Since the dawn of rugby, every small advantage which could be used to win a match would have been employed. Some are fair and reasonable, some may be considered cheating, some you may not even realise exist.
In this modern age where the sport of rugby is broken down through game films, replays and most importantly, statistics, these edges can be found and exploited more readily.
This statistical analysis is used to discover trends in regards to where the ball will be thrown in the lineout, on which side of the field a referee gives more penalties, and where the opposing place kicker may have certain weaknesses.
It is this last one that I would like to focus on quickly. The tactical penalty. In the current day and age, yellow cards and penalties for slowing the ball down are more prolific, the speed of the game paramount, and trying not to over-step the boundary is important.
But could a captain know where an opposing kicker’s weak spot is, and while on the back foot, deliberately commit a penalty in the ruck?
He knows that the chance of the opposition getting three points is less than their chance of getting seven with the result of quick ball from the ruck. He knows this will also give his players the opportunity to rest and regroup after diffusing the assault, albeit under dubious circumstances. So my answer would be yes.
Is this cheating or is it just a testament to how knowledgeable some of the current players, most notably the captain, are?
The ability for someone to be able to make these tactical infringements during the heat of battle in a Super Rugby or Test match is something I imagine only a select few can achieve. Guys like Richie McCaw, David Pocock and a bit of a throwback to George Smith.
Think about when you become most frustrated watching a game of rugby. Your team is attacking, everything is flowing, you have momentum, you look like scoring, then in a marginal portion of the field a penalty is given at the ruck. Who is the last one to pop up and get a talking to? One of those guys.
Could they have known, through the analysis of statistics, where it would be safe to give these penalties? I think so.
If you stick to the exact definition of cheating which is to “act dishonestly or unfairly to gain an advantage” or “to deceive or trick,” then it is cheating. But if this is the case then you could not actually play a game of rugby.
The game is full of deceit, lies and trickery. Coded calls into the line out, dummy runners, fake jumpers and dummy passes all contribute to the elaborate deception during a game.
I declare the use of the tactical penalty as tactical genius.
Rules are meant to be bent for our advantage. If you do not think so, here is an everyday example.
We have road rules for when we are driving. If you are late, you might speed. If the parking spot is two hours but you know you will be longer, you might run the risk. Why?
Because it may save you time, money or effort. It is a risk versus reward situation. You might get a fine, but only if you get caught.
This is the same in rugby. The use of the tactical penalty is very much risk versus reward. Get caught deliberately doing it and you will be in the bin for 10 minutes, make it look like an accident and you will stop a probable seven points and give up an unreliable chance for three.
The tactical penalty may be spoken about in the rugby world in hushed whispers, but it is a part of the game. A part of the game many might not know about, nor its level of significance relating to the outcome of a match.
It is a testament to how complex and intellectual the game has become. No longer do you employ a huge forward pack to rumble you up the field and then pass to some backs with flair.
The modern rugby player needs to have a balance between intelligence and physicality. A kind of violent nerd. It is a perfect example that the modern athlete is more educated, more aware of his surroundings, situation and possible outcomes.
It also proves that if you know your stuff and listen to the stats man, you can get away with murder and be loved for it, in your home country at least.
These few players are the ones currently living by the 11th commandment.
Thou shalt not get caught.
JottingsOnRugby.com
Roar Pro
Rugby is all about keeping traditions Brett! In any event, it's not too far down the grades that you find each team still having to bring a touch judge (aka umpire) to the game....rugby's equivalent to "Ladies, please bring a plate!". Cheers for mention on twitter too! https://twitter.com/#!/BMcSport/status/193224262365093888
Brett McKay
Expert
..so Sean, is it just a historical irony how regularly touchies still “don’t see” something that happened right in front of them?!?!
JottingsOnRugby.com
Roar Pro
@ Gatesy - posted comment about referees under your comment above.
JottingsOnRugby.com
Roar Pro
@ Gatesy. Re the origin of "referee" in rugby. It is sort of right! Captains were replaced by each team bringing their own umpire. If your team's umpire saw the other team breach the laws, he raised his flag - if the opposing umpire agreed it was a breach, he too raised his flag and the game stopped to resolve the issue. If both flags didn't go up, the game didn't stop. Over time it soon came to pass that biased umpire simply "didn't see" the breach of his team, so he didn't raise his flag. It then changed to one flag up being enough to stop the game, and the matter being "referred" to an appointed "referee" who would be standing outside of the game watching on. What the referee decided was enforced. This system though didn't last long as having your umpire put his flag up was a good way to stop your opposition's momentum by bringing the game to a dead stop! Losing the referee's decision didn't matter! The latter soon came to be absurd, so they made referee part of the on-field officials (two umpires + referee). Then it became obvious that three men arguing over rugby laws was a nightmare, so the RFU put the game solely into the hands of a single on-field referee, and consigned the flag-carrying umpires to a touch line each. So, when you see the two touchies behind the posts raising their flags (or not waving), you are looking at a last vestige of rugby's past. --sf-- http://JottingsOnRugby.com
JottingsOnRugby.com
Roar Pro
@ sheek. I've read that story re laws vs rules, and i've asked various lawyers to explain the significant differences to me, but ultimately, I'm still not convinced by anything other than the 1871 architects just picked "laws" as it gave it more weight than rules! There is some notion of the conduct of fighter pilots in WW1 - I wrote about that here in "Rugby vs The Red Baron" > http://jottingsonrugby.com/2012/02/23/red-baron/
gatesy
Roar Guru
Nomis, I totally agree with you, and would also allow limited rucking, if it is safe to do so. Certainly, if a ball won't come out, the ref should just make his decision about who was the team going forward, and if the game flows and there is m.ore continuity, that, in itself, solves the problem, as long as the team winning the ball is not blatantly cheating
Brett McKay
Expert
that's what I wanted you to think - means I get to write the same article next year!
AndyS
Guest
They used it in the ARC too and I agree, it was inititally a bit of a mess. But as it went on, the teams adapted and committed more players to the breakdown. By the end, I thought they had started to work it out - breakdowns got a bit messy if a player was isolated or his support was slow, but generally there were a lot more players committed to retaining the ball and more space as a result. It was a fine line to be walked though, as the temptation for teams with less impressive forwards was to constantly kick and challenge for it rather than try to retain it. That was something they might have worked on if the process had been continued, but they took the equally valid approach of going back and finding out what the existing laws looked like if they applied them rigorously (not that that seems to have lasted long). All that said, I have heard a number of folk say that the ARC was some of the most interesting rugby they'd seen for some time. I even heard one older lad say that the free-for-all nature of the breakdown was most like the old time rugby he remembered, as that was pretty much what always happened when there was only the one ref and he was generally behind the play.
nomis
Guest
Gee Brett. And here I was thinking I convinced you otherwise :-)
nomis
Guest
I don't mind giving the 'greater use of the card' a go. But I fear the increased burden put on refs. No doubt, there are some obvious infringements. But I fear the backlash if they make a mistake, and either don't give a card when they should, or do give a card when they shouldn't, especially in critical games. I can imagine the refs wanting to err on the side of consistently not using it. Didn't they try to get the refs to enforce putting the ball in straight as well... But still happy for it to be trialled and proved wrong.
nomis
Guest
Nice feedback Kane. Appreciate that. I'm thinking I will let this idea go. I guess I'm glad they gave this idea a trial and found that it didn't work, than for it to never be trialled at all.
Kane
Roar Guru
In July of 2007 the Gold Coast hosted a international schoolboy tournament which I was involved in and it was used as a trialing ground for about 16 new laws including the ELV's that were used in the TriNations in 2008. Along with other laws such as numbers did not have to be equal in the lineouts and your proposal hands were aloud in the ruck. These rules were organised by Rod Macqueen and Paddy O'Brien and they also attended all the games. In my opinion the hands in the ruck was a silly idea as it made it a free for all and it became extremely difficult for the attacking team to regain possession after a tackle. Myself being a flanker had a field day with all the ball that I could steal but ultimately it takes away from the skill of being able to make the tackle get to your feet and steal the ball, which the likes of Ritchie McCaw, Heinrich Brussow, and George Smith have perfected.,
nomis
Guest
I agree Gatesy about taking out most of the infringements... somehow. Here's a radical suggestion... Why not allow hands in the ruck for any player on their feet. Nobody wants to hear the referee’s whistle except for offside, foul play and playing the ball off your feet. In other words, the rucks need to be cleaned up and the laws simplified. Infringements at the breakdown have become too technical and too subjective. If the TV commentators don’t even understand why a penalty was given, it makes a mockery out of rugby as a professional sport. With rucking no longer allowed, this law helps the players to once again determine the outcome of a ruck rather than the referee. No longer will the defending team enjoy a frustrating advantage by using their hands in the ruck to slow the ball down and prevent it from coming out when the attacking team is close to their try line. Now the attacking team can also use their hands in the ruck to secure the ball too. Once again it’s a fair contest, with the attacking team having the slight advantage as they do in legitimately contested rucks ATM. If the ball doesn’t come out, the team going forward gets the ball. This should usually be the attacking team. However, all well and good for a defending team if they can win the ruck as well. This gets forwards to drive over as a priority. Driving over is actually the best way to win a ruck anyway. I know, I know. Another left field idea from nomis.
Hoy
Roar Guru
Time gone by and a good quick shoing would have sorted them out. That is cheating and there is no place for that in my ideal world. It is those types of plays that give rise to divers. Tug a jersey a little, and the bloke goes down like he was shot. Both are ugly and should not be tolerated in the game.
stillmatic1
Guest
completely agree, gatesy. very well put. the rules do place a burden on the referee and it also doesnt help that the boss changes which ones the ref should be looking at every match it would seem. to claim intent in almost any split second incidence on the field at any time to my mind is a very hard thing to do, even when it seems that the infringement was cynical (playing the ball on the ground et al) and i think for the most part the ref does in fact let it go. unfortunately the blunders get magnified and can really change the course of the match ( ala saders v stormers last week), but if the ref knows that the players are going to work the rules over, then im glad that for the most part they dont just flip out the yellow at every opportunity.
thurl
Guest
So whats new? (apart from the holier than thou attitude) I played senior rugby in the late 70's early 80's. it happened then. We weren't smart enough to know how good their kicker was at different parts of the field , but in the middle of winter in the muddy Manawatu, there was a fair chance he wasn't going to kick it. But it was part of the game that every teamed played to....Don't give them a try, give them a penality. The players understood it and so did the spectators. The only sanction you got were a few rhasberries from the attacking teams supporters
Gatesy
Guest
..what we need to do is simplify the game ...take out most of the infringements ...stop being fixated on safety ...if you are worried about being hurt, play tiddlywinks! The referees need to have a lot of their burden lifted so that they can let the game flow. I have been a player, coach, manager, referee, webmaster, mentor and most roles in Rugby so i think I am fairly qualified to comment. Rugby flourishes when players are allowed to play the game, in a way that is attractive to everyone, the ref, the spectators, etc. I have been a ref, and I have talked to a lot of refs - I have never met one, who I thought wanted to be the centre of attention - most, if not all, refs are people who love the game, are dedicated to the game and want to come off the field after a game, believing that it was a great game for the players. Ask yourself, why blokes play at low levels of the game, as amateurs, knock themselves around every week for half a year and back up again next week and next season, if there is not something magical about the game. Referees understand that, too! So let's stop making their life difficult. Most refs understand that the players are going to push the boundaries, if not actually cheat, and a good ref will let a lot of water pass under the bridge before pulling out a card, and that is the way that it should be.
Gatesy
Guest
..."its only a game after all" ... ??? Please....
Gatesy
Guest
Jottings, I would be interested in your historical take on my comment above about the origin of "referees" ....
Gatesy
Guest
...listen guys, I'm a bit worried about what people think is the spirit of the game - to me it's about blokes bashing each other for the love of the game - it's not about a bunch of sterile professionals going around for the benefit of a lot of spectators, who have never actually stuck their head in a ruck or a scrum!