Can rugby return to real rucking?

By Nicholas Bishop / Expert

David Marques had just been kicked in the head by Maori prop Albie Pryor.

As he looked up incredulously at his assailant from the clinging mud with his senses still reeling, Marques knew instinctively how a gentleman rugby player should react.

He got up unsteadily, dusted himself down, and shook Pryor by the hand.

When Irish lock Bill Mulcahy asked him why he hadn’t punched Pryor back, Marques replied, “You wouldn’t understand Bill. I wanted to make him feel like a cad.”

It is doubtful whether his response had the desired effect.

The 1959 British and Irish Lions tour of New Zealand was not one for the faint-hearted. The tourists received ‘the order of the boot’ from the Kiwis, and the whole painful experience lasted four months.

With a few notable exceptions, the Lions’ forwards were like Marques, with too much of the gentlemanly spirit of Cambridge University and Harlequins about them.

The exceptions – who wanted to fight back, like Mulcahy and Pontypool’s Ray Prosser – were singled out for special punishment.

“We were done up front and we were done by the boot,” said ‘Pross’ afterwards.

“I had my head booted so far up my arse I didn’t know whether I was being kicked in the face or the backside.

“When I got back home, I made a silent pact with myself that no pack of forwards of which I was part would ever be stood over like that again. We would stick together and be the aggressors, the ones who did unto others before they did it unto us.”

Mulcahy found himself being ‘shoed’ out of a ruck a couple of minutes into the match against Wanganui, only to find the referee wagging a disapproving finger above him.

“Serves you bloody well right,” said the official, “you should get off the ball.”

‘The boot’ represented the most ruthless aspect of New Zealand’s play of that era. Their rucking technique had been honed and developed by legendary coach Victor ‘Young Vic’ Cavanaugh in the South Island. It was no accident the Lions’ heaviest defeat of the 1959 tour was against Otago, 26-8. Cavanaugh’s Otago had been at the forefront of innovation in that area of the game.

The Otago forwards hit contact points so low and hard that it “looked like they were leaning into a strong wind”, as one commentator of the time reported. The bodies of friend and foe alike were routinely churned out of a forest of legs like chaff from a combine harvester.

“The Otago forwards were superb,” Kiwi rugby journalist Terry McLean perfectly summarised it.

“They had vitality, they hunted as a pack, they were completely tireless. ‘Red’ Conway covered acres of countryside at incredible speed, and at one stage when he covered 20 yards at his highest speed to enter a ruck, the bones of every man jarred in sympathy.”

Quade Cooper and the Rebels copped it against the ‘Canes. (Photo by Bradley Kanaris/Getty Images)

It is a dim, but poignant echo of an unwanted past in the professional era. Rightly or wrongly, all of the ‘boot’ has gone out of the game. There are no more rucks. What we have instead is the dubious gift of cleanouts (offensively) and jackals (defensively).

The most curious aspect of the whole business is that the law predominantly remains the same as it always has been, and it is being broken at every single ruck:

15.1 – A ruck can take place only in the field of play.
15.2 – A ruck is formed when at least one player from each team are in contact, on their feet and over the ball which is on the ground.
15.3 – Players involved in all stages of the ruck must have their heads and shoulders no lower than their hips. Sanction: Free-kick.

We can also add Law 15.7: “A player must bind onto a teammate or an opposition player. The bind must precede or be simultaneous with contact with any other part of the body.”

At every single breakdown in the modern game, shoulders are lower routinely lower than hips on both sides, and there is indeed no way to effect the ‘jackal’ biomechanically without driving the shoulders closer to the ground. Furthermore, contests are often one-versus-one, with no binding at all.

Refereeing protocols may not be ignoring the obvious for very much longer. At a recent World Rugby welfare symposium in Paris, one of the main discussions orbited around ways to promote a greater contest at the ruck and commit more (lawfully bound) players to it.

Single, unbound, missile-like hits blindsiding a defender with his shoulders below the height of his hips and his hands on the ball, was a spotlight player-welfare situation.

The premature retirement of Wales captain Sam Warburton and the long-term neck injury suffered by David Pocock only amplify the sense that the day of the jackal may soon be done.

If last weekend’s game between the Hurricanes and the Rebels is any guide, some of the better defensive teams may already be ahead of the law-making curve in this respect.

Here are the raw contact turnover stats from the game.

Team Turnovers/penalties (ground) Turnovers/penalties (above ground) Total
Hurricanes 3/2 9/1 12/3
Rebels 0/0 1/0 1/0

There are two numbers that jump out immediately. On the one hand, 75 per cent of the Canes’ turnovers were not won by ground-hogging, but by choke tackles and ball-rips with defenders still upright and on their feet.

On the other, the complete absence of turnovers by Melbourne’s forwards is a major concern, especially considering that three oft-mentioned in Wallaby back-row despatches – Angus Cottrell, Luke Jones and Isi Naisarani – were all on the field together.

The solitary Rebels turnover was in fact won by Reece Hodge and Tom English in midfield.

English and Hodge pincered on Matt Proctor, with English ripping the ball out before the Canes midfielder hit the deck.

The main man on defence for the home side was New Zealand’s man-of-the-moment Ardie Savea, who bestrode the contact area like a colossus throughout the game. The No.7 won four turnovers in total, but only one of them occurred on the deck.

In the first example, Savea rips the ball out of the grip of Rebels’ tight-head Jermaine Ainsley, and a counter-attack down the right is triggered immediately. In the second, Angus Cottrell is the victim, with the Rebels poised to make a kill right on the Hurricane goal-line.

Ainsley was targeted for a second turnover by choke tackle:

The Rebels No.3 is unable to get a knee on the ground, which is the typical trigger for a referee to call ‘tackle’ and ask for release by the defender(s). The choke tackle is a clean contest in law where there is no grey area, and that simplifies matters a great deal for the defenders.

The jackal, on the other hand, inhabits a murky world, a ‘dirty’ grey area in which he can be penalised for a myriad of offences subject to interpretation – not maintaining his feet, not showing clear release after the tackle, competing after the ref calls “ruck”, not entering through ‘the gate’ etc.

The Canes’ emphasis on high tackles is clearly a designed team tactic on defence, because it extends far beyond Ardie Savea alone. Here is Proctor, getting his own back as part of a choke on Dane Haylett-Petty.

The use of high hold-up tackles has many positive spin-offs for the defence. In the following example, it gives the line seven valuable seconds of breathing space to regroup for the next phase.

By the time Cottrell gets a knee down, the advantage has clearly shifted towards the defenders. There are three Rebels consumed at or near the ruck, against only one Hurricane.

Slow ball does not allow the attack to build rhythm and frequently causes mistimings on back-line moves, where more than one pass needs to be made.

Another legitimate Wallaby candidate, Naisarani, is held up for long enough for the backs move to break down on the following play.

It was not a good day for Wallabies supporters looking for evidence that Naisarani, Cottrell and Jones would put their hands up as ‘live’ candidates for the World Cup back-row. Here is Luke Jones, getting bouldered off the ball by a late Hurricane counter-ruck that Vic Cavanaugh would no doubt have applauded.

Fraser Armstrong, followed keenly by Asafo Aumua and Isaia Walker-Leawere, are all ‘leaning into the wind’ and summoning the spirit of the South Island to win turnover via the counter-ruck.

Summary

Rugby is no longer a game for ‘the boot’ at the ruck, for too many years it has been a game for ‘hands’ immediately after the tackle. Officials and the law-makers only pay lip service to the age-old rules which demand that players on both sides stay bound, on their feet and with their shoulders above the plane of their hips.

We no longer see that concerted death-ride over the tackled player, that brutal breeze over the ball. Now there is one player trying to grapple for the ball with his hands, and another trying to belt the living daylights out of him before he gets hold of it. It is a rather painful reinvention of rugby’s heritage, and in more than one sense.

There is hope in the fact that the tackle area was presented as a player welfare issue at the Paris symposium. That probably represents the death-knell for the jackal, at least in the longer term.

Sports opinion delivered daily 

   

For the time being – and up until the World Cup – players like David Pocock and Sam Cane and Sean O’Brien will have to tape themselves together and repair their broken bodies as best they can, for one last kamikaze run. It is indeed, a hard, hard way to make a living for a modern No.7.

Some of the more advanced defensive sides, like the Hurricanes, have found ways to create turnovers without undue emphasis on work on the deck. In that area of the game, Ardie Savea completely eclipsed the three Wallaby aspirants on the Rebels side. He won some ball on the floor, but he stole and slowed down far more above it.

Australia urgently needs to find more creative ways of forcing changes of possession and to find the right people to do it. If Michael Cheika is pinning all his hopes upon David Pocock’s recovery in time to fulfil the role of turnover king at the World Cup, that expectation is already looking like a bridge too far.

The Crowd Says:

2019-05-10T09:09:32+00:00

Oblonsky‘s Other Pun

Roar Guru


Interesting that he mentions nothing about any coaching nous from Cheika.

2019-05-10T09:02:00+00:00

Fin

Guest


Hi Nick, Drew Mitchell is still one of the true believers. Despite just four wins from 13 games in 2018, Mitchell believes coach Michael Cheika is the right man for the Wallabies top job. “The thing with Cheik is that he’s passionate and like has been mentioned before, he’s well off otherwise and he’s doing this because he’s passionate about it and I think that’s a really good position to be in,” he said. “Being involved with Cheik in 2015 and also with the Waratahs before that but more so that World Cup, I’ve never been in an environment like the one where he was able to rally everyone to believe so much in the common goal. “I went to bed the night before that All Blacks final genuinely believing I was going to be a world champion the next day. That’s why it hurt so much after. That was because of things he did in our preparation and the amount he was able to bring us all together to fight for that common goal.

2019-05-10T06:38:07+00:00

CUW

Roar Rookie


perhaps they dont want anyone else but Nigel to come up with the nice quotes. and dont want to drop the frogs - despite JP speaking fluent french this infatuation with new refs replacing the experienced is going to make a hell of an issue - i predict. look back in any sport / game - most of the time it is the team with most experience that wins. also it is the most experienced officials who can stand up in the pressure cooker of a world cup. imagine this - one of the frenchies or gardener for final !!!

AUTHOR

2019-05-10T06:22:58+00:00

Nicholas Bishop

Expert


Hard to understand why JP hasn't made the list - prob showed too much 'empathy' for the way the players want to play the game, and communicates too well! Good calls on Kubo and Carley too...

AUTHOR

2019-05-10T06:07:00+00:00

Nicholas Bishop

Expert


Big diff in how it felt too Muzz - at least I never felt any real spite or malice being rucked. You were just being told to get out of the road, but firmly :)

AUTHOR

2019-05-10T06:05:46+00:00

Nicholas Bishop

Expert


It's also about the need to collect more players in one spot and open up more attacking spaces. In order to attract defenders to a breakdown there has to be a real incentive to turn ball over (safely and without the threat of personal injury), Atm that incentive is not usually there.

AUTHOR

2019-05-10T06:03:19+00:00

Nicholas Bishop

Expert


Yes I talked to Finlay Calder about it once and he said that the Lions felt the Aussie pack were not at that stage equipped to handle an all-out firefight. So that's what they made it - and there were some tough characters in the Lions forwards, like 'Iron' Mike Teague and Wade Dooley and Dean Richards... But as you say it was a galvanizing influence for the WC that followed, and the Aussie pack of 1991 was a much tougher unit all-around...

AUTHOR

2019-05-10T06:00:02+00:00

Nicholas Bishop

Expert


Not enough English in all four of Arsenal, Liverpool, Chelsea and Spurs to make up one team H!

AUTHOR

2019-05-10T05:59:11+00:00

Nicholas Bishop

Expert


English sides seem to have a charmed life H - although I say that with a heavy dose of irony, given that there are hardly enough Englishmen in the combined ranks of Liverpool, Spurs, Arsenal and Chelsea to muster even one team, let alone four. Just money talking sadly.

AUTHOR

2019-05-10T05:57:21+00:00

Nicholas Bishop

Expert


Cheers Rob, and good to hear from you again! WR always pricks up its ears around player welfare issues, and I guess that would prob be the main reason for further changes. Cannot afford too many Sam Warburtons or Poeys disfiguring the image of the game by being injured for too long, or retiring early!

AUTHOR

2019-05-10T05:55:31+00:00

Nicholas Bishop

Expert


Thanks BB! Sadly the game has moved steadily away from the kind of rucking you describe, to the point where it's not even possible given the current reffing protocols. The main hope is that player welfare issues sideline the jackal, and the whole 'shoulders below hips' rule takes precedence.

AUTHOR

2019-05-10T05:53:36+00:00

Nicholas Bishop

Expert


What changed was the introduction of a one line defence, as in League. Defences are now reluctant to drop more than one or two players into what passes for a ruck now, and that first player bends down to use his hands. Simples!

2019-05-09T13:02:43+00:00

AndyS

Guest


I do, but they also don't seem able to pinpoint how and when the law was altered. It is what makes me wonder if I'm looking for a phantom. But something would have to be codified. So given we can't find what would be reinstated, we could try reconstructing it. Taking your wording then, we could change 15.15 from: "Players on the ground must attempt to move away from the ball and must not play the ball in the ruck or as it emerges." to "Players on the ground must not play the ball in the ruck or as it emerges. Players on their feet may remove players on the ground from the vicinity of the ball by rucking with a backward motion" Then add a new 15.16 "While rucking another player, no contact shall be made with the head. Sanction: ?????????" (what do we do if there is?) After that, which laws would we start to peel away to simplify things? I assume we would remove all the penalties associated with holding, handling, picking up with legs and falling on the ball - that is what rucking is intended to address. Would we need to add some provisions prohibiting protective clothing - technology has come a long way since cotton and all these new skins could negate the benefit a bit? Then we'd probably need some referee guidance, because consistency would definitely be important. Particularly initially, as none of the current crop would likely have experienced it from either side. So: - What would constitute the vicinity of the ball, or could we just say anywhere within the ruck? The latter would obviously be easier to adjudicate, but might make for some cheap shots. - Would ball bags, elbows, hands, knees, ankles, etc all be fair game? - Am I right in assuming the intent wouldn't be simply raking backwards with the heel (I think that is what they currently allow at the ball), but more toes down and studs out? - Would the rucking player have to be supporting his own weight, or could he be held up and use both feet as long as they were going backward? - What would constitute and how would the ref monitor sufficient "backward" to distinguish from stamping, trampling or stepping on the player (currently foul play and a penalty). Would it be easier not to make a distinction between them and remove those existing penalties within the confines of the ruck? - What action should the ref take if there has been head contact, but the foot can't be attributed to a particular player? This is likely to be particularly common in the amateur game, without the benefits of replays.

2019-05-09T10:40:20+00:00

Olly

Roar Rookie


You do realise that players such as Moore played within the rucking era?

2019-05-09T10:38:31+00:00

Olly

Roar Rookie


Rucking was part of the game at the start of the professional era. It does not need to be tested, just reinstated. Backward motion as before and not on the head. If a player wants to lay on the ball, then they will have the marks to show for it.

2019-05-09T10:08:08+00:00

AndyS

Guest


But that is just it, any such reintroduction would have to work in the modern game. That bell isn't going to get unrung so, if it only worked because there was nothing really on the line, what will the modern players, coaches, referees, citing commissions, judicial hearings, spectators, commentators and blogerati make of it now that there are millions of dollars and careers on the line? As you say, it is already bad enough when the laws are relatively specific on most things, but they'd hardly be improved by introducing something based entirely in a referee's interpretation. That said, as a stray thought...even if we can't test rucking, we could perhaps test that principle. Maybe an ELV could be to remove the detail associated with some aspect of the game and do it by 'feel'? A real test would be something with a safety aspect the way rucking would have, but that probably wouldn't fly. Maybe remove the details associated with ruck entry or offside and leave it up to the players to respect the intent?

2019-05-09T09:00:29+00:00

Olly

Roar Rookie


"Something that simple would seem to leave much to interpretation and wouldn’t be workable without detail"...do you watch the modern game of rugby with the detail laws? The game is an interpretation nightmare of complexity. Unfortunately, the old Laws was before the era of everything being on the web. Someone will have to dig it up from an old book shelf. The beauty of the old rucking laws was that slowing down of the ruck by lying on the ball was not an issue. It was self-regulated.

2019-05-09T07:52:49+00:00

AndyS

Guest


That would be the general intent obviously, but can you remember the actual wording? Something that simple would seem to leave much to interpretation and wouldn't be workable without detail...you could see weekly impersonations of Buck Shelford, if nothing else. Unfortunately past versions of the laws seem surprisingly elusive...was hoping maybe an old player or ref might have the detail that could be reviewed against current practice.

2019-05-09T07:03:36+00:00

Kirky

Roar Rookie


Still miss it: ~ How could those of us who played in those days under those rule, ever forget!, ~ Yep the fullback with 3 broken ribs would have to stay on as there was only three Reserves as they were called and those Reserves were only allowed to go on the paddock if the injured Player was certified as being unfit to play by a Doctor no less, ~ Rocking up to a game on crutches never let you off having to play, if you could move at all, you played! ~ Every game had an Ambulance Guy there with a Black wooden suitcase full of not much as he was the ''Zambuk'' very lightly trained as to how to bandage something or stick a Band Aid on somewhere! and he wasn't qualified to say if any injured player was seriously injured enough to stop him playing, so you had to wait for a Doctor to arrive if there wasn't one at the game! ~ Great days alright mate, gawd!! when you look at the game as to what it is now in comparison to ''back then'' there is no comparison! Leather boots, Leather ball that turned out like a piece of snot when picked up if it was wet, Jumped off the ground in Lineouts, and of course the subtle art of Mountaineering in rucks or mauls by someone with leather sprigs nailed into the sole of his boot and a nail sticking through and that guy was ''working all over your unfortunate to be there, body! ~ Tackling mattered not if you scragged him or anything like it as there was no rule as to how you should tackle, and if he got up after that ruck or maul and staggered around for a few minutes, he was deemed as OK to carry on!~ Great days played hard when today they say they play hard but at the end of the day it is today not much less a sanctified Lolly Scramble! Cheers.

2019-05-09T06:49:12+00:00

Olly

Roar Rookie


The old Laws allowed rucking in a backward motion and no contact with the head.

More Comments on The Roar

Read more at The Roar