Lions Series - Accidental Offsite?

[ChrisR]

Perhaps I should rephrase: "If you want to attack with French Flair then first you must go get the bloody ball"

 

[VM75]

You're talking about times long past. These days, players are physically stronger and fitter than they were back in the "good" old days. What you are suggesting will result in tackle-maul-unplayable-scrum-tackle-maul-unplayabe-scrum°

Fitness & strength were less, but the % uplift from all players would make the skills comparable.

RL invented the Tackle Turnover rule [4th evolved into 6th] because it became too easy to retain possession. I see increasingly similar retention trends in Union.

Or maybe i'm wrong & teams having 20/25/30 + phases of repeated possession [perhaps only ended by a score] isn't really on the increase at all.
:shrug:

 

[L'irlandais]

Yes, that's true.

VP is still coaching the underage game (10 to 14 year olds)
If anybody feels their French is up to it, Pierre Villepreux answers some questions last year(2016) He is critical of the commercial aspect of the Elite game. Relegation in the Top 14 has killed off the French Flair, as clubs cannot afford the risk of playing open running rugby.

To those who don't agree with VP's assertion, Law 14´s définition is reasonably clear about it.

The Game is to be played by players who are on their feet. A player must not make the ball unplayable by falling down. Unplayable means that the ball is not immediately available to either team so that play may continue.
A player who makes the ball unplayable, or who obstructs the opposing team by falling down, is negating the purpose and Spirit of the Game and must be penalised.
A player who is not tackled, but who goes to ground while holding the ball, or a player who goes to ground and gathers the ball, must act immediately.

 

[didds]

well that definition doesn't say a player cannot "fall down" - its says " A player must not make the ball unplayable by falling down". So if the ball is not unplayable than the player may fall down (cue falling onto a ball being permitted in law as one example).

And then the same definitions also say "A player who is not tackled, but who goes to ground while holding the ball, or a player who goes to ground and gathers the ball, must act immediately"

So again the law does not say its illegal to go to ground. Just what must happens when it does happen.

So what is "unplayable"? From the same definitions "Unplayable means that the ball is not immediately available to either team so that play may continue"


VP bless him is clutching at straws if he is bleating that its wrong to go to ground voluntarily.

didds
So now we are back to what "immediately" means.

 

[crossref]

when you go to ground in goal to score a try (or indeed for a 5m scrum) doesn't that render the ball unplayable?

 

[Ian_Cook]

well that definition doesn't say a player cannot "fall down" - its says " A player must not make the ball unplayable by falling down". So if the ball is not unplayable than the player may fall down (cue falling onto a ball being permitted in law as one example)

Of course, what Mr Villepreux fails to take into account is that the whole purpose of Law 14 is to deal with the situation where the ball is already on the ground, either in the hands of a player, or loose.

But if he really thinks that pick and go is a situation where Law 14 applies, then he should coach his players to walk around the player on the ground and pick the ball up from the opposition side (in Law 14, there is no tackle gate, anyone can pick the ball up from any direction).

If he is prepared to do that, I am willing to run the sweepstake for the number of minutes and seconds into the first half that one of his players is pinged for side entry at the tackle after a pick and go!!

 

[L'irlandais]

@crossref, If you had read my paraphrasing, he actually mentions that.

@Ian,
I think that's pretty unfair. If you had read my last post, you would see he now only does summer camps for underage players. However, his thinking that rugby is a game for those on their feet, is not wrong. If Law 14 doesn't cover it, that is only because Elite clubs do so on purpose to exploit the weaknesses in the Laws.

Elite packs exploiting the loopholes in the LoTG is far more damaging to the future of Rugby Union, than a crackpot coach who actually reinvented the French Flair. The former are mindless robots, the latter at least spent his time trying to improve the game. We need more people like Pierre Villepreux in the game, and less clubs who think winning is all that counts. Otherwise, Sevens will happen, and that is that the ticket buying public will follow 15-a-side rugby less, simply because unending pick and go's is quite frankly f**king boring. If that is all our Elite friends can come up with, after playing XV week in week out for 20 years, then they deserve to lose funding to the Sevens (Olympic) setup.

This ESPN article gives further details about Pierre Villepreux´s ideas on the game of running rugby.

 

[didds]

I'd agree we need more people like VP who coach a game to include all.

I don't agree with his views on going to ground = wrong/illegal.

didds

 

[liversedge]

This ESPN article gives further details about Pierre Villepreux´s ideas on the game of running rugby.

Sounds like he should switch to Sevens

The tactical and strategic elements of the 15s game are what make it so fascinating. For me, the blitz defence has done more to spoil the game than pick and go.

The variety and dynamic nature of forwards and backs play is what makes the game what it is. That teams can have their own style and adjust or adapt to an opponent is what makes the game need brains as well as brawn. That there are multiple leaders etc.

Mark

 

[Ian_Cook]

The tactical and strategic elements of the 15s game are what make it so fascinating. For me, the blitz defence has done more to spoil the game than pick and go.

I agree 100%.

Furthermore, the blitz/rush defence, call it what you will, would not be anywhere near as effective if referees were more diligent in regard to midfield offsides. There is absolutely no doubt that the Lions rush defence were offside at most rucks during the entire tour. A midfield defender might only be a half-yard offside, but that half-yard is often the difference between an attacking midfielder receiving the ball and being able to move it on, and that player being caught with the ball behind the advantage line.

I often hear the argument that the attack should stand deeper, or to chip over the top, but why should they be the ones forced to make tactical changes because their opponents are cheating?

 

[RedCapRef]

I agree 100%.

Furthermore, the blitz/rush defence, call it what you will, would not be anywhere near as effective if referees were more diligent in regard to midfield offsides. There is absolutely no doubt that the Lions rush defence were offside at most rucks during the entire tour. A midfield defender might only be a half-yard offside, but that half-yard is often the difference between an attacking midfielder receiving the ball and being able to move it on, and that player being caught with the ball behind the advantage line.

I often hear the argument that the attack should stand deeper, or to chip over the top, but why should they be the ones forced to make tactical changes because their opponents are cheating?

Of course none of the New Zealand teams were ever offside at a ruck were they!

 

[Ian_Cook]

Of course none of the New Zealand teams were ever offside at a ruck were they!

In all likelihood they may have been, but since I was addressing liversegde's comment about BLITZ DEFENCE, offside at the ruck is somewhat irrelevant to that subject....isn't it!!

 

[VM75]

Of course none of the New Zealand teams were ever offside at a ruck were they!

Best of luck, so naive !

 

[L'irlandais]

Hello Redcapref,
Belated welcome to the forums. Glad you decided to start contributing, rather than just "lurking"
Don't be put off by the rudeness of some, dismissing anything they don't agree with as irrelevant. RRF is for refs of all levels, so you opinion is entirely relevant.

 

[RedCapRef]

Thanks L'irlandais

I use this forum as a valuable learning tool and insight into the game. Some of the expertise and opinions should have a wider audience as they are probably a lot more helpful for people to understand than most of what is seen in the "popular press" from all countries. But you do have to sort through some chaff!
Just getting used to the differences in the perceptions of the game in the Southern Hemisphere after 36 seasons as a player coach and ref in UK.
Might get some time to put some words together on the subject later.

 

[Dixie]

I agree 100%.

Furthermore, the blitz/rush defence, call it what you will, would not be anywhere near as effective if referees were more diligent in regard to midfield offsides. There is absolutely no doubt that the Lions rush defence were offside at most rucks during the entire tour. A midfield defender might only be a half-yard offside, but that half-yard is often the difference between an attacking midfielder receiving the ball and being able to move it on, and that player being caught with the ball behind the advantage line.

I often hear the argument that the attack should stand deeper, or to chip over the top, but why should they be the ones forced to make tactical changes because their opponents are cheating?

And this is a fair point. Throughout the tour, I spotted possible midfield offsides from both teams. I thought most were marginal, and unlikely to meet the "clear and obvious" test. Where they were more egregious, it was usually when the referee was scrutinising the ruck for hands, side entry etc without a clear view of the midfield. I suspect this is one for the AR to be asked to call in - it's not reasonable to expect the referee to make a sound judgement within a fraction of a second looking up as the #9 distributes.

 

[Dixie]

In all likelihood they may have been, but since I was addressing liversegde's comment about BLITZ DEFENCE, offside at the ruck is somewhat irrelevant to that subject....isn't it!!

Come on Ian - don't get so defensive! You yourself started the train of thought regarding ruck offsides:

Furthermore, the blitz/rush defence, call it what you will, would not be anywhere near as effective if referees were more diligent in regard to midfield offsides. There is absolutely no doubt that the Lions rush defence were offside at most rucks during the entire tour.

There's no call to get sniffy when a new forum participant follows up your train of thought.