The scavenger is no longer needed in rugby
Roar Rookie
By CraigB, 23 Feb 2010 CraigB is a Roar Rookie
- Tagged:
- Rugby Union, Super Rugby
Having watched the opening two rounds of the Super 14, it is clear that the new law interpretations have brought some welcome changes to the game. Teams seem much more willing to run with the ball, knowing they can have confidence in keeping it.
On the other side, we have seen defenders being very strictly policed if not moving away immediately or if caught hanging onto the ball. Even when on their feet, they are pinged.
This seems to have resulted in some sides conceding the ruck and marking up, hoping to cause a knock-on or other mistake to get the ball.
In discussions on this site, people have been asking how it is possible to force ruck turnovers without an opposition mistake. In my mind, there is no way to legally turn the ball over using last year’s techniques.
Even if a tackler is quick enough to get to his feet, release fully and then go for the ball, by the time this is done, an attacking player is there, and now it’s a ruck.
No hands boys!
Also, it is nigh on impossible to stand on your own two feet in that situation. Players are generally leaning on the tackled player (even slightly). This means they are as good as on the ground and playing the ball is a no-no.
So what do you do? Do you use a second player to attack the ball?
This deoesn’t seem to have worked thus far as they have been pinged for being in the tackle area, and unless the timing is exact, they have the same issues as the tackler.
The only thing you can do is forget about getting immediate hands on the ball at all. You teach your players to clear over the top of the ball.
You will undoubtebly meet the opposition there, and that creates the ruck situation. Beat them over the offside line and the ball is yours.
The scavenger is dead and everything old is new again!
Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Rugby Union articles
- Will Super Rugby crowds continue their slide? (201)
- Will South African rugby force a Super 21 by 2018? (173)
- The real story of how John O’Neill turned Manchester City down (70)
- Dan Parks and the unsolved questions of expat rugby (65)
- Australian teams at Super disadvantage (58)
- Pocock set to be named new Force skipper (56)
- Can the ‘Tahs win the battle after losing the Waugh? (51)
- France turns to Parra and Trinh-Duc
- Rebels look to lift for formidable Blues in rugby trial
- Mr Fix-It Lucas wants to nail down No.10
- Force roost loses ‘Mother Hen’ Sharpe
- Waratahs romp to 83-5 trial win over Samoa A (2)
- Quade Cooper’s return to the Reds goes up a gear
- Chiefs continue to wait for SBW (7)
- Wales show Southern Hemisphere how to play running rugby (29)
- What opening matches of Six Nations taught us (19)
- Will Super Rugby crowds continue their slide? (202)
- Clinical Chiefs cost rusty Rebels in Corio (9)
- Six Nations shows rugby is a parochial game at heart (5)
- Goose’s Super Rugby up-and-comer XV for 2012 (29)
- What does the future hold for the Six Nations (50)
- Explore:
- Rugby Union, Super Rugby
Who Needs Melon said | February 23rd 2010 @ 5:03am | Report comment
I completely agree with both your article and your determination that players must “forget about getting immediate hands on the ball at all. You teach your players to clear over the top of the ball”.
I think Phil Waugh and George Smith have struggled with this for various reasons but I think McCaw has the nous and physical build to better adapt.
CraigB said | February 23rd 2010 @ 6:48am | Report comment
Cheers Melon – I can’t see how anyone can be quick enough or obvious enough to tackle, release then go get the ball before the oppn get there to clean out. I think players have become so used to getting there in time to stop the jackles, that the extra time they now have is more than enough.
I also think that by trying to clear the ruck prior to going after the ball, you highlight the atacking team who may diving over and sealing off the ball. This gives another opportunity for a turnover.
Sam Taulelei said | February 23rd 2010 @ 6:49am | Report comment
Nice post and analysis. It will take time for teams and players to adjust to the emphasis on the tackler releasing the ball carrier at the breakdown and rolling away and work out ways to still legally contest the ball. I’ve seen other people make this comment in various threads and agree that counter rucking will be more important and we may see more gang tackles to keep the tackler up and allow defenders to attack the ball a la league style.
Rabbitz said | February 23rd 2010 @ 10:52am | Report comment
Funny you should say “we may see more gang tackles to keep the tackler up” as I was just thinking that myself. I do remember back in time when playing at school we were taught that setting up a maul was better than a ruck.
As an attacker it was “turn and give” to keep it alive. As a defender it was “hit low and drive up” to keep the player upright but out of balance to limit the offload.
Maybe we will see a return of the well formed driving maul and the isolated player being carried backwards while being stripped of the pill?
I’d pay a dollar to see that!
pothale said | February 23rd 2010 @ 7:03am | Report comment
“….we may see more gang tackles to keep the tackler up and allow defenders to attack the ball a la league style.”
Indeed.
As soon as the person hits the ground, they have to let go of the tackler, who then has time to pass it back to the next person on his team. As we saw in the Lions/Chiefs game this became an endless recycle of the ball until the attacking team scored.
Maybe the way to prevent this happening is to put a limit on the amount of times they can do that, and then the ball goes to the other team and they can have a go or a scrum or something.
BennO said | February 23rd 2010 @ 7:39am | Report comment
I like that idea pothale. I think a team should be able to do that about 6 times, then the other team can get the ball.
DOG said | March 2nd 2010 @ 7:22am | Report comment
Might as well watch a game of Rugby League and throw away your brain. !!!
These are New LAWS will not last but will bring a few people back to the game. Rugby has lost its way to the other codes RL, AFL and Soccer… With the RWC 2011 coming up the code will need to generate TV followers as NZ will not be able to cope with traffic to the small Island.
And for bringing back Rucking, it will NEVER happen! To many soft laws and administrators have taken over the game also quite a few players as well. I would love to see the cleaning out of the ball but there have been to many incidents where over zealous players have rucked off ears and caused serious injuries to upcoming athletes.
Brett McKay said | February 23rd 2010 @ 8:00am | Report comment
Pots, Elsom did exactly this for the Brumbies second try on the weekend, grabbed du Preez just as the pass arrived, and basically took the ball out in a good old fashioned RL one-on-one strip.
I not sure if we’ll see a sudden swag of gang tackles, but we may well see more attacking the ball in these standing one-on-one situations, perhaps even with more men arriving to ensure the tackled player stays upright.
I think there’s still a role for the scavengers or fetchers, but they’re going to have adapt a lot better than they are. Phil Waugh instantly springs to mind….
Dirty Rotten Scoundrels said | February 23rd 2010 @ 1:57pm | Report comment
Good old fashioned RL one-on-one strip…. Hmmm mate in Rugby that is called a good old fashioned rip. Its been around since Moses… well almost. All Walla-kids are taught to get in there and rip.
So far as ensuring the tackled players stays upright… Yep exactly the way to go… By holding the tackled player up the defending team is rewarded with a scum. Or hold him up, maul and rip the ball. Either way defending team effects a turnover of possession.
Nothing new just adherence to the ‘Laws of Rugby’… a return to how the game has always been played.
Now we will see a return to driving over the ball and dominant defending coming back… BIG TIME. Ah if only the IRB could harden the @#$K up and Bring Back Rucking. Not talking mountaineering, stamping/stomping or kicking the life out of players.; cleaning the rugga buggas out of the way – simple basic stuff.
BennO said | February 23rd 2010 @ 7:44am | Report comment
I guess if the application of the laws over the past 2 weeks does stick, players will have to modify their tackling technique where one player tackles and the second comes in a split second behind to pilfer. This would only work if the tackler really does roll away, but it would mean that the scavenger would become just a scavenger, following the tackler and not a tackler/scavenger in the way George Smith played the game.
I think in time skillful players could work it out, with some modification of tackling technique from his teammates.
TembaVJ said | February 23rd 2010 @ 7:47am | Report comment
Great I say, gone are the days where cheat McCaw steals the ball! Guys like him, GS and the short Saffa made teams scared of keeping the ball in hand. They have made an art of stepping the thin line to poach a ball and we have praised them for it, named them players of the year and so encouraged them to be better.
Then we found ourselves with the problems of late and tried to fix it with an avalanche of rule changes (ELV’s) which held the game back 3 years and probably the worst mistake in rugby history… Now finally it looks like we have found the answer, with a little bit of balance all will be restored in rugby land.
Ironically the answer was always there, under our noses. The world will follow this time as the idea does not sound as stupid as the ELV’s. I hear the worst coach in the world Martin Johnson says he will not go with this… well England will be the only ones left outside again, and Martin will once again prove to be the worst coach and dissension maker in the rugby playing world… at least he will have something new to blame.
Grandpabhaile said | February 24th 2010 @ 2:36am | Report comment
” I hear the worst coach in the world Martin Johnson says he will not go with this… well England will be the only ones left outside again, and Martin will once again prove to be the worst coach and dissension maker in the rugby playing world… at least he will have something new to blame.”
Where did you hear/read this, TembaVJ? Apparently the tackle interpretation is being played in the 6Nations despite rumours to the contrary.
Hoy said | February 23rd 2010 @ 7:53am | Report comment
I hardly think that the Lions vs Chiefs game should be used as an example for anything except maybe the desperate need for some defence training. I saw the highlights, and some of those tries were woeful. It was like a freaking training run out there. Two handed touch or something.
I disagree with this article though. I think the fetcher could become even more important… if they are good enough. First man tackles, second man, BANG there on his feet over the ball. It is the way it was meant to be. While the second man has his hands on the ball trying to obtain possession, the tackled player is always holidng on to prevent the turn over. It is this period where defense can win out.
Again, the fetcher has to be bloody good. Mediocre journeymen need not apply. You are right, counter rucking is the better option is your flanker is only average.
Brett McKay said | February 23rd 2010 @ 8:05am | Report comment
and Hoy, this is basically what Chris Hickey was getting at when he said he was toying with the idea of packing Palu at 7 and Waugh at 8 in scrums, so that Waugh would be the second man in. But judging by Waugh’s comments over the weekend, I’m not sure if they’re actually tried it yet??
I’ve just said in another post above that I also think there’s still a role for the scavengers or fetchers, but they’re going to have adapt..
sheek said | February 23rd 2010 @ 8:01am | Report comment
Let me see if I can get this right….. what happens in the tackle situation is essentially no different to last year, or 5 years ago, or 10 years ago, or even 50 years ago.
What is happening in the tackle today is the referee’s interpretation, based on a edict from SANZAR (is the same interpretation being applied in the northern hemisphere?). This interpretation is based on a change of emphasis.
Last year refs scrutinized the attacking team for breaches of the law. This year they are scrutinizing the defending team for breaches of the law. Whatever happened to common ground? Whatever happened to balance???
How is it last year all the offences appeared to be committed by the attacking team, but this year, all the offences are being committed by the defending team? How does this work???
With respect to tackling, I’m old school – one player driving with his shoulders & legs into his opponents thighs should bring him down like a tall pine tree. Then the attacker must release the ball on the ground. A second defender can then attack the ball.
You don’t need gang tackles.
I’ve never believed its necessity in the past, & I don’t believe its necessity now. The answer is well-timed, aggressive, offensive tackling. Like it always has been, or should have been.
Aggressive tackling!
With respect to how many times you can recycle the ball, wouldn’t the leagueis love the idea of rugger buggers having to kick the ball away after the 6th consecutive recycle….. !!!
Lee said | February 23rd 2010 @ 8:26am | Report comment
Interesting about gang tackles…I went to the Boks – ABs game in Hamilton last year and the biggest thing that stuck out was how the Boks “gang tackled” and the ABs tackled as you described.
Nearly everytime an AB player had the ball, a Bok payer tackled him low, with another one attacking the ball a miilisecond later. It seemed effective and is probably the reason the ABs kicked a lot in that game. It shows to when you watch the Boks – Lions games and you see how many times a Lions try was thwarted by defenders attacking the ball in the tackle.
sheek said | February 23rd 2010 @ 9:56am | Report comment
Fair enough. My point being you only need one guy to make an effective tackle.
Of course, it makes sense to have one of two ‘seconders’ around him to either assist him if his initial hit is slightly askew, &/or to scavenge for the ball immediately the player is on the ground.
As contrast, this is precisely how the Boks attacked the ABs in the 1995 RWC final. Their policy, especially with Lomu in mind, was “one ball carrier, one tackler”. However, each tackler had one or two waiting to either assist his tackle, or scavenge for the ball.
The Boks in 95 were conscious of not leaving gaps elsewhere by committing too many defenders to one player, that is, Lomu. The tackling technique of the Boks was so technically efficient & effective, they didn’t need to gang tackle too often at all.
Rightly or wrongly, I’m inclined to think the concept of gang-tackling is a quiet admission of an inefficient tackling technique.
ohtani's jacket said | February 23rd 2010 @ 8:11pm | Report comment
The Boks didn’t mark Jonah one on one. James Small funnelled him into the midfield. This was a ploy they came up with when they noticed he liked to go on the outside of the defender.
sheek said | February 24th 2010 @ 7:55am | Report comment
That’s correct. The Boks policy was that whoever was opposite Lomu when he had the ball in hand would have to tackle him.
ohtani's jacket said | February 24th 2010 @ 5:13pm | Report comment
Yeah, but he was essentially double teamed like in basketball.
Dandy said | February 23rd 2010 @ 8:10am | Report comment
As witnessed on the weekend, strong aggressive counter rucking will provide turnovers.
To do this you need strong players hitting the ruck hard and holding their feet. This is something a player like Phil Waugh will struggle with but Mccaw, Elsom, Burger and Smith can do.
I think teams will tend to not commit to the breakdown and till they see a genuine chance of a turnover, at that point they will hit with everything they’ve got.
JariusVII said | February 23rd 2010 @ 8:51am | Report comment
I think the solution for scavengers is relatively simple – throw the attacking player to the ground while not going to ground yourself. IRB law 15 will not classify you as a ‘tackler’ in this instance. Then pick up the ball and go on your merry way.
The big difference this interpretation has made is concerning the old tactic of cleaning out then falling on top of the opposition ball to slow down the play. This is not happening any more, hence, if teams do not run one out and ball carriers apply good technique at the contact point, it is not hard to hang on to the ball.
It’s sad that in all this changing of rules and interpretations over the last few years in order to win over non-rugby audiences and generate revenue, trying to grab a bigger slice of the australian sporting pie, nobody has asked the blokes who play the game. Why is the way our game being dictated by fair-weather (at best) fans and marketing gurus? It’s bloody madness.
DaMan3000 said | February 23rd 2010 @ 9:08am | Report comment
“throw the attacking player to the ground while not going to ground yourself. IRB law 15 will not classify you as a ‘tackler’ in this instance.”
Would this not also mean the attacking player is not a tacklee, doesn’t have to release the ball and can get back up to keep going forward?
formeropenside said | February 23rd 2010 @ 9:12am | Report comment
You would think so but the referees have not been treating the laws as applying in this way.
reds fan said | February 23rd 2010 @ 9:53am | Report comment
There was an example of this in the Reds v Crusaders game. The crusaders hooker was thrown to the ground but not held, and the Reds player stayed on his feet and looked to try and play the ball. The Crusaders hooker just started crawling forward, play on was called, and he made another 5 or so metres. So the the requirement to “hold the ball carrier” under Law 15 still apply, even if you remain on your feet. However further in Law 15.6 (c) it states “Players in opposition to the ball carrier who remain on their feet who bring the ball carrier to ground so that the player is tackled must release the ball and the ball carrier. Those players may then play the ball providing they are on their feet and do so from behind the ball etc…”
reds fan said | February 23rd 2010 @ 10:13am | Report comment
I think that this section of the Law has been ignored over the past 5 years or so, with good 7′s such as Mccaw Smith etc hanging on as the tackled player hits the deck while remaining on their feet and then continuing to play the ball without having clearly released both ball and ball carrier.
So in a situation of one-on-one, the defender if they want to stay on their feet needs to firstly ensure they have made a tackle and not just thrown the guy to ground, then they must release both and then go for the ball from the right direction “behind the ball”. You’ll need to truly isolate a player to get enough time to do all that correctly and win the ball legitimately.
IronAwe said | February 23rd 2010 @ 9:40am | Report comment
I’m pretty sure I saw attacking players doing this and still being pinged for it. In fact I think Smits arguments with the ref in round one were for this exact reason, he was saying that the tackler was still on his feet and therefore not considered a tackler and allowed to go for the ball, but they got pinged for it every time. The ref wasn’t having it, in these new interpretations, even if you are on your feet and you assist the tackler, you are considered a tackler and therefore cant go for the ball.
reds fan said | February 23rd 2010 @ 9:58am | Report comment
I guess we’ve always thought it was a “tackler” who needed to release. But as I have added above, even players who remain on their feet and while making a tackle need to release the ball and ball carrier even though they aren’t technically considered a “tackler”.