It is a recurring theme among my mates and family that nearly every game we watch together (or nowadays in a rugby-themed group chat from our own bubbles) that someone will say, ‘Why don’t they just stop box kicking?!’ in an exasperated tone, after which comes a wave of firm agreement: ‘I know, it’s ridiculous!’.
I have seen a variety of opinions on the box kick but I usually lack the in-depth of knowledge to form a full response as to why this has become so prevalent and why teams continue to use this tactic. So, I have decided to do a deep dive into what a box kick is, its purpose, its history and finally the Wallabies’ continued use of this tactic.
The purpose
The box kick is defined as a high over-the-shoulder kick used mostly by scrumhalves, which can be used on both attacking and defensive situations.
In an attacking situation this kick usually occurs when the team has a ruck or comes off a set play near the short side/blind side of the pitch.
It is generally taken outside of your own 22-metre area against teams with a good defensive set-up. The aim is to kick the ball around 20 to 30 metres in distance into a ten-by-ten-metre box near the touch line, generally aiming between the five to 15 metre lineout lines.
(Photo by MB Media/Getty Images)
A good kick should have about three or four seconds of hang time to allow your players to compete for the ball and put the opposition under pressure. This pressure should allow your team to either regain possession or force the opposing team into an error.
Box kicks can be made shorter or longer depending on what you are trying to achieve and the defensive set up of the opposing team.
A defensive box kick is taken to relieve pressure, generally from within your own 22. The aim of this kick is to get out of a defensive position and downfield as far as you can, without the opposition having an opportunity to attack, this means kicking it out instead of near the touch line.
A defensive box kick can also be used outside of your own 22, in which case the aim is to land it just in field and roll out into touch. Again, this is to relieve pressure.
Finally, for a box kick to be successful not only does the kick need to be accurate but the players on your own team need to be aware and ready to chase. After all the great rugby adage always rings true – a kick is only as good as its chase.
The history
With my tweed blazer on, pipe filled to the brim and my snooty attitude set to 100 per cent let’s dive into the history.
Now it doesn’t take a historian with the aforementioned outfit to realise that the box kick has rapidly gained prevalence in recent times with modern coaches consistently relying on it as a tactic in both attacking and defensive situations.
An analysis done by www.statsperform.com comparing the ratio of kicking types in every World Cup highlights just how much the use of this kick has grown. They defined the different kicking types as the bomb, the box, the chip, the cross pitch, the low, territorial and kick for touch.
At the inaugural World Cup in 1987 the box kick made up just five per cent of these kicking types with it staying relatively static in the World Cups up to 2003.
After then it began to rise rapidly with it making up a whopping 23 per cent of all kicking types at the most recent 2019 World Cup. Interestingly it seems to come at the expense mostly of territorial kicks, which made up roughly half of kicks in early World Cups and at the around a third of kicks at the most recent edition.
(Photo by Hannah Peters/Getty Images)
This then leads us to the obvious question of why.
Why use it more?
There are many reasons the box kick is used in the modern game, some of these being very specific to how a team want to play and also who they are playing, but in a generalist view there are a couple of main reasons the box kick has become a kick of choice.
First of all defences are better than they used to be. With the advances in sports science, tactics and statistical analysis breaking down modern defences, particularly of the top teams, is a very hard task. When you are caught in your own half or in the middle of the park and you are not making any ground a main tactic has always been to kick.
This used to be primarily focused on territory or even the old up-and-under kick, but as the defences are better and rush defence is so regularly used to create pressure passing out to the flyhalf or fullback to make these kicks can result in an error. When this error occurs, such as a charge down, it means that most of your team is in an offside position and have to scramble back to avoid a penalty or turnover. Additionally, passing back to the kicker loses some length on the kick itself.
Another advantage is due to the current interpretation of the ruck. Referees in the modern game allow players to essentially extend the ruck and form a human centipede (okay, forgive me for that image) at the back of the ruck to give the scrumhalf a clear advantage in the execution of this kick. This also means that most of your team should be onside to form an effective chase.
Finally, teams now use a highly statistical game these days and have dedicated teams of statisticians who have clearly identified the box kick as being an extremely useful tactic to generate an opportunity for your team. These tactics are built directly into the game plan of the top teams. Even if we get angry at the scrumhalves themselves they are usually just following what they have been told to do.
This is all well and good but at the end of the day though it comes down to execution. If your execution of the kick is not up to scratch or your chase isn’t good enough then all of the above reasons are moot. This generally is what it comes down to in the game.
If executed well it can relieve pressure and create an opportunity for your team to attack a retreating defence but if executed poorly it can lead to demoralising outcome for your team. We tend to only remember the demoralising outcomes as we see it as a case of doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome.
The Wallabies
What everyone seems to talk about is the box kick being a chance for a 50-50 opportunity, but does it really? I couldn’t seem to find any major stats about the real successful outcomes of box kicks so I decided to do it myself.
I did a full analysis of every box kick in the Wallabies versus France series and have broken this down into clear outcomes.
While this analysis is by no means definitive it gives a good insight into the actual effectiveness of the box kick in real Test match situations.
(Photo by Bradley Kanaris/Getty Images)
The box kick, as I defined for this analysis, is any over-the-shoulder type kick made by the halfback from the back of a ruck or maul. I measured the kicks per team, the distance, if it was from an attacking position or defensive position and finally if the outcome (within two phases) was either positive, neutral or negative. I also noted if the kick was contested in the air or if the chase was good.
In total over the series there were 35 box kicks in total from both teams with the average distance of the kicks being around 23 metres. Of these France kicked 21 times and the Wallabies 14. Some 27 kicks were from what I defined as defensive positions (30 metres from the teams own goal-line) with eight being from what I defined as attacking positions (further than 30 metres from own goal-line).
Okay, okay I hear you. These stats are all well and good but what does it mean?
First of all it took me a while to do so just give me a break, but here comes the good stuff.
Of all the kicks made in the series I found only eight to have had a positive outcome. That is a positive outcome percentage of just 22.85 per cent! When I add in the neutral kicks this rises to 45.71 per cent with a total of 16 being either positive or neutral. If I remove those that went directly into touch then that positive and neutral percentage drops to just 37.14 per cent.
For the Wallabies specifically only 21.42 per cent (three) of kicks were positive, 14.28 per cent (two) were neutral and a whopping 64.28 per cent (nine) were negative. Ruling out the three touch finders from the list only 35.71 per cent (five) were contested. Of these five two had positive outcomes, making the success rate of contested box kicks for the Wallabies 40 per cent.
With both teams combined there were only nine contested box kicks, but of those a total of five had positive outcomes for the kicking attacking team for a 55 per cent success rate.
Looking at these stats the picture is clear that currently, for the Wallabies at least, the box kick is not a 50/50 ball. It is not even 40/60. However, in general, if a box kick is contested the success ratio does appear to be around 50 per cent.
But it is important to also view these stats in context. As most box kicks are employed as an exit strategy it is important to remember that a lot of the time these kicks would have been touch finders anyway and considering most teams’ lineout operate at around 85-90 per cent efficiency it starts to look slightly better.
Also, due to modern rush defences kickers are now placed under a lot of pressure if it is passed from the ruck to the back-line kicker (usually the fullback or five-eighth).
Take an example from the third Test where Tate McDermott passed back to Noah Lolesio in the 22nd minute for a clearance – the French rushed up and charged this down and it is only by the saving grace of having Michael Hooper being a machine that we managed to not turn it over within our own 22.
(Photo by Daniel Pockett/Getty Images)
Conclusion
The box kick is fast becoming a tool of choice for modern teams. Due to modern law interpretations the kick can be a safe option for clearing a position on the field.
However, the effectiveness of this for teams is up for debate. A lot comes down to execution and team communication for the kick to be effective.
For a kick to be around the 50/50 mark then it needs to be contested, or at the very least have a strong chasing line to hit the catcher immediately after they touch down. But not every team or player has the skill to consistently generate these positive outcomes.
Teams spending large sums of money on the most up-to-date technology, stats and strategic minds have decided that this is a tactic that has some worth, but it seems that there is a serious over-proliferation of this in the modern game.
The Wallabies do not use it as much as European teams tend to do but their effectiveness is also lower than most. Some serious thought needs to be put into teams’ skills, ability and alternative tactics to ensure that the best and most consistent outcomes are generated.
Like it or not though, the box kick is here to stay.
Muglair
Roar Rookie
It might be more specific than I said, it might just mean eliminating the nudging along, they can put their hands in to grab it and play. I also think there was a time where the half was not supposed to put his hands on the ball until it was out, but not sure about that. The ball is passed in a mall or a foot is used by a half or forward to heel it out.
gazza
Roar Rookie
The commentator misses the most important aspect of the box kick It is the ideal way for a team in possession of the ball to wave the white flag. It sends the message that we give in, your defence is too good, we have no patience, we think we can win the game by giving you the ball. The reality is that referees have been so maligned by the media for stop/starting the game by offside calls, that the referees have thought it better to be less strict and in effect allow offside play with rush defences. The box kick would disappear if, as they once did, at the start of games they made offside calls and put teams on notice they will enforce the law. Not only has the box kick become fashionable but playing hands on running rugby has gone.
BlouBul
Roar Rookie
How does the ball emerge if no hands are allowed to be used in the ruck?
Objective Observer
Roar Rookie
Can’t agree White is a good exponent of the box kick - his three steps back and to the right is very predictable and his accuracy not great.
Muglair
Roar Rookie
Great subject Peter. As noted by mzmilikazi the box kick used to be more of an attacking option with the objective of landing in unguarded spaces with the objective of a prepared fast chaser to get there before slow reacting defenders or enabling your forwards to arrive at a breakdown moving forward at speed. I think we should ignore Australia's competence, we are generally poor kickers compared to most other countries. There are a couple of benefits of the half kicking, which still make it preferable for Australia to kick from half. One is that the half is up to ten metres in front of where a 10, 12 or 15 might launch a kick. However the main thing is accuracy and repeatability. There are a lot of variables in a 10 kicking. Quality of protection against an advancing defence, speed and accuracy of the pass from 9 and the perfect catch to start the kick sequence. Then there are the steps to the kick, dropping the ball on to the boot etc, lots of moving parts. With my 70s/80s football brain I was gobsmacked by the half kicking. Fully telegraphed so where is the surprise in that tactic? However I now realise the elaborate setup is part of a choreographed kick sequence designed to deliver a quality repeatable result. If your half has a long kick then you only need the 10 to kick if you want to contest the ball at the back in the centre or on the wing. I have read that WR is either considering or intending to bring in a law which will prevent the half back from touching the ball with his hand or foot until it is out of the ruck. That will give us back a couple of minutes each game for a start. Trying to set your feet with exact precision without being able to have perfect control over the emerging ball will be a risky option for a half if it suddenly comes out awkwardly. Trying to kick without the precision of foot placement will have a dramatic effect on the accuracy of the kicking. It will go back to only some halfbacks having the skills to use the box kick with some degree of accuracy and otherwise as a means of clearing bad ball under pressure. Looks like we have to go back in time for the game to go forward.
mzilikazi
Roar Pro
Really interesting article, Peter. You have put a lot of time and thought into it. Thanks. Basically agree with the main thrust of the piece. There is too much box kicking, and often poorly executed, poorly chased. precious possession is thrown away. I think if one analysed a game in which the WB's had Nic White at scrum half, the stats. would be somewhat different. He is a specialist box kicker, especially post Exeter Chiefs period of his career. Tate McDermott is not a natural box kick scrum half....and I hope he never becomes one.....just hone the skill to be used sparingly. I hope he is never coached out of his natural sniping game, with the quick tap penalties. Big key to the box kick being a high return option is an organised chase, with a supreme catcher going for the ball....Ben Smith for example, and one player past the ball for spill backs, and next players tidying up anything knocked on by the defence catcher, So often watching the Wallabies, their is hesitation going for the catch, uncertainty over roles. The term box kick I first remember was in my playing days in 70's, when it was the flyhalf who would kick back into the red zone corner box, blind side wing the main chaser/catcher....we looked at 25 m sq. area, good kickers able the get smaller box, about the 10 m Sq. "...error occurs, such as a charge down, it means that most of your team is in an offside position and have to scramble back to avoid a penalty or turnover. " Just point of law here. Charge down means was opposition player who last played ball in most cases,, and your players are thus all onside. no matter where they are....unless the ball has touched one of your own players last
Cheika_Mate
Roar Rookie
Great opinion piece Peter, and ozinsa your nailed I think we are crap at it. I remember when Cheika started coaching at the tahs, he banned the kick all together as the tahs were crap at kicking. He made them run it from every. That’s not a bad option if you trust in each other and with a mix of options and skills to do it. White is probably the best at box kicking here in Aus. He did spend a heap of time up north perfecting it with the teams he played. Tate and Flash are a bit hit and miss and certainly don’t get the height or distance. Faf de Klerk likes to keep his fwds going fwd and he and NZ Smith are masters at it, height, distance and aggressive wingers. I’d rather our team didn’t use it because we are giving the pill back generally in our half. I think I’d rather a left foot option out the back and dare I say this where we miss Mitchell out on the wing but Ikitau picked today could be a Smokey down the track as he has a left foot boot. An area all of our s/r sides up to wallaby need to work on is restarts. I get nervous after we score points we always get boxed in our 20 and out comes that dreaded box kick. No easy answers it’s a skill issue and it’s something we need to work on rather it being used as a defensive breather. To match our psyi we need to make it an attacking option so we are getting the ball back more often than not.
Peter Taylor
Roar Pro
Bring it back!
Peter Taylor
Roar Pro
Yeah this lions series the use of the box kick has been rediculous! There is a huge reliance on it and I agree that if it is used this much it makes the game a mess. Dont even get me started on Erasmus, probably the most bias and unfair video I have ever seen.
Peter Taylor
Roar Pro
Thanks Sinclair, I cant even imagine doing the stats for this for SA or Wales it would take me years! Agree on the ruck situation, needs to be cleaned up.
GoldenEye
Roar Rookie
Remember when as soon as the scrum-half touched the ball it was in play...now they just sit there hands on the ball, waiting & waiting & waiting to set up the next play.
GoldenEye
Roar Rookie
And the contest for the ball...might as well call it touch footy..
Objective Observer
Roar Rookie
Great Article - thanks for taking the time to put this together. The logic of it has always troubled me - giving up possession to gain 20 meters. In the context of the match you often feel the Wallabies do this when they have run out of other options. To date the Lions - SA series has seen a lot of this and it tends to lead to a fairly dour game style.
Waxhead
Roar Rookie
@Peter Taylor No.... the box kick is as legitimate as any other kick. What needs to be booted are dour negative teams who over-use any kick, or any tactic, in order to play a game plan based on waiting for opposing teams to make mistakes. They bring the game into disrepute and fans flee from their boring spectacles. And in 2021 Springboks and Lions are the worst offenders. Win, lose or draw tonight Coach Erasmus certainly needs to be booted asap :thumbup:
Sinclair Whitbourne
Roar Rookie
Enjoyed this, thanks for a nice start to my morning! What would be interesting to see is the stats for NZ, SA and Wales, as really prime exponents of the box kick. Work harder Peter, damn you! With refereeing of the ruck at international level making it very risky and, worse, unpredictable for the attacking side, box kicks are a much safer way of advancing the ball and giving yourself a fair chance of regaining possession, or forcing a mistake, with less risk of being penalised. If we want more ball in hand, I think the refereeing of the ruck needs to swing back, so that there is less disincentive for the team carrying the ball. Of course, this can also go too far, so that you end up with a version of League, circa 1950's. Tackler clear release, rolling away east-west and jackal supporting own weight (and side entry) are the keys.
Pete Samu's Tucked Shirt
Roar Rookie
Simple ways of eliminating it: - stop allowing players to form a tail and extend the ruck (the centipede). You could argue technically illegal. - when the scrumhalf places his hands on the ball to move it to the back of the 'centipede' tail, the ball is live/out and defenses can pounce (I noticed the French scrumhalf do this alot -referees to state 'USE IT Now' only once with a 3 sec time limit. Most scrumhalfs will toe and foot the ball to the back. Get rid of this. Once contact is made, ball is out and available. - ban players from standing around the ruck forming a human wall - starting heavily pinging retreating players from running blocking lines to, and heavily penalising players changing their lines when running. Overall, speed the process up! I for one groan when I see them line up for a box kick. Predictable, boring, and high risk. Speed it up I say!
CPM
Roar Rookie
The aim of this kick is to get out of a defensive position and downfield as far as you can, without the opposition having an opportunity to attack, this means kicking it out instead of near the touch line. The territory kick is used to exit your 22 by kicking the ball out of play to force a line out. The pressure kick in the opposition 22 is an attacking kick which was used to score two tries against BIL this past weekend. The box kick is used to get behind the defence generally between the two 22m lines to play in the opposition half and to keep pressure on your opponent by making the kicks contestable, and having the opposition pack moving backwards all the time. Teams don’t have to use a box kick. If the Wallabies want to keep the ball in hand and run 40 meters at the defence from outside their 10 meter line into the opposition’s 22 without using the box kick then they can do that.
CPM
Roar Rookie
— COMMENT DELETED —
Guest
Guest
Well, if you remove two men and reduce the team to 13 players, then remove the ruck, you will eliminate the Box kick :silly:
Derek Murray
Roar Rookie
Presumably you’re not the off spinner or my old boss at Macquarie Bank. Regardless, thanks for the effort that has obviously gone into this informative piece Peter. A further question would be, are we crap at executing box kicks (kicking and chasing) as I suspect the Boks get much more pay from the strategy. And, are we any good at defending them, so the opposition’s returns against us is a combination of their execution and our poor defence. No way the box kick goes away but it seems that we need to get better or use it less.