: "A player rucking for the ball must not intentionally 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." http://www.irblaws.com/downloads/EN/law_16_en.pdf

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.

Couldn't agree more - and like most of you I have been campaigning for the same thing since Feb 2008 http://www.theroar.com.au/2008/02/19/rip-rucking-%e2%80%94-and-rugby/ One key point about allowing rucking - if anything it will be safer these days because almost all players wear moulded sole boots, or screw ins with an 8-stud pattern. In the old days most boots were 6-stud screw ins, which meant that the studs were far apart and therefore inflicted greater damage. Also as far as I know, the 18mm sprig is no longer sold. There may be an argument that the tighter sublimate jerseys also offer less protection than the old heavy cotton, but on balance I think the boot issue removes a large portion of the chance for any serious laceration. Like many old loosies, I still carry a few scars from the boot, but they are all of the "puncture" variety, as opposed to the "scrape" . There is no chance of a "puncture" with modern boots, and if we're worried about a few grazes, we might as well all give it away. Rucking these days would be far safer than the old days when you would sit up on a Friday night before a local derby, fitting a brand new set of 18mm aluminium studs, in preparation for shock-and-awe tactics at the ruck the following day. (That said, I do pine for those days just a little!). Maintain the rage people.

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

Rucking the player is currently completely illegal in the current rule setup - 16.3(f): Players must not use their feet in a rucking motion with players on the ground.

Brilliant Sam Taulelei-you have a profound understanding of the game-please keep up the good work-we will get there.

Just noted Andre Watson on Boots n All supports the re-introduction of rucking. SA are apparently trying very hard to get it re-introduced. Properly controlled, it would certainly solve some of the breakdown issues.

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.

Never had the pleasure as I made a promise to my mother that I would never get tackled. I was famous as king of the hospital pass. Many here think that means I am a philanthropist.

I did a quick poll of our players, it took thirteen months as we have more than 2,000,000, and they wanted to know what a slipper was. When it was explained they thought it an excellent idea and that we could recruit more players from the police force and prison guards.

Considerations of "Health and Safety" now lead the law makers to fudge on any good ideas like encouraging rucking. Im surprised Rugby hasnt already been banned by The Womans Institute.

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.

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

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.