Comments on: Don’t blame the rules, blame the players

By: Jerry

Jerry — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 01:54:57 +0000

Pick and goes and short passes suck in forwards. Otherwise you’d just get 13 or so (one or two committed to the ruck) players in a defensive line constantly. Again, more like league.

By: pothale

pothale — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 01:47:05 +0000

“There’s too many situations where forwards from the attacking team are required to be near the maul. How would a team do a pick and go or short pass from the halfback without being inside the 10 before the ball emerged from the ruck.”

The point being you couldn’t. Remove the tedious, time-wasting plays. The ball has to get fired out into open play, rather than the endless keep it tight of pick and go. I suggested ten, it could be five. Just don’t allow them to hover endlessly around the ruck/maul. Either get involved/committed or retreat. You shift the breakdown from being a focus or playing platform to a catalyst to getting the ball moving openly again.

By: Sam

Sam — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 00:14:07 +0000

Reading pointless comments does the same to me.

By: Sam

Sam — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 00:13:32 +0000

I don’t think referees ignore the offside play – like you seem to suggest – but rather have so much else to do that they are unaware of it. Hence my suggestions assistant referees enforce the offside rule. As for NZ and the rush defence, I don’t think they employ it, South Africa and Wales do (Warren Gatland is a huge fan of the rush defence) and it seems to be more and more popular.

By: Jerry

Jerry — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 22:14:09 +0000

Wouldn’t work. There’s too many situations where forwards from the attacking team are required to be near the maul. How would a team do a pick and go or short pass from the halfback without being inside the 10 before the ball emerged from the ruck. And even if that were somehow solved, I suspect it would just lead to teams doing endless one off hitups to eat up easy metres. Basically league without the six tackle limit to ensure teams have to chance their arm.

By: ohtani's jacket

ohtani's jacket — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 14:30:28 +0000

Since when did the NZ defensive line rush up in defence? They may be offside at the ruck at times, but they don’t employ the rush defence.

By: Gary

Gary — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 13:06:35 +0000

“The players however get payed to win, not to entertain”

Actually they get paid for showing up, the same payment win, lose or draw.

Instead of $11,000 regardless matbe they should get 5,000 for being selected, another five thousand for winning and another thousand for getting a bonus point for four or more trys.

By: chris

chris — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 11:00:04 +0000

Just reading hacks/fans explaining the rules of Rugby Union be it old,new or what it should be is a bore in it’s self.

By: westy

westy — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 10:24:16 +0000

I agree with Sam. The much improved defence is further enhanced by intentional offside play. Rarely do players receive a yellow card whereas players who commit shoulder charges real or apparent seem to receive them automatically.
Referees give significant leeway to offside infringements.
They want the game to flow yet paradoxically permit offside play or take avery liberal view which negate that flow.
NZ centres seem to be in a perennial state of offside play and in the last ten minutes of Ireland against the Wallabies it was pick back for Wallabies who was not technically offside yet I get some shcmuck who commits an alleged shoulder charge automatically yellow carded no questions asked.

By: AndyS

AndyS — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 07:50:27 +0000

“It’s not the game that is at fault, but is in fact the teams that play in a certain conservative manner that affect the opinion makers and finger-waggers”

Not sure I’d completely agree Josh. I would have said that the laws are certainly not a problem at the non-professional levels, but they have not kept up at the level that is actually seen by the vast majority of people viewing the sport for entertainment. At that level, played by very fit professionals, the laws and their interpretation most favour a conservative game. It is not foolproof, but it is certainly the gameplan most easily enacted by players of variable ability. Using it, less skilled teams can overcome more skilled attacking teams as it places all the onus on the better team to perform and punishes them for lapses. There is a fundamental imbalance between the two aspects of play and the sport (rather than “game”) is at fault for not having redressed that balance.

By: Rich_daddy

Rich_daddy — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 05:56:37 +0000

I agree , they are some absolutely ridiculous and very technical laws in rugby. I think the IRB forgets a bunch of boof heads play the game.

By: Rabbitz

Rabbitz — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 03:31:11 +0000

Harry,
Like I said the post was “PC” (Pre-Coffee). So it probably is a hare-brained idea

However another Post Coffee idea could be tying players, staff and administrators pay/bonuses to a KPI based on attendances and TV ratings may put pressure in the right direction. That is to say play footy that is uninspiring and lose punters then lose money, conversely play attractive footy which gains punters get more money.

By: Sam

Sam — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 02:08:52 +0000

I would say enforcing the offside law more accurately would be the best thing to do. No need to change the law, just make sure that teams are no offside. We see it all too often with the rush defenses. Half the problem is that the referee has to look at the ball, what is going on in the ruck, and the defensive line all at the same time! Do what they do in soccer and have the assistant referees police the offside rule. The other thing I’d do is make sure that players aren’t being taken out off the ball, especially in open play. The South Africans are masters of playing guys off the ball, and again the referee is generally focusing on the player with the ball and doesn’t see what is happening. It makes counter-attacking difficult because support players are getting taken out. The last thing I would do is be much stricter on players who contest the ball in the air – bombs – because i get the feeling that many of them are jumping with two thoughts in mind: 1) try and win possession 2) if I don’t win possession, collide with the other player to either impair them moving forward, or to cause them to mis-handle the ball. Obviously doing 1 is well within the law and is an important part of the game, however 2 is not. It’s not easy to spot, but i believe it happens far to often. So no need to change the rules, just make it easier to enforce them.

By: pothale

pothale — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 00:56:52 +0000

Just make the backlines stand 10 metres back from the ruck/maul on either side same as the scrum. If you’re not involved in the ruck/maul, you must retreat.

By: ohtani's jacket

ohtani's jacket — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 00:44:40 +0000

The game was played conservatively in the amateur era too. In fact, a lot of the rugby we saw this year was the standard in years gone past. It’s not really a matter of playing one way or another — sometimes you have to play conservatively. I know Bob Dwyer has that popular idea about playing the first 10 minutes of a Test as though it’s the last 10 minutes, but that can blow up in your face if the passes don’t stick.

There’s a lot of sports that have an imbalance between scoring and defence, and conservative and attacking play… A lot of entertaining sports teams have defensive weaknesses that cost them championships at the end of the season. What people need to understand is that there’s a fine art to building a sports team that can attack and defend in equal measure. No coach has everything that he needs or wants, and even if you strike the right balance, maintaining over the course of two or three seasons can prove extremely difficult. Hence, most sporting sides have a small window of opportunity.

If the Wallabies, for example, had played a bit more sensibly this year, they probably would’ve won more matches than they lost. So the key is to play clinically. A lot of people remember the back play from great sides but they tend to forget the grunt. Very rarely to rugby sides win on back play alone, and if they do it’s a one-off, not the type of accumulative success that we’re all looking for.

By: Jerry

Jerry — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 23:43:50 +0000

Goddard’s reffing was a perfect example of why people who say “Refs should just start binning players for slowing the ball down” are wrong. Half of the cards he dished out were just plain wrong calls.

The breakdown is something of a lottery, I don’t think making the prize a yellow card instead of a penalty would really help.

By: Harry

Harry — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 23:07:43 +0000

I would like to see the penalties increased for negative play. if your not going to reintroduce rucking …
Slowing the ball down on the ground inside your defending half – automatic yellow card.
Offside defenders from a ruck/maul – automatic yellow card for 3rd offence.

They also need to be far stricter on enforcing the offside rule at mauls and rucks – watching the November internationals it was my view that you could (and should have on many occassions) have blown an offisde penalty at virtually every maul. The “rush” defence and “linespeed in defence” (beloved by modern coaches) just means that time and time again these guys are offside.

By: Harry

Harry — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 23:01:37 +0000

Agree with this … I think the real problem is that rugby coaches, like all highly paid professionals, take the entirely logical step of minimising risk and pushing the laws (operating environment) to the max. That means playing a game which minimises the possibilities of mistakes, and “plays the averages” … listening to Rod Kafer (the best commentator in Australia IMO and of course an ex professional coach for a significant amount of time) is instructive in that he’ll regualrly talk about “low percentage” options. And of course a great case study in this philosophy in practice was the Tahs 09 season.

I can’t really see how you could practically create a pay structure that does reward entertaining play though … I think the S14 (and for that matter the 3N0 has done its best with the bonus point system.

By: Bay35Pablo

Bay35Pablo — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 21:55:27 +0000

“Goddard’s attempt to discipline the players and establish his authority was to force an expansive game.”

I thought it was because he got chewed out for his game the previous week for being too lenient, and was overcompensating?

The recent games show it can be played more attractively. However, the rules still need tweaking. At the end of the day the game is professional, meaning coaches and players need to win, meaning they will go conservative if they believe they need to.

By: MyGeneration

MyGeneration — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 20:39:05 +0000

Aren’t the players following the instructions of the coaches?

By: Rabbitz

Rabbitz — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 20:04:32 +0000

RF as I see it the problem is that no matter what the IRB dinosaurs come up with will be negated by negative thinking coaches and tacticians.

This would be compounded by the calls to “only pay the players for winning” as this would enforce even more conservatism by the players.

Now I haven’t thought this through, but how about the ARU, ARU, SANZAR etc create a pay structure for all support staff – coaches, tacticians, water boys, towel washers, fluffers etc that is dependant in part on “entertainment value”. the idea being to end the negative thinking of the management of the teams.

I just put this out there and as I said I haven’t thought this through, nor have I had my morning coffee…

By: rugbyfuture

rugbyfuture — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 16:34:34 +0000

The players however get payed to win, not to entertain and so the only way to combat this is to adjust the rules to guide them towards the correct path