Trials or travails? An update on the new breakdown laws in the Mitre 10

“Breakdowns are a huge issue for me when assessing the increased number of injuries today. I actually think that the lawmakers may have to consider some changes here.

“You have static players being smashed by dynamic players and that is very dangerous. If you have both players in dynamic motion then it might not be so bad, but it is when a player is trying to protect the ball at a ruck or half-caught in a tackle that they are especially vulnerable with a player coming flying in with a shoulder.”

These were the words of iconic British and Irish Lions coach Ian McGeechan in a recent essay in The Daily Telegraph. Both the general shape and the specifics of the breakdown laws currently being trialled in the Mitre 10 competition in New Zealand represent the lawmakers’ answer to the player welfare concerns raised by McGeechan (and many others).

With players becoming ever larger and more powerful, sizeable chunks of careers are now being lost as a result of ‘static players being smashed by dynamic players’. To the two situations he mentions (players trying to protect the ball at a ruck or half-caught in a tackle), we can also add the plight of the jackal, bent over and wrenching at the ball and largely unaware of the cleanout players ready to do him serious damage.

The main focus has to be finding the right point of balance, between an increase in the number of player welfare safeguards at the breakdown and the preservation of a fair contest for the ball.

It was with these thoughts circling in my head that I sat down on Saturday morning to watch an entertaining Mitre 10 match between Counties Manukau and the Waikato.

The basic figures for completed rucks from the game (not including those which ended in penalties) were as follows:

The ball retention rate is slightly on the high side – with a defensive team attacking the breakdown as fiercely as Counties Manukau, Waikato’s win ratio especially could have been expected to drop well below 95% if the game had been played under the existing laws.

There is no doubt that character of the breakdown has been changed completely under the trial laws:

• “The day of the jackal” is over. I only counted one half-hearted jackaling attempt across the full 80 minutes, so the days of folding over the tackled player and trying to rip the ball away would be gone forever if the trial laws are ratified. This is in accordance with the new law that,

“The tackler must release the ball carrier then re-join the tackle behind the midpoint to play the ball.” (15.1).

The action of the either the tackler arising, or the first man in to the tackle area, is now to provide an upright ‘pillar’ around which a counter-ruck (or hold-up attempt) may form (49:26, 49:44), to step across and try to kick the ball through (70:40), or simply to take up position for the next play.

• Rucking without binding! The “rucks” formed under the new laws are very loose. The trials do not achieve the same concentration of bodies in contact as the existing laws. In ten out of the 12 examples in the reel, there are no meaningful binds on either players of the same side or the opposition. This is a consequence of the trial law which states:

“16.1. A breakdown is formed when an attacking player is over the ball on their feet.

16.2. At this point an offside line is in place.”

An attacking cleanout player can now form a ruck and create an offside line all by himself, without engaging an opponent – which means that contact is now both softer and less frequent as defenders pull out into the line for the next phase.

• Commitment of attacking/defensive players. At the 12 breakdowns, there are a total of 12 attackers and only four defenders lying on the ground as the ball is played by the half-back. In two out of every three cases, all 15 defenders are on their feet awaiting the next phase of play. The sense of draining physical attrition that the word “ruck” traditionally implies has been massively eroded as a result.

• The pick and go is a necessity! The last three clips show the necessity of pick and go under the trial laws. With no density at the point of contact and very few bodies on the deck, the opportunities for attacks straight up the guts are much clearer and more inviting than they are under the existing laws.

How is the breakdown being refereed under the new laws? This turned out to be one of the areas of greatest concern, with no less than ten penalties awarded against the defence but only one against the attack (in the 79th minute!). The following table gives the details, with the reel showing the live action:

The offences fell into three categories:

1. Counter-rucks were called for offside or side entry, under law 16.4. “Players joining the breakdown must do so from behind the offside line and join behind the midpoint of the breakdown.”

2. Attempts to kick the ball through were penalised for no binding, under law 16.5. “Players joining the breakdown must bind onto any player, using their whole arm.”

3. Hold-up or choke tackles were pinged for ‘no release’ (when the ball-carrier’s knees hit the ground).

Clearly there is a huge imbalance in the number of offensive/defensive penalties awarded. The five counter-rucking examples show how hard it is to both keep your feet and drive through from the exact midpoint of the ruck, while all three ‘no bind’ calls are questionable – in the first two examples both defenders appear to be bound when they make contact with the ball.

It is almost impossible to determine exactly when an offside line has been created under the new laws 16.1 and 16.2 – and just how far a defender can be from the ‘midpoint’ before he is allowed to attack the ruck! The referee defaulted towards the attacking team when there was any degree of doubt, but the lack of any requirement to bind by the first cleanout player dissolves any real sense of structure and makes his decision-making process an extremely arduous task.

The main defensive possibilities are mentioned above and illustrated in the final reel:

The defence can try to hold the ball-carrier up off the ground and rip ball away or lock in for the turnover scrum; the first man in can stand up and kick the ball though’ or two or three players can counter-ruck through the middle and blow the opposition away from it.

Of these three methods the hold-up tackle was the most the effective at disrupting possession while not attracting penalties, with Counties Manukau winning two turnovers and slowing the ball down six times while only conceding one penalty against (see 12:50 and 31:15).

The final two sequences show just how chaotic play can become once the jackal is denied and the first offensive bind is not required by law. At 51:52 and 61:54, the attacking half-back is played off the ball; at 61:42 and 61:52, the Counties #16 Hika Elliott, as the first man, steps right through on to the Waikato side without making any play on the ball whatsoever.

Conclusions
If the trial laws at the breakdown were accepted en bloc, it would mean the end of some notable jackalling careers. The likes of David Pocock and Heinrich Brussow would probably disappear from the game overnight.

The new laws would also drastically reduce the amount of meaningful physical contact at the breakdown and the chances of a ‘static players being smashed by dynamic players’, to echo McGeechan’s comment. So far, so good… at least for player welfare.

However, the capacity of the attacking cleanout to engage defenders and put them on their backs would be seriously compromised. The attritional aspect of the ruck will be lost entirely, and breakdowns will simply be resolved as a collection of upright players who happen to be in the same area.

At a stroke, the game will move closer to the uncontested tackle system in rugby league. At international level, I suspect that defences would keep 15 defenders on their feet for the most part, and rely on line-speed from the added numbers to create mayhem in the tackle rather than at the post-tackle.

If the refereeing performance in the Counties Manukau-Waikato game was to prove typical, then the offensive/defensive penalty balance would tilt heavily in favour of the attack. The new laws actually create more knife-edge decisions for the poor ref than before!

Rules 16.1 and 16.2 in particular need far more refinement, and maybe a complete change for the trials process to move beyond Mitre 10 level and be readily accepted by officials in the Northern Hemisphere.