Zero tolerance. Those are the buzzwords for the new tackle law interpretations. Zero tolerance for high shots – a policy, if consistently implemented, that stands to change the game radically over the next 12 months.
Eddie Jones was one of the first to recognise the technical and tactical impact it could have on the way the game will be played.
“The inevitability of the need to tackle lower is that it will free up the game and more offloads will come in,” Jones told The Guardian.
“I have been impressed by how France have improved in the understanding of how they play: if they are playing rucks, they are an average team, but they are now playing above the defence, picking a lot of big, tall guys who can get above the tackler and offload. Then they become the old, dangerous France, with movement, tempo and rhythm.”
In rugby league, high tackling technique has evolved in order to defuse the danger of offloads, smothering the ball at the point of contact.
In rugby union, it now appears that the offloading game will have an increased chance to prosper, with the tackle zone necessarily lower – and probably for the majority of the time, underneath the level of the ball.
Ironically, this new ruling may have a powerful and immediate effect on England’s defence of their Six Nations title, which begins in less than a fortnight.
As Jones observed, they will be playing France first up, and he has noticed how the French are developing their offloading game and quickening the tempo of their attacking approach.
The England midfield of George Ford, Owen Farrell and Jonathan Joseph is the smallest trio in rugby’s international top tier. Here is a selection of some of the teams in that elite echelon:
| Team | #10 | Inside centre | Outside centre | Average |
| England | Ford, 5’9, 185lbs | Farrell, 6’2, 212 | Joseph, 6′, 201 | 5’11, 198lbs |
| New Zealand | Beauden Barrett, 6’2, 203 | Ryan Crotty 6′, 209 | Anton Lienert-Brown 6’2, 212 | 6’1, 208lbs |
| Australia | Bernard Foley, 6′, 196 | Reece Hodge, 6’3, 207 | Tevita Kuridrani 6’4, 225 | 6’2, 209lbs |
| Ireland | Johnny Sexton, 6’3, 203 | Robbie Henshaw, 6’3, 209 | Jared Payne, 6’2, 209 | 6’3, 207lbs |
| France | Jean-Marc Doussain, 5’9, 203 | Remi Lamerat, 6’3, 231 | Gaël Fickou 6’3, 218 | 6′, 217lbs |
| Wales | Dan Biggar, 6’2, 196 | Jamie Roberts, 6’4, 240 | Jonathan Davies 6’1, 229 | 6’2, 222lbs |
| Scotland | Finn Russell, 6′, 192 | Alex Dunbar 6’1, 229 | Huw Jones, 6′, 201 | 6′, 207lbs |
England coped remarkably well with the disparity in midfield size throughout the 2016 Six Nations, and in their four games with a much larger Australian inside trio from June on to the end of the year.
So why won’t they continue to handle the issue just as well in the new year?
The two dynamic factors in the argument are, firstly, the impact of the new tackle interpretations, and secondly, increased opposition familiarity with England’s defensive patterns.
One of the major causes of ‘second-season blues’ is that the opponent has far more information with which to analyse and pinpoint weaknesses in a previous winner of the competition – and they, of course, are inevitably targeted.
England have collectively lifted their head well above the parapet and they are up there to be shot at.
Another aspect of the size equation is that Jones has been forced to select an extra ball-carrying back row forward (typically James Haskell with everyone fit) to compensate for the absence of a power runner in the midfield.
Manu Tuilagi might well have fulfilled this role but he has been injured throughout Jones’ tenure. So England have ended up with a back-row consisting of one massive number eight and two 6s in Haskell and Chris Robshaw, linked to two ball-playing 10s and a 13 outside them.
This has given them some lopsided transition zones on defence, with a bigger imbalance in size and speed between the last forward and the first back.
When you think of Dan Carter and Richie McCaw, one of the reasons their defensive partnership was so successful was that they could run and think at the same speed in defence – McCaw could hit harder and Carter could run to the target faster, but the basic similarity in size allowed them to defend well as a pair.
For England, that harmonious blend between forwards and backs in defence is more difficult to engineer.
Let’s take a look at what this can mean in practice.
This first reel comes from the 2016 Six Nations, and two main points emerge from it:
Transition zone imbalance between forwards and backs
In the first example from the England vs Wales game, Wales use their big men in the backline to take advantage of England’s smaller defenders.
With the threat of Jamie Roberts holding the inside defence, they’re in a position to match up their best footballer, Liam Williams, with Joseph on the third pass. Joseph makes very few errors in defence, but he cannot prevent Williams getting the offload away to Jonathan Davies, because he is a low tackler.
At the moment the offload is delivered, look where England’s first two back-row defenders are in relation to their Welsh counterparts – at 73:39, both Justin Tipuric (Wales #20) and Taulupe Faletau (#8) are well ahead of their opposite numbers and the transition zone is gaping wide. One second later and there are four Wales players in support against lone England fullback, Mike Brown.
The second example comes straight from the kick-off after George North’s try. Again, England have an uncomfortable transition zone between their big No.8 Billy Vunipola and Jack Nowell out on the right wing, and there is no sense of connection between the two in defence as Davies makes his second break.
Forty seconds later, Faletau rampages through another disconnect between a big forward (replacement hooker Luke Cowan-Dickie) and a small back (scrum-half Danny Care) to finish the movement. The score is a mirror image of the try converted by Sekope Kepu in Australia’s December international, with the Wallaby tighthead running straight through the seam between prop Joe Marler and Owen Farrell to score in the 66th minute.
The need to protect George Ford in the 10 channel
The need to protect their small number 10, Ford, often leaves England looking narrow on defence, especially from early set-piece situations.
In the Ireland game, at 15:31, the threat of big Stuart McCloskey fixes Ford and the two defenders inside and outside him (Haskell and Farrell) in about five square metres of space. If Henshaw is less obvious with his holding block on Farrell, Johnny Sexton is through the gap and away.
When McCloskey receives the ball again, at 39:03, all three England midfielders are compressed into that same five square metres of space and the outside is open if Sexton passes immediately. At 55:16, the widest England defender (Anthony Watson) is well inside the far 15-metre line, as McCloskey brushes Ford out of the way on the block – if Henshaw passes short to Rob Kearney, rather than throwing the long looped delivery, then Ireland are in business again on the right outside.
A number of these issues were confirmed in England’s last match of the season, against the Wallabies.
After the scrum turnover at 6:35, Reece Hodge drives so far through the seam between Ford and Farrell that the second phase finish is a simple walk-in for Sefa Naivalu. The second example follows right after the ensuing England kick-off – just as in the Wales Six Nations game.
Again, there is a forward (Courtney Lawes) defending inside the last back (Marland Yarde) and there is little evidence of a connection between the two players. Lawes is sucked on to the decoy (David Pocock), leaving a straightforward two-on-one in the wide channel for Hodge and Naivalu.
The vulnerability of Ford as a front-line defender, especially from early phases, is also spotlighted.
At 11:27, Australia put a big athlete in the shape of Israel Folau over the top of him directly from a midfield scrum, at 15:22 they identify him in the wide channel from another England restart. At 22:30, even Bernard Foley is able to put enough of a dent in Ford and Nathan Hughes for Michael Hooper to break straight up the middle of an unsettled England guard defence on the next play.
At 37:00, Ben Youngs drifts too far across the field in an effort to protect Ford from the threat of Tevita Kuridrani, allowing Dane Haylett-Petty to slip underneath him for another clean break.
Summary
England’s opponents in the forthcoming Six Nations will draw comfort from the targets they can identify in England’s midfield and the shaky relationship between their inside backs and their forwards defending together.
The fact that England have held together so well in these areas over the last season, with the physical imbalances involved, is quite remarkable.
Nonetheless, they have conceded 20 tries in their last seven games and the suspect areas of their defensive patterns have become ever clearer in the second half of the season.
There is no lack of either sheer guts or ‘smarts’ in George Ford without the ball, while Jonathan Joseph is consistently one of England’s best low-tackling defenders.
However, Owen Farrell will need to adapt his rugby league, high-tackling ‘smother’ technique to the new rulings (see the misses at Ireland 39:16, and Australia 22:35) and all three will have to work out a method to stop the offload against often much bigger attackers.
The new tackle interpretations may help bring England back towards the chasing pack, and it promises to be one of the most intriguing Six Nations for many years!
Highlander
Guest
Thank you Nick, the 6N match ups are providing real entertainment this year, and the coaching duels only intensify. However as the Wales/Eng game progressed one thing increasingly annoyed the bejeezez out of me, the amount of time that both sides left the ball sitting at the base of the ruck while they reset plays around them, thus a lot of slow play one outs, and delayed box kicks. Webb uses his foot to roll the ball to the base of he ruck before passing, while Youngs actually uses his hands to do the same thing ( which I would have thought is either making the ball live or illegal hands in the ruck, hopefully a ref out there can enlighten me) Noticed Connor Murray standing up all day before labouring the ball off from waist height in his game. I thought the only halfback consistently clearing quickly off the ground was the Italian. This seems really at odds with the more open style the northern sides have adopted over the last couple of seasons. The obsevations on protecting Ford are interesting, do you defend narrow, or if you don't trust him have him defend wider and risk having him too far from the ball when its turned over. Would add this Eng backs / fwds issues is not new, Aus made a point of attacking the Eng midfield in the june tests where the Vunipolas were stationed in test 1 and made great advantage from phase play, Eddie did adjust that rather quickly though,
Fox
Roar Guru
No the insurance remains and that is insurance but the clause has to prevent the body being sued at a later date. Insurance cover medical costs and I suppose loss of earning if your career ends early But suing covers all kinds of nasties including the financial and emotional burdens and hardship on immediate family, as well as fail to properly disclose the potential long term harm, negligence on the part of administrators etc and the sums demanded and got, can be crippling if is is say a class action which is what the NFL feared like all money with regard to concussion. Insurance cover is one thing Nick but suing is quite another and administrative bodies will be unscrupulous in protecting themselves as the NFL were. So a clause like that prevent stone throwing at a later date from both sides
Nicholas Bishop
Expert
Progress is never a continuous upward curve, and it will be interesting to see if England begin to plateau during the tournament. I suspect that this is what will happen, and if they try to turbo-boost with the bonus point carrot, they will come a cropper in fairly short order :)
Nicholas Bishop
Expert
Interestingly, take out the games against Italy, and it becomes... France 4 tries Ireland 6 Scotland 8 Wales 8 England 8 Kinda looks more reasonable that way!
taylorman
Roar Guru
Yes agree they're not as advanced in terms of where they need to be and part of it still requires a sharp learning curve and the possibility of losing while doing that. Last year was about re-directing the same ship, I think this year is about giving it an upgrade, more velocity, and the bonus point system helps fuel that, and Eddie does not want to fall over the line to win this, and my guess is he'll use the bonus point system as the carrot. Is the old four try bonus or score three or more system being used? He'll get better results from an attacking perspective initially out of the four try mode, especially if no one else takes the same approach. The three try system encourages more of an attack, defence balance.
Derm
Roar Guru
Six Nations try scoring last year was: Wales 17 Ireland 15 England 13 Scotland 11 France 7
Nicholas Bishop
Expert
Yes I'm not entirely convinced that England are as advanced as last season's results suggested. Compared to the AB's there are one or two areas that lag behind the others in terms of quality. Joe Schmidt remains something of an enigma - obv one of the mostly highly-talented coaches in the world, but I don't think he trusts his charges to make their own decisions as yet, which is hobbling the development of leaders within the team. As for Eddie, as one fellow forward once told me after I enquired after his black eye...."I fell on someone's boot..." :)
taylorman
Roar Guru
Yes it will be, and Jones mini obsession with the ABs also fits the bill here. He knows he's got a year up his sleeve to develop the depth and skill levels England need to knock the ABs off and he knows they have to score tries to do it. And the 6N is the perfect catalyst to start rolling a bold plan out. By looking beyond the 6N you get to push the barriers even further within it. I don't think Schmidt is quite at that level of thinking yet and may miss the same opportunities with Ireland. Too much is being made of the AB win for me. And once again Jones is the master of deflection...appearing at a media interview with a fresh black eye to take all focus off his team and wouldn't surprise me at all if it came from a heated exchange with someone in disagreement with his seemingly out there plans. France may look to taking advantage of the bonus point system but their maturity as a side is well behind Englands in terms of development. England are in the fine tuning phase, France are starting afresh...though that in itself is sometimes enough for them.
Nicholas Bishop
Expert
I'd agree with that assessment T-man, bonus points prob will add up to an advantage for England - potentially France too, if they continue their development from the AI's? That could make the opening round game between England and France a pretty tasty prospect - at least much more so than it has been for the last few years at Twickenham!
taylorman
Roar Guru
Well now you've done it Nic, I've been looking for clear reasons why England should roll them, the answers right theres in the bonus points, so now I'm sold again, England to take the title and GS! It all adds up...? It matches Jones previous comments about wanting to set high standards for the tournament as its current champs, and the best way to do that is with tries, so I think your point about the bonus points is they key. Bonus points are about attitude rather than as some reward for good play on the day. The thinking is that scoring tries brings the bonus where the reverse is actually more true, the presence of the bonus points bring the attitude, the attitude and approach to the game that says without tries you run the risk of others scoring them...in other matches as well as the common ones. England and Jones are better equipped to opening up the game the way it needs to be to take serious advantage. The perception of risk changes... Henry and certainly Hansen perceived risk as not having a go whenever any opportunity presented itself, often regardless of the factors..poor field position etc. Not getting the tries on the board becomes the greater risk, hence the relentless pursuit of getting them. Sure it requires high levels of accuracy and execution but that only comes with practice and the English skill levels are there to be exploited, and Eddies certainly the man to do that. It all fits, to me anyway. I think Eddies going to have them playing such an attacking brand that they'll be clear before the others know what's going on. Easy to say from this side of the world I know, that's the beauty of watching it from afar!
Nicholas Bishop
Expert
You lost all credibility when you stated that the pack was first picked with Burrell at 12. Now you're saying that Harrison was selected against Australia in the Autumn. He wasn't - the starting flankers were Wood and Robshaw. If you want to call people out, start by acknowledging your own mistakes. And stop projecting your total inability to accept any other opinion than your own on others. Then you might just begin to understand what the word 'conversation' really means...
Nicholas Bishop
Expert
One of the issues is that when the IRB come out with 'zero tolerance' edicts, the refs feel absolutely compelled to follow them to the letter, come what may... If they don't (or use common sense instead) they probably won't advance their careers and slip down the pecking order. So there is a real chance that the implementation of the new rules will lop-side the flow of games. Player at pro-level should be made to sign air-tight clauses that they accept and acknowledge the risk of things like later life “concussion caused” medial conditions I don't see how this could be made to stick Fox. When the rugby players' association becomes as powerful as organisations like the NFLPA, I can't see any way it would be accepted as a clause in a contract. Where would that leave players' personal injury insurance?
Nicholas Bishop
Expert
Eddie is trying to use the Leicester City comparison from soccer, but it doesn't wash really. Leicester were a real David among financial Goliaths, England have always been a Goliath in terms of resources, even when they play like someone smaller. England don't have any obvious psychological cards to play really - and they have three home matches out of five too. Having said that, they have not always functioned so well recently as the two aways have been against the two toughest opponents, Ireland and Wales. I'd be surprised if any nation wins the GS this year, 4-1 should be enough to win it - so the new bonus point system could be crucial.
taylorman
Roar Guru
Really tough to pick this one Nic, last year I had England for the slam for both the draw and the desperation, the need to quickly make up for a poor 2015. You're correct in saying the signs of a good England side has been there last few years, and they toured fairly strongly to NZ earlier. This year some of those factors aren't there any more...the draw, the need for redemption- they sorted that one in quick time. They lose any notion of not being a contender and are the prime target for every side, despite what many thing about Irelands chances. This is 6N and England are the big scalp, historically and particularly in this form. So where they lose some of the psychological advantages...ambush, redemption etc, they've gained in developing a very good team, a hardened team that has been able to absorb the usual issues... consistency, injury cover, leadership in some ways, and a very core belief in their own abilities. That, and if 2016 results are anything to go by, a generally higher standard of rugby across the four main sides, make picking this years winner very difficult. There are pluses and minuses too variable that don't necessarily provide an easy answer, but one thing I'm fairly confident of is the 6N winner will be the winner of the last round at Aviva. Looking forward to seeing the key Lions aspirants go at it, another aspect of this years tournament that makes it even more interesting. It's a really interesting start for us every year. After no Rugby for almost four months we get bombed in the first couple of weeks with at least ten key matches in the one weekend with our first Super matches strewn out across the 6N match times, and by weekends end are shattered. I'm picking Digger to break his record of blogging fifty matches in the one weekend and still driving to work on Monday.?
Fox
Roar Guru
Yeah Nick I have seen that film. Well made and interesting but the NFL - though they were scumbags doing what they did - were afraid of years of backdated lawsuits and also the fear i have with rugby, that the game would become a watered down contact sport. What I think should happen is that these laws should be at high school and lower grade level where players are not being paid . This would also embed the dangers of the tackle into players who went on to semi-pro and professional level. This may mean that they would need skill upgrading to make the full upper body tackle, but they would come in with very good off-loading and ball skills improving the game as a spectacle at that level. Some later medical conditions are a result of years and years - since school days - of concussion and head clashes etc. This would also seriously lesson the ongoing effect . Player at pro-level should be made to sign air-tight clauses that they accept and acknowledge the risk of things like later life "concussion caused" medial conditions and it should be properly explained by a medical professional who is not ordered to water it down, and then given to players in writing to show families if necessary as they are also affected if the side affects are serious - and than can be so serious that players can go almost insane as you know, though this is the extreme case but it has happened resulting in suicides. Finally, there should be longer minimum lengths out of the game until the concussed person has no serious side effects from the condition as the All Blacks seem to be demanding with players like Read and Nagtai. Also players who make "clearly careless dangerous tackles" at professional level should have a minimum time out of the game say three - five weeks to send the message home. I also think that it is time that on the idea of missing games - that missed games should be in the competition you committed the offence and/or higher. This get out of jail free card that players have suddenly being listed on club teams sheets they were never intended to be on, and blatantly for the convenience of making that one of the missed games, is treating the punishment with disdain, and it is time the rules were changed on this. If star players, crowd and ratings pullers miss games through their own stupidity then tough luck. It is time TV networks need to stay out of influencing laws like this not being changed. I have good whisper that one particular network made noises when it was suggested this loophole was closed off which is just ridiculous. Why have bans at all if players and their coaches can get away with this crap? Anyway I think this is a better plan myself - your thoughts?
Hello Everybody.
Guest
Oh dear. And Beale is a wing. I have no idea why you wont accept things when its clear that what youve said is incorrect. No forward for England is selected because of the backline. Beale is not and never has been a wing. However, although you must know the truth, you will never say it. I repeat, no English forward has been selected as a result of backline selections. Haskell is a workhorse, not a metre muncher. Robshaw is not a noted ball carrier. Beale is not a wing. Although I know you will just keep arguing so there is no point. In the other article you had everyone bar none telling you that Beale was a 10 converted to 15 and you refused to accept this after everyone told you that was the case... and I mean everyone. I wish you luck but its probably better to admit when you get it wrong instead of arguing and digging deeper. Please inform Eddie Jones that his selection of Harrison against Aus in the Autumn was wrong and he is forced to select a ball carrier...even though they won. I give up. Eddie selects Haskell because his backline.
Nicholas Bishop
Expert
Could never understand why he didn't get more chances at Wasps, stood behind Ruaridh Jackson and Jimmy Gopperth. Big loss for them.
Frisky
Guest
All this may be true from a defensive point of view. However the new rules will greatly benefit the smaller backs. They tend to be nippier and more evasive than their larger opponents. They are harder to tackle under the new rules - a large man has difficulty getting low down. I predict the giants will give away a lot of points and cards for high tackles. Remember his a yellow card against the AB turned the RWC final from a cakewalk into a tense contest?
adastra32
Guest
You certainly don't walk through Lozowski - he has an equal skill-set to Ford and Eddie likes him... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJIyJEyP9Bo
Nicholas Bishop
Expert
I'd have Kerevi slightly ahead of Kuridrani right now, but no more than that - Kuridrani at his best is a potent weapon on both sides of the ball.