- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
According to the experts, 27 metres is the ideal distance for high bombs.
I reckon half the players take 27 milliseconds to make up their minds to do the kicking and for mostly nil gain. A lot the high kicking bombs are products of utter stupidity.
The Springboks indirectly led to the resurgence of the ‘Garry Owen’ or ‘up and under’ when they cleaned up the All Blacks three nil in 2009.
The men in black reversed the score the following year by having a back three that could compete in the air and disarm the South African tactic.
With shallow defences and fewer players committing to the tackle, the smart coaches decided that a contestable kick back to the opposition was a different way to attack and so we have what we see today.
The game has evolved to the extent that the contestable kick is overused and with marginal benefits – how many others than perhaps Ben Smith for the Blacks are successful in regaining the ball?
I was absolutely perplexed at the weekend when I saw the Springboks persist in kicking the ball back to Israel Folau who last dropped a football when he was in kindergarten. The Boks needed to grind away and keep the game in their control.
But the more I looked at at the Test match and analysed the games at provincial levels in both Australia and New Zealand, the thought struck me that the high kick as an attacking weapon may soon be overtaken by other tactics.
Apart from kicking away perfectly good attacking ball for the magical distance of 27 metres which is the ideal contestable distance (supposedly), how often does the tactic simply give possession back to the opposition?
Mind numbingly frequently, the ball is then returned all in the name of playing in the other’s territory.
Not only does that tactic smell a lot like defensive thinking, it also comes at the expense of attack in the absolute sense of ball in hand.
The game is evolving but the bomb has always at best been 50-50. What might kill if off is the experimental rules preventing hands at the breakdown.
It is obvious with the experimental rules that the fight for possession is diminishing and the only way to get the ball back is by waiting for the other side to make a mistake.
OK, a big hit might do the job but the role of the fetcher is disappearing.
Any team that is able to retain the ball will find it more rewarding poking and jabbing for an opening rather than kicking it away.
The essence of rugby, that is the contest for the ball, is eroding away and so is the flavour of the match.
The big lumbering packs a la the Springboks will have to run with the ball in a style reminiscent of rugby league.
Sometimes the game changes so much that it removes the need for 15 different shapes on the field and we are rapidly changing to a game of touch.
Oh for the hard men and rucking rather than the sanitised free flowing stuff being served up now. Rugby possession has to be contestable!
I think we will see long distance kicking coming back into vogue – time for Roger Gould to shake the dirt off the boots and make a comeback. Then hang on and wait for an opposition error.
Join The Roar rugby editor Christy Doran, former Wallaby Matt Toomua and a cast of regular and special guests as they look at the biggest issues in the game on The Roar Rugby Podcast. If you’re looking for great odds on the next game check out Aussie bookmaker PlayUp. Chances are you’re about to lose. Set a deposit limit.