Early observations from Super Rugby AU’s law variations

By Brett McKay / Expert

We’ve only had four games played with the new law variations in place, and the Brumbies and Western Force have only played one game each over the first two rounds.

I can’t stress the ‘early’ part of ‘early observations’ enough.

But we’ve seen all of the variations used to some degree already, save for the replacement of a player issued with a red card. And while it’s a little hard to know when that one may be first used, we have seen enough of the other Super Rugby AU tweaks to start talking about them.

Breakdown and offside focus
There has only been a slight decrease in the number of penalties per game across the two rounds, though it’s worth noting the plus-or-minus 25 penalties per game is a long way below the numbers from the first few rounds of Super Rugby Aotearoa. And obviously, not all 25 per game are necessarily for breakdown or offside line infringements.

But the point in mentioning all this is that the Australian teams – even with the benefit of three weeks’ worth of game vision from over the ditch and intra-squad games overseen by the local referees involved – haven’t actually made any massive adjustments yet.

And if the 22 to 27 penalties we’ve seen across the four AU games is an acceptable level in the eyes of officialdom, then it may well be the case that no further adjustments are needed. Coaches will always want their teams to concede fewer penalties while simultaneously looking for every advantage they can, but it’s not like the referees have acted on yellow card threats for repeated breakdown and offside penalties.

Four yellow cards in four games is not too different to the rate of issue we saw in seven rounds of ‘normal’ Super Rugby this year.

It does, however, ‘feel’ like the offside line is still something they’re getting used to, even for the Reds, Rebels and Waratahs who have now played 160 minutes under the renewed focus. Force skipper Ian Prior made mention on Saturday night that this was the one area they needed to work on specifically.

Certainly though, we have seen breakdown accuracy being rewarded, with players realising more and more that there are benefits to be had in being first onto the ball. Those getting themselves into position early enough to have a crack at lifting the ball have been rightly rewarded, and if anything, this has highlighted that the defensive clean-out has been off the mark.

(Photo by Cameron Spencer/Getty Images)

Goal-line dropouts
It’s already clear that defensive sides are doing their best to pull the pick-and-drive ball-carrier over the line, which then gives them a quick restart via the dropout, and which teams are invariably kicking as long as they possibly can, thus turning their goal-line defence into immediate field position advantage.

This isn’t a bad thing at all, and it brings with it two immediate benefits: the game is back underway far quicker than via even the cleanest five-metre scrum, and it enforces attacking teams to be accurate in both their body-positioning and the timing of their shove for the try line.

We saw this during the NRC last season and it had exactly the same impact. It definitely improves goal-line defence, and it ensures teams pick their moments a lot better on the pick and drive, rather than just endless phase building for the sake of tiring tacklers out.

A little bit of confusion remains around no longer being able to ground the ball in-goal, with more than a few players visibly trying to work out whether they can force the ball and walk back to the 22, or whether they need to run. Kick-chases are waking up to this though, which means that kicks previously given up on remain in play longer.

Kick variations
We’ve not seen many kicks within the attacking 22 force a contest in lieu of the mark being called as yet, mainly because teams have quickly worked out that twenty-two metres actually isn’t a lot of room to play with. Even with a ruck only a metre or two out, a kicker needs to be set pretty deep in order to give themselves the time needed to put a contestable kick into the corner.

And with a ruck only a metre or two out, the defenders won’t really be that far behind the ball when it reaches the kicker. I’ll watch on with interest around this, but already I do wonder if it’s an idea that sounded good in theory, but maybe doesn’t work out that way in practice.

There’s no doubt teams are seeing the benefits of the 50-22 kick, however. Reece Hodge pulled out a crucial lineout throw-winning kick for the Rebels in extra time on Friday night, and the Waratahs second-half turnaround on Saturday night was massively boosted by two superb kicks from Karmichael Hunt, notwithstanding that one of them was later deemed to have been awarded in error.

Jack Maddocks of the Waratahs catches a kick (Photo by Mark Kolbe/Getty Images)

Teams are definitely looking for them, and back-field defences are playing noticeably deeper already as a result. This isn’t a bad thing and can only help improve the positioning of Australian fullbacks and back three players.

The flow-on is that the extra space that is being created can be like fool’s gold, in that it’s not necessarily as big as it may appear, especially if the drifting winger’s positioning is spot on.

So while there’s more space being created in the front line and just behind it, I think back field players are starting to recognise more opportunities for counterattack with the ball charging forward.

Interestingly though, I think 22-50 kick opportunities are being missed.

My issues with this reverse allowance remain, but while ever they’re in play we might as well try and make the most of them. And I reckon there were two or three occasions during the Rebels-Reds game when both sides were so pre-occupied with returning kicks with even longer kicks that space behind the defensive line in the opposition half was being missed, and thus, the chance to launch a set piece attack was lost with it.

Extra time not necessarily Super
Well, you’ve got to try something to see how it goes, and what the first use of Super Time on Friday night told us is that in wet conditions, it’s actually pretty difficult to manufacture field position and the points-scoring opportunities that come with it.

Neither the Rebels or Reds could tuck the ball under the arm and build phases for fear of turnover, so kicking for territory become the only real option.

But this also meant that much of the fifteen or so minutes played of the five minutes each way was in the twenty metres either side of halfway. In this almost no-man’s land, it was too far out for drop goal attempts, and back field players would still be able to call for the mark on attacking kicks into the 22.

Rob Valetini. (Photo by Mark Kolbe/Getty Images)

So what we saw was two teams trying not to concede penalties and a referee determined not to blow one.

Interestingly, both the Rebels and Reds backed the concept for breaking fulltime deadlocks post-match, and I’m going to hold judgement until I’ve seen Super Time used in dry conditions.

It makes no sense to scrap it after one use, but it was interesting to see that being called for in all the reaction.

Equally, I’m really not sure what changes could be made to it. You either play extra time or you don’t.

The Crowd Says:

2020-07-16T01:43:52+00:00

Muglair

Roar Rookie


Thanks Brett. I did remember it was widely tested, but you are right they really did a thorough job. The article did not seem clear on how many involved all of the rules, so perhaps it was just the ARC, which was one more than I thought :unhappy:

AUTHOR

2020-07-15T06:21:06+00:00

Brett McKay

Expert


Ha, not many!! In doing a bit of a hunt around, I've found a site dedicated to the history of the Laws, which contains a full section on the Stellenbosch ELVs, including how widely they were trialled (further than I remembered), and which ELV went forward (also more than I realised). It's a great overview of what went down and who was for and against: http://www.rugbyfootballhistory.com/2004-2009-ELVs.html

2020-07-15T03:14:17+00:00

Muglair

Roar Rookie


I have used a time machine Brett https://www.superxv.com/arc-already-a-success/ You are correct Question 2 How many IRB officials were in attendance at the first round to gauge their success? Sorry, got carried away ....

2020-07-15T03:07:49+00:00

Muglair

Roar Rookie


In a circular way, why the referees had so much trouble adjudicating the laws prior to this year. They just do not have that feel for how the breakdown works. Sadly I doubt if we will be seeing too many tight five players make the graduation to refereeing fast moving rugby matches.

AUTHOR

2020-07-15T03:07:41+00:00

Brett McKay

Expert


I'm as confident as I can be without a time machine, Mug. After the ARC used them all, a few might have made their way to Super Rugby (and maybe even the Currie Cup and NPC), but no comp took them on as a collective.

2020-07-15T03:01:52+00:00

Muglair

Roar Rookie


Query that Brett. I thought ARC, like a few other competitions, trialled a number of them. The whole trialling exercise was widely criticised as the changes were designed as a package, and never trialled as one.

2020-07-15T02:58:18+00:00

Muglair

Roar Rookie


I agree about scrums with the Bell YC really showing this up. Even if you think Reds did not offend either (what is TT's head doing under Abel's chest?) a dominant scrum gets all the advantages of possession moving forward as well as the opponents going backwards on their own ball. This habit of handing a YC to the losing prop is out of hand. Don't agree with your perspective on the breakdown. The defender is rewarded by legally winning the possession on the turnover. Attacking players are being penalised for illegally interfering with him.

AUTHOR

2020-07-15T01:30:28+00:00

Brett McKay

Expert


Really good points about the ELVs, IB. It's a massive shame the full set never made it to international level - in fact I'm not even sure they got to Super Rugby level, though some came in over time. The 2007 ARC was the only tournament to use them in full, from memory..

AUTHOR

2020-07-15T01:27:44+00:00

Brett McKay

Expert


Right, so you don't want to scrap the infringement per se, just change the sanction from a full arm to a short arm. Gotcha, understand where you're coming from now..

2020-07-14T23:59:22+00:00

Train Without A Station

Roar Guru


Actually Brett that's a good point let's look at NZ week 2. 62 kicks in the Chiefs vs Blues and 49 in the Hurricanes vs Crusaders for 111 over 160 minutes of rugby for about one kick every 90 seconds. On the weekend there was 144 kicks over 180 minutes of rugby in the Aus games for about one kick every 75 second. Maybe the Aus teams will kick more every week but those numbers can easily be skewed by an extra time game also being played in the wet giving 2 reasons why the teams would kick more. Did Australian teams kick more than NZ teams? Absolutely. Did Australian teams kick more often than run when compared to NZ teams? Absolutely. But just compare kicks to kicks is not at all a holistic comparison, because as we see, Aus teams also ran more than NZ teams in addition to kicking more. If Aus teams ran less then that would lead back to the original point Highlander was trying to make, but it's not the case. Even the Reds vs Rebels game which I considered dour AF, had some great running at times like the Reds last try, the Hodge try and just about every time Koroibete touched the ball.

2020-07-14T23:39:36+00:00

Jon Richardson

Roar Pro


Sure, fair point MK. I was exaggerating a bit, it’s really all those scrums that end in a kick at goal from 40 metres out when one prop falls over that drive me bananas.

2020-07-14T21:45:33+00:00

scrum

Roar Rookie


A draw is a result. Why should one game allow a team 90 minutes to gain the competition points when in most games the winning team has achieved this in 80 mins. It is a basic lack of fairness in the overall competition structure. In the NRL the actual playing of golden point time is totally boring other than the closeness of the score. And so it proved in Rugby when the teams were booed off the field. I do not see improved weather changing much.

2020-07-14T21:34:33+00:00

Cam Stokes

Roar Pro


As a reds fan, I’ll take the 5m scrum every time!

2020-07-14T13:46:41+00:00

In brief

Guest


The following statement has been proven empirically to be false: “You need to have penalties if you want a contested scrum.” In 2007 under the ELVs all scrum penalties, except dangerous or foul play, were removed. There were still free kick sanctions. These laws were trialled at all levels of the game from school boys to Tri Nations. The result was more contested scrums, not less. When awarded a free kick teams had the option of resetting the scrum, which was more often than not taken. With no penalties on offer scrum collapses almost disappeared from the game. In fact scrums became one of the main attacking platforms - statistically the number of scrums increased. The goal became attacking ball, not penalties. Removing penalties not only fixed the scrum (by removing the incentive to collapse) but increased its importance in the game.

2020-07-14T13:26:20+00:00

LBJ

Roar Rookie


It might be a bit out there - but it would dramatically change the way teams consider their options when given a penalty. Even a kick on the 22 would be 35m out, so anything past that is a low percentage option. Would be an interesting experiment at least.

2020-07-14T13:18:41+00:00

peterj

Roar Rookie


I would argue Brett that they’re missing more than just a little graphic!

2020-07-14T11:37:35+00:00

piru

Roar Rookie


Completely agree IB

2020-07-14T11:21:25+00:00

Harry Jones

Expert


Thanks B Mac! Good look. On extra time, I say give each team a scrum 5 m out, then a 5 m LO, then a free kick 5 m out, then a 50 m kick for poles, unless someone already fails compared to the other. Infringements cost you a player

2020-07-14T11:13:15+00:00

mzilikazi

Roar Pro


"awarding penalties for scrum dominance is just about the dumbest thing in rugby," Maybe, Jon, but not in the case of a 5m scrum where the offensive team are rolling in for a try. Collapse there should bring a penalty try always....provided in the refs. view "a try would have been scored, but was not due to an offence being committed.

2020-07-14T11:03:18+00:00

mzilikazi

Roar Pro


Yes, the Law says that, but also says that: "Tackled players must immediately: Make the ball available so that play can continue by releasing, passing or pushing the ball in any direction except forward. " So a " jackal" has the upper hand, as it were, if he gets his hands on the ball...tackled player must release immediatley. In this situation he is not allowed time to place the ball back....can only do this if there is no "jackal" with hands on the ball.

More Comments on The Roar

Read more at The Roar