The single biggest bete noire in the game of rugby as played today is the breakdown.
If you look at the laws governing the tackle and what happens just after it, there are no fewer than 54 clauses and subclauses for the referee to keep in mind.
His or her brain must be working at the speed of light in the assessment of legalities and illegalities during a snapshot of action that lasts for seven seconds or less. They may then be asked to repeat the same complex process of evaluation as many as 250 times in one game.
In July 2020 World Rugby issued new guidelines based on the recommendations of its specialist breakdown working group. They were aimed at reducing the chance of injury which occurs when a defender ‘jackals’ for the ball on the ground with his hands.
The jackalling process drops the defender’s head and neck well below hip height and makes it the first target area cleanout players see upon approach to the tackle area.
The difficulty of avoiding contact with head and neck was amply illustrated in the last game of the 2020 Tri Nations series in which one player from each side was yellow-carded for illegal contact to the head within the first half-hour of the match.
Chief among the laws World Rugby claimed it would reinforce were the following:
14. Tackle
Player responsibilities
5. Tacklers must:
a. Immediately release the ball and the ball-carrier after both players go to ground.
b. Immediately move away from the tackled player and from the ball or get up.
…
d. Allow the tackled player to release or play the ball.…
15. Ruck
During a ruck
11. Once a ruck has formed, no player may handle the ball unless they were able to get their hands on the ball before the ruck formed and stay on their feet.
Another oft-neglected rule in the ruck section of the law book that is just as relevant is 15.3: “Players involved in all stages of the ruck must have their heads and shoulders no lower than their hips.”
The new directives have in practice resolved the breakdown in favour of the defence. At the highest level of the game, a good defensive team will typically force a turnover on the deck within 12 phases.
The elephant in the room is the jackal. As long as a tackler, assist tackler or the first arriving player is permitted to fold over the ball and try to win it with his hands, it will determine everything else which happens in what now apologetically passes for a ruck.
The jackal’s shoulders are always lower than his hips, and that dictates the body height of the cleanout. Immediate release by either ball carrier or tackler is just wishful thinking. More often than not people on both sides go to ground and the ball is trapped in a grappling match in the centre of the ruck.
One of the most influential games in terms of the application of the new refereeing guidelines occurred between Bristol Bears and Wasps in the semi-final of the English Premiership only ten weeks ago.
Under Pat Lam’s stewardship, the Bears have become one of the most adventurous sides in the league. They like to keep ball in hand, they like to use width, and they enjoy running out of their own end.
Against Wasps they kicked the ball 11 times to 26 by Wasps, they made 104 more passes and 58 more runs than their opponents and set 34 more rucks. The stats show more clean breaks, more defenders beaten and more offloads by Bristol. But Wasps won the game 47 points to 24.
Why? Wasps fielded three top-drawer jackals in the starting back five forwards in the shape of Joe Launchbury, Thomas Young and Jack Willis. Willis was the league leader in takeaways with 43, more than twice the number of the next best poacher.
The following are the raw stats of Bristol’s time in possession of the ball.
| Total rucks | Six-plus phases | Ruck penalties awarded | Breakdown turnovers |
|---|---|---|---|
| 71 | 2 | 9 | 9 |
Bristol managed only two attacking sequences of more than six phases, and both of those ended in kicks. The balance of breakdown penalties was in favour of the defence (six to three), and Wasps turned the ball over via jackal once in every eight phases.
Let’s look at some typical snapshots which demonstrate why the July directives have failed. The referee is Matthew Carley, who is one of the best young officials in Europe:
This is Wasps’ second breakdown turnover of the game. The Bristol ball carrier is isolated as he runs the ball back from a kick, but there are already enough signals at the tackle to give the Wasps’ on-ballers encouragement that they will be in business:
The main issue is that the tackler (Wasps no.23) is never required to move away from the ball. That means the ball carrier cannot place it away from the two Wasps jackals (Launchbury and Young), and the Bears’ cleanout players cannot manoeuvre around him to make an effective impact.
Above all else, it is the body position of those two jackals that dictates the nature of the ‘ruck’ that ensues. They are bent double with shoulders well below hip height, so there is never a realistic prospect of arriving players staying on their feet in order to remove them. The danger of significant head or neck injury remains.
Matthew Carley only warned Wasps about hands in the ruck without penalising them.
Jack Willis goes in on the ball with his hands after the first attacking player has arrived, and that causes a four-second delay that is crucial for the next attacking phase.
In general Wasps defenders were not consistently required to release the ball carrier after a tackle had been made.
In neither instance does the tackler in the first example or the assist tackler in the second example ever release the ball carrier for long enough for a clear placement to be made.
This little acorn at the breakdown grew into a mighty oak for the Bristol attack as the game unfolded.
Wasps fullback Matteo Minozzi never releases the ball carrier during the tackle and he never allows him to definitely place the ball. Moreover, he is presenting his head and shoulders to a suitably enraged Bristol cleanout.
The ball spilled out of the back of the Bristol ruck and Wasps made a score out of their breakaway on the following play.
Something similar happened in the second half.
There is never any clear release of the ball carrier by the tackler (no.8 Brad Shields) who keeps his right hand in contact with the runner throughout.
The ball stays high in the ruck for too long and there is another crucial delay in release, which enables Wasps to wrap another forward around the ruck and set comfortably for the rush on the following phase. Their right wing, Zach Kibirige, ran away to score a cheap try after the Bears fumble.
The following short second-half sequence contains a number of elements which the law reinforcements strove to make impossible.
The tackler (Wasps no.5 Will Rowlands) never tries to roll away from the ball but gets up late and drives forward with what looks suspiciously like a trip on the halfback for good measure. That leaves easy pickings for Willis on the next play, with Young blocking the only cleanout path to the ball.
Let’s finish with a positive which brings all the negatives into sharper relief.
It is probably no coincidence that the man placing the ball is Steven Luatua, one of the most accurate presenters of the ball in the league. The placement is long and immediate and the aftermath provides a great snapshot of the direction the game must surely take in 2021.
The ball is already so deep in the ruck that the defender has to fall over in order to play it with his hands.
There has to be a new protocol in place in 2021. When the referee is satisfied a tackle has been completed, he should call “tackle”. At that point, all defenders in and around the ball must release and allow the ball-carrier to make an immediate, arm’s length presentation of the ball away from his or her body.
In the subsequent play, they may step across and pick the ball up if they have time, or stand above the ball to create a new offside line if they do not. That action will generate a counter-ruck as the cleanout support arrives.
Summary
In 2020 rugby was on its knees. The double blow of the worldwide COVID-19 crisis and a potential player lawsuit based on the impact of dementia after retirement have driven the sport close to the edge.
Rugby has to get back on its feet both literally and figuratively in 2021. At the heart of the law-making issue is the influence of the jackal at the breakdown. The jackal is the primary player around whom a ruck must currently be constructed, and as a result a modern ruck looks nothing like its forebears.
Jack Willis of Wasps. (Photo by David Rogers/Getty Images)
A defender who is using his hands as the ruck forms means that cleanout players will have to dip below hip height in order to be effective at removing him. More often than not they will make contact with his head or neck in order to do so. As ex-Wales skipper Sam Warburton once said, “Sometimes I’ve struggled to shampoo my head, it was hurting so bad”.
Now is the time to bite the bullet and go further than the law reinforcements in mid-2020. Instead of dancing around the jackal it is time to confront him, to get him playing with his feet rather than his hands and his head.
It is no time to bend over but instead to stand up for what is right for the future of the game.
Rugby Geek
Roar Rookie
Mirt, Apologies for the delay in response. The jackal is always about being refused access otherwise its turned over and played on. Will be more explicit next time.
Who
Roar Rookie
Hi Nick. I hope you've had an enjoyable and safe end and start to the years. :happy: I'm sorry, but I think the game you've picked is an example of a poorly reffed game. And a typically poorly reffed game at that. By "typically poorly," I mean it's typical of the type of refereeing often turned out by WR's current training regime and Game Management Guidelines. Most of those turnovers I'd have penalised the other way, simply because the supposed jackals were not supporting their own weight. With the lowering of the breakdown created by the lack of any requirement to maintain shoulders above hips, not charge the breakdown (the very charge that saw Bakkies Botha suspended when he dislocated Adam Jones' shoulder in 2009), and not collapse the ruck (a penalty that's never enforced, and a clear tactical goal in most coaching today), we've seen players regularly bridging on tackled players. If you've got an arm around the tackled player and a hand on the ball, I don't know how you can be described as a jackal. You're bound. To jackal, you need to be unbound. You can't have your head on them. The issue with the game is rarely laws - unless they're laws changed this century. More often than not, it's the order of enforcement, or lack of enforcement. If the requirement is that players support their own weight (not bridge, not bind to tackled players) and enter through the gate (clearly not a concern in a few of those turnovers), we'll see far fewer players with their heads that low, and far fewer of those scrappy turnovers and rucks. Because players will be much more decisive in when they attempt to jackal. It's also worth considering attacking decision making. The turnover on kick return? 30 years ago, any back who decided it was worth straightening into contact there would've copped it! And reality is that, even if the arriving players had played legally and accurately (rather than binding onto the tackled player - which is never actually legal - and then playing the ball whilst supporting themselves on him), they'd have stepped over the ball and turned it over anyway, as his support wasn't ever going to arrive in time to make a contest of that ruck. The fact the arriving defenders played illegally doesn't justify the decision the attacker made, and doesn't change that the most likely outcome from that play was a turnover or penalty. But we're so rarely given any sight of common sense in the way referees are coached. The perfect example being Harry Wilson last year. I can't remember the test, but he made a ball and all tackle and fell on the ball carrier. He was immediately pinned, the ref immediately calling, "Advantage!" The reality was he had no option to move, so he grabbed the ball and placed it back for the attacking team. He gave them quicker ball than they should've had - the ball was there as the halfback arrived. He was still penalized......
alex
Roar Pro
Good idea except lower the time lol, something reasonable not so long as to slow the game too much, rucks should be combative it's a contact sport after all lol and injuries happen it comes part and parcel
gazza
Roar Rookie
Great article but I wondered whether it was a good as a training aid for Wasp like play. The issue is the neck and everytime I see a cleanout player(s) rush in with force I fear the worst for the jackal's head. Most times the players clearing out just dive in with their shoulders, a shoulder charge on the jackal. The rules ought to be that the jackal must first be contacted by the arms of the players attempting to remove him.
Paddy
Guest
The Wallabies were very good when they had Pocock at 7. They are Absolutely tragic now with Hooper who doesn`t bother or cannot compete at the breakdown.
Olly
Roar Rookie
Interesting read. I said it before, shoulders must be above or at least no lower then hip height. This will sort the clean out and will remove this superman body position reaching out for the ball. Someone in the past suggested that the player needs to be over top of the ball before they can pick it up at the breakdown. I like this idea as good jackles can get over the ball and pick it up while keeping shoulders above hip height. Award real skill not this lazy superman, bridging rubbish slowing the modern game down.
jeznez
Roar Guru
A halfback obviously snuck into the Laws Meeting and put it in there.
Daffyd
Roar Rookie
@ In brief, There was a time if you were not on your feet, you were not in the game and pushing the ball back was considered playing the ball with your hands. Then, you left the ball alone, and got away from it, as a ruck would have formed, (unless you were a winger who’d made a decent break,) so pushing the ball was “hands in the ruck” or you were “caught in the ruck”, which was the last place you wanted to be! you covered your head and prepared to get rucked and risked getting penalised. I still think the tackled player has to get out of the ruck – as the law states – “move away from the ball”, is not the equivalent of move the ball away.
soapit
Roar Guru
huge bugbear of mine. rewards poor ruck play and punishes good rucking by penalising the only realistic option after good play. still see it every few matches now. no idea what problem outlawing it was supposed to solve.
soapit
Roar Guru
sounds like at the least some wider dissemination of the protocol could be done for the benefit of the lazy fan (like me).
Nicholas Bishop
Expert
The laws provide the ability for the first arriving player to pick up the ball. I say preserve that. You say that act or the position adopted during that act is the cause of problems. No. I stated that the first arriving player should be free to pick up the ball after it had been clearly released by the ball-carrier (provided he do so immediately). That is a different scenario. The causation is not the position of the first arriving player but the illegal tactics of the ball carrying team attempting to prevent his ability to cleanly collect the ball. This is a huge presumption, and far too biased toward the defensive side for my liking. Prob the source of our disagreement.
DPM
Guest
With respect, I don’t believe I have misunderstood. The laws provide the ability for the first arriving player to pick up the ball. I say preserve that. You say that act or the position adopted during that act is the cause of problems. I disagree and propose to you it is the failure to officiate all of the ball release, first arriving player and clean out in accordance with the laws that causes the problems. The causation is not the position of the first arriving player but the illegal tactics of the ball carrying team attempting to prevent his ability to cleanly collect the ball. If they beat him there (which is the case most of the time) no problem at all. When they get there second tackled players are shielding the ball, or holding on rather than releasing as they should. This causes the necessity for first arriver to “jackal”. The rest flows on from there. The predominant problems revolve around these illegal tactics designed to prevent success of the first arriver being allowed to proliferate. On the issue of the clean out I agree he does have to do something - when he arrives second (he has already lost the right to contest for possession) he must decide if a legal tackle can occur or not. If he cannot he must wait till the jackler stands with ball and then tackle him. Would this not be preferred to current dangerous and illegal practices? Would this not represent the same basic tenet of the game - tacklers have a responsibility to safely tackle opposing players. I don’t understand why you say he must do something - you appear to suggest he must enter and hit/clean out - why? Your reference to a poor mans game is lost on me - I don’t understand what it is you are proposing with this comment. You appear to propose that the jackal already has dominance in the game. I would challenge that suggestion as that is not my view of the game in general but as indicated hard statistics are required to resolve that notwithstanding the high incidence in this particular game example cited. I propose my views are based upon the laws as written and are not an attempt to create some other version of the game. I agree with you, officiate in accordance with the rules and in particular the release of the ball by tackled player. In addition I note the propensity of players being off their feet in a ruck has developed and worsened as a consequence of the tactic to maintain low body height in contact coaches into players around the world. This standard trait in itself causes rucks to lower to the point that players are almost unable to retain their feet let alone maintain their heads above their hips. Even without a jackler involved the ruck is a shambles due to this and the other illegal tactics I have refereed to. I concur with you on many points that defenders are not releasing, tackled players are not placing ball well etc. Many of your points are spot on. I just can’t agree however the predominant causation rests with the action of the jackal and hence the first arriving player should be banned from collecting possession. Officiate the elements of the breakdown in accordance with the laws as written and much of the issues dissipate. I have little confidence this is likely to occur anytime soon as the current illegal practices have become accepted normality.
Nicholas Bishop
Expert
NB Your position, protocol and hence conclusion appear predicated on basis that the clean out has rights to hit the jackler as he sees fit and that the act of jackling is detrimental to the game. Unfortunately this misunderstanding at the start derails everything you say after it. In the article I point out why the body-shape of the jackal dictates everything that happens in the ‘ruck’ thereafter. Nowhere do I suggest that the cleanout “has rights to hit the jackler as he sees fit” – that is part of the safety issue after all. However, the cleanout does have to ‘do’ something when it arrives, not simply wait and accept the defender has gotten there first! What you are suggesting is a game in which the jackal will have increased dominance and purpose, because the cleanout can only use a ‘roll’ technique to remove him – and that is very much a failure flag for the attack. This is essentially, a poor man’s version of the game we already have. What’s wrong with applying the laws (especially about release of the ball) as they are written down, rather than creating another version of the game which is even further away from them?
Nicholas Bishop
Expert
If he's in possession he has to do something with it! :stoked:
Nicholas Bishop
Expert
The assist tackler should also be required to release if he has hands on the ball-carrier as he goes to ground CUW - as in the fourth clip in the 79th minute. Even so, the law requires that the ball-carrier has the right to place the ball before the contest begins...
DPM
Guest
NB Your position, protocol and hence conclusion appear predicated on basis that the clean out has rights to hit the jackler as he sees fit and that the act of jackling is detrimental to the game. I submit you are building arguments to suit your predication. One based around supposed undesirable game outcomes the other about safety. On safety - much of the discussion fails to address the responsibility of the clean out to do so safely - in fact it appears to accept these players can charge the contest as they see fit. This disregards the laws on high contact - if the defender has arrived first the clean out is not allowed to simply hit him if he cannot do so legally. If the jackler is set low the clean out must wait - safety restored. So long as adjudicated that way - it is the failure to address illegal clean out that has caused the mess and safety problem at the breakdown rather than the act of the jackle. Players off feet, bridging over tackled players with hands on ground, aeroplaning into rucks, lying over tackled player etc. If the attacking team don’t want to loose possession to a jackler then get to the tackled player faster (first). It should not be that losing that race them equals the ability to dangerously contact the player that won the race for possession. Such approach would of course likely give rise to greater game impact of jackler. Is that such a bad thing? Statistically are instances of such turnovers so high that it detriments them game? I understand your position is it does. I’m not convinced statistics support this. Anecdotally incidence of turnovers are not excessive. It would be interesting see statistics on this front over time. Your proposition is they are to the extent that teams must kick possession away rather than risk turnover. At present it is hard to get a turnover (legally performed) - under your proposed changes the breakdown becomes “looser” and more open to counter ruck - a position that will likely retain if not make even more case for the prevalence of kicking away. I believe you have defeated your own argument on this aspect. I submit that attacking teams will simply get better at being first to the breakdown in response. Perhaps we see return of genuine skilled mobile backrowers rather than the current drive to size matters most approach so prevalent.
scrum
Roar Rookie
This sort of info is provided in the courses RA run for match official accreditation. So I am not sure if it is easily available to general public. On the RA community web site under “ Participate” “ Referee” there is some educational videos
In brief
Guest
I think allowing the tackled player to place the ball is a fundamental problem which is against the spirit of the game. A player on the deck should not be allowed to play the ball, period.
In brief
Guest
There should be 3 penalty offences (not including dangerous play) at the breakdown. i. off-side for not coming through the gate. ii. off-side where defenders are in front of the last man on their side of the breakdown. i.e. the off-side line iii. A tackled player must immediately play the ball and may not be prevented from playing the ball by any player who is off their feet.
Armchair Halfback
Roar Rookie
Even though I watched it at the time, I had to double check how fast Carbery's rise was. So he stars in the amateur league for Clontarf in April/May 2016 and then within 6 months he debuts for Ireland against the All Blacks, playing out the last 20 minutes of the game, Ireland win for the first time in 111 years. He's had lots of injuries, some have suggested full back would be better. Hope you like the list, a bit quirky but hopefully so clarity as well. :laughing: