After the disappointing performance by the Springboks in their match versus Scotland on the weekend, a number of pundits, ex-rugby players and the like had a lot to say about the breakdown.
A lot of it had to do with the manner in which South Africa was unable to adjust during the match to the interpretations of Raymond Poite, and how Scotland managed to dominate the breakdown both legally and illegally.
Heyneke Meyer was not enamoured with the way Poite interpreted the breakdowns, and I made a mental note that we really need to stop blaming referees and start worrying about the things we can control.
I just read an interesting article written by Gary Gold, who was the forwards coach during Peter de Villiers’ tenure.
What he had to say about the statistics of penalties at the breakdown in 2009 compared to the present day caught my attention.
Gold said: “Around 2009, in particular, about 50 percent of penalties were awarded to the attacking team while the other half went to the defending team.
“This is fundamentally why the Springbok game worked so well during those days. We played no rugby in our own half and any team that chose to play rugby in their own half would be punished by our suffocating defence and accurate goal-kicking.
“This approach led us to a hat-trick of wins over the All Blacks that season.
“At this point in time, however, the ratio is 75:25 in favour of the attacking team. The benefit of the doubt is clearly favouring the team with ball in hand.
“The principles I discussed last week pertaining to the scrums apply to the breakdown. I share Heyneke Meyer’s call for a standardised approach to policing the breakdown.
“At the moment, much like the scrum, the referee’s interpretation at the ruck and tackle area is far too subjective.
“For example, it’s now common practice for one referee to place an emphasis on the tackler rolling away, while another official will prioritise the first arriving player on attack. And a third referee may pinpoint the arriving defender, other than the tackler, coming through the gate legally.
“The classic case is Bryce Lawrence’s officiating of the 2011 Rugby World Cup quarter-final.
“From extensive prior analysis, we found that he awarded an average of 25 penalties per match and had a 65:35 ratio in favour of the attacking team. Furthermore, he awarded a higher percentage of penalties at the breakdown than any other international referee at the time.
“However, during the now infamous clash between South Africa and Australia, he awarded the fewest penalties any referee ever had in a Rugby World Cup match since 1987. In total, he blew for 17 penalties: 11 against the Springboks and six against the Wallabies. In one match, his entire mechanics had changed.
“Thus, as professional coaches, we are ultimately calling for a clearer outline from the game’s lawmakers in order to eliminate refereeing discrepancies.”
Reading Gary Gold’s opinions on the breakdown, and how even referees are inconsistent does suggest we have more to worry about than just simplifying the laws. We would at least expect referees to be consistent in the manner they officiate the breakdowns.
The fact of the matter is that the breakdown is not only the most difficult area of a match to officiate accurately, but it is also the most common occurrence on a rugby field. In fact looking at recent Super Rugby matches there are way over 100 breakdowns per 80 minutes these days.
The question, though, is what the South African Rugby Union is going to do in order to clarify the rulings, simplify the laws at the breakdown and ensure consistency of referees, not only between themselves, but as individuals as well?
I know South African supporters have often been reminded over the past few years that we should adapt to the referee, to the point where I even agree that we should stop blaming the referees.
However, how does one adapt to a referee that is inconsistent himself?
It makes me wonder if there is a solution to this problem, and whether teams will simply ‘improve’ the manner in which they transgress at the breakdown. Sometimes organised chaos at ruck time looks a lot more legal than just one individual transgressing.
Eddard
Roar Guru
It would advantage the attacking team but not too much. It would actually give the advantage to whichever team had more players at the ruck at the time of the tackle (or the more effective players at least). Most of the time this would be the attacking team, which is necessary as if the attacking team doesn't have a bit of an advantage then teams will have no incentive to play with the ball in hand and you'll get 80 minutes of kicking duels. But when an attacker gets isolated or their support lazy the defence would be able to win the ball and a lot more cleanly than is the case now. It seems to me that most turnovers that are won cleanly today (i.e. where the turnover is won and play continues without a penalty) are from counter rucks. A successful pilfer usually results in a penalty against the ball carrier for holding on...and if unsuccessful the pilferer gets penalised for either not supporting their body weight or not 'beating the ruck' (and therefore they get pinged for hands in the ruck).
DR
Guest
My son plays under 10 as well and I agree, it does work well. I would share PeterK concern that this would weigh too heavily in favour of the attacking team but having defending players from the side to even it up would ensue more chaos i feel and wouldbe difficult for anyone to keep their feet and would defeat the purpose of the intended change. In saying that, teams will work their way around any rules for an advantage. I keep coming back to rucking which would be the cleanest way to deal with the issues faced. I'm not sure whether I would want to see fetching eliminated from the game either. I do think Eddards second suggestion is worth looking at considering what we have currently but I would have my reservations.
Jock M
Guest
I have had enough discussion for now but I suggest that you watch some games that were plaed pre 1995 and ones with the All Blacks so that you can see what driving committed enagement with the breakdown is all about and ask yourself why.
Jock, sorry mate, but it just doesn't make sense. Rugby has tackles in it, high tackles, smother tackles, low tackles, tackles turned into a maul, shoulder charges etc. etc. There is no way you will ever find a practical application for saying the ball carrier must release the ball before hitting the ground. Never. Rugby is about taking people to ground, that is how you stop a player, it is a natural result of paying a contact sport. I like what PeterK is saying, ruck past the ball and then the halfback may play it. Under any laws players will impede by not rolling away, blocking the ball, etc. But it will be so much easier to spot if everyone else is on their feet. By the way, that is how it works in the U10's where my son is playing. They are taught to ruck over the ball and then the half back plays it, it really does work.
PeterK
Roar Guru
I agree with some modifications, all players must stay on your feet, NO ONE is allowed to pick up the ball until it is past the last man in the ruck. This includes halfbacks, you must actually ruck past the ball. The issue is there will still be a lot of penalties for tacklers not rolling away and not releasing. But at least the hands in the ruck, the jackal not holding their own weight etc will have gone. It does though swing the pendulum even further to the team with the ball so to even that up you get rid of gates , you are allowed to enter from the side. I do not agree with Jock though. As it is too many runners go to ground too easily to recycle the ruck. With having to release before hitting the ground runners will be even more loathe to fight in the tackle and try and break the tackle, instead they will play hot potato , this takes away some of the physicality in the tackle, a unanticipated consequence.
Jock M
Guest
To make the breakdown more dynamic the laws must discourage the ball player putting himself in a position where he will end up on the ground. Not allowing the tackled player to place the ball will be an incentaive not to go down but instead to remain on their feet. Thus more mauling and drive from defence and opposition and a quicker game or movements.. The art of mauling and ball stealing has been lost because of the desire to go to ground and play the ball. I would much prefer the no hands in the ruck law.
Further to the hands on the ball. Due to the contentious aspects regarding hands on the ball, you either allow anyone to have hands on the ball, be they on the floor or not, and make a real wrestle out of it, or nobody may have hands on the ball.
I agree there is a need to reduce the number of laws and by laws, it is important to simplify laws. If you think about what eddard is suggesting it will remove many laws from the ruck. Firstly no hands in the ruck at all. The tackler and tackled player must release the ball immediately. That means he must either roll clear of the ball all remain flat on the ground to not impede the other team. Both teams have to remain fully on their feet when rucking over the ball. Once a team has secured upright players over the ball there is an offside line and the halfback can access the ball, or a forward if they are inclined to pick and drive. Much simpler. The whole problem comes in with hands on the ball. The contentious issues are always around who released, who didn't, who is on their feet with hands on the ball, and my personal favourite is players "standing" but really leaning on the tackled player to create the perception that they are supporting their own bodyweight and going for the ball. Eddard's way is so much more logical.
Jock M
Guest
It is easy to release the ball before making contact with the ground-what you have to do is roll in the tackle so that the ball is released towards your support. Picture a situation where a player with the ball becomes isolated prior to a tackle-you can almost guarantee that the opposition will end up with the ball. The competition at the breakdown must be fair and the defence must see a chance to regain possession. The laws of the game have been written so that the attacking team at present has a supreme advantage. The team with the ball has an advantage in any case and it stfles the game by making laws that further disadvantage the defence. This must be changed. And the game needs less laws not more.
How do you make a practical application for releasing a ball before the tackled player hits the ground? That will cause a knock on every time, that is if he isn't smothered ball and all. Will never work. The attacking team gets the advantage now 75% of the time, at least this way Eddard suggested the defending team can still reclaim the all if they have enough defenders/ruckers there. Players run away from their support players often enough, so If your support is not there it means your attack is failing and the defending team can gain possession.
Jock M
Guest
The tackled player must release the ball prior to making contact with the ground. He must not place the ball because that gives the attacking team too much advantage and that is exactly what happens now. Get rid of all laws regarding gates,tacklers rolling away etc. I would even allow players to fight for the ball with their hands-this would reduce the need to use feet (rucking)-it would be a good comprimse. If the contest was fair and true you would find that ball carriers would be more inclined to want to stay on their feet-thus mauling,ball stealing etc would return to the fore. The breakdown would become quicker. PLayers would also try to avoid being caught in a maul or tackle because they would be inclined to lose the ball. I look forward to some replies.
Eddard has come up with the best solution I have yet come across. Player is tackled, he places the ball unencumbered. The defending teams wants the ball, the ruck is won by the team who rucks or counter rucks over the ball, by staying on their feet, any attempt to go off your feet is a penalisable offence. Which veer side the ball is, that team has won the right to pick up the ball and play. It is simple, yet very clear cut and effective.
Exocet
Guest
AFL, RU and soccer all have problems at the contest which to me make these games more appealing than the guaranteed possession of NRL and NFL (on reflection in fact the NRL has created its own breakdown problem with defining 2 in the tackle, what is a strip, what is a loose carry etc so no better). The breakdown in Rugby is 16 possible road accidents al happening at once so nearly impossible to police. Hands in the ruck maybe a safety issue as a player just disengages and the whole thing will come down. Ten/15 years of the player releasing and the tackler allowing release have not seen a lessening in penalties as the temptation is too great to grab the ball and/or hold onto it. How about the tackled player must place it beside him to allow a contest where possible and would be ruckers would have to wait to that occur and no player can engage until the ref says so - (tricky if there is a intercept long run and tackle) but I don't think we can continue this way...How did you watch the SA vrs Scotland games??
DR
Guest
Nice work Eddard. Anything that can be done to remove subjectivity from decision making should be looked at .... And quickly!
Yeah, Eddard, you second suggestion is rather brilliant in my view. Please get it to the IRB.
BBA
Guest
Sounds like Meyer is doing well popularity wise then. Im sure De Villiers had many more detractors than supporters, so 50/50 is a step up!
Jock M
Guest
If there was a true contest for the ball most of the current problems would be dealt with. The breakdown now is little more that a league style play the ball.
Jock M
Guest
If there was a true contest for the ball most of the current problems would be dealt with. The breakdown now is little more that a league style play the ball.
Jerry
Guest
I like that last idea as a possibility as a trial Eddard - it'd also remove the absurd notion that those jacklers are supporting their own weight.
Eddard
Roar Guru
There's at least two ways you could go to simplify the breakdown rules without radically changing the game. 1, which was one of the ELV's (but never trialled at international or even super rugby level) was allowing hands in the ruck so long as you're on your feet. The problem is it seems to benefit the defending team more than the attacking team. The 2nd would be to get rid of the difference between a tackle and a ruck (in the same way as above) but not allow hands at all in the tackle. Someone would have to come through the gate and drive over the ball before another could pick it up (or if they had no support they could kick it out of the ruck). This would get rid of fetching but would encourage counter rucking turnovers. It would also tidy up the ruck and get rid of the many penalties that occur because defenders are always attempting to 'beat the ruck' and grab the ball. The only things the ref would really need to watch for are the tackler rolling away, players entering the ruck/tackle from offside and either side sealing off the ball by diving over.