Playing Not To Lose

[Ian_Cook]

In the context of the image you posted, could the highlighted text be a hint of an admission Ian?:hap: (Notice I used the smiley thingy again?)

I thought I had already admitted.

BTW, you are welcome to pinch the image and substitute any name you like in place of the name of "your" cheat! :biggrin:

 

[OB..]

Surely the issue is that that situation arises in the first place? To my mind, if it gets to the point where the referee feels the need to call "use it", it's already slow enough and the problem's the same whether the half takes it out immediately or stands around another 10 seconds scratching his arse.

Not really the point. I want there to be a contest for the ball, which means the defence is going to try to win or at least to slow down the ball. However once the ball is won, I don't like seeing teams just do nothing.

 

[OB..]

Lighten up Ian.

I thought he did. Do you mean his post about rucking wasn't sarcasm?!

 

[4eyesbetter]

Not really the point. I want there to be a contest for the ball, which means the defence is going to try to win or at least to slow down the ball. However once the ball is won, I don't like seeing teams just do nothing.

But here's the issue; the defenders are currently able to do enough to force the attackers to commit bodies to the ruck, then they just step away and roll out the barbed wire. Teams are always going to struggle to attack with ball in hand when it's 11 v 14. This is what then leads to the half standing at the base for aeons going "what the hell am I supposed to do now?" It seems to me to be entirely arse-forwards; shouldn't it be the attackers who are trying to draw the defenders in to create space, not the defenders drawing the attackers in to take it away?

 

[OB..]

But here's the issue; the defenders are currently able to do enough to force the attackers to commit bodies to the ruck, then they just step away and roll out the barbed wire. Teams are always going to struggle to attack with ball in hand when it's 11 v 14. This is what then leads to the half standing at the base for aeons going "what the hell am I supposed to do now?" It seems to me to be entirely arse-forwards; shouldn't it be the attackers who are trying to draw the defenders in to create space, not the defenders drawing the attackers in to take it away?

You are oversimplifying. Counter-rucking, when it works, is usually very effective because the opponents are lined up in attack rather than defence.

Also, count the defenders. There are always a couple well back to protect against attacking kicks. Attackers tend to risk bringing their full back, blind-side wing, etc into the line, which is why you get the occasional spectacular breakaway try when something goes wrong.

 

[4eyesbetter]

There is actually a reason that I went with 11 v 14 as my numbers. For the defenders you have one guy actually in the ruck, and then even if they've got 11, 14 and 15 standing out of the line, that still leaves them with 11 players to form the line. For the attackers you have the ex-ballcarrier, two others who've won it and are now lying around somewhere, and a half to distribute it, that's also 11. Too many numbers in the line for your backs to do anything before getting mullered and turned over, too many opponents back to kick over the top, so hit it up and hope to get quicker ball next time. Which doesn't happen because the defenders have slowed it down again.

 

[OB..]

There is actually a reason that I went with 11 v 14 as my numbers. For the defenders you have one guy actually in the ruck, and then even if they've got 11, 14 and 15 standing out of the line, that still leaves them with 11 players to form the line. For the attackers you have the ex-ballcarrier, two others who've won it and are now lying around somewhere, and a half to distribute it, that's also 11. Too many numbers in the line for your backs to do anything before getting mullered and turned over, too many opponents back to kick over the top, so hit it up and hope to get quicker ball next time. Which doesn't happen because the defenders have slowed it down again.

That is what the defence is aiming for, and the attackers are trying to get the ball out too quickly for them. Etc. Both teams, have the same numbers so the aim is to move things around to catch the opponents out. I have no problem with it in general. Only when it is equivalent to time wasting.

 

[4eyesbetter]

Yes, I appreciate that; but what I don't appreciate is when the defenders successfully slow the ball down 15 times in a row and the attackers just wander around aimlessly with no options over the same bit of grass for 15 phases and then knock on, or someone gives a penalty away. Call me weird, but I just don't see where the entertainment value is in that.

 

[Ian_Cook]

But here's the issue; the defenders are currently able to do enough to force the attackers to commit bodies to the ruck, then they just step away and roll out the barbed wire. Teams are always going to struggle to attack with ball in hand when it's 11 v 14. This is what then leads to the half standing at the base for aeons going "what the hell am I supposed to do now?" It seems to me to be entirely arse-forwards; shouldn't it be the attackers who are trying to draw the defenders in to create space, not the defenders drawing the attackers in to take it away?

Answer?

What I have been advocating for a number of years, a 5m offside line at ruck and maul, and it IS manageable. and it would discourage players lining the trenches.

► With the exception of one receiver (usually the SH) all players are either bound into the ruck/maul, or they are 5m back.
► Detaching players would be allowed to rejoin immediately at the HMF (as they do now). If they don't rejoin, they must immediately retire to the 5m offside line.
► Players at the 5m offside line would be entitled to join the ruck/maul through the ruck/maul "gate" which I would define as directly behind the ruck and within the width of the leftmost and rightmost player of either team in the ruck/maul. The player must run directly and continuously until joined.
► No loitering.

A nice side effect is that "pick and drive" would be more difficult to achieve because rather than have an available player at the HMF to drive with, someone else is going to have to detach from the ruck/maul at just the right time, requiring better co-ordination. This could lead to an increased chance of a mistake during that awful last 2-5 minutes when teams defending a small lead are killing time with endless pick and drives.

 

[OB..]

Yes, I appreciate that; but what I don't appreciate is when the defenders successfully slow the ball down 15 times in a row and the attackers just wander around aimlessly with no options over the same bit of grass for 15 phases and then knock on, or someone gives a penalty away. Call me weird, but I just don't see where the entertainment value is in that.

Not weird, just concentrating on the negative. But we are always likely to have different views since it is a crucial difference between the two codes.

 

[Robert Burns]

It wasn't that long ago where we as referees were encouraged to penalise the offending team if the ball was too slow coming out of the ruck, this seems to have disappeared with the reinvention of the ruck as a contest, but I believe it should be brought back as a reason to penalise the offending team.

A few penalties will soon get them releasing once the ball is lost.

 

[4eyesbetter]

Not weird, just concentrating on the negative. But we are always likely to have different views since it is a crucial difference between the two codes.

Well, here's the thing; I define myself as a football fan in the widest possible sense. I'll watch anything from soccer to Gaelic football to Canadian football and always have. When I was a kid (in the interest of making other people feel old, I should mention that this was in the 90s), I actually watched far more Union than League (which had already taken Murdoch's shilling and buggered off wholesale to Sky, which we didn't have). It wasn't until we got cable at around the turn of the millennium that I had the chance to watch League regularly (it happened to come on after Soccer Saturday so it was easy to just stay on the same channel), and being able to watch it regularly I appreciated it because it was different from the other kinds of football I knew. Things being different are not a reason to dislike a sport.

I like both codes because they're different, and it irritates me a great deal to see the ruck (and the scrum) in the state it's in now. I love the concept of constantly competing for possession. It's a great idea, and when done properly it produces a wonderful, flowing game where all kinds of wonderfully different tactics can happen and you've no idea what might happen next; watching the stuff that's been on ESPN Classic over the past month has brought home how attractive it can be. When it's not done properly, it produces 15 phases of sod-all, and it seems that 15 phases of sod-all is firmly in the ascendancy.

(This is also why I think Ian's 5m ruck rule is the worst way they can possibly address the problem; we all know where the idea comes from.)

 

[Ian_Cook]

Well, here's the thing; I define myself as a football fan in the widest possible sense. I'll watch anything from soccer to Gaelic football to Canadian football and always have. When I was a kid (in the interest of making other people feel old, I should mention that this was in the 90s), I actually watched far more Union than League (which had already taken Murdoch's shilling and buggered off wholesale to Sky, which we didn't have). It wasn't until we got cable at around the turn of the millennium that I had the chance to watch League regularly (it happened to come on after Soccer Saturday so it was easy to just stay on the same channel), and being able to watch it regularly I appreciated it because it was different from the other kinds of football I knew. Things being different are not a reason to dislike a sport.

I like both codes because they're different, and it irritates me a great deal to see the ruck (and the scrum) in the state it's in now. I love the concept of constantly competing for possession. It's a great idea, and when done properly it produces a wonderful, flowing game where all kinds of wonderfully different tactics can happen and you've no idea what might happen next; watching the stuff that's been on ESPN Classic over the past month has brought home how attractive it can be. When it's not done properly, it produces 15 phases of sod-all, and it seems that 15 phases of sod-all is firmly in the ascendancy.

(This is also why I think Ian's 5m ruck rule is the worst way they can possibly address the problem; we all know where the idea comes from.)

Nonetheless, when we trialled it here, it worked very well

The problems you perceive with the game are real and mostly correct. I'm not sure how far back you can remember in Rugby Union, but as a spectacle, the game was at its peak in the first years of professionalism, 1996 to 1999. If you ever get a chance to see some Super 12 rugby from that period you will see a fast, and exciting brand of rugby, with superb ball skills on display. It was a brand that really drew the crowds in. The game played to packed houses in New Zealand, Australia and South Africa. and then in 2000, a major rewrite of the Laws took place, and the game has gone downhill ever since.

Of all the changes what were made, there was one change above all that ruined the game... the introduction of the tackle gate. Prior to the rewrite, there was no tackle gate. Here is the 1996 Tackle Law.

[LAWS]LAW 18. TACKLE, LYING WITH, ON OR NEAR THE BALL

A tackle occurs when a player carrying the ball in the field-of-play is held by one or more opponents so that while he is so held he is brought to the ground or the ball comes into contact with the ground. If the ball carrier is on one knee, or both knees, or is sitting on the ground, or is on top of another player who is on the ground, the ball carrier is deemed to have been brought to the ground.
(1)

(a) A tackled player must immediately pass the ball, or release the ball and get up or move away from the ball.
(b) After a tackle any other player must be on his feet when he plays the ball
(c) A player who goes to the ground and gathers the ball or with the ball in his possession but who is not tackled must immediately get up on his feet with the ball, or pass the ball, or release the ball and get up or move away from the ball.

(2)

It is illegal for any player:-
(a) to prevent a tackled player from passing or releasing the ball, or getting up or moving away after he has passed or released it,
(b) to pull the ball from a tackled player's possession or attempt to pick up the ball before the tackled player has released it,
(c) while lying on the ground after a tackle to play or interfere with the ball in any way or to tackle or attempt to tackle an opponent carrying the ball,
(d) to willfully fall on or over a player lying on the ground with the ball in his possession,
(e) to willfully fall on or over players lying on the ground with the ball between them or in close proximity, or
(f) while lying on the ground in close proximity to the ball to prevent an opponent from gaining possession of it.
Note:- Close proximity means within one meter.

(3) A player must not fall on or over the ball emerging from a scrummage or ruck. Penalty:- Penalty kick at the place of infringement.

(4) A try may be scored if the momentum of a player carries him into his opponents In-goal even though he is tackled.

[/LAWS]


Thats it, simple and easy to understand.

Without a tackle gate, any player could come from any direction and challenge for the ball. It seems crazy to have it this way, because that means as soon as a tackled player hit the deck, anyone running from any direction could go for the ball. However, this did not happen very often... and the reason why? Well, its simple. The ball carriers would make every effort to stay on their feet in the tackle. They only needed to do this for a fraction of a second, until a team mate arrived, at which point, they would go to ground and a ruck would form, with all participants still on their feet.

The introduction of the tackle gate meant that the tackled player now had an incentive to go to ground, knowing that team mates following them up would already be more likely to get to them first, since they were already approaching from the "gate" position, while the defending team would take fractionally longer having to go around through the gate. Essentially, going to ground afforded their team a better chance of keeping possession of the ball.

The reasons for this change are controversial. I know the NZRFU and the ARU did not support this particular change (not sure about South Africa). The changes were driven by the Four Home Unions, and many on here will not want to believe this, and will say its wrong, but it is the opinion of many in this part of the world that they drove this change through because they simply could bot cope with the speed the game was being played at here. They needed to slow the game down, and saw the tackle as the ideal place to do that. The introduction of the tackle gate (which is simply the requirement for all players, other than the tackler, to play the ball from their own side of it at the tackle) achieved exactly what they wanted. Apart from conversation I have had with people I know in the NZRU, I don't have any direct evidence of this, however, if you look back at the records of some of the test matches between NH teams and SH teams, its fairly obvious why they wanted to slow the game down.

Results such as

New Zealand 65-22 England
South Africa 96-13 Wales
Australia 76-0 England
South Africa 101-0 Italy
New Zealand 54-7 France
Fiji 51 - 26 Scotland

Some of the matches were little more than opposed training runs, with the northern players simply unable to keep up with the speed of the game in the south. In fact in that four year period Tri-Nations teams played Six Nations teams 22 times, for 22 wins, averaging 5 tries to 1 and 40 points to 10. Something had to be done to redress the balance, so they changed the Laws, and the result is that we now have a breakdown area that is excruciatingly complicated, a complete and utter shambles with players off their feet all over the place, whereas before 2000 it was relatively simple, and tidy, with players on their feet, and almost instantaneous quick ball from second phase.

 

[Dickie E]

Nice piece, Ian. I will have to digest slowly but makes sense on 1st reading.

 

[OB..]

The ball carriers would make every effort to stay on their feet in the tackle. They only needed to do this for a fraction of a second, until a team mate arrived, at which point, they would go to ground and a ruck would form, with all participants still on their feet.

Here is another extract from the 1996/7 law book[LAWS]22,4 (a) When a maul becomes stationary or the ball in a maul becomes unplayable a scrummage shall be ordered and the ball shall be put in by the team NOT in possession at the commencement of the maul [...]
Notes (iii) If the ball carrier in a maul goes to ground, including being on one knee or both knees or is sitting on the ground, a scrummage is to be ordered unless the ball is immediately available for the continuation of play.[/LAWS]The maul turnover was in effect from 1992.

Of all the changes what were made, there was one change above all that ruined the game... the introduction of the tackle gate. Prior to the rewrite, there was no tackle gate.[...]The reasons for this change are controversial. [...] it is the opinion of many in this part of the world that they drove this change through because they simply could bot cope with the speed the game was being played at here. [...] I don't have any direct evidence of this,

Sans paroles.

 

[TheBFG]

You must have been watching different game

Conrad Smith
Kicks = 0
Passes = 4
Runs = 4
Metres over gain line 15

Ma'a Nonu
Kicks = 2
Passes = 4
Runs = 10
Metres over gain line 17

But you can see where he's coming from...... 32m between them, not really a runnig game is it. :chin:

Well done to NZ for hanging on, job done, bragging rights to the kiwis :clap:

 

[Ian_Cook]

Here is another extract from the 1996/7 law book[LAWS]22,4 (a) When a maul becomes stationary or the ball in a maul becomes unplayable a scrummage shall be ordered and the ball shall be put in by the team NOT in possession at the commencement of the maul [...]
Notes (iii) If the ball carrier in a maul goes to ground, including being on one knee or both knees or is sitting on the ground, a scrummage is to be ordered unless the ball is immediately available for the continuation of play.[/LAWS]The maul turnover was in effect from 1992.

Yes, I know the Maul turnover was already in operation by 1996, but that is irrelevant, since I am talking about the tackle and the gate, not the maul.

Keep in mind that a team-mate of the ball carrier must bind before a maul forms... you can have one ball carrier and five opponents all on their feet (see Jerome Kaino for an example) and it does not become a maul until a team-mate of the ball carrier binds on.

Its a point of note that in 1996, ball carriers generally tried to keep their feet until support arrived, then they would go to ground immediately to prevent a maul forming, while tacklers would try to bring the ball carrier to ground so that their retiring players could go straight for the ball.

Now, the exact opposite is true. The ball carrier often tries to go to ground to force the oppostion to go through the gate, while the tacklers try to keep the ball carrier on their feet so that they can win a maul turnover.

This 180° turnaround is a direct consequence of the introduction of the tackle gate in 2000, and the root cause of what we have now, a complex tackle law and a shambles at the breakdown.

Sans Paroles

Latin??

 

[4eyesbetter]

Francais. I believe the appropriate translation is "speechless".

 

[OB..]

Francais. I believe the appropriate translation is "speechless".

The phrase is used to refer to cartoons that are purely visual. "Speaks for itself." I was amused by the attack on the NH followed by "I don't have any direct evidence of this."

 

[OB..]

Yes, I know the Maul turnover was already in operation by 1996, but that is irrelevant, since I am talking about the tackle and the gate, not the maul.

Keep in mind that a team-mate of the ball carrier must bind before a maul forms... you can have one ball carrier and five opponents all on their feet (see Jerome Kaino for an example) and it does not become a maul until a team-mate of the ball carrier binds on.

You said

They only needed to do this for a fraction of a second, until a team mate arrived, at which point, they would go to ground and a ruck would form,

which sounded to me like a maul forming and then the player going to ground to claim it was a ruck.

Is this your scenario: Blue 12 is held up by Red 13 and Red 12. Just before Blue 7 arrives,Blue 12 stops trying to stay on his feet and goes to ground. If he manages that then we have a tackle and it could indeed turn into a ruck. The timing is very tight: too early to ground and the tackled player will have to release; too late, and a maul will have formed.

I was still playing in those days, and at my low level there was never any such tactic. I don't remember it at international level either, though it would not be easy to detect, since I would expect it to go wrong quite often.