Better Rugby Coaching / Better Rugby Coaching / The Huddle / Reinterpretation of 'cleaning out' / Latest Posts

RE: Reinterpretation of 'cleaning out'

Red & Black fan — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 21:57:18 GMT

Yep, that bridging/ sealing thing- its STILL happening... & then other times refs pin you all day for even looking like you might be doing it... sadly, its almost a case of coaching it with the proviso 'see what the ref does & then either stop it or carry on' hardly a great advert for our wonderful game is it?

RE: Reinterpretation of 'cleaning out'

weathergirls — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 09:52:53 GMT

ive been watching all sort of games and still see lots of bridging.

RE: Reinterpretation of 'cleaning out'

Jenko — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 08:01:37 GMT

The head and shoulders above hips is a law at all levels in the ruck. (there is an ELV that removes this requirement at maul time)

RE: Reinterpretation of 'cleaning out'

didds — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 10:48:43 GMT

[quote][b]Steve Bate (18/09/2008)[/b][hr]Agreed but is this going to be interpreted as stopping the tackled player from moving/rolling away?[/quote]

well clearly if a player is holding the shirt of a tackled player/the tackler that player will be unable to roll away. Whether the person with the whistle knows or cares about that particular area is of course possibly more pertinent.

didds

RE: Reinterpretation of 'cleaning out'

Steve Bate — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 19:02:41 GMT

Agreed but is this going to be interpreted as stopping the tackled player from moving/rolling away?

RE: Reinterpretation of 'cleaning out'

kernowrob — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 15:59:20 GMT

The way I have had it explained to me is that particularly at the continuum ages in England, head should not be lower than hips - and the player should be in a position where they can support their own weight.

So they can in my opinion go in and legally "bridge" in the right body position, over the tackled player and grab their shirt with their hands - but to show that they are legal - pull the shirt up - so this way it is obvious they are not "leaning on".

I dont believe that would count as sealing off either - the opposition can always counter ruck the "bridging" player off - something we also work on.

But as everyone says that has always been the law - so not anything new really...

RE: Reinterpretation of 'cleaning out'

Steve Bate — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 12:46:29 GMT

[quote][b]weathergirls (18/09/2008)[/b][hr]are you telling me that your team does not do exactly as i described?
why choose to quote me but not answer the question of what will there be to clean/clear out.

if you run a team or coach one and you didnt bridge like i described then i would suggest that your team loses every week.

a ref decides when there is a ruck. it is ok to write down your version of events because you decide the time scale in the game in your mind, the reality is that these things are done in a fraction of a second. if it took as long as you seem to be suggesting, then the ball would be picked up and run forward or passed to start a new phase.

my sons team is taught to offload, to pop from the floor, to step over and pick up.
he is 6ft1 and as fast as a whippet but he is one of the tallest and so is forced to play as a 2nd row.
that makes his pack relatively small for under 16 age group. to keep the ball moving at speed suits our club and my sons age group team.

i cant see the point in keep telling me the laws when i can read what you have read.
my point is that if the ref says that black is blue then it it is blue till we can talk in the bar over a beer. a bit extreme i grant you but im sure you understand.

....
i must say i am surprised at the replies for' getting rid of the bridge.
unless we have a wasps/bath (when cipriani broke his leg) or munster/toulouse situation where the the bridge and pick and go are used to waste time then i cant see a problem.

i think rugby has been really good at 'easing' the game forward rather than what is a radical back door tactic imo[/quote]

Sorry to appear to be antagonistic, I actually agree with you it was more an observation that the lawmakers stress what a ruck is/isn't in a very simplistic world of pictures. It never happens or looks like that on a pitch and you're right split seconds dictate what really goes on. My comment about hands in the ruck were to the poster before you.

For reference we got queried at the end of last season by opposition for bridging in U12's and no we're not beaten very often!

RE: Reinterpretation of 'cleaning out'

weathergirls — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 12:21:27 GMT

are you telling me that your team does not do exactly as i described?
why choose to quote me but not answer the question of what will there be to clean/clear out.

if you run a team or coach one and you didnt bridge like i described then i would suggest that your team loses every week.

a ref decides when there is a ruck. it is ok to write down your version of events because you decide the time scale in the game in your mind, the reality is that these things are done in a fraction of a second. if it took as long as you seem to be suggesting, then the ball would be picked up and run forward or passed to start a new phase.

my sons team is taught to offload, to pop from the floor, to step over and pick up.
he is 6ft1 and as fast as a whippet but he is one of the tallest and so is forced to play as a 2nd row.
that makes his pack relatively small for under 16 age group. to keep the ball moving at speed suits our club and my sons age group team.

i cant see the point in keep telling me the laws when i can read what you have read.
my point is that if the ref says that black is blue then it it is blue till we can talk in the bar over a beer. a bit extreme i grant you but im sure you understand.

....
i must say i am surprised at the replies for' getting rid of the bridge.
unless we have a wasps/bath (when cipriani broke his leg) or munster/toulouse situation where the the bridge and pick and go are used to waste time then i cant see a problem.

i think rugby has been really good at 'easing' the game forward rather than what is a radical back door tactic imo

RE: Reinterpretation of 'cleaning out'

Steve Bate — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 08:28:43 GMT

[quote][b]weathergirls (17/09/2008)[/b][hr]speeding and using your phone when driving is illegal but we see it every day and we all do one or the other of them.

i had mentioned bridging, not laying on! bridging to me is weight on the feet, fists on the floor,head up looking for incoming. not touching the ball or tackled player.

hitting the ruck at speed is poor play imo. it is done to hurt, intimidate or level a better or more important player.

it goes on every week in every game.

my point about all this is ,what will anybody be clearing out, if you cant bridge!

btw
the refs had told us that the boys can lay the ball back if its done straight away and in one movement.

[/quote]

But if as per above you say bridging is weight on feet fists on floor there is no binding therefore not a part of a ruck. If he's looking for incoming and just protecting the ball from advancing defence there isn't a ruck and non of the laws around the ruck apply, this is more akin to the defensive pillar/post scenario not necessarily the first player at the breakdown. I realise it's not as simple as that but bridging is being coached as a mechanism to secure the ball PRIOR to the ruck forming, ie you have to get through a defensive wall before challenging for the ball.

The previous post re feeding the ball back, the law clearly states 16.4 (b) Players must not handle the ball in the ruck. The fundemental problem is that it is not being reffed properly, the recent trend has been it's ok to feed the ball back if deemed to have secured it rather than ruck over the ball until the ball is secure at the rear of the ruck so the SH can retrieve it. My 2p worth.

Steve

RE: Reinterpretation of 'cleaning out'

weathergirls — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 21:37:36 GMT

speeding and using your phone when driving is illegal but we see it every day and we all do one or the other of them.

i had mentioned bridging, not laying on! bridging to me is weight on the feet, fists on the floor,head up looking for incoming. not touching the ball or tackled player.

hitting the ruck at speed is poor play imo. it is done to hurt, intimidate or level a better or more important player.

it goes on every week in every game.

my point about all this is ,what will anybody be clearing out, if you cant bridge!

btw
the refs had told us that the boys can lay the ball back if its done straight away and in one movement.

RE: Reinterpretation of 'cleaning out'

Ferret — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 13:40:02 GMT

Hi all, sorry to butt in, I have been following this post but I don't really coach the ruck, that is done by our forwards coach (albeit we don't just coach the forwards of course!)

Are we saying in effect that

players cannot charge into the ruck at speed
players joining or forming a ruck must not lie on the tackled player, or lean on him with one or both hands or arms

...because to my mind that has always been the law, as didds says.

We had a training game on Sunday and the ref told the lads they can use one hand to guide the ball towards the back of the ruck, but this seems to be at odds with some of the comments on this post. Any views?

Tim

RE: Reinterpretation of 'cleaning out'

weathergirls — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 12:02:18 GMT

that is something that i will make sure about in future. the games were in england

i dont think that the two refs that i spoke too were ignoring' as such, but there seemed to be general confusion. they stressed that changes did not make that much difference and that staying on their feet would be their priority. all four teams that i saw were bridging and clearing out in the usual fashion.

am i right in saying that these changes/differences (from normal practice) are not in the elv changes? yet in imo i think these are more fundamental to the game than any elv changes.

RE: Reinterpretation of 'cleaning out'

didds — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 06:29:47 GMT

[quote]
there were refs at a boys tournament at the weekend. who were not playing these rules.
they just stressed that boys must stay on their feet.(they did give elv talks and advice).[/quote]

then if this was in England and they were operating under the RFU's Marsh insurance then nobody involved in those games had insurance cover - players, coaches, the referee, administrators of the event, the CB etc.

I guess it was all those people's houses on the line if litigation had ever ensued as a result of a tragic accident, even one unconnected with this bridging area.

didds

RE: Reinterpretation of 'cleaning out'

weathergirls — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 19:04:25 GMT

that reply sort of missed the point.
the game is played with bridging and clearing out.
i do mean bridging and not just laying on.

i accept your point that it was illegal before now but i didnt know that till a couple of months ago.
i played and trained to what the ref would allow
its always stressed to the boys who play at my club that they must play the ref and see early- what he will allow.
there is no doubt that different refs play 'differing' rules and the one i learned quickly was the ten yards for any gob.:)

interesting that our coaches teach at private schools and at county level, one was a professional player, yet they teach/taught this way.

if this is enforced then the game will be radically changed. i wonder how it will be played in future.

there were refs at a boys tournament at the weekend. who were not playing these rules.
they just stressed that boys must stay on their feet.(they did give elv talks and advice).

RE: Reinterpretation of 'cleaning out'

didds — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 14:18:17 GMT

[quote][b]weathergirls (16/09/2008)[/b][hr]
if bridging is illegal now because it is a form of sealing off,[/quote]

its not illegal NOW - its ALWAYS been illegal. It was however decided to be ignored at the more elite levels and its insidious practise then became emulated increasingly further down the ladder. Ditto squint feeding at scrums and lineouts etc.

didds

RE: Reinterpretation of 'cleaning out'

weathergirls — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 12:05:46 GMT

hello hello

great site :)

if bridging is illegal now because it is a form of sealing off, then wont the ruck be almost 'dead' as we know it?
i read the earlier posts and irb links about 'clearing out' and how that is to be stopped too. what is left of the ruck!
in days past in the carling era, the back row took the ball in contact but did not always go to ground. instead they turned and a maul formed and the s/h took the ball from the chest of the carrier and started a new phase.
is this the way forward?

i liked playing this style of rugby because it was faster and avoided being dumped on by fat props :) but i also remember england being heavily critisied for it at the time.

(the back row player was tim rodber.)

RE: Reinterpretation of 'cleaning out'

Toby — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 13:51:06 GMT

Ianthesmudger: Clearly you're well ahead of the game both at the forum and with your coaching! Interesting and well-noted that you've had good success with coaching ways to accommodate the enforcement of the rules. Long may it continue.

RE: Reinterpretation of 'cleaning out'

Ianthesmudger — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 13:05:12 GMT

I posted on this subject over a month ago but no one commented! Do not get confused - this is nothing to do with the ELVs, merely an enforcement of existing law. Refs have allowed sealing off/bridging and hands in the ruck for years and it has been coached into the game - now it will have to be coached out! We have concentrated quite hard in this area over the last month and it has resulted in our rucking improving. Guys are now clearing out hard, going low to high. If they clear out all the defenders and the tackled player and the ball are left isolated on the ground, the next support player (hopefully the 9!) is in quick and the ball is away - previously the support player came in and sealed off the ball. If the 9 is tied in or not the first support player there, we are picking and going at pace with support. Our management of the ball in contact, offloading and ball retention has improved significantly.

RE: Reinterpretation of 'cleaning out'

Toby — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 13:34:46 GMT

Here's an article from Dan's blog of September 8th, 2008

Teams losing their feet over old law

Sealing and bridging is confirmed as illegal. This month referees were told to be more vigilant in the tackle contest area and lots of teams struggled.

This is mainly because of poor technique in the contact area. Players go off their feet because they are not balanced as they arrive and they tend to drive down and not up.

Here is that ruling again, plus a clip of a ruck drill.

From the IRB website:

Law 15 - Tackle

It has become evident that players are going to ground over or on ball carriers which has become known as sealing off. On some occasions they remain in that position and fail to move away contravening Law. Furthermore players are going to ground or on top of players after a tackle thereby ensuring that the opposition cannot contest possession. Such actions are in breech of Laws 15.6 (g), 15.7 (c) and 15.7 (d).

Referees are requested to be more vigilant in this area of the Game and to ensure that both teams are treated equally at the breakdown.

Law 16 - Ruck

It has become common practice for players to move the ball from rucks using their hands and to pick the ball up in a ruck to form a maul. It is also evident that players of the ball carrying team are being allowed to handle the ball in the ruck when defenders are being told to leave the ball alone.

Law 16.4 (d) is to be refereed at all times and applied to both the attacking and defending teams.

Click here to visit Dan's blog and see a little drill from the Ford Rugby Academy to help your players stay on their feet.

RE: Reinterpretation of 'cleaning out'

iolo — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 12:59:39 GMT

Watching the Dragons vs Glasgow game last night none of these changes in the interpretation of the ruck laws seemed to be in effect.

My personal view is rules have been deliberately interpreted in a way favouring the attacking side, and that these changes, if brought in, would make it much harder for the attacking side. So I don't think they will be here to stay, if they arrive at all.

RE: Reinterpretation of 'cleaning out'

neilarths — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 14:56:59 GMT

yeah i was gonna mention this as a side note - in effect sealing or bridging of the ball is no longer applicable as it is being clamped down on really hard - as a coach of a physically small side i have personally spent a lot of time focusing on and developing this technique as one of the major factors of ball retention during contact, it seems my side will need to develop a fresh approach

RE: Reinterpretation of 'cleaning out'

d4zzler — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 01:30:29 GMT

Talking about the ruck and how you coach it, have you seen this?

http://www.irb.com/newsmedia/mediazone/pressrelease/newsid=2024288.html

Last weekend we had a prematch overview given by the referee, where he clearly laid out what he expected from our players and how/why/when he would blow for an infringement.

So tackler to move away from th etackle area immediately, no sealing/bridging and if in contact/engaged even with one of your own players over the ball/ruck no hands in - even to 'if trying to feed the ball' towards the back of the ruck.

It was clear, concise and he did referee to his clear instructions throughout the game.....

Reinterpretation of 'cleaning out'

neilarths — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 17:58:16 GMT

[url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/welsh/7596321.stm[/url]

peoples views and opinions of this appreciated - how does this effect the way in which we coach the ruck area??