‘Hard cases make bad law.’ So said the American Supreme Court justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. He meant if we react to ‘some accident of immediate overwhelming interest which appeals to the feelings and distorts the judgment’ by passing a law, we often go too far. Fear can drive us to outlaw inevitabilities and trap us in new unintended peril.
Last week Irish hard man midfielder Bundee Aki was in Stellenbosch playing the reigning URC champion Stormers. His Connacht teammate Mack Hansen made a line break but then was isolated on the wing.
All 76 kg of defender Seabalo Senatla assumed the classic jackal pose, draped over the downed Aussie, with hands reaching out, supporting himself with the ball itself.
Aki came in steaming for the clean of the poacher, but as the referee noted later, “made direct contact to the head, with a high degree of danger.”
Indeed, Senatla is out of rugby for a long time; at least five months, which rules him out of End of Year Tour consideration (he had a shot).
Aki is out for two months on his third red card.
The judicial panel took four weeks off of ten because of Aki’s (later) “acceptance that he had committed an act of foul play, expression of remorse, apologies to both the opposing player and referee, and willingness to engage with his club coaching staff on a plan to address this issue.”
So, ten down to six weeks. But then, back up to eight, because of his two prior headhunting reds and his on field belligerence to the referee.
He badgered the referee, getting a bit too close to him, with: “Where do you want me to go? Where do you want me to clear?”
Of course, the answer is ‘nowhere’ and ‘take a step back from the referee.’
It is an odd verdict, really. A serial offender is given the max, his apology shaves off forty percent, but his instant reaction adds thirty percent back. What poppycock!
But back to the bad facts which could made bad law.
The Stormer wing had, in modern practice, won the space and could not legally be cleaned from a perpendicular position in time to avoid the whistle.
Or had he? His left hand rested briefly on the pitch before he went for the pilfer.
In days gone by, Senatla and Aki would have been outlaws.
Walking over the ball in concert, as your foes tried to do the same, whilst ploughing all and sundry beneath metal studs, was the bloody law.
Now, there is no hiking on backs; just jackling and smacks. On the neck. And head. Pick your poison.
But the incident spawned a wave of ‘outlaw jackling’ essays and podcasts.
The names of Sam Warburton, David Pocock, Richie McCaw and Francois Louw, all recipients of direct hits to their head and neck over their distinguished careers, were again evoked.
An irony is how highly intelligent and accomplished all four of those gentlemen are, yet much of the rhetoric implies they were ignorant victims of zealous coaches wanting the turnover.
What players they all were!
But why make the legal illegal again just to protect the Malcolm Marxes of the world?
Aki and Darcy Swain can just mind their manners, no? Don’t we want a greater contest at the ruck? Or are the days of the jackals numbered?
There are other ways, more nuanced, to approach this.
Our laws say you cannot join a ruck from an offside position and you are technically supposed to be ‘bound’ to another player, friend or foe, at the moment of contact. Preferably before contact.
But that is not enforced. Not really. I mean, not at all.
With rugby chasing an attacking shape, there is great leeway given cleaners.
Watch a Test from 1995. There are four times as many scrums as today’s contests, half the lineouts, and about half the time of ball-in-play. But you will realise: ‘there are so few breakdowns!’ About five times less, in fact.
That means there is much less space with very clear defensive shapes formed and ready. But rucks are more certain events. Create 150? You are thinking you’ll retain 145 of them. Or at least 94 percent.
But concomitantly, this has made that holy grail of attack, turnover ball in midfield, even more vital in deciding contests, with the set piece also almost automatic wins (90 percent plus for top teams).
So the biggest teams despise a turnover at all costs; whilst the fittest risk it more. Power teams (France, South Africa) now have a 4-5 ruck rule before they must break or kick. Phase merchants (Ireland, New Zealand) can go eight to twelve, more often.
What would happen to all this if upright ‘homo sapiens’ rucking returned? More drives over the ball, with more connected forwards, granting more space, right?
Get rid of the solo jackler, commit more lads to the breakdown, and voila! Space!
The flaw in that reasoning is to assume the rest of rugby could return to 1995. Nostalgism has that ill: it presumes too many things can recuperate history. Few can.
If the maul is the least popular rugby art form, imagine 50 of them (at least proto-mauls) with the ball ‘in play’ but not really even visible. An 80s mosh pit but with far bigger athletes and still the ability to run in at pace hunting ribs.
What does private equity prefer? A more continuous ruck-to-ruck no-contest breakdown, albeit with constant defensive organization and rush tackle lines?
Or a trench warfare for 80, giving backs more space but for less time?
In the last match of The Rugby Championship this year, the referee awarded 39 penalties. He could have blown ten more. Hell, if the TMO intervened a little more, we could have 60.
Would old school rucking lead to even more whistling? Does the danger of the jackal sort of inherently weed out the wannabes?
Senatla is not likely to stick his head in the wood chipper again soon. Marx will, though.
When we have tried to pass laws to create space in rugby, it has sometimes done the opposite.
The tryline dropout for the holdup has resulted in a backward maul taking a carrier over the line when he is not ready yet.
The 50-22 has clogged the trams, which used to be the only place to run free.
The incessant desire for more ball-in-play, when we have just seen the most drastic increase in that statistic over twenty years, is myopic.
Think of the best games you’ve watched recently, and you’d be surprised at how many of them had lower ball-in-play figures than duller affairs with more ball-in-play.
Rugby needs set piece reloads. Our power athletes are brilliant exponents of the game, but cannot run a full 80 without plenty of stops.
The jackal is now not just an openside. France, New Zealand, and Wales can get eight or more of their XVs over the ball.
Argentina and South Africa have hooker-fetchers; Ireland too. They are not just milking penalties. They want turnovers to run with.
Aki was out of line with rugby values in how he spoke to the ref, and out of control in how he speared Senatla’s head and World Cup dreams.
But don’t save Senatla by banning the jackal. Clean up the clean outs, and be a bit more honest on how the existing law of the ruck is enforced.
Harry Jones
Expert
Tirty-tree days ! Yes, I’d approach this by outlawing the one man late high clean … That’ll actually speed up the presentment process to avoid jackling
Ankle-tapped Waterboy
Roar Rookie
Wrist wrestle? :shocked:
Ankle-tapped Waterboy
Roar Rookie
In this context, we must point and laugh at teh tackled player who has gone to ground with the ball on the opposition side of his body, and has to slide the ball backwards under his body for his halfback to retrieve. The under-the-body manoevre is clearly a breach of "15. 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."
Ankle-tapped Waterboy
Roar Rookie
The training of AFL players on how to launch, catch, and land, is awesome. Especially the how to land.
Ankle-tapped Waterboy
Roar Rookie
Well, that seems pretty straightforward, then. There are a number of referees on The Roar. Could someone comment, from their experience and without speaking on behalf of all referees, only from their perspective, why they choose not to apply this Law, please? That would help the discussion.
James584
Roar Rookie
Ok, if you are so smart and I am talking nonsense, define ‘ground the ball’.
Daffyd
Roar Rookie
Yes James... Whatever. But I don't see "touch the grass" in my original comment. Please show me the quote in my original post. You raised it in your post. I simply confirmed what you were saying. My point is commentators making up law definitions. And then spectators repeating them. "Talking nonsense" was what I said. Thank you for confirming my original point.
James584
Roar Rookie
You have used a definition yourself. Words have multiple meanings completely dependent on context. There is a valid argument that the term ‘ground the ball’ in this context means more than simply being in contact with it when it is touching the grass. That ‘ground the ball’ is an action, not a passive state of affairs, that it involves a purposeful and voluntary action. That is how it was defined for many years. More recently, your definition has been used. Lawyers are experts at the interpretation of legal terms and legal language. These are the ‘laws of rugby’, akin to real laws, in a different context, and real laws are effectively the rules of society. So insult lawyers all you like, but we are experts in law interpretation while your abuse comes from a place of insecurity.
Daffyd
Roar Rookie
I believe it was your understanding I was confirming. I know what 'ground the ball" means. It appears it has been defined as a requirement to retain contact with the ball as the ball touches the ground. But is ‘touch’ the same as ‘ground’? And the ground is under the grass, isn’t it? Or is it the grass? Pressed grass or upright and barely caressed grass? Yes! Correct. I confirm what you said. "Ground the Ball." You might need clarification as a level 1 ref... it would be cleared up in a monthly ref's meeting in 2 second. BUT There is NO "Downward Pressure!" There is no requirement for downward pressure as you state. That is the issue I am referring too. You have gone in every direction (including dropped balls, ) but what is referred as a requirement to score a try. " Ground the Ball." Simple. No need to complicate it any further talking about nonsense that is not ain the book. And to use your example, if a lawyer started talking bull about the law, the judge wall call him on it such as "There is no requirement for downward pressure to score a try. Please show me where that specific requirement exists." No need to go to the Privy Council. I'll say it again, so we're back on track.. it is commentators making up definitions, that do not exist.. You do not need "downward pressure". You only need to ground the ball. If WR wants to change it to "Downward Pressure" so that downward pressure is required commentators know what they're talking about, then they're free to do so "Ground the ball" is all the definition required.
James584
Roar Rookie
Ok, so you have defined ‘ground the ball’ as ‘touch the grass’. ‘Touch the grass’ doesn’t appear in the laws, so using your approach, it is a term that ‘doesn’t exist’ and shouldn’t be used. Your response actually confirms mine: that the term ‘ground the ball’ must be defined. You have simply replaced one definition ‘downward pressure’ with another, ‘touch the grass’. We do this in law all the time. Every lawyer knows that the meaning of a statutory provision is never certain until an authoritative court declares exactly what it means. We call it statutory interpretation. And that declaration can change over time, if a new decision is made by the same or a higher court. The same applies to the ‘Laws of Rugby’.
mzilikazi
Roar Pro
Excellent article. Tanks Harry......just getting prepared for your Irish trip, so you will recognise "thanks :happy: (Was really a typo first up, but saw the opportunity ) Really the option to go in and clean the jackal days are gone. Aki and his ilk just can't do that, and stay on the field.
Daffyd
Roar Rookie
James it's simple, you read too much into it. The ball just needs to touch the grass in goal, while the player has the ball in hand (or a open hand pushing the ball onto the grass / ground. The grass is 'attached' to the ground. ( In goal includes the 'paint' of the goal line, (but not touch in goal or dead ball lines). I have played on fields where the ball was 'grounded' in the dirt, because there wasn't a scrap of grass on the field. But , yes, the grass is all that's needed. Touch a blade with the ball in hand and its a try. No downward pressure is required. eg a player rolls onto their back centimeters short of the line and swipes the ball over-head to only touch the grass in goal. That is a try. If the ball is dropped the player hasn't grounded it?? Then you're talking the knock on law, not grounding. eg Did it come backwards out of the hand? Yes.. continue.. Did it hit the ground and go forward = knock-on; or backwards = play on, as happened to Kurtley Beale v Wales. Again, the ref was correct, in a very unusual situation, & players at international level forgot the first rule that you're ever taught. "Play the whistle." Downward pressure is a furphy used by commentators who don't know their laws. Unfortunately, it has you talking about it -- a term doesn't exist and is not needed to be interpreted or defined other than Grass = Ground. It would be far better for the game if people in those position actually knew what they were talking about, rather than making it up as they go along.
James584
Roar Rookie
How do you ground the ball without some downward pressure? ‘Grounding’ must mean that the ball comes in contact with the ground. Is that the top 1mm of the longest bit of grass, or something different? ‘Ground the ball’ needs to be defined. It appears it has been defined as a requirement to retain contact with the ball as the ball touches the ground. But is ‘touch’ the same as ‘ground’? And the ground is under the grass, isn’t it? Or is it the grass? Pressed grass or upright and barely caressed grass? It’s more complicated than just ‘reading the laws’. I think there is a sound argument that at least some ‘downward pressure’ is needed to ‘ground’ the ball. You can’t drop the ball onto the ground, can you. But then again that is ‘grounding the ball’ isn’t it? So if you drop it without knocking on, strictly speaking, you have scored because you have ‘grounded the ball’. But we all know that isn’t right, because you have to be touching the ball. But the ‘Law’ doesn’t say that, does it. It just says that the player must be first to ‘ground the ball’. So just reading the law doesn’t settle it, not at all. It needs to be interpreted and the interpretation needs to come from an authoritative place. And that is how we got ‘downward pressure’. From the authority of how referees applied the law. But then, someone read the law and said, ‘it doesn’t say downward pressure’! Download pressure is wrong! And here we are. No one knows exactly how a try is scored because every phrase of human language must be interpreted and defined. And that interpretation must come from an authority. And round and round we go, much like this post…
Harry Jones
Expert
Beast
TC
Roar Rookie
Harry I have Wondered about the Lifting at Kick off's.. Have been times where the lifter has dropped the guy in a dangerous position..Yet is no Consequence as it was their own player..For player Safety it doesn't make sense..How Marx held his man above his head like that Absolutely Astounded me
Harry Jones
Expert
Coaches lose jobs and have to move their families if they lose! So yes! They gonna work out workarounds to new laws.
Biltong
Guest
Agreed, nothing really changes, only the requirement to remain on your feet.
Tim J
Roar Rookie
You are totally right Harry… Every time WR brings in new laws they say that it is to make the game a better spectacle, and to simplify things! Where in truth it only adds confusion and blurs things even more, this does not help to gain new supporters and bring back those that are disillusioned by the game.
Tim J
Roar Rookie
Thanks Harry, next one has been submitted today. It is about the responsibility of the media, so a bit different to the norm.
Harry Jones
Expert
Cheers, Tim! Keep on writing!