They say the only two certainties in life are death and taxes. Here’s another, rather more contemporary rugby truth: David Pocock will be welcomed back to Australia with open arms in 2018.
‘Poey’s’ broad-mindedness and gravitas off the field and his play on it have both been sorely missed, despite the excellent form of Sean McMahon with the Wallabies.
It is perhaps a little too typical of the modern era that, just as one returns from his sojourn in Japanese club rugby, the other will offer him a metaphorical wave while passing the other way.
Although Pocock’s return will be an unqualified blessing for both regional and international rugby in Australia, it will also revive a selection dilemma for Michael Cheika and his coaching group which may not prove as easy to solve as it once was.
The issue is Australia’s best two forwards both happen to play in the same position, at number seven. In the recent past, that problem has been resolved simply by selecting both of them in the same back-row, with Pocock shifting across to eighth man.
For much of the time, that arrangement has worked out pretty well, but the experimental law changes currently being trialled in the Northern Hemisphere may have brought with them a dark cloud on the horizon of the ‘Pooper’.
I first highlighted the trial laws back in September 2016, and recently added a look at their effects on the breakdown in the recent Wales-South Africa match from December.
The most significant of the revisions are the changes to law at and after the tackle, which now states that:
- The tackler must get up before playing the ball and then can only play from their own side of the tackle “gate”. (15.4.c)
- A ruck commences when at least one player is on their feet and over the ball which is on the ground (16).
Both of these laws favour the attacking side, which can now create an offside line at the tackle immediately without any defender being present. Tacklers who want to compete for the ball on the ground can now no longer do so without retiring first through ‘the gate’ on their side of the tackle area.
It would mean that this kind of turnover (by David Pocock at the 2015 World Cup) would now be refereed as a clear penalty to the attacking team:
‘Poey’ would now have to go the long way round before he could even think of contesting this ball on the deck.
As indicated in the 2016 article, the effectiveness of Hooper and Pocock defensively has depended on their ability to ‘tackle and jackal’ as a hunting pair. One of them makes a low tackle and cuts the ball-carrier down, the other goes in and competes for the ball.
With the pair positioned together at scrums, lineouts and restarts, they accounted for the lion’s share of Wallaby turnovers.
Perhaps the best low forward tackler in the international game, Welsh flanker Dan Lydiate, cannot now get a game for the national side, and the Wales-South Africa match showed how the attitude of the Wales defence coach Shaun Edwards had changed with the trial laws.
Now it’s less a case of ‘tackle and jackal’ and more one of ‘prop up and fan out’ – hold the ball-carrier up and then drop back into the defensive line while you’re still on your feet.
This was definitely England’s policy too, in their end of year game against Australia at Twickenham:
As Will Genia goes to pass (with Maro Itoje in the process of getting up off the ground) everyone in the England defence is on their feet while there are three Australians off theirs, having been consumed at the ruck.
It would be reasonable to say the odds of the attack succeeding on the next phase have been reduced by anywhere between 13 and 20 per cent as a consequence.
England also managed to generate more turnovers with their new methods than the Wallabies did with the old. Australia garnered two turnovers, one off a Sean McMahon jackal above Johnny May in the 22nd minute, the other off a dominant tackle by Marika Koroibete and counter-ruck over the top of Owen Farrell. In both cases, both Hooper and McMahon (Pocock’s replacement at number eight) are playing together in the same area:
While Australia were still trying to win their turnovers on the deck, England won theirs by disrupting the ball while it was still above ground. Their big men up front – Dylan Hartley, Dan Cole, Joe Launchbury, and Nathan Hughes especially – all used high-tackle, ball-rip techniques well-suited to the new laws.
Hughes used the power of a frontal hit to force a Rob Simmons fumble:
England captain Hartley looked to have developed a sneaky technique where he pulled the main carrying arm away from the ball before the runner hit the ground – here on Reece Hodge:
Next on Sean McMahon:
And finally on Simmons close to the England goal-line:
Maro Itoje also contributed via a fumble forced out of Kurtley Beale by the same method in the second half:
All the indications are that the new laws – if they have a successful Super Rugby trial and are introduced permanently thereafter – will change the game radically at the tackle area.
Gone will be the days of low tackling, particularly in the forwards, and the opportunities for a specialist jackal to fold in over the ball on the ground will be greatly reduced. The movement will be towards the selection of bigger men in the back-row, players who can stay on their feet, hold up the ball-carrier and rip at the ball or the carrying arm.
The days of the ‘Pooper’ as a defensive weapon may, therefore, be numbered, and Michael Cheika may find himself in a position he does not enjoy in the least – having to make a choice between Australia’s two best forwards, with one probably starting on the bench.
The trial laws also will impact back-row ball-carrying. If defenders can be expected to be larger, and more powerful in their attempts to hold the runner-up off the ground, it places a premium on ball-carriers who can make yards after contact and keep their momentum going.
This is, of course, an area in which Sean McMahon excels:
For all his other virtues, David Pocock does not have this kind of dynamism on the drive, or anything like it.
Summary
Australia have depended in the Michael Cheika era on the inclusion of two number sevens with the ability to compete for the ball on the floor, with an emphasis on low tackling to bring the ball-carrier to earth quickly to create the opportunities for them.
Primarily it has been Michael Hooper and David Pocock, latterly it has been Hooper and Sean McMahon with Pocock away on sabbatical.
That may be about to change with the new trial laws at the tackle area in place for Super Rugby 2018.
The tackler has been largely ruled out as a jackal because he can no longer get up and play at the ball from any angle, so responsibility falls upon the first man in to compete on the ground.
In the Northern Hemisphere, the trials have led teams at both international and club level to concentrate on picking bigger players in the back-row, defenders who can hold the ball-carrier up and attack the ball while he is still upright.
Runners who can survive the first contact and maintain their leg drive in high tackle are also becoming premium players.
The ‘Pooper’ does not fit the bill on either account, so the odds are that Michael Cheika will face the most critical decision of his career to date as an Australian selector in 2018. What will he do?
Yikes
Guest
Just because a ref makes an error and allows something doesn’t mean it’s legal :-) Refs are always making errors! Just like the players. And coaches. I think your analysis of defensive strategies is probably correct.
Nicholas Bishop
Expert
Probably best for you to follow CB's advice and write your own article at this point - The Roar supports this on its platform. The two new laws in combination will have a big impact on defensive attitudes. The grey area has been removed for refs (for which I'm sure they are properly grateful) along with the ability of defenders to approach the tackle area from diff angles. The tackler cannot now get up and play at the ball from the wrong side, one bloke on his feet above the ball and his automatic offside line will persuade people not to have a crack at the ball on the deck from anything resembling a dubious position. The Pocock clip is a very useful one, because one of the top refs in the world (M.Poite) allowed play to continue because of that grey area. He allowed it, therefore it was legal for all practical purposes. The result of the new laws (unforeseen by the lawmakers) will probably be - less competition at the post-tackle, - more men filling the defensive line, - more two-man hits, - higher tackling technique - quite possibly, more injuries. I sincerely hope that they do not pass muster in their current form.
Yikes
Guest
How many times do I have to say that I am not trying to invalidate your analysis of trends for you to believe it? I am not denying the playing trend exists. You've seen it, I've seen it, blind Freddy has seen it. And I first said, and you now seem to agree, that it is a trend that goes beyond refereeing interpretations. Great: we agree. What I am trying to correct a misconception that the 2018 Law changes have changed the way referees approach the jackal contest. THEY HAVE NOT. You might think it is "self-evident", but that's why it needs clearing up, and is why I posted in the first place. Referees are ONLY to apply the "1 man = ruck" Law to offside lines. It is to have no baring on the tackle contest. Alain Rolland has made this very clear. What more can you possibly want!? As for the Pocock video – can you at least agree that it was illegal also under the previous set of Laws?
Nicholas Bishop
Expert
No, I don't work for Leicester Tigers. Right from the beginning of this conversation, I've tried to point out how things are working out in practice, rather than the refereeing theory which is your start point. That is what the article is about - how teams are reacting to the law changes at the tackle. But it also seems self-evident to me that there is going to be a difference between a ruck which is called only when two men from opposite sides are in contact above the ball, as opposed to a ruck called when there is only one. It rather disturbs me that refs don't think that will make any difference to the way teams approach the tackle area. Ultimately what I am interested in is trends in the game - it is part of my job to try to see and understand them as early as possible. I wrote another article previous to this one on a similar topic, based on the Wales v South Africa game here http://www.theroar.com.au/2017/12/06/north-trending-ahead-south/ It is trend which goes well beyond refereeing intentions, and I think that is the key point for a interpreter like yourself - who clearly prefers black and white to more subtle shading - to realize. Only then can we continue the conversation to any useful end :)
Crash Ball2
Guest
Yikes, there is certainly a lot of confusion about this particular clause and a host of speculation about the ramifications from all levels of commentators. Given your unique insight and connections, if you have the time and compulsion, could I suggest a short article?
Yikes
Guest
Correction: Leinster apparently.
Yikes
Guest
OK, at this point, nothing will convince you. I was the one that wrote the above text and Rolland confirmed it. There is no "subtle difference" from previous reffing trends! Alain has said: NO CHANGE. Teams change their tactics all the time. I'm not saying their approach is incorrect. I'm not saying they haven't changed their approach. The history of rugby is littered with teams adopting tactical trends for one reason or another. Not all of it has to do with Law changes. All I'm saying that OFFICIALLY there is no change – not a subtle change, not an unintended change, no change! – from the way referees were applying the jackal contest in 2017. You can bury your head in the sand if you want, go for it. Here's a challenge for you: you do work for the Tigers, don't you? Ask the next pro ref you come across whether the approach to the jackal has changed under the new Laws. See what response you get. Because according to Alain Rolland: there is none. As for the Pocock video - can you at least agree that it was illegal also under the previous set of Laws?
Nicholas Bishop
Expert
Thanks for getting back to me with the info from Alain Rolland. – if both get into physical contact first, the defensive player cannot then go for the ball with their hands as the ruck is formed. I think this is the key point and I'd suggest that it is a subtle but important diff from previous reffing trends, when the one-on-one contest was allowed to continue. My own research certainly suggests a difference in interpretation, and it is very clear that professional coaches think likewise - otherwise why would they change their approach to contact situations?? If the situation was exactly the same as before, they would not feel the need to change their attitude to it. If coaches are interpreting things the wrong way off their own bat, and that is affecting the game in the North, so be it. Well, England won their two biggest autumn internationals against Argentina and Australia by using their 'incorrect' methods. The aggregate score was 51-8 - and both games were reffed by SH referees (Marius van der Westhuizen and Ben O'Keefe) who would I imagine be adopting the approach you prescribe. I guess the poor fools will just continue using them until the refereeing committee informs them that they are not playing to the intention behind the rules! P.S. That incorrect first Pocock video is still showing. Yep, that one's well beyond your pay grade - it will remain :)
Yikes
Guest
OK, so I have now had the following confirmed as being correct by Alain Rolland: - even if an arriving player gets over the ball first, a defensive jackal player can still go for the ball with their hands as they are the first arriver from their team. - if both get into physical contact first, the defensive player cannot then go for the ball with their hands as the ruck is formed. i.e. there is no change whatsoever to 2017 approach. Nicholas – I am not against your empirical evidence. All I have said is that the interpretation you and others here were suggesting was being applied by referees was WRONG, and that this should not happen in the Southern Hemisphere or in Test Matches. If coaches are interpreting things the wrong way off their own bat, and that is affecting the game in the North, so be it. But I didn't want people to be confused about what the referee's approach should actually be. P.S. That incorrect first Pocock video is still showing.
Nicholas Bishop
Expert
Thanks for your (considered) responses Nick! Let's see how teams treat the new rules in the forthcoming SR comp...
Nicholas Bishop
Expert
Law 16. A ruck commences when at least one player is on their feet and over the ball which is on the ground (tackled player, tackler). At this point the offside lines are created. Players on their feet may use their hands to pick up the ball as long as this is immediate. As soon as an opposition player arrives, no hands can be used. That is the law amendment in its entirety. It seems very clear that a ruck is being created earlier than it was under the old law, and hence the opportunity to steal is more restricted than before. That is the way coaches at the elite end of the game are interpreting it, as I thought I was demonstrating in the article! It seems we cannot get past your exclusive attention to what it intended by the law change, rather than what is actually happening out on the field (thus far)! Sorry I've not been able to convince you of the importance of empirical evidence :)
MitchO
Guest
Ye, Akira. I don't have Foxtel but I saw go through gaps fast. I don't know how good his actual number 8 skills are but he can run and Fox above seems to have had a decent look at him.
Yikes
Guest
"Now the ruck is formed as soon as the attacking player gets there first so now as soon as a ruck is formed it is no hands, if he is beaten to the ruck he cannot try and pilfer which wasn’t the case in the old laws since it took a player from each side. Thanks for saying what I have been trying to, apparently to no avail Peter!" To no avail because this is incorrect. I will report back here once I've had this confirmed (again) from SANZAAR and World Rugby.
John
Guest
Huge mistake by the Rule Makers, Rugby needs to get more players committed to rucks/mauls. If not is is just about League without tbe 10m rule. Definitely killing the game of Rugby as we know it.
Fionn
Guest
Funbus, McMahon isn't an option. I also don't see what Hooper offers to make him a better option than Pocock. The Wallabies need a breakdown master more than a ball running 7.
NickG
Roar Rookie
Some really good points well backed up, especially the potential focus on the ball rather than the carrier. I do disagree though with your overall thesis. That teams are looking to put more bodies in the defensive line due to the law changes there is no doubt. With more bodies and a hazardous ruck came compulsory linespeed, moreover in midfield, changing the shape of the tackler. Because the tackler is running at such high speed, coupled with a need to pick out potential change of targets with shifts in the attacking line, means his ability to get low can be negated. The ability to push off attacking screens also comes into play. There is now a collective in jackyling compared to individual skill sets in days gone by. So the ability to run at speed and make low tackles, a 7 speciality, can be deemed more valuable. Because every player is thought how to get over the ball, and with more numbers in line, a low tackle with numbers at the ruck is gold counter attacking opportunity. It is an incredibly hard skill, thats why having two genuine 7s can be game changing for the Wallabies. Take into account Pocock was deemed at a time better than Macaw by Deans, and Hooper would be all-time great contender now if the Wallabies had better backrow balance.We need to think of Hooper as the new McMahon, and Pocock as the new Hooper. The Wallabies also like to put their playmakers in the backfield, so having two 7s will arguably strengthen their front line in their chosen defensive pattern. Attacking ruck clearing has also become an issue for the Wallabies, something Pocock will surely improve. The big question mark for me is 6, they will need a jumper and they will need physicality. Something special has to happen this Super Rugby season for the 6s in Oz. Thanks so much for your always insightful articles.
Nicholas Bishop
Expert
yep, it's a bit of a waste of time - at least at this stage of McMahon's career...
Rugnut
Guest
Gil is a better option than Hooper as a 7 and Leader. Unfortunately the “Guru” coach can’t see it. Pocock should be at 7 and Captain. Genia as vice ( only because there is no one close at present)
Fin
Guest
Hi Nick, Update from Poey & McMahon. They played against each other this morning over in Japan. Sean's team (Suntory Sungoliath) were victorious over Poey's mob (Panasonic Wild Knights) in the Japanese League final. Poey went off injured at halftime which allowed Sungoliath to take control of the breakdown. Panasonic also lost Berrick Barnes after 10 minutes. Not good losing your #10 & #7 to injury. Now that the Japanese season is completed Poey comes back to the Brumbies (and maybe 'Pooper') but Sean McMahon disappears into the rugby wilderness for a while. That's a shame isn't it Nick? Players like McMahon should be playing at the very highest level.
Crash Ball2
Guest
Indeed, the next Super season will be enlightening. And if the situation was a straight shootout between two great openside flankers for the starting Gold 7 jersey, I’d agree wholeheartedly. Though, I fear any lessons learnt from 2018 SR and the laws that govern it – no matter how stark – are also almost mutually exclusive to the question of subsequent Wallabies selections. In Cheika World, regardless of form, function, opposition or opportunity, Hooper’s untouchable incumbency @ 7 is the Death and Taxes Gold Standard in Bankable Forgone Conclusions. Our inevitable end point. The best hope for David Pocock is another out-of-position starting selection based on his gargantuan rugby ability. Another personal mountain to climb. Unfortunately, that outcome will neither be the best one for Pocock himself, or the Wallabies team.