New Law Recommendation by Brian Moore

........
'Defenders are even more skilled at taking an attacker to ground and keeping one hand on him or the ball thereby preventing release. Almost instantaneously defenders are on their feet pulling at the ball and shouting that the attacker has not released the ball.
At some point soon the International Rugby Board will have to address this issue fully and it is only going to intensify if nothing is done. They should disallow any player involved in the tackle and on the floor to play the ball in the subsequent ruck, irrespective of whether they get to their feet.
This would have the welcome benefit of making more players get into rucks, leaving more space elsewhere.'


This makes good sense to me & as highlighted in the Sarries v LW game the breakdown has become a lottery to ref because of so many transgressions & players becoming skilled at effectively conning the officials.

Totally agree. I read this this morning and thought it makes sense. The only issue you'd have is what happens when 2 players tackle one, are they both considered tacklers and both unable to compete, or will the ref have to decide which player made the tackle - which would leave the 2 tacklers in the dark somewhat.

Both tacklers should be considered part of the tackle and unable to compete from the ball unless one tackler releases (defined as having neither arm in contact with the ball or wrapped round the player) before the tackled player hits the ground - which would give teams the choice of whether to double-up and prevent the offload or have more players available to compete for the ball.

A scenario that might need more thought is what happens in the one-on-one situation where a player makes a break and is tackled, with support from either side some distance away. BCM's idea helps somewhat, in that it makes it easy for the ref to blow up if the player on the ground doesn't place the ball, but there probably needs to be a provision for players in an isolated tackle to disengage, get to their feet and be able to ruck over the ball.

So Brian was for Saracens? There are shorter ways to say it, Brian.

Have to say I'm not really in favour of this one, it's one step away from allowing the tackled player to get back to his feet then roll the ball between his legs for the halfback (or "dummy half" ) to play on. Rugby Union is about a contest for possession.

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:Have to say I'm not really in favour of this one, it's one step away from allowing the tackled player to get back to his feet then roll the ball between his legs for the halfback (or "dummy half" ) to play on. Rugby Union is about a contest for possession.

+1. The whole idea is that the defenders have options to turn defence into attack. It's all very well saying the attacking side should have a bundle of allowances given because they are in attack (being entertaining). But that kind of clear cut advantage to the attacking side gives the prospect of a pretty bleak and lifeless see-saw tennis game of up and down rugby. You want that, watch League.

Agree with Poorfour - it would somewhat spoil the one on one situation where players quite legitimately get isolated and turned over by a good tackle and steal. I'm not sure if the rules were that different when I played or if it was just the refs interpretation, or maybe my memory is just a bit of a blur, but it always seemed to go quite smoothly. Nobody was allowed to interfere as the tackled player placed the ball (you could try and turn them in the tackle, but once they were down you had to leave them), the flip side being that as soon as they were down they had to place the ball on the ground. If there was no-one there from their side it was straightforward for the tackler to just pick it up and play on. It seems to me that like many things in rugby - it worked but they tried to fix it anyway.

That's not to say there isn't scope for improvement. I can't for the life of me understand why defending teams get all the benefit of the doubt. If a scrum/maul goes forward 5-10yards+ and collapses just shy of the line... we all know what is likely to have happened and the emphasis should be on awarding the penalty try unless the ref is certain it was not collapsed by the defending team, yet it rarely if ever happens and even then normally only if it's been done for the 3rd/4th time in succession. Arguably you could do the same with grounding the ball. If across the game there is a better balance between the benefit of the doubt to the attacking team and the defending team it will change the focus for the better.

My problem is that we change the laws so often to "improve the spectacle" yet they usually have the opposite effect. It was after all fairly recent law changes that have brought about the current mess we call the breakdown.

Bring back proper rucking?

Time was when the the tackler had to release and the tacklee not to place the ball once he was down (he'd endeavour to turn in the tackle to favour his team, but would have to release once down off both feet). This of course committed the entire pack to the breakdown and thereby allowed space for the girls to play.

I'm not sure that there were any more psychopaths around then than there are now. In any case there were regulations in place for deliberately hurting the opponent.

Blind, reckless shoeings were always a rarity as rucking a member of your own side was always a consideration which every rucker had to take into account. And these days we have TV to assist dangerous play adjudications.

Well yes grey.... but a man with his face or arm or thigh shredded by a dangerous boot or two isn't going to really care what the regulations are or the sanctions applied for dangerous play. Wasn't that the point? Dangerous play being dangerous play regardless of the intention of the players involved

Ever since Aus/NZ led the law change that meant a team taking the ball into a maul lost possesion irrespective of whether they were moving forward - we have had a mess.

Teams try to make sure the ball gets on the ground so at least it is a ruck, forwards fanny about in the backs because they do not need to push, laws have been changed countless times to either make the game more exciting - or to balance perceived one-sidedness at the contact area.

The breakdown is now a complete lottery - a pile of bodies on the ground, all trying to play the ball, people arriving every which way they can, SHs being pulled in.

I actually saw a ruck this weekend - defending team drove over the ball and the tackled play picked up the ball (while still lying down) and threw it to a team mate. Ref blithely waved play on.

Lets face it every year Union moves ever closer to rugby League.

LondonTiger wrote:
Lets face it every year Union moves ever closer to rugby League.

Don't say that Tiger!! - even if it's true. Gives me the shivers

Me too.

If they applied the current law correctly, changes wouldn't be necessary. Already the tackler must release and stand before going into a ruck situation.

It sounds suspiciously like an audition for Strictly Come Dancing.

In - Swing - Out - Hands Aloft - Stand - In - Hold - Swing - Repeat.

bathmad wrote:If they applied the current law correctly, changes wouldn't be necessary. Already the tackler must release and stand before going into a ruck situation.

I think this is where the blurring & subsequent interpretation/controversy occurs though.
under these new suggestions - By not allowing the tackler to get involved at all in the subsequent ruck it would be be easier to ref & teams would have to commit more players in and around the contact area creating more space out wide.

I actually think Brian Moore is spot on with this and this is another reason why I hold the man in such high regard. I cannot understand why so many people dislike him, ok so he has a gob on him, he speaks his mind, so what, when he is speaking his mind he is only speaking the truth, he says things as he sees it, people just do not like him because they do not like the truth being told, I will never forget his "OH FOR GOD'S SAKE" rant when England kept kicking the ball back to Italy during the six nations a few years back, he got crucified on the old 606 for saying that, but guess what, he was right, and I challenge anybody to quote something he said that was wrong, he might perhaps be a bit tounge in cheek sometimes, but he will always say it as it is.

Lord,I don't think this an "I dislike Brian" thread..... ? People are generally discussing his ideas and agreeing or disagreeing. No, he's not always right, he's always opinionated and as you say, good luck to him, it's his right.

But to return to his issue. So if the tackler and the person tackled are unable to get involved in the subsequent fight for possession, what do you have? Two more needless and redundant bodies lying in the middle of a free for all, pretending or genuinely unable to move, hands in the air, interfering with the ref's view and just adding more bodies to a mud fight when we all claim the bodies should be stretched out, ready and willing to play it wide.

Don't blame the rules for no space, blame the often putridly sterile tactics of teams trying to create some.

Just get rid of a couple of players from each team...

yappysnap wrote:Just get rid of a couple of players from each team...

and rucks and scrums...


I reckon this idea's got legs

It sounds like Rugby League figured all of these problems out over a hundred years ago and are way ahead of Union.

IronMike wrote:It sounds like Rugby League figured all of these problems out over a hundred years ago and are way ahead of Union.

They did figure them out,the problem is the made a total cluster Smeg of the solutions.

Rugby League gave a wargame manners and made it a chessgame.

I prefer the old dirty wargame.