Supporting your own weight? Too much grey area?

The Cheetahs win a turnover and the ball goes to a pod of three. The ball goes to Izak van der Westhuizen who has Davon Raubenheimer and Andries Ferreira in close attention. CJ Stander and Deon Stegmann of the Bulls are in their way and the Cheetah trio falls to ground, Van der Westhuizen with the ball and Raubenheimer and Ferreira on top of him.

The referee, more than once calls 'Reload', and then penalises the Cheetahs.

Reload?

Rugby like all activities has its jargon - a type of speech shorthand which cuts down clumsy verbiage. One of these bits of jargon in 'sealing off'. Sealing off a bad thing because it eliminates the contest after a tackle. There should be a contest because the tackler's side has defeated the ball-carrier's side by tackling the ball-carrier. They have earned the right to compete for the ball. If team-mates then fall over the ball, they seal it off and so ensure that their side gets the ball. But they have robbed the tackler's side of their right to get the ball.

Sometimes, as in this case, the sealing off occurs almost before the tackle when one of more team-mates attaches himself to the ball-carrier and goes to ground with him. In this case the attached players are Raubenheimer and Ferreira. They are referred to as hammers or sometimes snakes. They are required to release and get up and are then allowed to go for the ball or clean out or contest the ruck. That process of releasing, getting up and then competing for the ball is what is meant by reloading. It is felt that the command Reload was the shortest way to get compliance. Reload is the instruction to the hammer.

All the provinces in South Africa received fair warning of action against sealing and of the use of Reload. It's not in the law book but then neither is flyhalf and gate, but they are useful bits of jargon rather than long explanations.

Here François Hougaard of the Bulls tackles Lwazi Mvovo of the Sharks. We have Dean Greyling arriving legally and trying to steal the ball. Then we have Steven Sykes and Dale Chadwick (1) of the Sharks removing the threat (Greyling), also legally. A great example, so far of a contest for possession. Both black players fall to the ground in the cleaning process. The one black player falls out of the phase, but the other is still close to the ball. Then we see another blue player (Chiliboy Ralepelle) arriving legally and wanting to contest for the ball, BUT we then see the Black player, Sykes, who is already off his feet, throwing his body forward and diving over the ball, to keep the blue player from stealing their ball.

The following points were made clear to the coaches at a Super 15 meeting regarding the key focus areas for refereeing (including sealing off):

* An arriving player must demonstrate positive intent to stay on his feet: leaving your feet without clearing any threat is not acceptable.

* A player who uses correct technique & ends up off his feet by removing a threat is a positive action.

Whilst removing the threat, both players (Sykes and Chadwick) were showing good technique, and after removing the threat, it was seen as a positive action, BUT, after the threat had been removed, Sykes, the Black player with the white scrum cap, demonstrated no intent to stay on his feet, and clearly sealed the ball off, thereby denying the opposition of contesting for the ball. The referee was very accurate in his penalty.

leinsterbaby wrote:Breakdown laws have been unnecessarily overcomplicated in recent years because popular opinion dictated that there was not enough quick ball in rugby and therefore not enough attacking, exciting rugby.

In terms of rugby being entertaining nothing has changed. It has always been entertaining but now we have some really ambiguous rules that probably lead to more penalties, more kicking and more frustration.

clivemcl wrote:Good insight Billtong Not much interest in my thread this morning! But I do think its a little understood area of the game! Thanks for helping.

As a player myself, I know that in honesty 9 times out of ten at the ruck I am holding my body up by a hand on somebody on the ground. The idea of supporting your own weight seems ridiculous to me.

The question would be this - If you remove the players on the ground, would the challenging player fall over or remain upright?

By this criteria I say that very rarely does a player support his own weight.

I think the rule is silly. If it is a rule at all.

biltongbek wrote:My interpretation.

1. Only one person is allowed to challenge for the ball from the defending side, however he wants as long as not illegal (dark arts) so scrape the on the feet.

From what I understand it is only the first arrival that has rights to the all yes.

2. Attacking team can only tackle him and once removed the defending team can't get the ball, or there is always allowed to be one defending team trying to get the ball.
Same as above

3. Joining players can only tackle the ball getter or support and must fall off the scum and return to their side.
Yes, as long as they do it legally. (there must be an action of removing a player by driving into him when going off your feet, but even then you must roll away)

4. If two players players fall on the ball without contact from the other side its a pen and if three players fall on the ruck with contact you start with a line out with three players from each team and put in to the team with least players falling in
Depends what you mean by falliing on the ball, a loose ball and it is two players from either side or the same side, the player in possession must present the ball immediately, otherwise a penalty

Easy to police as either a person standing will be taking contact or ready and only two players are fighting over the ball.

you could also have a five second no ball, line out
Why a lineout? Not sure what you mean there.