Give us a contest
27 Mar 2006
Keo, in his Business Day column, writes that rugby union is supposed to be a contest for the ball and ownership of that ball but very little about the existing laws promotes this contest.
The International Rugby Board’s technical gurus have acknowledged there is a problem but they won’t tamper with the laws that govern the game until after the 2007 World Cup. It is typical of the mentality that has stifled professionalism’s evolution in the past decade.
Having wise people identify the issues should not be confused with innovation. A bit more of the latter and we would not have the week-to-week frustrations packaged with a game of rugby.
There is no consistency in the rationale behind the laws and even less in their application. The two that scream contradiction every weekend are the ruck and the maul. The ruck is weighted in favour of the defending side, while the maul is exclusively the right of the attacking side. Neither allows for a fair contest.
Every weekend attacking teams are penalised at the ruck, with referees determining one player held on to the ball, another entered the ruck from the side, or simply because the attacking team, with greater numbers at the breakdown, had “deliberately†gone off their feet when trying to wrestle the ball away from their own player. It is very confusing, not only for spectators but also for players.
I’ve never understood why a team on the attack would deliberately infringe at the breakdown when it has a clear advantage. An example is when a ball is hacked ahead. The defending fullback or winger chases back and four of the quick men from the attacking team follow. The defender gets to the ball first but is caught in possession. He is tackled and the other three go in for the ball. Invariably one of the four attackers is penalised for going off his feet or not rolling away when physics says that four players should always beat one player in contesting the ball.
When Australian backs started running decoys during the Rod Macqueen era, all the criticism was for obstruction and an unfair contest for the tackler. The argument was that the defending side had no chance to contest the ball if decoy running was allowed. It took innovation and creativity out of the game. It meant backs were punished for being clever or out-thinking their opposition with a strategy.
However, the maul is app-lauded, despite the obvious advantage to the attacking team of obstruction. The ball is carried by the bloke at the back, with five to seven other players as a buffer and obstruction to the defenders.
Those who favour the maul say it requires a special skill and multi-tasking to have seven players obstruct the defending team and stay bound to the bloke at the back. It is impossible to defend against and, when the opposition collapses the maul, they are penalised. Where is the contest? There is none.
But that’s okay, whereas decoy running isn’t? The maul takes defenders out of the game as much as decoy running does. Sack the maul or allow sacking of the maul.
Equally, to put the contest back into the game at the breakdown, it should be carte blanche to attacker and defender.
The contest has been taken out of the game in an attempt to construct flow. It has not worked because the laws continue to multiply for every facet of play.
With a simpler game, referees could again referee and not coach.
It is infuriating to listen to a referee caution a player that he is infringing. It is to the disadvantage of the other side. Why do referees feel they have to coach?
The referee says it is to create greater flow. Surely that is not the referee’s job. He is there to officiate and to apply the laws.
The players are paid to create the flow — but to do so they need to play a game where the greatest innovation would be the introduction of simplicity in the laws.
It is difficult enough that the ball these guys play with is not round.
68 Comments
Pages: « 1 [2] Show All
27 Mar 2006, 15:04 pm
Eish !
Did you see how well the Reds defended the Cheetahs maul !
They never collapsed it once !!! Dicipline neh !
And forced a truck and trailer !
They also turned it to expose the Back ball carrier and then tackled him !
27 Mar 2006, 15:07 pm
That’s the difference between the Aussies, Kiwis and our players Tsotsi…they know the rules and have been taught various ways to manipulate them to their advantage.
27 Mar 2006, 15:26 pm
i like the maul it sucks in the forwards to do what they are supposed to and creates space for the backs to run and you can pull george smiths hair in the maul to slow his progress to the breakdown !
you have to watch out though he swings wildly at that point !
27 Mar 2006, 15:29 pm
I heard it debated on TV that should the defending side not hold up the maul, but merely step aside [ obiously not on their try line] the ruck would become “truck & trailer”. If this is correct, then is this not the perfect plan to prevent a strong mauling side from mauling you to bits. — Out go the BULLS ON THIS ONE.
27 Mar 2006, 15:50 pm
ktb
it is correct
if there is no opp player bound to the maul then it is a cavalier charge ( penalizable ).
What is also of some concern is how the bulls and now the cheetahs are using this cavalier charge in general play in the Vic Matfiled signature move of pile driving his own player through gaps
if bound before contact this is also a cavalier charge
what has happend to refs not blowing these basice of the game confushiasses me very mach !
27 Mar 2006, 16:32 pm
Defending a maul: dont engage with them, it then becomes : truck and trailer
27 Mar 2006, 16:40 pm
Keo,
The ruck is a fair enough contest. Both sides must be able to contest the ball… as soon as an attacking player is unable to release the ball quickly enough though, then players start coming in from the sides and diving over the top in an attempt to clear out… That should be penalised.
In the instance where a defender dives onto a ball and is immediately converged on by 3/4 opposition, the issue is that the guys are not staying on their feet. If 3 stay on their feet, and come at the defending player from the correct place, then they will get the penalty they are after… but they don’t, one guy gets there and stays on his feet until the next 2 or 3 run into him at full tilt and knock him off his feet and over the ball. Perhaps the issue is not so much the law as it is the players not thinking?
The maul is a contest of strength, pure and simple. Just because the ball is at the back of the maul, doesn’t make it unfair… The same could be said for a scrum where a much stronger pack just scrums upfield with the ball under the 8th mans toes?
If you want to nullify a maul, then stop it legally. If you can’t – tough. Teams need to learn to counter mauls etc and it can be done legally.
27 Mar 2006, 16:48 pm
Yes, we need a fair contest for the ball at all times. The current laws have been there for quiet a number of years. Even if laws are changed players will always infringe.
Every weekend players go off their feet at rucks and tackles. They always join rucks/mauls from the side. Whereas this is prohibited by the current Laws and everybody should abide by the current Laws that are governing the game.
What needs to be done: Every player & coach should own a Law Book – we are having these problems because of ignorance. If you know and/or aware of a Law (ruck/maul, Proper binding at scrums) then you won’t infringe on any Law.
Then fair contest for the ball will be the name of the game.
27 Mar 2006, 17:12 pm
Guys, the point is players are aware of the rules. the difference is that refs INTERPRET the laws according to the situation. Thus, the Schallas, Waughs and Smiths receive penalties or turnovers depending on the situation. The law needs to be simplified. Thats what keo is on about. Make the ref less important by keeping it simple.
27 Mar 2006, 17:18 pm
dieselboys
you are spot on, imagine if the rules of rugby were as simple as football … i think the only 2 contraversial rules for football are the ‘off side rule’ and penalties – and they could make football simpler by abolishing off side … now imagine if the ‘old farts’ at IRB HQ simplified the rules of rugby …
27 Mar 2006, 17:26 pm
Keo, I must say I find your thinking muddled.
You are frustrated about the laws of the game. aT THE SAME TIME YOU OFFER NO ALTERNATIVE . Are you saying that the ruck should have no law? dive in, enter from the side, play the ball on the ground with the hand.etc, etc.
The fact is , there is a contest to controling this vital phase of the game, one of understanding of the laws and skill.[like thusom says, buy a law book.] South African sides tend to be poor in this area for the following reasons.
-Our hard grounds, from early on in our careers we avoid the ruck like the plague. One game in midwinter on a concrete like surface will make my explanation clear.
-Our linguistic isolation. Most boneheads growing up watching the game loose everything in translation, very little writing in terms of laws of the game, coaching and playing is produced in Afrikaans. You may say the french are isolated too, true, but they are an inovative , creative people. The 2 distinct terms RUCK and Maul Do not even have an Afrikaans equivalent. ‘LOSGEMAAL’, ‘Losskrum’ is what TV comentry teams use.
Are you saying that the Laws ‘favour’ the man in possesion in the maul? true, they do. But look at how the Cats skrewed up this weekend after mauling for yards and yards and then losing it. We need to improve our skills and understanding of the laws, instead of sulking because the Stormers cannot hold on to the ball and insist we change the laws Keo.
Most Kiwi women have more understanding of the laws than a lot of the ‘Kenners’ of the game. Sad but True. This is also linked to the way in which we select the most nonsensical combinations of looseforwards.
The answer is to get with the program and try and understand the rules, otherwise play rugby league.
27 Mar 2006, 17:57 pm
Good article, keo. Right on the money. Disagree with you in one respect though – decoy running should be penalised, but it isn’t. Australia and especially NZ do this blatantly with almost every backline move. What is the law in this regard? Whatever it is, it’s not being applied.
27 Mar 2006, 18:14 pm
Keo,
Thought about the consequences for SA Rugby teams? I think these barmy laws suit us.
27 Mar 2006, 19:42 pm
The Idea of people going off their feet at the ruck being allowed is ludicrous !
One of the fundamentals of this game is that in order to participate in play you must remain on your feet.
Guys like George smith push this concept to the limits by simply making sure their feet are planted and hips are high , but in fact they are more often than not , not supporting their own weight.
This style of play would be dangerous to coach into young players for the obvious dangers of neck injuries.
These days the distinction between clearing a ruck and diving in over the top is vague , it seems most refs dont know that diving in is illegal anymore. It is negative play and should be stopped.
notice in the 3N how much George smith and Waugh got pinned simply cause SA did not fly in to the rucks and give them the cover and platform to illegally gain the ball , they were exposed.
The best option in rucking in my opinion is still in line rucking.
it creates a far greater distance between defenders and the offside line is very distinct.
The idea being that every player after the 1st 2 pure cleaners basically bridge in single file adding only as many players as is needed to have the opp concede that the ruck is won.
the scrummie becomes protected by the fact that the opp line of contact has been moved away from the attack ditribution point in gross proportion leaving a over sized off side zone. This form of rucking can be applied to both the fast ball attack and used to slow things down without creating a 50 / 50 risk zone.
These and many more tips as and when it becomes clear that people have not understood that the laws are now the way they are because previous ones created other less desirable factors and made the game too much like league.
27 Mar 2006, 19:44 pm
Good article KEO.
The defending player should be aloud to hold onto the ball on the ground.At the same time the attacking player must be aloud to go off his feet,to contest for the ball.The strongest player will gain advantage.
27 Mar 2006, 19:53 pm
Boet are you an ant farmer or something ?
Holding on ?
Go off feet ?
you must be taking the piss.
27 Mar 2006, 22:57 pm
Ja this article was facinating!
28 Mar 2006, 06:50 am
pierre jy weet duidelik min van rugby af.decoy running to be banned?dit sal beteken n sker of n skip een move is illegal.jy mag decoy maar jy mag nie obstruct nie.
Pages: « 1 [2] Show All
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.