Crusaders’ Andy Ellisleft, bottom left, tackles the Waratahs’ Dean Mumm as his captain Phil Waugh jumps to make room for a pass during their Super 14 rugby union game at the Olympic Stadium in Sydney, Australia, Saturday, March 21, 2009. (AP Photo/Rick Rycroft)
The ELVs continue to be contentious. It seems rugby fans can cope with most things. We can live with the different styles of rugby for example; they make life and rugby so much more interesting.
But the breakdown continues to be a bugbear.
Most complaints centre around the referee having far too much arbitrary say in what happens at the breakdown.
Quite often, a penalty is awarded or conceded that has little bearing on one or anothers team’s effectiveness. The maul has virtually disappeared, and this is scandalous.
Should the ref have the power to determine if a player came off his feet, or another player came in from the side, or yet another player used his hands on the ball?
Why not go back to the past, but with a difference – the ref only blows up play when it’s obvious the ball isn’t going to come out of the ruck/maul.
The team deemed to be going forward gets possession, but it’s a tap and run instead of a scrum, thus allowing play to quickly pick up again.
Only when the ref determines neither side is moving forward (that is, static), will a scrum be called, with the attacking team getting the feed.
This way, effective rucking and mauling will return to the game, but unlike the old days, if there’s a breakdown – such as the ball not coming out, or an obvious knock-on – the tap and run allows a quick restart of proceedings.
Defending and attacking players can come in from the side, as long as it’s not obvious – ie 90 degrees. Hands on ball is also allowed, as is ‘truck ‘n trailer’ and pulling the maul down.
Players on ground can be rucked out, as long as it’s not deemed deliberately foul. That is, use your boot to push a player away, not rake over his face!
Eventually defending players will quickly realise that unless they’re quick to regain possession at the breakdown, there’s no point holding up proceedings unnecessarily. The attacking team will quickly get another tap and run.
So make the tackle, try to get possession, otherwise ensure the defensive alignment is sound.
Most importantly, my suggestion is designed to allow for some better continuity, while bringing back some of the “good ol’ days” of rucking and mauling, without the ref incessantly blowing his whistle.
In other words, let’s have some good old-fashioned “organised mayhem”.
A quick word on scrums and lineouts. If, during a scrum, the ball comes out before the front-rows collapse, why reset the scrum? If the defending team hasn’t been disadvantaged in any way, why reset it?
Play should only be pulled up in this instance if the ref notices an injury.
With lineouts, if there was no way the defending team could win the ball, even with a slightly crooked throw, why reset the lineout? For example, the throw is crooked, but the defending team chooses not to jump.
It should only be reset if it’s obvious to the ref that the defending team had no chance at all to win possession, fair or foul.
What do other Roarers think?
matta
Guest
hey hey hey..I still stand by my comment. Jocks post is written like a 20's telegram STOP.
Keith
Guest
"For instance if the tahs are so good at not turning the ball over, why are they kicking it away so often and why are they not scoring more?" For me, it's all about the quality of their ruck possession. There's a big difference between winning your own ruck half a metre behind the advantage line and winning it 10 metres beyond it. I reckon the Tahs problems this season are pretty tradional - their loose forwards aren't blowing past the advantage line enough, which translates to more defensive pressure on their backline, which means more knock ons. It's no wonder they kick so much. Like I said, although they've got the fewest overall turnovers per match, I'll be willing to bet that a big proportion of them are knock ons.
Matt
Guest
"Just take your time Matta. Nobody here is judging you. Try reading it out loud." Nice work Keith!
Who Needs Melon
Guest
Strange how sometimes statistics can be totally counter-intuitive. On the one hand it seems to support the argument that we are all unfairly picking on the Waratahs and they aren't THAT bad. On the other hand, it's all in how you read them, isn't it? For instance if the tahs are so good at not turning the ball over, why are they kicking it away so often and why are they not scoring more? Lies, damn lies, and statistics eh? Personally I love statistics - gives you something to think/talk about - so keep 'em coming. :)
mitzter
Guest
ok so the impression is there are more turnover (7% is way not high enough IMHO tho) so teams instead of trying to make the break now use the kick - it's far easier, less tiring (tho i would think the retention rate of the kicking team at catching the ball or at the first takle would be far less than 93%) and we have this back and forwards. I don't know maybe balls need to be slightly heavier to make the kick harder or something
Keith
Guest
WNM, I should have said the number of THEIR OWN RUCKS they concede per match is 5. Here's another surprise: the number of all types of turnovers the Tahs concede per match is 17.18 - the best in the tournament. The worst turnover team is the Reds - 22.91 per match. My guess is that a high proportion of those Tah turnovers are knockons. That's not a good thing considering all the attacking opportunity it kills. What it means is that they're a side that is struggling to make use of it's possession. For instance, they're ranked second to last in defenders beat per game (10.09). They're second only to the Bulls in kicks in play per game, but their kicking is nowhere near as effective. FYI - they've also got a pretty average lineout (11th in own lineouts won) and are second to last in all kicks at goal (71.11%)
Who Needs Melon
Guest
Keith, I've seen such statistics before so I'm NOT disputing you but these Waratah statistics are staggering (to me) and seem to be completely counter to my impressions having watched all of the Waratah matches this year. "The Warratahs have the best ruck success rate, conceding 6.52% of their own ruck ball". I'm slightly amazed by this. Many is the time I've seen a Waratah run away from support and turn the ball over in the tackle because he's all on his lonesome. "The Warratahs have averaged the fewest turnovers per match (5)". I'm COMPLETELY amazed by this. Surely I'm not the only one. The number of dropped balls is right this minute flashing through mind. Along with the Phil Waugh quote after one of the recent matches - "it's pretty simple stuff isn't it? Catch and pass".
Who Needs Melon
Guest
sheek, You say you would prefer: "the ref only blows up play when it’s obvious the ball isn’t going to come out of the ruck/maul" (which I can understand) But then: "The team deemed to be going forward gets possession, but it’s a tap and run instead of a scrum, thus allowing play to quickly pick up again" If the ball isn't coming out then there is hardly going to be an opportunity for play to quickly pick up again, is there? I'm not sure I agree/understand the "players can come in from the side, as long as it’s not obvious - ie 90 degrees" suggestion. Aren't you just changing what the ref has to judge - i.e. instead of "was that 'through the gate'" to "was that past 90 degrees"? COMPLETELY agree about the scrum. If the ball is out, let it go ffs. Disagree about the lineout. The opposition may not have jumped BECAUSE it was crooked. I don't have a problem with the current rule. It's a shame many hookers can't throw straight (says he who has never tried it) but many seem to have no problem.
RickG
Guest
Great article as usual Sheek Didn't this free-for-all get trialled in the APCnad was found wanting? I agree the contest for the ball should be extended - after all the continual contesting of possession is at the heart of the difference between the tw orugby codes. If there was some incentive for the defending players to remain involed in the ruck rather than fanning out in the defensive line it would solve a few problems re freeing up the attack.
Keith
Guest
LOL, no worries.
matta
Guest
sorry mate that was meant for Jock..but your post got between me and him.
Pippinu
Roar Guru
He's a flaker - well that explains everything!!
Keith
Guest
"WTF - did you mean to write that like its a telegram from the 20’s?" Just take your time Matta. Nobody here is judging you. Try reading it out loud.
matta
Guest
He's a flaker mate
Pippinu
Roar Guru
I'm impressed by the photo at the top of the article. That must just about be close to a world record for a front rower jumping from a standing position.
eric
Guest
Sheek the Laws are fine, but players will always push into the grey areas of legality. In fact, the best teams in S14 at the moment are also the best "cheats" at the breakdown. In my view the refs in S14 have gone soft on "tackler rolling away", which prevents the tackled player placing/releasing the ball, leading to more hands on the ball well after the ruck is formed. To help with the early "roll away", they should make it illegal for the ball carrier, when "not held" to jump up and keep going, without releasing the ball first. The refs also seem to allow the first player arriving at the tackle to keep his hands on the ball well after a ruck is formed. Thirdly, they allow forwards to park offside around the edges of rucks and nab the halfback. That does spoil a spectacle. I agree with the thoughts posted earlier about refs pulling up scrums when the ball is at the No. 8's feet and the front rows fold in. That is ridiculous. I can't agree with you about "truck and trailer", that is obstruction, and as for joining from the side, that would kill mauls.
matta
Guest
WTF - did you mean to write that like its a telegram from the 20's?
Keith
Guest
"Law makers seem to not know what percentage of recycling/turnover they would like to achieve and to me that is the first point they need to work out." I wouldn't want to guess what would be the ideal, but here are the numbers as they stand. All teams in the S14 so far this season have conceded an average of 8.17% of their own ruck ball. Each team has conceded an average of 6.23 turnovers per match, which means each match has produced an average of 12.46 turnovers. The Warratahs have the best ruck success rate, conceding 6.52% of their own ruck ball, and the Lions have the worst, conceding 9.13%. The Warratahs have averaged the fewest turnovers per match (5) and the Crusaders the most (7.55) "One of the BIGGEST problems is that the defence can only win the ball in the first 2 seconds of the breakdown - turnover ball after this time is very rare. This means no defensive ruckmen and they’re strung out in the defensive line." I reckon we need to be careful about any move to increase the number of ruck turnovers. One of the general effects of the ELVs has been that teams become less enterprising because of a perception that there is a high risk of turnover in contact. That has lead to more kicking, and alot of that has been bad kicking. I reckon the kicking has improved alot this season as teams, coaches and refs are coming to terms with the new laws. For my money, given that breakdown turnovers are such a good attacking platform, an average of 12.46 per game doesn't seem too bad. The S14 has the best players in the world, and ELVs or not, it showcases hugely different styles of play. The top four teams on the log (Canes, Chiefs, Bulls, Sharks) have gotten there through totally different philosophies about what makes winning rugby. That's been fun to watch and I don't think we need to make wholesale changes.
Jock
Guest
Were there not 20 plus phases on the weekend in the HC semi final - Would we not be better spending time informing the refs that the laws are there to speed up the game With regard to the rolling away at the tackel area - kickers in the NTH appear to be more acurate or is it simply that winning by scoring points form any source is more acceptable - or is it that the south do not kick as often and are looking for that elusive 4 try point so their is a tendency to run it more often/lineout more often / scrum more often that to take the points - the nth roll away we kill it knowing that they will chose the option that benefits the try scoring than the 3 pointer - so are the nth correct - is the 4 try rule killing the ruck area - alomg with the refs - Why not allow the contest at the ruck to go on until it is won - if the player is on his feet - let it go on - if he falls over - is driven back- driven out of the ruck by a player or players entering the ruck correctly then so be it. At least we will have a contest for the ball (the stronger will win or the team that learns to clean out and commits more players in attack and defence will win) - whichever happens there will be less in the backline to clog the running game. Have a great weekend 9 games - and do not forget the asian 5 nations - the top 2 play each other and the bottom 2 play each other - will singapore win or lose to the kazacs Jock
matta
Guest
Mitzter, thats not 100% right and Pothole is correct (ish).. The not rolling away and congested ruck is much more of an issue down south (where I am from). I was watching the Heineken Cup Semis and the weekend and was struck by the difference....players roll away etc. Sure its not perfect up North but much better than Super 14.