Wednesday Sep 11, 2013 Ben Tameifuna and Jamie Mackintosh banned for old school rucking

Ben Tameifuna and Jamie Mackintosh banned for old school rucking
27
Comments

Two New Zealand props have been suspended following stamping and raking incidents in the ITM Cup fourth round match between Southland and Waikato in Invercargill. Ben Tameifuna and Jamie Mackintosh have both been suspended for one week.  

Judicial hearings took place for separate incidents after Tameifuna trod all over Mackintosh, then later in the game the big Southland captain rucked the back of replament Sam Christie.

In the first of the two incidents, Waikato giant Tameifuna saw Mackintosh on the floor and in an attempt to clear him out, he jumped on his legs, which in the view of judicial office Chris Morris was ‘reckless but not intentional’. He stated that ‘more care was needed in future’.

As for Mackintosh, he got his own back a little later in the match, although it was on a replacement back who had fallen on the wrong side of a tackle and was blocking quick ball.

The Southland skipper’s rucking was lauded by the old school commentators, with former Otago flank and captain Kelvin Middleton saying that Christie got what he deserved.

The referee let it go and actually warned Waikato for slowing the ball down, but the citing officers disagreed, and Mackintosh was cited for stamping, a breach a breach of law 10.4(b).

Morris said that the stamping was forceful rucking and that the number of times the boot had made contact with Christie’s back had put it into a more serious category. He did however say that it was at the low end of the offence, and a one week suspension was appropriate.

Mackintosh, who funnily enough went off with a foot injury, voiced his disappointment on Twitter.

“Watch out everybody if u ruck someone who lies on the ball it’s a week suspension,” he said.

27 Comments

  •  larry
    larry

    You're right about the release of the ball. Sometime in the 70's it became "okay" to hold onto the ball on the ground for a second or two and then releasing it, and hopefully by then your teammates were there to ruck the ball back. Watch any videos from the 60's and 50's on You Tube and you will notice tackled players released the ball even before hitting the ground in some situations. I think this led to a belief that tackled players had the right to keep possession for their side by hanging onto the ball in the tackle for that brief momentary period of a second or two to allow for teammates to arrive at the breakdown. Viewing old games shows that possession seemed to go from one team to the other much more often than the modern game. Of course a variety of rule changes, most of them regarding kicking, has much to do with possession of the ball, as well as the time permitted to release a ball in the tackle. The way the game has been played in the last decade or so there's also the situation of a ball lying at the very back end of a ruck, for much more than a few seconds, and either the scrum half or acting scrum half bends over the ball, even laying a hand on it, and looks at the defense (and then the defense is already set up by then by the needless waiting) before picking up the ball and continuing play. In my mind that ball should be considered out of the ruck, because it isn't being rucked back anymore, and is "loitering" at someone's foot who is sometimes not even bound on to other players in the ruck. If "use it or loose it" came into being regarding mauls, the same should be applied to rucks: pick up the damn ball and use it!

    Reply
  •  spit_roaster
    spit_roaster

    I'd stamp all over your back & gladly live with the shame.

    Reply
  •  spit_roaster
    spit_roaster

    To all you whinging armchair pundits, climb into whatever vagina you scampered out of. This is a CONTACT sport. Whether intentional or not, players feet will always be in contact with persons on the floor, whether it be a result of a ruck or collapsed maul/scrum. In my 20 years of playing rugby I have yet to see a serious injury resulting from conservative use of the foot in a ruck, i.e. not stamping ior jumping on a players neck/head. If we continue to censor rucks/mauls/scrums will be left with Rugby League. All you metrosexuals are more than welcome to join their ranks if you can't handle the traditions of Union.

    Reply
  •  browner
    browner

    Did they?, what laws were they????? I don't recall seeing any reference to joints!

    Reply
  •  crazeyes
    crazeyes

    Shoe him! Rake marks on your back,great feeling, especially when deserved.

    Reply
  •  drg
    drg

    Totally agree, I don't view it as any machoism (not a real word I'm sure..) I know some damn "hard" 19 stone players who don't get a boost to their ego when they shoe someone (or used too) they viewed it as a way to help the team get the ball back...

    Reply
  •  drg
    drg

    First one looked unnecessary, second looked fine. You just need to look at how slow the ball in rucks is nowadays... ...I'm not saying it should be a shoeing free for all, I recall a few years back they brought in laws about stepping on joints, that coupled with no head contact is a recipe for fast rucks!

    Reply
  •  45678
    45678

    There was a time when rucking was used, not as a way of harming, but collectively proving a point to a referee when all attempts to appeal to the referees better nature about tidying up the ruck failed. You would concede a penalty, but then the point was made The game is very different now, especially at the top level, where the first offence at the ruck should always be the tackler rolling away. It has cleaned up the sport

    Reply
  •  finedisregard
    finedisregard

    Browner, you're a disgrace and partly responsible for ruining our game. It doesn't matter how many stone a player is, players have no business being on the ground on the wrong side of the ball. Refs obviously cannot enforce this. When I was on the wrong side of the ball opposition did entire tap dance routines on me. I deserved it.

    Reply
  •  xenophile
    xenophile

    Guy, While I've always supported proper rucking, in its current incarnation and past forms, both of the above acts were dangerous and could have seriously injured the receiving players. It does not take much to break ribs, or damage internal organs - especially not when a 130kg prop is putting the hoof down.

    Reply
  •  browner
    browner

    There is so much bollocks bravado being uttered here ......... Leave the referee to administer punishment for not rolling away...... all 17st players who stamp on someone unprotected on the floor are cowardly - if you're in that description then shame on you. , and the disciplinary that follows is both deserved and welcomed.

    Reply
  •  browner
    browner

    It saw sense & modernised !

    Reply
  •  browner
    browner

    Sorry chaps ,........ simply couldn't resist ! The priest he wasn't a mucking, when examining for signs of a rucking he'd wipe away grass before fingering your arse as preparation for a good ***king

    Reply
  •  howardtheduck
    howardtheduck

    Connachtman.

    Reply
  •  howardtheduck
    howardtheduck

    Your profile pic makes your comment even funnier. In a good way.

    Reply
  • Ain't no rubber studs there brother .... 25mm of rucking good metal. Depower our scrums ... we will find blood another way

    Reply
  •  fantasticbarnsmell
    fantasticbarnsmell

    It's almost as if the citing commission want to deter actions that could lead to serious injury.... What is happening to the game we love??

    Reply
  •  finedisregard
    finedisregard

    Eddie G, you said it brother! Asdfero what do you mean "get down and ruck the man over"? That's what these guys were doing. The way it should be is that anyone on the wrong side of the ball deserves to gets shredded. The guy on the ground is cheating, not the player on their feet playing rugby. You can't play rugby while you're on the ground.

    Reply
  •  asdfero
    asdfero

    Fucking accept that the game has changed already. Get down and ruck the man over, whether he's killing the ball is for the referee to decide, and if the ref is doing a bad job, well, you're raking the wrong person...

    Reply
  •  bnations
    bnations

    All that I know is that back when rucking was allowed and encouraged, there was no such thing as "breakdown battles". The ball came out after the tackle straight away. One way or another, the ball came out. And then the game flowed on.

    Reply
  •  eddie-g
    eddie-g

    Sorry, but when the rules ban a rugby player from doing something "forcefully", the rule is rubbish. The physical nature of the game demands you do things forcefully, that's one of the great things about the game, the rules therefore need be clear only that you can do something or that you cannot. Personally, rucking should be allowed with two conditions. No aiming at the head, and only on a person who is in the way of the ball. Meet those conditions, you can give the person a good shoeing. Happy to see gratuitous stamping punished, but the buggers who stop quick ball deserve some frontier justice.

    Reply
  •  reality
    reality

    Mackintosh was punished for being a good Christian. What a world!

    Reply
  •  elvis15
    elvis15

    Both were obviously intentional in my opinion and neither were within the boundaries of acceptable rucking. You're legs shouldn't be pistoning up and down and the foot should be moving from forward to back, as if to roll the player towards you. The first he steps (hard) twice in the same place where if he was just joining the ruck he would have been making an attempt to step over him. The second he is aiming outwards to just rake the back, rather than try and pull him back with his cleats on the side. Penalties for sure, but borderline for a week suspension.

    Reply
  •  reality
    reality

    I actually think the first was far worse than the second. He stamped on the guy's leg/groin area, which aside from being very dangerous obviously doesn't serve to ruck the guy out of the way. At least in the second he was rucking the guy who was clearly purposefully lying there to prevent the ball coming out. Under the laws it's a penalty if you're not rucking back with the feet in order to move the guy out of the way, but I'd be of the opinion that it's self-policing, in that if people are going to get a good shoeing then they won't be so willing to purposefully lie there and slow the ball, and so that would eliminate the need for rucking of the sort. All within reason, of course, and I admit it's hard to draw a line between a get-out-of-the-way shoeing and reckless Dimitri Yachvili-style stamping.

    Reply
  •  connachtman
    connachtman

    When I played back in the stone age my Coach would make us second rows show him our backs after the match and if we weren't covered in rake marks we were dropped for not trying hard enough...he was a Priest from Limerick!

    Reply
  •  petefrommoor
    petefrommoor

    Defo wrong and seemed away from the ball but great to see little reaction from Christie. Wonder how footie/soccer would have handled that?

    Reply
  •  guy
    guy

    According to the laws of the game the ref is right to award a penalty in both cases (intentionally rucking the body). However, I don't understand the citing and subsequent suspension since both acts were neither dangerous nor cardworthy.

    Reply

Great Tries

View All

Big Hits & Dirty Play

View All

See It To Believe It

View All

Funnies

View All

Training Videos

View All

Player Features

View All
Ben Tameifuna and Jamie Mackintosh banned for old school rucking | RugbyDump