PDA

View Full Version : Collapsing Rucks



crossref
10-10-18, 07:10
Given that the Law says you can't collapse a ruck, and you must endeavour to stay on your feet, why do we allow players to perform judo rolls and similar, where you take both your opponent and yourself to ground ?

That's the question Ben Ryan asks Nigel Owens .. who doesnt half waffle on in response ..

In reality there is no good answer , other than "we don't enforce that Law" which is not really available to Nigel

He will go into politics won't he ?

This passage reminds me a lot of the sort of discussions we have here on this site

From 42.30 here


Brian and Ben discuss the big talking points in the Premiership, and get stuck into who should and shouldn't be on the plane to Japan for England next year - with Ben standing by his belief that England will not win the World Cup with George Ford at fly half. We

* duration: 56:10, Played: 48:02

* Published: 08/10/2018 20:39:39

* Episode Download link (77 MB): https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/telegraphmediagroup.podbean.com/mf/web/x7ccxk/EP68_Full_Contact_Episode_Comp_MIXED_mixdown.mp3

* Show Notes: https://telegraphmediagroup.podbean.com/e/ben-ryan-marcus-smith-should-go-to-the-world-cup-not-george-ford/

* Episode feed: Brian Moore's Full Contact - https://telegraphmediagroup.podbean.com/feed/

SimonSmith
10-10-18, 12:10
They don't enforce it because they've been told not to - simple as that. And he can't say that.

I disagree with it. But TPTB have it mandated, and thus it goes.

Flish
10-10-18, 14:10
I have pinged this, was a 1:1 ruck and second man in from one team rolled his opponent out which in essence destroyed the ruck (just the rollers team mate and the ball left). Explained why and what he could have done and all was good. Possibly a more difficult sell when the ruck remains after and players expect to be allowed to do this though.

crossref
10-10-18, 15:10
They don't enforce it because they've been told not to - simple as that. And he can't say that.

I disagree with it. But TPTB have it mandated, and thus it goes.

Where the conversation got all rugbyrefs is the passages where NO tried to explain that the Law doesn't really mean what it appears to, and it is in fact completely consistent with the way that it is reffed ...

Christy
10-10-18, 20:10
Thank fully i dont see it in games i ref .
The little guy is very rarely going to roll a big guy .
The big guy doesnt need to roll a little guy , he will simply push him backwards .

Where the both guys are equally matched , the cavalry usually arrive & they tend to push forwards ..

I do however think rolls should be banned .
As its dangerous to guy being rolled .

Jolly Roger
10-10-18, 23:10
I see this quite a lot. I hate it but do not feel that there is anything that I can do as it seems to have been accepted as a means of binding and clearing out.
If I could make one change to the game it would be changing this interpretation across the global game.
No2 would be pro refs enforcing players staying on their feet.

The damage being done to the game at all levels by pro refs permitting anarchy at the breakdown is a common rant of mine..........

Rich_NL
11-10-18, 08:10
Crocodile rolls done properly aren't dangerous - I've done them on hard floors as a warm-up drill for wrestling. I guess it's accepted in the pro game because they're not so fussed about people staying on their feet and want to keep the ball moving - it clears people away from the ruck area, whereas collapsing downwards kills the ball and leads to a scrum.

In the Netherlands, croc rolls are specifically banned for youth grades (as is squeezeball), implying that they're sanctioned for adult matches. Without further clarification, I'd allow them (safely); grabbing a shirt and dragging someone facefirst over the ruck I'd blow up.

crossref
11-10-18, 09:10
Crocodile rolls done properly aren't dangerous - I've done them on hard floors as a warm-up drill for wrestling. I guess it's accepted in the pro game because they're not so fussed about people staying on their feet and want to keep the ball moving - it clears people away from the ruck area, whereas collapsing downwards kills the ball and leads to a scrum.

In the Netherlands, croc rolls are specifically banned for youth grades (as is squeezeball), implying that they're sanctioned for adult matches. Without further clarification, I'd allow them (safely); grabbing a shirt and dragging someone facefirst over the ruck I'd blow up.

Ben Ryan listed several career ending injuries that happened either from a roll, or after players have been forced into the ground and then had a joint trodden on .

He was maintaining that it is a clear safety risk , and put up a good case

Rich_NL
11-10-18, 09:10
You can find very many more examples of career ending injuries from tackles, and more again from scrums. I doubt that's compelling evidence for a ban.

crossref
11-10-18, 09:10
You can find very many more examples of career ending injuries from tackles, and more again from scrums. I doubt that's compelling evidence for a ban.

It's already banned !
Collapsing the ruck and going off your feet are against the Law .. partly to keep the game going, partly for Safety reasons

Ben is arguing for enforcing the Law

Rich_NL
11-10-18, 11:10
My point was, banning on safety grounds doesn't rely on a few journalistic anecdotes. Done properly, there's a lot less risk of head injury than conventional rucking, for example. The question may be whether it can reliably be coached and done properly, as is assumed for tackles, and whether referees can reliably identify a good from a bad roll. As to keeping play going, I think it's tolerated precisely because it doesn't stop the game, taking players away from the ball/ruck area.

I understand that the laws in place don't allow them, but it's common practice and even implicitly sanctioned by some local rules. Either the law should change to explicitly ban/allow them, or there should be clear guidance to refs and coaches that the current laws are good and they're not allowed. There's no point having a law honoured only in the breach; at least here, I think it would be weird to see it penalised at any reasonable level of rugby.

crossref
11-10-18, 11:10
It would definitely be helpful if the Law corresponded to how refs are told to ref

Zebra1922
11-10-18, 20:10
It would definitely be helpful if the Law corresponded to how refs are told to ref

But are we told to ref this way or do we just allow it as this is what's allowed on TV?

No-one at any Society meeting I have ever been to has said this is allowed (although they've not said it's illegal either). Anyone else received specific guidance from their Society that this is acceptable and if so what was the justification?

Rich_NL
11-10-18, 21:10
Here it's mentioned in the youth variations that it's banned for U18 rugby. If that's a variation, the implication is clear.

mcroker
15-10-18, 09:10
This is relevant https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/dangerous-issue-thats-now-overtaken-15141825

Personally I think the bigger safety issue is what seems to be a huge number unpenalised non-bind clearouts, and players flying into a ruck off their feet.

crossref
15-10-18, 10:10
Here it's mentioned in the youth variations that it's banned for U18 rugby. If that's a variation, the implication is clear.

Not to me ?

SimonSmith
15-10-18, 13:10
I suspect:
If it's a specific variation for U18, then it implies that it is OK for over 18

crossref
15-10-18, 13:10
Oh right

But 16.15

Players must not:
Pick the ball up with their legs.
Intentionally collapse a ruck or jump on top of it.
Intentionally step on another player.
Fall over the ball as it is coming out of a ruck.
Kick, or attempt to kick, the ball out of a ruck.

mcroker
07-01-19, 17:01
The IRB (as it was then) did issue a law clarification explicitly permitting body rolls in 2014, but as there have been many law changes since caution is probably advised using something so old.

"In terms of ruck clearouts using “head rolls” and “body rolls”, this is not specifically referenced in Law. However, Law 10.4 (e) regarding dangerous play and misconduct should be applied to both the tackle and clear out... body rolls are permissible but head rolls should be penalised."

source - https://laws.worldrugby.org/?domain=10&clarification_era=upto&year=2014&clarification=1004

Whilst there are a number of similar articles asserting croc rolls to be dangerous but I have yet to see any evidence other than specific incidents presented. The RFU are pretty hot on player welfare, and generally seem pretty data driven - neither the RFU Community Community Rugby Injury Surveillance and Prevention (CRISP) report or the much older 2011 world rugby reports call out croc rolls as a source of injury - in fact both barely mention rucks due to the much lower injury occurrence by contrast with tackler, tacked player and running. That said times change and the new tackle zone entry has definitely altered player behaviour at the ruck so a refresh would be very interesting to see.

references:
https://www.englandrugby.com/mm/Document/News/General/01/33/12/64/180323CRISP_Season_Report_2016_17_FINALforwebsite_ Neutral.pdf
https://playerwelfare.worldrugby.org/?documentid=78

crossref
07-01-19, 18:01
Are they dangerous ? Some might be, others aren't
Are they in contravention of 16.15 ? Yes.

Dickie E
08-01-19, 02:01
Our GMGs say this:

Neck rolls
• World Rugby is working to eliminate the practice of ‘neck grab and rolls’ in the act of cleaning out a player. Guidelines for referees are as follows:
o PK = Neck grab, without twisting, which cleans out a player at the tackle or ruck
o YC = Neck grab & roll (likely bringing the player to the ground)
o RC = Neck grab & roll with a forceful ‘dumping action’ in bringing the player to the ground

I infer from this that, provided there is no neck contact, crocodile rolls are OK.

mcroker
08-01-19, 02:01
Are they in contravention of 16.15 ? Yes.

Except we have top level refs telling us that’s not how we should interpret 16.15.

I have just been back to look at the 2014 laws that were in place when the clarification permitting them was issues - and this area of law really hasn’t changed that much, so perhaps the clarification still has applicability. “Body rolls are permissible head rolls should be penalised”.

crossref
08-01-19, 07:01
Except we have top level refs telling us that’s not how we should interpret 16.15.

”.

Well, that's the same thing

Bottom line : despite what 16.15 says, modern practice is to allow players to collapse rucks using any of a variety of techniques to do so. (not neck rolls, though)

To the extent that in the Pro game collapsing rucks is pretty much the only thing they do ! Well, that and forming long human crouching chains to give the 9 lots of space to box kick

Zebra1922
08-01-19, 09:01
....... Well, that and forming long human crouching chains to give the 9 lots of space to box kick

which is bizarrely permitted in law and not just allowed by convention (as long as everyone is bound properly which frequently is not the case, something I warn about a lot but rarely penalise on the grounds of materiality)

Arabcheif
09-01-19, 17:01
My team were coached on croc rolls once. It resulted in our Vice Captain (at the time), dislocating his knee. I think they are dangerous but can see nothing specifically saying that they are banned.

Question about binding, I can find no mention in the Laws of what constitutes a bind. I've been advised by refs and coaches that all that is needed is to be in contact with the player on the ground or a player already in the ruck (legally). What's anyone's thoughts for this.

crossref
09-01-19, 21:01
My team were coached on croc rolls once. It resulted in our Vice Captain (at the time), dislocating his knee. I think they are dangerous but can see nothing specifically saying that they are banned.


that made me laugh :)

far from being banned - they have been specifically designated legal
https://laws.worldrugby.org/index.php?domain=10&clarification_era=upto&year=2014&clarification=1004&language=EN





Question about binding, I can find no mention in the Laws of what constitutes a bind. I've been advised by refs and coaches that all that is needed is to be in contact with the player on the ground or a player already in the ruck (legally). What's anyone's thoughts for this.

15.7 A player must bind onto a team-mate or an opposition player. The bind must precede or be simultaneous with contact with any other part of the body.

Defintions : Binding: Grasping another player’s body firmly between the shoulders and the hips with the whole arm in contact from hand to shoulder.

If Law 15 was enforced the game would look very different indeed!

Zebra1922
09-01-19, 21:01
My team were coached on croc rolls once. It resulted in our Vice Captain (at the time), dislocating his knee. I think they are dangerous but can see nothing specifically saying that they are banned.

Question about binding, I can find no mention in the Laws of what constitutes a bind. I've been advised by refs and coaches that all that is needed is to be in contact with the player on the ground or a player already in the ruck (legally). What's anyone's thoughts for this.

I interpret a bind as contact with the full arm, not just resting a handoff a shoulder. Can't recall exactly where I got the definition/requirement from.

Flish
09-01-19, 21:01
It used to say (for rucks);


A player joining a ruck must bind on a team-mate or an opponent, using the whole arm


it doesn’t now

CrouchTPEngage
09-01-19, 22:01
Some refs penalise the following but I don't. Players joining a ruck by grabbing one of the standing legs of the oppositon and lifting it up so that the would-be jackaller falls to floor.? Its a very effective way to clear-out and works when the jackaller is much bigger than you.
Is that OK or dangerous in your books ?

crossref
09-01-19, 22:01
It used to say (for rucks);


A player joining a ruck must bind on a team-mate or an opponent, using the whole arm


it doesn’t now

but binding is defined as above - so it amounts to the same

Flish
09-01-19, 22:01
Ah, moved then, good, look forward so seeing full arm binds at the elite level this year then!

crossref
09-01-19, 22:01
Some refs penalise the following but I don't. Players joining a ruck by grabbing one of the standing legs of the oppositon and lifting it up so that the would-be jackaller falls to floor.? Its a very effective way to clear-out and works when the jackaller is much bigger than you.
Is that OK or dangerous in your books ?

It's not dangerous.
It is illegal under 15.16.b
Unless you can do it one handed it's also illegal under 15.7

But yes, it's allowed

Arabcheif
10-01-19, 16:01
The definition of Binding you mentioned seem to be applicable to Laws 9 Foul Play and 19 Scrum. Nothing below mentions binding in rucks (or mauls for that matter).

Law 9: Foul play (https://laws.worldrugby.org/?highlight=Binding&law=9)
A player must not charge into a ruck or maul. Charging includes any contact made without binding onto another player in the ruck or maul.

Law 19: Scrum (https://laws.worldrugby.org/?highlight=Binding&law=19)
All players’ binding is maintained for the duration of the scrum.

Match official signals: Failure to bind (https://laws.worldrugby.org/?highlight=Binding&signal_category=all&videoid=24)
One arm out-stretched as if binding. Other hand moves up and down arm to indicate the extent of a full bind.

Law Application Guidelines (https://laws.worldrugby.org/?highlight=Binding&domain=9&guideline=4)
Five key areas of refereeing (https://laws.worldrugby.org/?highlight=Binding&domain=9&guideline=4)
Four calls and four actions: crouch means crouch, touch means touch, etc. Binding of props on body, not arm, of opponent. Hit straight and stay straight

Law Application Guidelines (https://laws.worldrugby.org/?highlight=Binding&domain=9&guideline=1)
IRB Maul Working Group Outcomes (https://laws.worldrugby.org/?highlight=Binding&domain=9&guideline=1)
"Binding.

Law Application Guidelines (https://laws.worldrugby.org/?highlight=Binding&domain=9&guideline=2)
Charging into the ruck (https://laws.worldrugby.org/?highlight=Binding&domain=9&guideline=2)
Players entering a ruck must do so in accordance with the Laws of the Game. Referees are reminded that appropriate binding is a requirement, and charging into a ruck is dangerous play and must be penalised as such. The video clips below all show examples of illegal charges into the ruck.

crossref
10-01-19, 17:01
JOINING A RUCK


An arriving player must be on their feet and join from behind their offside line.

A player may join alongside but not in front of the hindmost player.

A player must bind onto a team-mate or an opposition player. The bind must precede or be simultaneous with contact with any other part of the body.


The definition of bind is in the definitions

Phil E
10-01-19, 17:01
The definition of Binding you mentioned seem to be applicable to Laws 9 Foul Play and 19 Scrum. Nothing below mentions binding in rucks (or mauls for that matter).


Law 15
JOINING A RUCK
7. A player must bind onto a team-mate or an opposition player. The bind must precede or
be simultaneous with contact with any other part of the body.

Law 16
JOINING A MAUL
7. Players joining a maul must:
b. Bind on to the hindmost player in the maul.

Arabcheif
10-01-19, 17:01
I saw that, but in the definitions, when you click on Binding, it takes you to a page that I pasted above. The definition of that Binding seems to apply for scrums. For rucking it's mentioned merely in respect to charging into a ruck. "Charging includes any contact made without binding onto another player in the ruck or maul."

If one must use full arms to bind half the rucks I've seen in my games I've played have had incorrect binding. There's be about 30 pens a game.

crossref
10-01-19, 18:01
I saw that, but in the definitions, when you click on Binding, it takes you to a page that I pasted above. The definition of that Binding seems to apply for scrums. For rucking it's mentioned merely in respect to charging into a ruck. "Charging includes any contact made without binding onto another player in the ruck or maul."

If one must use full arms to bind half the rucks I've seen in my games I've played have had incorrect binding. There's be about 30 pens a game.



Indeed ... Many ruck laws are not enforced ..

Arabcheif
10-01-19, 18:01
Fair enough. If/when I start reffing I'll be sure to make sure I enforce those Laws. Thanks

OB..
10-01-19, 19:01
A ruck is formed by contact over the ball. This caters for two players both going for the ball. Thereafter players joining the ruck must bind.

crossref
10-01-19, 20:01
Fair enough. If/when I start reffing I'll be sure to make sure I enforce those Laws. Thanks

This way madness lies !

(I am joking .. sort of)

crossref
13-01-19, 23:01
Here is a pretty bad example of the dangerous clear out

https://twitter.com/benjaminryan/status/1084478025033568256?s=19

Anyone think that would be ok in one of our games ?
Anyone think it is legal ?

Flish
14-01-19, 00:01
Legal? No

In at the side, and dangerous, minimum penalty, possibly yellow too, purely dependant on the angle I saw it from

Dickie E
14-01-19, 01:01
lift, twist & drive onto noggin. Looking a bit reddish to me. Interesting to see if citing chappie picks it up.

didds
14-01-19, 10:01
Here is a pretty bad example of the dangerous clear out

https://twitter.com/benjaminryan/status/1084478025033568256?s=19

Anyone think that would be ok in one of our games ?
Anyone think it is legal ?

Ken Catchpole ?

didds

Jz558
14-01-19, 10:01
At the National League game I watched this weekend a player was red carded for a very similar action at the breakdown.

Dickie E
14-01-19, 11:01
Ken Catchpole ?

didds

?????

didds
14-01-19, 12:01
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Catchpole

"The following year he was selected as captain again for a two test series against the All Blacks. In the first of those Tests in 1968 he suffered a career-ending injury when Colin "Pinetree" Meads grabbed and wrenched Catchpole's leg while he was pinned under other players in a ruck, tearing his hamstring off the bone, and severely rupturing his groin muscles. He was aged twenty-eight and his rugby career was finished.[10]"

crossref
14-01-19, 12:01
Ben Ryan, rest your case

WoodyOne
22-01-19, 22:01
It is illegal under 15.16.b

I think that it's potentially illegal under 15.16b, but it's possible to execute legally.

Illegal when it's (e.g.) a lift with a twist and a collapse onto the ruck.

Legal when the lift destabilises the player enough that they can be driven back off the ball, especially if no one falls over, or they fall clear of the ruck. I know a couple of lads who are adept at doing this to help push the player back a metre, secure the ball, then they let things settle. No one falls over. This isn't lifting the foot way off the ground, just enough to lose traction.

frenchie851
25-01-19, 12:01
I had to go back and listen to this pod cast.

As Brian Moore said at the end, I can see both POVs.

I have always thought that if you take another player to ground in a ruck but you do it way from the ball (so that the ruck could still be competed at by counter rucking for example) then play on. If you take someone to ground onto the ball then you must roll away.

The judo roll is coached so you roll a play away from the breakdown so I can see what NO is saying, however I think Ben Ryan was arguing a different point really. What he was tying to say is "should a judo roll be allowed because it is dangerous and severe joint injuries can occur"

I think BR is correct, you only have to look at Eng training camps when a number of high profile injuries have happened during judo sessions, I am very hypocritical though.

Having only just stopped playing at Level 6 as a #7 weighing only 13 stone there is sometime no other technique that effectively remove a player from the breakdown so I used to use it. I have been on the receiving end of it and have known my foot and knee were in a bad place, I have in the past felt the judo roll coming and have purposeful collapsed onto my knees and taken my hands off the ball, I have relinquished the turn over and the oppo have played the ball out of the ruck.

I think what Ben Ryan is getting at is that in his opinion, for safety, there should be a law directive to say "Judo Rolls are now illegal", rather than a change in law specifically just guidance that they should not be allowed.