New law interpretations will strangle try scoring
Roar Guru
By LeftArmSpinner, 24 Feb 2010 LeftArmSpinner is a Roar Guru
- Tagged:
- ELVs, Les Kiss, Rugby Union, Super Rugby
Bulls' Fourie du Preez looks for support as he is tackled by the Chiefs' Stephen Donald during the Super 14 rugby match at the International Stadium in Rotorua, New Zealand, Saturday, March 22, 2008. AP Photo/NZPA, John Cowpland
The new interpretations of the breakdown laws have processed a have produced a massive number of tries in the first two rounds of the 2010 Super 14 competition.
Personally, like most rugby fans, I like to see ball in hand rugby and tries being scored. I don’t mind the odd blowout score, either. If nothing else, it makes life interesting.
That does not mean that scrummaging, line outs and even a driving maul are not still an essential part of the game.
Traditionally, the game is predicated on a relatively even playing field when it comes to the breakdown. Interpretations, in favour of either the attacker or defender, can and have fundamentally changed the game in ways that were not predicted, often for the worse.
Currently, and it is still early days for both the referees, coaches, administrators and players, the playing field is not even.
Les Kiss is a very successful and highly knowledgeable former player and current coach. On RuggaMatrix last week, he made the point that the new interpretations might initially favour the attacker, but that very quickly, coaches and offensive coordinator is would concede the breakdown and leave as many as 14 players in the defensive line.
The end result will still be lots of ball in hand rugby, but a reduction in the number of tries scored because of a strengthened defensive line. Possession won’t change unless the attacking team makes a mistake.
Rugby and its essence, the contest for the ball, will have disappeared and the game will have become unlimited tackle rugby.
Les Kiss went on to make his own very astute suggestions as to how we can promote running rugby. He proposes the referees being much tougher on players off their feet at the breakdown.
I fully support his suggestion and believe that it should be a recommendation to the IRB.
The real blight on the game are players, predominantly forwards, who sole purpose in defence is to slow down the opposition’s ball at the breakdown, by breaking the rules of the game.
They have made an art form of trying to appear innocent, clumsy or just simply “it wasn’t me guv’.” They make it appear that they are playing rugby by contesting the ball when in fact they are cynically and constructively not playing rugby or playing in the spirit of rugby and just want to slow down the opposition ball up and hence the spectacle.
Enough is enough. On the second infringement, the referee will issue a yellow card to the offending player. Initially, there will be many offending players and many yellow cards. But it will not take coaches very long to realise that the risk/return equation makes offending at the breakdown just not worth it anymore.
Defending players will need to show greater judgment as to when they genuinely contest the ball and/or counter-ruck.
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
- Victory beat Mariners with Kewell winner
- Waratahs romp to 83-5 trial win over Samoa A
- Quade Cooper’s return to the Reds goes up a gear
- 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:
- ELVs, Les Kiss, Rugby Union, Super Rugby
Lee said | February 24th 2010 @ 5:07am | Report comment
After watching the Crusaders games the last couple of weeks, I would completely agree with more focus on players going off their feet. In teh Reds game they actually got puleed up for it more, but if you go back and watch the Highlanders game, it is amazing to see how often a Crusaders player is lying on the wrong side and not making any effort to move.
Sam Taulelei said | February 24th 2010 @ 5:58am | Report comment
But surely this is what the priorities for referees is intended to do, focus more on what the tackler is doing and ensure that other defenders (and attackers) stay on their feet. It’s not as if the Crusaders were the only team guilty of lying all over the ball at the ruck.
Lee said | February 24th 2010 @ 6:14am | Report comment
By no means, but they were the ones who stuck out the most to me, and got pinged the least.
Sam Taulelei said | February 24th 2010 @ 5:38am | Report comment
LAS
I posted a link to an article last night about the interpretations re: the breakdown being tweaked to allow the second tackler more rights to contest the ball and give the defending team a better chance of winning a turnover.
With respect to Les Kiss’s suggestions I think that the better teams will realise that if a ball carrier is tackled and isolated, then it gives other defenders the opportunity to flood the breakdown and counter ruck to win the ball, or keep the ball carrier off the ground and attack the ball. Other teams will learn and follow.
I don’t believe that defenders will fan out even more and concede the breakdown as the attacking team will just pick and go from the breakdown and pop the ball in the tackle to a supporting player as it will be easier to break a thin defensive line with no cover to worry about, especially if the ball is recycled quickly.
LeftArmSpinner said | February 24th 2010 @ 7:39am | Report comment
sam, the defensivre line is not thinner. it is thicker as there will be more players in the line and less in the ruck/maul. the defensive line will continue to be as it is, thicker around the ruck and thickening as the ball moves laterally. but there will be more players in the line.
I take your point about faster ruck ball if there are less defenders in the ruck, but this can be achieved by simply cleaning up the breakdown.
IronAwe said | February 24th 2010 @ 7:01pm | Report comment
If the defending team commit less people to the breakdown and have more people in the line, then we are going to see lots more rolling mauls and pick and drives because they will be attacking the area with less defenders. This will pull the forwards back in and create space. I don’t think we have anything to worry about on that front. However I certainly agree with you that players have made an art form of slowing down the ball. But I also think these new interpretations will fix that as well. We shall have to wait and see as the season unfolds.
Who Needs Melon said | February 24th 2010 @ 11:28am | Report comment
I haven’t read the posts below this one yet but I read this and I think Sam has nailed it on the head.
In the past decade or so Australia has deliberately NOT committed many players to rucks. The ‘contest at the ruck’ for Australia has consisted of us hoping that the tackled player drops at the feet of players like Phil Waugh, George Smith, David Pocock, etc. so that they can attempt to pilfer it. And at times this tactic has worked very well. But it won’t work under the renewed interpretations/focus.
Justin said | February 24th 2010 @ 6:30am | Report comment
I think there is still some tinkering to come. From what I have read in snippets I think the idea is to initially be all over the defensive team and then they will start to look at the attacking side as well.
I dont think any real judgments should be made for at least another month.
BTW there are numerous SH ref appointments for the last 3 rounds of the 6N. Will be interesting to see how that goes.
Sam Taulelei said | February 24th 2010 @ 6:58am | Report comment
I’m not 100% clear on what Les Kiss means by referees being tougher on players being off their feet at the breakdown. From what I’ve seen in the first two weeks, they are being much stricter on the tackler releasing the ball carrier and defending players lying over the ball, if anything they’re probably guilty of being lax on the attacking team lying over the ball to seal it off from defenders.
Attacking players leaving their feet while joining a ruck are as guilty as defending players trying to kill a ruck but you rarely see the attacking team penalised. They should be stricter on the attacking team in a ruck using the hands to roll the ball back to the halfback, especially as the player is on the ground and has no rights to play the ball. I’ve seen that occur in several games and the laws are clear, once a ruck has formed then it’s hands off (from both teams) and only the feet can be used.
It’s pleasing to hear players and coaches concede that they need to change their ways instead of the usual ref bashing that occurs in the early rounds.
Fragglerocker said | February 24th 2010 @ 7:12am | Report comment
From what I’ve seen, the new interpretation is working, but it’s too early to tell. Give the teams time to adjust, and the referees time to get some consistency and we’ll have a clearer picture.
The one thing I would point out is how the contest at the breakdown isn’t disappearing, it’s just changing back to what it used to be – rucking. With no tacklers hanging onto the ball for dear life, effectively stopping either sides forwards from driving over the ball, most of the turnovers at the breakdowns in the last couple of weeks have come from defending forwards arriving at the breakdown in numbers, forming an old fashioned ruck (which looks more like a mini scrum, and less like a pile of bodies) and then driving over the ball.
Give the new interpretation a chance. They may just work themselves out
LeftArmSpinner said | February 24th 2010 @ 7:41am | Report comment
fraggle, lets hope that this is the outcome. rucking is good and should be an integral part of the game, particularly counterrucking.
sheek said | February 24th 2010 @ 7:26am | Report comment
Spiro actually wrote an excellent article in yesterday’s SMH, whereby he quoted the great Danie Craven. The good doctor’s thoughts can be encapsulated in 3 points.
1. The laws (of rugby) are all wrong because they can’t be written down on a single piece of paper. [That is, they're too complicated].
2. Change one law, & it affects how other laws will work. [Yep, the dopes haven't worked this one out yet].
3. With respect to point 2, Craven used the metaphor of pulling a thread from a jersey & the old garment “unravelling”.
We haven’t seen the counter-attack on these new laws yet. If Les Kiss is right, we might end up with rugby league style unlimited tackle. Imagine committing one tackler with the remaining 14 players in the defensive lines.
Presto, rugby league by stealth….. !
LeftArmSpinner said | February 24th 2010 @ 7:43am | Report comment
sheek, that is exactly where he was going and that would put Union 30 years behind league!!!!
sheek said | February 24th 2010 @ 8:19am | Report comment
Leftie,
I assume your reply concerned Les Kiss’ comments???
I do agree with the good doctor Danie Cravn that rugby has far too many laws. We keep changing & chopping, but it remains to be seen if we get it right this time.
The lawmakers continue to forget that if you change one law, that will have a flow-on effect to how other laws interact.
It’s simply not possible, or practical, to attempt to codify every action that might occur on a rugby field. We do need less laws governing the game. Remove the ref as the most influential player on the field.
The game of rugby has always been a 16 man game, not a 15 man game. The ref has always had too much influence on the course & outcome of matches.
AndyS said | February 24th 2010 @ 4:44pm | Report comment
So the argument is what, it is working so far but might not in the future so we should make changes now just in case?
The existing laws define the behaviour of players in the tackle, on their feet and on the ground. The subtext to Kiss’s statements seem to be that refs are idiots and they are only capable of looking at one aspect at a time, but so far I think they have been doing a pretty good job of monitoring the behaviour of all the players at the breakdown (so much easier without carcasses lying everywhere). Hence all the committed rucking, turnovers and quick ball.
Honestly, it is as though everyone feels a bit rudderless without having a boring game to deride and are prepared to invent problems to obsess about instead.
LeftArmSpinner said | February 24th 2010 @ 7:50am | Report comment
I have jsut read in the SMH, comments from robbie deans on the new interpretations:
”Now that the referee has dealt with the tackler and that source of frustration is gone, there’s no excuse now for attacking support players diving in. Referees should now be able to shift their focus to catering for both sides, so that you actually lift the height of the ruck and get less debris.
”In doing that you will have a genuine contest. If they allow the attacking team to have total rights, including being able to seal the area, what will happen is that the contest will disappear, and you will end up with cluttered defensive lines, which is worse.
”If you deny the contest totally, there will be fast recycles, no one visiting the contact area, cluttered defensive lines and it will be ugly. You will end up with more kicking.”
seems to me that he is saying the same thing as Les Kiss. I am just adding that Yellows can make it happen quickly!!!!
JohnB said | February 24th 2010 @ 9:26am | Report comment
No disrespect to Les Kiss, but what he is saying is hardly earth-shattering – that is exactly what happened under the interpretations before the last set, when the multi-phase style of attack came in and you had teams holding onto the ball for 15, 20 or more phases (and certain idiot commentators carrying on as if that was a good thing in itself, although that’s another rant). I think it’s probably worth a go to see how the game evolves under the laws now in force, with all of them actually being enforced, before doing any more tinkering (and that the next set of tinkering should be to change the laws that aren’t enforced).
LAS, while I’m on it, let me express the view that there is nothing essential about the driving/rolling maul. It’s a relatively recent thing, since you used to be able to pull down a maul, and it’s essence – legalised obstruction – goes against all the other tenets of the game, as well as encouraging a dull and ugly style of play. Sorry – personal hobby horse.
Big Steve said | February 24th 2010 @ 1:43pm | Report comment
I agree with the last part JohnB. And the refs in allowing players to move to the back of the mall with the ball by saying they are still bound makes it even worse. How can you move backwards through a mall with the ball and be bound. They then go as far as penalising it once and then not the next 10 times in the game. See Waratahs v Stormers game.
BennO said | February 24th 2010 @ 8:58pm | Report comment
“…there’s no excuse now for attacking support players diving in.”
I really agree with Deans there. One of the things I remember vividly growing up through the 80s is the referees often exagerated arm movements to indicate a penalty for diving over the ball and killing it. I don’t think I’ve seen anywhere near as many penalties for killing the ball in recent years, but I often see it happen. It kills the contest immediately.
Sam Taulelei said | February 24th 2010 @ 10:05am | Report comment
Les Kiss and Robbie Deans obviously know what they’re talking about but I still disagree that the game is at risk of seeing cluttered defensive lines. Last year in the Bledisloe Cup tests the Wallabies were criticised for sending too many players into the breakdown and not enough players into the breakdown on attack and defence when the law interpretations favoured the defending team. Strong defence keeping the ball carrier behind the advantage line, counter rucking by flooding the breakdown, ripping the ball free from their grasp are aspects that defending teams can still do.
It’s expected following any law changes that the first few rounds of Super 14 rugby will see muddled performances as players, coaches and referees get to grips with them. Reporters love to write about the demise of the game because of what has changed and blog sites get filled with doom and gloom predictions as well.
I remember Robbie Deans predicting lots of wonderful things happening with the advent of the ELV’s but they never eventuated because the risk/reward for counterattacking from deep positions was too high a risk.
This is all a mountain out of a molehill and by midway through the competition we’ll all be marvelling at how much better the game is in attack and defence. Lyndon Bray has sent an email to all referees and coaches advising them that the second tackler will have more rights to contest the ball, effective immediately so we’ll see how teams adjust to this modification.
Brett McKay said | February 24th 2010 @ 10:20am | Report comment
Leftie, I think to a degree this is already happening, and I certainly recall from several games over the weekend where both the attacking and defending side were pinged for for players just diving into or over the ruck. No doubt it could be done more, and I completely agree with your sentiments about the yellow card, though the refs should have been using the cards this way anyway…
Empire said | February 24th 2010 @ 10:31am | Report comment
This has been issue raised by the coaching team at my club.
Essentially, should the 14 man defensive line eventuate, then pick ‘n drive is order of the day. With only 1-2 opposition around the ruck, and with increased time for placement or popping, easy meters are there to be made. As defenders are drawn in, spin it wide – simple as that.
I think that a keen half and fly-half will be able to manipulate the opposition around quite well, which is obviously what they are meant to do. Opportunities are there with the new laws, you just need the right guys to identify and exploit them!
Another aspect that will be targeted in the local comp (ACT Premier) is that rucks are ‘rucks’ with players keeping their feet, and should the attacking team get properly isolated, they will be turned, and if the defensive team is able to clean out effectively, then they will be duly rewarded.
First ever post complete!
Who Needs Melon said | February 24th 2010 @ 11:32am | Report comment
And a good one it is too Empire. It IS that simple. And I like the rucks will be rucks comment.
Sam Taulelei said | February 24th 2010 @ 2:23pm | Report comment
Yep, agree with you Empire. Made the same comments in a different thread. Good first post. Keep posting.