“I’m not a fan of changing the rules because one team is dominating,” commented one Roarer last week.
It is a disappointing interpretation of the articles I have written over the past weeks opposing the Rugby played by Rassie Erasmus’ Springboks and Steve Borthwick’s England. It also misunderstands the recent comments made by identities such as Steve Hansen and Brian O’Driscoll regarding the game’s direction.
The CIA coined the term ‘Blowback’ seeking to describe the ‘unintended consequences’ and ‘unwanted side effects’ of its policies in Columbia, Afghanistan and Syria.
Put simply, ‘Blowback’ is what Rugby is suffering from today following the policy and rule changes that have been introduced to the game in the past 5-10 years.
Undeniably, the rules right now encourage teams not to possess the ball in test matches. That isn’t intentional or by design, at least I hope it isn’t.
But what evidence is there of this?
South Africa’s Handre Pollard kicks at goal against England. (Photo by Hannah Peters/Getty Images)
Take these newly released, record shattering observations from Opta Stats regarding the games show piece, Rugby World Cup 2023.
England made 251 kicks in play over the course of the 2023 Rugby World Cup, the most by any team in a single edition of the men’s competition since it began in 1987. That’s a lot of teams across a lot of years, around 200 sides by my count.
South Africa made 209 tackles, the most ever by a team in a men’s Rugby World Cup final, surpassing the 158 they made against England in 2019. About a 30% increase.
The Boks made 974 tackles overall during the World Cup, the most by any nation in any World Cup. Again, a massive sample size.
Those sides finished third and first respectively in 2023.
According to Planet Rugby “throughout all the knockout games …the team that played more with the ball ended up losing.”
Broadly speaking, at the highest level there is no advantage in a Rugby team possessing the ball. It is an ironic outcome given the Webb-Ellis trophy is named by a guy who picked the ball up and ran with it.
The Portuguese coach commented after the Test against Georgia that his players “are really generous, capable of playing the width of the pitch. The Portuguese championship has less structure but the speed and the width is great.”
The most entertaining side at the World Cup in my opinion, the nation that won hearts and minds, was Portugal. They played a beautiful style of possession based rugby that would be ineffective if implemented by Tier 1 nations.
Portugal’s Francisco Fernandes celebrates scoring against Fiji. (Photo by Laurence Griffiths/Getty Images)
It is more than fair to counter that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But we are all beholders aren’t we, and so different tastes should be catered for.
It was spine tingling seeing Owen Farrell send a bomb of a drop goal from way out over the cross bar in the Semi-Final against South Africa.
And for the avoidance of doubt, it was incredible watching Pieter Steph Du-Toit iron out poor old Jordie Barrett repeatedly in Paris. Just as it was a spectacle watching Kwagga Smith pinch the ball throughout the knockout stages.
But too many games in the World Cup, the majority of tests, were slugfests with no real attacking endeavour and marked by an obvious desire not to possess the ball.
In what many are describing as the ‘best executed horrible game plan’, England kicked away 93% of possession in its narrow semi final loss to the Springboks. I had to read that 93 times before I could believe my eyes!
But let’s be clear, England are easy targets. No other first tier nations covered themselves in glory when it came to keeping possession.
Even the French, once known for free flowing Rugby, were happy to play without the ball as well, kicking it away over 30 times per game on average, and ranking only fifth for carries (119.0 per game) as a result.
Interestingly, the Rugby World Cup official site went on to note that:
“The French keep the ball alive better than anyone else, averaging the most offloads (11.8) and the second-most line breaks (10.5), while the Springboks have conceded the joint-most turnovers (17.0) and have the worst positive outcomes of any team (60%), which translates to four out of every 10 possessions ending in error.”
South Africa’s Mbongeni Mbonambi. (Photo by Paul Harding/Getty Images)
Eddie Jones might not be everyone’s favourite uncle at the moment but he’s right when he says “The game has always gone between contest and continuity. The balance we want is to be able to play both games. If the game goes too far to the contest, which is a brutality game, then it’s just one sort of game.”
So what to do?
The absolute priority is introducing fatigue to defences.
Benches were originally increased from 7 to 8 in order to ensure the integrity of the scrum contest, not to facilitate an almost full replacement pack on the bench.
Extra loosies entering the game in the final 30 minutes only ensures the midfield is clogged and the game stays tight around the breakdown. This is backed up by the fact forwards now carry the ball more than backs and by the vastly increased tackling stats.
The concept of finishers must be dispensed with once and for all. Sides should be restricted to 4 changes in a match, 5 if a front row forward suffers injury.
Ensuring you have cover for a late injury or concussion will force coaching teams to be discerning with the changes they make.
South Africa’s Jean Kleyn (left) and Pieter-Steph Du Toit celebrate victory after the final whistle of the Rugby World Cup 2023 final. (Photo by David Davies/PA Images via Getty Images)
In addition to the new laws which attempt to speed up the game and decrease the number of stoppages, set pieces must become a contest again.
If purists want scrums to be hard fought centre pieces, it follows laws should ensure the ball is fed straight forcing hookers to strike for it. Hookers shouldn’t be extra loose forwards with secondary ‘hooking’ skills.
Half backs should not be permitted to pass their front row. Number 8’s and attacking scrum halves should be unimpeded.
Similarly, the rules around the ruck, especially ‘ruck trains’, must be tightened to incentivise sides to play with speed.
Analysts generally accept that a fast ruck clearance is under 3 seconds. In the 2022 Six Nations, both Ireland and France cleared the majority of rucks within that timeframe.
Come the World Cup, not a single Quarter Finalist met that standard. Argentina were fast at about 3.5 seconds while Wales were slowest at around 5.5 seconds.
Like reducing replacements or improving the scrum contest, rapid ruck speed is about creating chances.
That in turn incentivised sides not just to keep the ball longer, but to do more with it.
We all want to see great defences matched against great attacks that have an even money chance.
We don’t permit bowlers to bowl 5 bouncers in an over in cricket. We don’t allow batsmen to escape fielding duties. Why should Rugby go along with the equivalent situation?
It isn’t about penalising one country or another.
The game needs balance. All aspects of Rugby need to be supported by the laws governing it. A level playing field for all styles and ‘DNA’s’ once existed and it can exist again.
Peter
Roar Rookie
The toss of the coin at the start of the match is a contest for possession too. You have, I must say an interesting and imaginative perspective of what pertains to fair play and entertainment. If only the founding fathers were as visionary as you.
gatesy
Roar Guru
It's good food for thought. By decreasing the fatigue factor over years, maybe that has had an effect on the Wallabies running game. If one pack can dominate the other, then their backs should have more room to be creative. Australia's kicking game, seems to have been slower to develop than other nations, and maybe that is why, because we traditionally placed less emphasis on kicking in general play. I have no evidence for any of that, just a gut feeling.
Brendan NH Fan
Roar Rookie
if you do that then we are going to end up with more lopsided games. Not many teams have a player who can cover 9 which is why most benches also have a 9 as standard on it. If you are French that is fine but if its most #9s then they can't also cover 10 very well. So that then leaves 2 players to put on the bench, 1 will be a person that can cover lock and backrow (like a S Barret, PSDT etc) and a back that can cover #10. Any injury to 7, 8, 13 or the back three and you will have to hope you have very flexible players or the opposition will exploit it.
piru
Roar Rookie
I’m not a fan of changing the rules because one team is dominating,” commented one Roarer last week. It is a disappointing interpretation of the articles I have written over the past weeks opposing the Rugby played by Rassie Erasmus’ Springboks and Steve Borthwick’s England. It also misunderstands the recent comments made by identities such as Steve Hansen and Brian O’Driscoll regarding the game’s direction. Well I’m sorry my opinion was so ‘disappointing’ to you – perhaps next time you could engage and discuss rather than twisting my words and acting like they were some kind of attack. Better yet you could post the context of the whole comment where I mentioned that IRB changed several laws to try and nerf Richie McCaw which only had the result of making him more dominant. I don’t necessarily disagree with the rest of the article
BleedRedandBlack
Roar Rookie
Agreed. That's why it should go back to 6 reserves, 3 front row compulsory, with all 6 able to be used. No manipulation, no sudden "medical" issues that require a replacement, no unforeseen circumstances. Unfortunately I doubt WR is capable of instituting such a clean solution
elvis
Roar Rookie
You really didn't understand a word I said. Sigh
elvis
Roar Rookie
I'm not a Kiwi, and I don't like the All Blacks. Just one more diehard ex player and fan who now hardly watches the game. Most rucks DON'T end in penalties which as far as I can see supports my argument not yours...
Brendan NH Fan
Roar Rookie
The simple thing is how much heavier is the SA pack than the SA pack. Ireland played 5 bench pack players against SA's 7 and did fine but there isn't a massive difference in most positions. Look at the skills of the players on the bench, Rassie has the bench to change tactics while other teams use the bench to carry on the same plan.
Brendan NH Fan
Roar Rookie
Why did NZ get two yellows and a red. Its the problem that NZ and RA have had for a while and giving teams free passes for cards as we have seen over this WC cycle has seen these two teams become the most carded T1 teams in the World and is costing them games. Its not by chance that Wales won their match by winning so many penalties that they could kick at goal. Wales knew it was about getting the ball into the Oz half (hence the kicking game) knowing Oz would just give away penalties on both sides of the ball.
Brendan NH Fan
Roar Rookie
So what rules did WR change that have allowed England to suddenly play this kicking game. Just because teams didn't play that way didn't mean they couldn't. If we take the final, how many times did NZ knock the ball on to SA and how many times would they have been better kicking that ball then running it. England and South Africa are very good at playing a kicking game that may give the ball back about 30m up field but the ruck is created. When you have such a bad kicking game as NZ you aren't going to kick it 30ms up field just for them to run it back 15m as they would feel they can run it 15m. Until NZ and Oz sort out the ability to play a good kicking game they will not see the benefits of it. Also when NZ struggle in the air when teams defenses are right on them the opposition know that they can win scrums off a 30m kick which again they can kick off and repeat and be 60m up the field. Then we are into breakdown penalties which would be kickable so why wouldn't you kick.
Brendan NH Fan
Roar Rookie
It would work for about three weeks. We hear load about how the 50:22 was going to open up for more running rugby but what we have actually is very little change in running rugby and more kicking (not a massive amount) to win a 50:22 which results in more mauls. Defenses will have something in place where to counter it. Also if the debate is that its unfair that teams can score 3pts off a scrum what do you think will happen if the teams start getting 7pts. Unintended consequences are what rugby rules are great at.
Slow Sidestep
Roar Rookie
Mate, the reason we are loosing viewers this side of the world is because I don't need to switch on the TV to know that no Aussie team will beat a NZ team in Super Rugby or that the Crusader will win or that Aus will get thumped in the bledisloe. None of those things has Rassie's fingers in it...In Super rugby we play & focus on basketball rugby, but that has not changed the decline of viewership. To enjoy rugby you must be able to enjoy club games, if you only watch rugby for the international games then you are already lost as a supporter. True rugby appreciation happens at the local footy fields.
Daffyd
Roar Rookie
JD Kiwi, no I feel that is too big a penalty, to play the remainder of a game a man down when it is possible that a scrum isn't formed. It is basically a red card. This is my alternative. If a team cannot contest a scrum (and it is not their feed) -- for failing to contest a scrum the sanction is a free kick (to the other team). For the team that cannot contest a scrum and it is their feed, a non contested scrum is formed with both teams forming the scrum as the current situation is. In this way the sanction is only applied at scrum time, not for the whole of play. I hope that makes sense. PS, If I'm not mistaken, a tactically replaced front row is allowed to return to the game, in the event that a replacement is injured.
Daffyd
Roar Rookie
No, nobody wants to remove the contest. No one is suggesting that. That's a furphy.
Daffyd
Roar Rookie
Brendan, really? You know you can tap and go, right? . I envision that where possible the half taking a quick tap (from behind the mark) and the backs making use of fast quick ball and open spaces. Teams / backlines would actually train for the quck tap and go. . A quick tap might even forcing an offside penalty as the inside backs would be inside the 10m – remember with the exception of the outside backs, probably 12 of the team would be offside. . And with that in mind I would change the scrum laws to be in line with the lineout, offside line is 10 metres from the mark. In that way all backs except the half would automatically be onside at a free kick. Having the scrum offside lines 10 m from the mark, rather than 5 metres from the last foot was a mistake made when they changed the law from No8s feet to 5 metres. . The occasional garry owen, if the full back is out of position… or a 50/22 . But just kicking it away… That’s not how I’d be coaching it. Not at all.
bokkabies
Roar Rookie
The third best side in Pool A was Italy with a points differential of -67 The third best side in Pool B was Scotland with a points differential of +75 A net difference therefore between the third best sides of pools A and B of 142 points. That is approximately 20 converted tries / 28 unconverted tries. To me there is indeed a difference in the relative strength of the pools, which then inflates the statistics used in this article to “prove” a point. The saying “I can prove anything by statistics except the truth.” comes to mind. Again
W Evans
Roar Rookie
It’s not about league. The game is collapsing in Australia. It’s also doing very badly in England and Wales as well as Scotland. And even in New Zealand participation rates are “static or declining” according to the governance review this year. That’s 5 first tier nations where the game at both amateur and professional level is declining across metrics. Nobody wants basketball rugby but nobody wants NFL rugby either. The stats, across most comps and tests over the past 5 years show it is heading towards an NFL style of game. All anyone wants is a spectacle that appeals to be a broad cross section of styles as well as viewers (new, old, purist or not). It won’t survive otherwise.
Slow Sidestep
Roar Rookie
So whatever does not confirm to your view is an outlier and should be disregarded? Have you actually considered South Africa play various different game plans dependant on the personell they employ and change it up according to the opposition? Case in point against France they kicked on the wingers and capitalized greatly. Against Scotland they sent out wide, against England they went tight. But nope, your myopic view just casts the discrepancy as an outlier to be ignored. It is actually this variation of play that brought them the eventual success instead of sticking only with one game plan and thinking you can outrun everybody all the time. A thought for you, the All Blacks of 2011-2015 was regarded as the greatest because of their ability to convert turnovers into tries. Go and have a look at SA's success in turn over ball, then also look at their conversion rate of tries after a line break. You might see a bit more of the light, instead of placing teams into a box only to fit your narrative. My point is actually to highlight to you that rugby, nevermind the springboks is there to played in a multitude of ways, and this multitude of ways then gives the creedence to the main rugby credo of "It is a sport for all sizes". Not just wingers, or the silky centres or the yappy scrumhalf or the badger loose forwards or the big boppa front rowers. But how you can use the combination of it. With you missing the variation of SA and linking basketball rugby as the epitomy of rugby you and your fanclub will be the death of rugby. Because the more you complain that only one way is best, the closer you are trying to force the game to being league. We should embrace what is different to league, otherwise we might as well just close up shop and play league only.
W Evans
Roar Rookie
Ireland played in the same pool as SA didn’t they? From memory the Boks beat Romania 76 nil in that Pool? And I’m sure New Zealand and France were in a Pool with a 3rd tier 1 nation too. But yeah… Scotland subbed in for Italy made all the difference to those stats.
bokkabies
Roar Rookie
No mention of the relative strength of each pool? Yeah, I guess you’re right, it isn’t a debate if one ignores the most obvious statistic.