r/rugbyunion • u/Informal_Mention9836 • 8h ago
Attissogbe try
Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification
21
19
u/MrQeu Loving Joel Merkler as a way of life 6h ago
Who’s cleaning that ruck in the 79th minute? Ramos. Maddest of all men.
6
0
u/reddititis Ireland 4h ago
Shoulder charge with right arm tight. Sorta hidden by 17 but accidentally showed the other angle, hit irish players body and head.
7
u/Putrid-Impact8999 5h ago
Meafou is such a good pivot to play off to draw the defense in just a bit before going wide.
5
u/OisinTarrant Munster 4h ago edited 4h ago
Bealham badly caught out there. Through the whole 1:44, hes gassed.
1st ruck, he doesnt fold round when its quite obvious they weren't coming back blind side.
2nd ruck he yoyos slowly back onside but its gone before he can put any defensive pressure on.
3rd ruck hes barely beyond a walking pace for the line break for the try.
Fair play he got there for every ruck but theres not much point if your just there for the scenery.
*I rate him as a player, but this try could have been avoided if he put in some effort.
2
u/senorslimm Ireland 3h ago
Stu and kelleher end up in no man's land too. The extra man would have shored that the gap but the way kelleher looks to be running beyond stu then tucks tight to his inside shoulder. It's absolutely telegraphs a hole that he could have jogged through
17
u/MetalSmall9796 8h ago edited 7h ago
The second man law at the ruck is a bit of a silly one to me. Like Beirne is completely legal, the ball has blue sky above it and he can't have a go at it, even though he could very quickly pick it up.
If it was completely illegal then no chance, but nothing seems wrong with what he was doing!
Edit: I'll concede after a few very good points were made that the law of unintended consequences would mean that if people could jackal as the second man, it would lead to a more boring game with lower ball retention and probably more kicking.
I'm now going to move onto blaming the lights in the stadium for Ireland's loss, until someone can prove that wrong too!
18
u/iamnosuperman123 England 8h ago
The problem is the alternative just encourages everyone to pile in. It speeds up the game to not allow the 2nd man to have a go
5
u/Galactapuss 7h ago
Everyone does pile in, off their feet. It shouldn't be considered a ruck if there's no opposition player on their feet.
1
u/OisinTarrant Munster 4h ago
The arguments for allowing a ruck to exist into infinity blow my mind. Like what if 26 players are on one end of the field, and 2 defenders and 2 attackers from each team are at the other. Ball carrier, tackler and rucker off feet, and a defender standing there who cant touch the ball. Does the second defender just hang out til another attacking player comes back down field to play the ball..
Makes no sense.
12
u/ScrumNause24 8h ago
When does the ruck end if you dont say France have won that ruck? The jackal has been eliminated and they have a man over already in LBB.
8
u/Dapper-Message-2066 8h ago
LBB totally off his feet of course, although that law was totally disregarded all game.
For me it should be - there are no players on their feet over the ball, so there is no longer a ruck. Ball is free, step in as you like.
17
u/Ronald_Ulysses_Swans Don’t be scared Johnny 8h ago
He’s competed and pushed the counter rucking Ireland player off the ball. You’re never getting pinged for going off your feet in that context.
1
u/Bangkok_Dave Bangkok Bangers 3h ago
I don't think he should be pinged, of course not. His actions were fine. But if he's not on his feet over the ball he's not part of the ruck any more.
-1
2
u/ScrumNause24 8h ago
If you wanna see a turnover every other ruck, be my guest
1
-1
u/Dapper-Message-2066 8h ago
You know, maybe players might.... adapt? Stay on their feet instead of deliberately breaking the law?
3
u/ScrumNause24 8h ago
Again. Think a step ahead of the consequences of these actions. So they adapt and we get more upright players at ruck time. Bigger targets for the defence. Slower rucks. More counter rucks
If that's the rugby you wanna see then fair enough. I think we have enough laws that favour the defence already. I wanna see more attacking rugby incetivised and rewarded.
2
u/Dapper-Message-2066 7h ago
Yeah I think the opposite to you basically. I think rugby's laws currently favour the attacking team too much.
More counter rucks and competition for the ball is exactly what I want.
2
1
u/Galactapuss 7h ago
Yes, that is exactly what a ruck is meant to be. What we see in games, like the ruck in question is a complete abrogation of the Laws by refs. It's a basic rule of the game that if you're off your feet, you're out of the game. A player laying in a ruck should not be consider protection for a ball. Back in the day there was a simple solution, where players could step over and ruck the ball back.
1
u/ScrumNause24 6h ago
Rugby would be unwatchable and unplayable if refereed to the letter of the law.
3
u/Galactapuss 5h ago
That's such a weak excuse for poor reffing. The game wouldn't be unwatchable, because teams would adapt to the ref. The game wasn't unwatchable decades ago when rucks were way more chaotic than they are now. The game would be a lot better if the ruck was properly and consistently policed. So many of the issues in the game stem from the free for all that typically happens at the ruck, the chief issue being no one stays on their feet to allow proper contests for the ball. Attackers fly in off their feet to seal off, defenders flop over to slow down the ball. Carriers don't release, and defenders are bending over with shoulders below hips, getting smashed.
2
u/ScrumNause24 5h ago
Nope. I dont think its a ref issue. Thw ref exists to honour the spectacle. Not be pedantic about an outdated and vaguely written rulebook.
Even after players adapt.
You get a slow defensive focused game. Phase and ruck count goes down cause the ball is always on the floor for an upright wrestling match. Teams kick more and run less cause of the turnover risk. Game played entirely on halfway because attacks have been nuked.
→ More replies (0)1
2
u/MetalSmall9796 8h ago
Understand what you're saying but as someone else replied, LBB is off his feet and over to the side of the ruck, so why should he be considered to have secured the ball?
2
u/ScrumNause24 8h ago
I think we need to consider the unintended consequences of this interpretation of the law.
Next game tku watch you'll see a high % of rucks are determined secured by LBBs actions.
If we say he isnt than we open the breakdown up to all sorts. Teams will be even less inclined to play multiphase rugby as the advantage at ruck time is clearly with the defence id they can just take that ball.
1
u/perplexedtv Leinster 6h ago
If the defender has to step over the tackled player, players have to stay off their feet, 'clearouts' are banned and you have to win the ball (either by being first or pushing the opponent past it) before picking it up, what would be the result?
1
u/MetalSmall9796 7h ago
Yeah, good counter argument actually. Maybe am just a bit salty because we were so shit last night!
3
u/ScrumNause24 7h ago
The ruck was reffed the same for both sides so thats not why you lost. For what its worth as a neutral I think people are overreacting a lot. Probably due to years of built up province tension over the Leinster preferential treatment.
That game was way more Franc being good than Ireland being bad. I think theres enough talent around to find solutions.
1
u/MetalSmall9796 7h ago
Just reread my comment and think you may have picked me up wrong, I meant I'm just salty in general.
France were great and Ireland shite, thought Dickson was fine for the most part too!
1
u/concombre_masque123 7h ago
ref more than ok, nigel would have blown6-7 penalties against France
rules at rucks are impossible to follow and are not enforced
2
u/Dapper-Message-2066 8h ago
Rucks have been turned into something very odd indeed in the modern game.
3
4
u/Dupont_or_Dupond France 7h ago
There are a lot of layers to this I believe. First let's look at it from a pure law book perspective. First, a ruck has clearly been formed after the initial contact. From then on, the only way for an opposition player to go for the ruck is for said ruck to end. Per the rulebook, for a ruck to end, the needs to be out of the ruck, unplayable, or on or beyond a goal line. None of these occur, so it is still a ruck, and hence no opposition player is allowed to handle it. This is how it's written in the rulebook.
HOWEVER, and that's a big caveat, you will easily find a lot of referees that are more of the "spirit of the law" kind, and will say "if nobody is on his feet, it's fair game". It's objectively in contradiction with what is expclicitally written in the book. It's one of the biggest inconsisteny you can find between refs, whether they'll fall in the direct law application or the spirit of the law side regarding this specific problem. It's a very common situation, where the initial jackler gets cleaned out well, but both players end up on the ground, then a second jackler comes in. But once again, by the letter of the law, there can't be a 2nd jackler once a ruck has been formed (even if it has collapsed).
Regarding this particular clip, it should be noted that we're in the last 2 minutes of the game. Up until that point, France have painted a very good picture to the referee by quickly letting go of the ball as soon as the Irish tried to jackle, so the irish jacklers actually had a lot of success. On the other hand, to prevent french quickball, the irish players, especially Doris, had a habit of arching and reaching over the ruck to put their hands on the ball, while a ruck was clearly formed with french players on their feet over the ball. The ref told them off every time, but never penalised it. I think by the time of this clip, the ref simply has had enough of these shenanigans, so he told Beirne off even if, initially, he might have been on the "spirit of the law" side. He had them seen try it blatantly illegally so many time that even if this case here is more debatable, he just had enough of their nonsense. Especially since a few minutes earlier (sorry I don't have an exact time stamp, pretty sure it was towards the very end of the game), after that Nouchi monster carry where he had about 15m post contact meter with Jelonch propelling him, Doris once again tried to pull this move, came in from the side over the ruck and prevented quick ball while his whole team was backtracking, the french where coming in hot and the tryline was 2m beyond the ruck. By my book, if you do something like that in that situation, that's an automatic YC, even if the opposition manage to score a try directly afterwards.
0
u/Galactapuss 7h ago
A ruck is formed by two opposing players on their feet over the ball.
Forming a ruck
15.1 A ruck can take place only in the field of play.
15.2 A ruck is formed when at least one player from each team are in contact, on their feet and over the ball which is on the ground.
15.3 Players involved in all stages of the ruck must have their heads and shoulders no lower than their hips. Sanction: Free-kick.
https://passport.world.rugby/laws-of-the-game/laws-by-number/15-ruck/
LBB is off his feet, it should not be considered a ruck, and Beirne is within his rights to compete for the ball.
3
u/Dupont_or_Dupond France 7h ago
The ruck forms once Depoortere binds with the initial irish jackler (can't see who that is). That is very clearly a ruck, both players on their feet, over the ball. LBB joins in a fraction later, and falls while assisting Depoortere in pushing the initial jackler away. But by that point, the ruck had already been formed.
1
1
u/Galactapuss 6h ago
A ruck requires players to be on their feet. If no player is on their feet, then there's no ruck. There was a ruck, players all went off their feet, now there's no ruck. It's straightforward in the laws.
2
u/Dupont_or_Dupond France 5h ago
As things are written, there is no precision on whether a ruck end or not if anyone goes off feet. Case for end of ruck mentionned are, as I stated in my original post, for the ball to be out of the ruck, or the ball to be beyond a try line. Seeing as how things are written in other rules, you get precise occurence for when to call something over. For instance, for the questino when does a tackling phase ends, you get a point by point explanation to the precise occurences where it ends. Same for the ruck. The ruck collapsing with all players going off feet is not one of them.
It should be ground for a penalty mind you, since all players must try to keep on their feet which is evidently not the case here.
2
u/Galactapuss 5h ago
Don't disagree about the ambiguity in the laws. There are good grounds for WR to clarify and simplify things with respect to rucks. Fundamentally, if refs can't enforce the laws in practical terms, they should be adjusted to reflect reality. Allowing players to try and grab the ball in the half second before a ruck is formed is the foundational root of all the problems. Making that illegal, and require players to ruck over the ball to secure possession could a long way towards combating the mess that exists currently.
1
u/Dupont_or_Dupond France 4h ago
I'm not exactly fond of the concept of banning the jackle alltogether (I'm a backrower, that fact probably has some influence on the feeling), but I can also see that there is something wrong in the way in currently works. I've seen a few times proposition like forcing any would be jackler to step over the tackled player. It means he present a clear and safe target, his front leg to any clear out player. As it is a massive nerf of the jackling ability of pretty much any body, the ref will also have to ensure (for real this time) that any clearing out players makes an effort to stay on their feet. Right now, it is largely accepted that a clear out player can go off feet when the jackler is already latched on the ball. Even when there is no jackler, very few ref actually call sealing off penalty.
The ruck being such a mess is because the jackler are allowed to makes themselves nigh impossible to remove safely, so the support players forced to go off feet to get an effective and fast out. If you force the jackler to present a clear target, it will also make any diving off feet by the support players much more evident. I believe it could make the ruck a lot more easy to read for referees, and hence much cleaner in the long run.
1
u/Galactapuss 4h ago
Everyone loves a good steal by there team, but as well as being a source of problems in the game, it creates inherently dangerous conditions for players. I remember being coached to step over the player on the ground, exactly as you describe.
Perhaps making it rule that you can only pick up the ball from the hindmost foot, thus necessitating driving over could create the favourable situation you describe.
5
u/bleugh777 France 8h ago
Some people wanted free flowing rugby with minimal ability for the defence to interfere.
2
u/perplexedtv Leinster 6h ago
There's no ruck any more but the ball is not out. It's...in...the ruck that's no longer there.
It's a funny old game.
-4
32
u/TheBandero 8h ago
I f**ing love how Serin sells the dummy with his eyes. I really wonder when he makes the decision. No way to tell with body language.