Oh come on yourself. I know Union very well, considering I’ve been involved with it for over 17 years. I played (and still do) back in the days when rucking was allowed so I just might know what I’m talking about. I’m not only a player but also referee so…
Yes, sure, it happens that sometimes a person gets “the treatment.” But that is not what the ruck is for. The purpose of the ruck is to retain posession after a player has been tackled (as opposed to a maul, which has already been explained). If you attempt to slow the ball either by holding onto to it (which is not allowed when on the ground) or not getting out of the way, you’ll probably get what’s coming to you. But if you do your best to get out of the way, in most instances you’ll be fine.
Read the laws. If you can find in there where it says the purpose of rucking is to put your “tags” (whatever the fuck those are, do you mean cleats or sprigs?) into a helpless player, I’ll eat my (rugby) shorts. Good luck.
I know what the official rule is for - I have never in the slightest disputed what rucking is offically for, genuine apologies if I in some way gave a different impression.
But my stance is simply this, and you’ve just acknowledged it yourself, that while a rule is on the books that allows rucking you will inevitably wind up with ‘incidents’ where players come up streaming blood because ‘they got in the way’, or were apparently interfering with the ball.
I’m sure a quick search on Youtube would reveal any number of ‘rucking’ cases, especially at the international level, where the rucking taking place had zero to do with ‘freeing the ball’. My memory is hazy on the exact details, but I remember a particular instance in an international, (I think it was South Africa V Australia) where a South African thug was captured quite clearly repeatedly stomping on an opponents head in the ruck, under the guise of ‘rucking’. I don’t recall if he was sanctioned for it or not.
In short summary, the offical rule and the reason for it is fine, but what some players will do under the guise of that rule is a major problem and not a good luck.
A provisio too in my argument, is simply that most of my points are aimed at the elite level of play, I doubt in a local club or park match that anyone would stoop to the illegal side of rucking.
Sorry Flyhalf, you must be American(?) maybe. Yes Tags are effectively the same thing as cleats or sprigs.
But that’s true with pretty much any sport out there. Of course people will bend or, in some cases, break the rules. Ever seen a pitcher in baseball throw at someones head? That’s pretty freaking dangerous but you don’t see the head honchos at MLB getting rid of pitching and using a tee. It doesn’t mean you take away that part of the game. It just means that the enforcement of the rule(s) should be swift and, if necessary, severe (if rucking the head for example).
Anyone wanting to play rugby should know that it can be dangerous, whether rucking, scrummaging (where there is a distinct possibility of a broken neck depending on the position), or whatever. And if you know what can happen, and still choose to play, then YOU accept the responsibility and possibility that things like this can occur.
Can’t some of this be handled by just penalizing hands in the ruck? Are you no longer allowed to drag players out of a ruck if they are obstructing the ball? I see few games these days, but one thing that seems very common in the games I do see is players handing the ball back, out of a formed ruck. If a guy is laying on the ground with the ball in his hands and the ref isn’t calling that (for whatever reason) I would be very tempted to ruck his hands - That’s where the ball is! What I can’t figure out is, if the ref can see the rucking going on, why can’t he see the guy’s hands on the ball?