Well that's interesting.

[Setanta]

Wonder is Murray anything to the Kinsella sisters I went to college with?

[Neil F]

Hope I don't incite anyone's ire by trying to bring this thread back on topic...

First of all, you are quite correct, Baggy. The rugby analysis on 42.ie has been top notch, particularly the technical stuff.

More specifically, the point raised here is very interesting and one I've seen raised a few times before. It seems to me that most turnovers won from a jackal involve the defending player getting his hands on the ground in front of the ball, rather than on the ball. This is super effective in a number of ways - it makes it way for difficult for the tackled player to release the ball and a lot more difficult for supporting players to ruck the jackaler out of the way because (as your link points out), the defender is seldom fully supporting his / her weight on his / her legs.

Unlike Kinsella, though, even though (putting it liberally) this is a slight bending of the rules, it's not something I mind (unless a referee begins randomly penalising it for a sub-section of the game - step forward someone like Wayne Barnes...). I think anything that increases the probability of a turnover, without deviating entirely from the spirit of the game or becoming physically dangerous for the players is probably a good thing. It should encourage teams to attempt to use the ball when they have it because if not, they risk losing it. Otherwise, attacking teams have little incentive but to move the ball back and forth across the pitch and defending teams no real motive to commit players to rucks. I've suffered through such borefests in the past and I welcome anything that might help prevent it happening in the future...

Put another way; I'm all for the dark arts in rugby. At least when I watch games as a neutral, I like to see a nice bit of rule bending as much a clean line break. In my view, as long as you can get away with it, the rugby is just as good as anything else on the pitch that is well-executed. If it happens that the rule bending makes the game more watchable, then it's a win-win for all.

That said, I'd be fecking livid if such rule-bending negative affected a team I support...

[Spiffsson]

Many refs are too quick to award turnovers these days. In many cases it is enough for a player to rest two hands on top of the ball, even though there is no attempt to pick it up or to turn and present it to his own side of the forming ruck. This is not a real turnover at all.

[BR]

Many refs are too quick to award turnovers these days. In many cases it is enough for a player to rest two hands on top of the ball, even though there is no attempt to pick it up or to turn and present it to his own side of the forming ruck. This is not a real turnover at all.

Why would you try to pick the ball up? That would only give you possession. Better to get a penalty.

[Spiffsson]

Many refs are too quick to award turnovers these days. In many cases it is enough for a player to rest two hands on top of the ball, even though there is no attempt to pick it up or to turn and present it to his own side of the forming ruck. This is not a real turnover at all.

Why would you try to pick the ball up? That would only give you possession. Better to get a penalty.

You miss my point.You should not be getting a penalty just for just touching the ball with two hands. That is not a turnover.

[againstthehead]

Many refs are too quick to award turnovers these days. In many cases it is enough for a player to rest two hands on top of the ball, even though there is no attempt to pick it up or to turn and present it to his own side of the forming ruck. This is not a real turnover at all.

Why would you try to pick the ball up? That would only give you possession. Better to get a penalty.

You miss my point.You should not be getting a penalty just for just touching the ball with two hands. That is not a turnover.

It's almost the only way to stop the opposition these days. The tackler has to roll away so quick now, defenders can't go off their feet, you can't sniff at the half-back, sheesh it's the only way to get the ball back....

My concern is that rucks just arn't competitive anymore. Not worth competing much as you just get pinged. Even the ABs rarely blow teams off the ball anymore. Coz rucks aren't competitive, forwards don't get drawn in and it's hard to find space in the channels - certainly at international level anyhow. How often do you see one or two forwards protecting the half-back with no real challenge from the defensive side? Yawn.

[BR]

Many refs are too quick to award turnovers these days. In many cases it is enough for a player to rest two hands on top of the ball, even though there is no attempt to pick it up or to turn and present it to his own side of the forming ruck. This is not a real turnover at all.

Why would you try to pick the ball up? That would only give you possession. Better to get a penalty.

You miss my point.You should not be getting a penalty just for just touching the ball with two hands. That is not a turnover.

A turnover is an apple pastry, it does not exist in the laws of rugby. The word should be banned from referees' mouths.

[BR]

My concern is that rucks just arn't competitive anymore. Not worth competing much as you just get pinged. Even the ABs rarely blow teams off the ball anymore. Coz rucks aren't competitive, forwards don't get drawn in and it's hard to find space in the channels - certainly at international level anyhow. How often do you see one or two forwards protecting the half-back with no real challenge from the defensive side? Yawn.

I think it is actually improving again, and we're seeing a bit more counter-rucking (again a term that grates). If we could now just apply the roll away laws evenly and remove the soccer-goal-keeper-like protection afforded the scrumhalf, a game of proper rugby may actually break out.

[Cap'n Grumpy]

A turnover is an apple pastry, it does not exist in the laws of rugby. The word should be banned from referees' mouths.

That's very harsh ........ even a referee should be allowed to put an apple pastry in his gob if he wants to.

[BR]

A turnover is an apple pastry, it does not exist in the laws of rugby. The word should be banned from referees' mouths.

That's very harsh ........ even a referee should be allowed to put an apple pastry in his gob if he wants to.

You think *I'm* being harsh on refs? You should hear the suggestions from beside me on the terrace on a typical Friday night.

[Rooster]

Many refs are too quick to award turnovers these days. In many cases it is enough for a player to rest two hands on top of the ball, even though there is no attempt to pick it up or to turn and present it to his own side of the forming ruck. This is not a real turnover at all.

Probably because most of the time they are supporting their weight on the ball and would fall over if they tried to lift it so actually they would be penalised for not supporting their own weight in the ruck