Spiro Zavos recently wrote an article in which he lauded Stephen Larkham for coaching his Brumbies team not to take shortcuts and rarely being penalised.
The point is how valuable integrity is in sport.
As an army officer I like to equate sport with warfare, and therefore it is interesting to compare military and sporting leadership.
Lieutenant General Sir William Slim said that a leader must have integrity. Other military writers have said that leaders must have honesty.
These are admirable qualities for leaders, but armies have been most successful when they deceive the enemy about their intentions; telling deliberate lies, and taking the enemy by surprise. Predictability is not necessarily an admirable trait in a military leader.
Nor is predictability a particularly useful trait in a sporting team. Successful military leaders have often been those who show deviousness, an ability to think outside the square and catch the enemy by surprise – the same is regularly true of rugby coaches and captains.
During the Chiefs game against the Stormers, the Chiefs coaches showed a measure of deviousness in their thinking. The refusal to engage in lineout mauls was first used as a tactic at a high level by the Junior All Blacks last year, but the Blues and now the Chiefs have perfected the refusal and the Stormers’ much-vaunted maul was nullified. The Chiefs sometimes opposed it but at other times refused to engage, thus throwing doubt into the Stormers’ minds and defeating their maul.
The Chiefs also showed a new tactic of refusing to create rucks, leaving the tackled player on the ground and fanning out on the Stormers’ side of the ball because no offside line had been created.
Both these tactics are in keeping with the current rules of the game, but you could argue that they are against the spirit of the game. Rugby is supposed to be a contest for the ball at all phases. Not joining mauls or rucks is refusing to contest and therefore falls in the debatable area of what is right and what is not.
The Chiefs are becoming well known for innovative thinking which pushes the boundaries of the laws, and they have been rewarded for it with two titles in the last few years. This implies that complete honesty and integrity have less place in the professional game than deviousness and gamesmanship.
Such tactics are not cheating, just as Richie McCaw is not cheating when he attempts to disrupt opposition rucks. It is simply using the laws to best advantage, using a devious approach to the game which often surprises more straightforward thinkers who have not considered it before being confronted by it.
This explains some of the All Blacks’ recent success. Instead of simply improving the way they play the game, they have improved the way they think about the game. In the 1930s and ’40s this rethinking the game was the province of the South Africans. In the 1970s and ’80s it was Australian teams that were generally smarter than their opposition. Today it is the domain of New Zealand teams.
Winning teams today cannot simply play the game well, they must play the rules well. If you fail to think about the rules and how they are applied, you will fail.
If the rules allow it, then it is not cheating, it is innovative thinking, it will lead to winning and is to be applauded.
I am applauding the Chiefs – loudly.
Who?
Guest
Currie Cup wasn't the first time it was used that year, either. Link used it for the Reds against the Tahs. I know, because it was covered in my Foundation Course, taken in May 2013. Link did it for exactly the same reasons, though - to avoid creating an offside line. No offside line, no requirement to get onside. It's a risk/reward challenge, one similar to not engaging the maul at the lineout. Played well, creating doubt, it's an absolute coaching masterstroke.
44bottles
Roar Guru
Not sure if it was England that started it, but I remember it being used as a tactic by Italy AGAINST England. The men in the lineout wouldn't compete and the hooker would run around and tackle the person with the ball at the back. Or hold them up.
Marty
Guest
I believe originally all bowling was underarm when the game began and it was the women who played who pioneered the overarm delivery. Apparently it was because of the long bulky skirts they wore that interfered with the underarm motion, hence a change to overarm bowling. This all according to my grandfather who played cricket for Taranaki back in the 30's and 40's
Marty
Guest
lol, spot on. Isn't it always a bugger when you, and the rest of the pack, rumble the ball down field in ruck and maul fashion only to then have the pill spun out wide, turned over and punted 60m back over your head.
mania
Guest
imo it was the Boks that exposed the lack of referee nous and have turned mauling into what it is today. saffa's were the first to take advantage of ref's inexperience
PeterK
Roar Guru
Thats because the NH relies on the maul that the enforcing of laws has been lax.
mania
Guest
the trick here is stormers (and most other sides) tend to move the ball to the back before engagement. if the person at the front (the point) of the maul has the ball then they can race down the field as a maul all they want. but as soon as you move the ball back (whilst opposition isnt engaging) then whoever s ahead of the point is offside. simple and clever exposure of how the rules of mauling have been pretty lax in the past 10 years. i for one am getting sick of teams getting away with dominating with an average maul. mauling is an art form that takes a lot of team work. what is seen these days is a lot of truckNtrailer and deliberate offsides/obstruction
Jibba Jabba
Guest
And in line with the 'fairy tale McKechnie' - he probably would have hit a six - even on the MCG !!.
PeterK
Roar Guru
easy just have the laws as written applied
PeterK
Roar Guru
I am proud of myself then in predicting the consequences.
PeterK
Roar Guru
allowing collapsing basically eradicates the maul IMO. Makes it too easy to stop. 1person could do it verse 8 men and the other 7 could then jump on the ball / collapsed maul.
PeterK
Roar Guru
Jerry I agree but what would it achieve, he would have handed the ball back to people bound to him, they let him fall and the maul that is not a maul continues.
Lindsay Amner
Roar Guru
Yes McKechnie is one of the fascinating stories of NZ sport. Amazing that one man could be at the centre of NZ's two most controversial incidents in two different sports.
ClarkeG
Roar Guru
Just as an aside. Regarding the underarm bowl. The batsman who faced that delivery was Brian McKechnie. He was also an All Black. It was McKechnie who kicked a late penalty for the All Blacks to beat Wales in 1978 following the infamous incident involving Andy Haden diving out of the lineout. I saw Haden on tele a couple of hours ago playing golf. What a terrible swing.
ClarkeG
Roar Guru
Thanks Jerry. Naas Botha's explanation was not 100% correct. He spoke of "the gate" which was irrelevant to this particular incident.
ClarkeG
Roar Guru
Can't agree on the collapsing of the maul Lindsay. I say lets not allow collapsing just because we presently have problems with the maul. Let’s fix the problems with the maul. There are always consequences. I fear the consequences if collapsing was to be allowed. The non engagement of the maul is actually a consequence of the problems you have outlined in your post. Another consequence to the use it or lose it law is that the defending side attempt to hold the ball carrier up as opposed to tackling him to ground, so as to get a turnover from the maul. There are always consequences. By the way I think you giving a little too much credit to Mr. Jones. I cringe at the thought that such a goose could have some influence over the IRB (World Rugby).
Lindsay Amner
Roar Guru
fascinating that was also a Chiefs v Stormers game!
ClarkeG
Roar Guru
Yes Jerry exactly. I actually stumbled over that incident on you tube a few days ago but now I can't find it. It was a Chiefs game at Waikato Stadium.. That particular ELV was gone by Monday lunch time.
Lindsay Amner
Roar Guru
The underarm delivery was totally within the laws of the game at the time. However it was soooo devious and underhanded, (pun intended) that it was entirely outside the spirit of the game. Nobody thought that anyone would ever do that again in the gentleman's game so simply hadn't bothered to change the rule. Cricket at the time was still considered the gentleman's game and Greg Chappell singlehandedly changed that with his two ungentlemanly displays, first when he didn't walk when caught in the outfield when he was on 52 and then bowling the underarm to a No 10 batsman who was never ever going to hit a six on the MCG off the first ball he faced anyway. Good point though, it was the ultimate piece of gamesmanship and to be admired for the win at all cost attitude if nothing else.
Lindsay Amner
Roar Guru
I totally agree. The maul as it currently is used, is unfair, and doesn't have a contest for the ball therefore I'm all for anything that gives the defending team more of a chance to defend against it.