Ball retention will limit penalty count
28 Oct 2010
JON CARDINELLI writes that the team that holds the ball will hold the ascendancy in Saturday’s Currie Cup final.
The law changes have led to an about-turn in playing philosophy. In 2009, the team that didn’t have the ball often prospered by pressuring the team that did. In 2010, the reverse is true, with attacking teams that respect their possession enjoying the most success.
The Stormers and the Bulls adapted quickest and won through to the Super 14 final. While New Zealand franchises fared poorly in the Super 14, the national side adapted at Test level and won the Tri-Nations. Similarly, the Sharks and Western Province have been the two finest attacking sides in the Currie Cup, and it’s little surprise they’ll contest the decider.
The Sharks have been compared to the All Blacks, and in some cases the Reds, because they respect their possession. This is not to say they don’t utilise the kick as a tactical weapon, or that they run the ball from all corners. They have some of the most powerful ball-carriers in the competition, and are known to soften up the opposition before sending it wide to their talented speedsters.
Willem de Waal’s a tactical genius at domestic level, using his exemplary kicking game to boot WP into promising positions. But the change in the laws has also demanded that he feeds the backline so that his team doesn’t waste possession through aimless kicks.
It’s only in the latter stages of the competition that WP have begun to strike a balance between ball retention and tactical kicking. Having Jean de Villiers back in the side provides them with an extra ball-carrying option in the backs. He’s able to make metres and retain possession for the next phase of attack.
WP coach Allister Coetzee has spoken about discipline as being crucial to the final outcome. He said a moment of brilliance or an instance of stupidity could be the difference. He was referring to the decision-making on attack and defence. Both teams will need to know when to push referee Craig Joubert this Saturday, and when to hold back.
Statistically, WP are the second-best team in the competition when it comes to penalties conceded (the Cheetahs are the best with only 131 penalties conceded during the league stage). It’s interesting to note that apart from the lowly Leopards, the Sharks have the worst penalty record, having given away 170 penalties during the round robin phase.
The Sharks have struggled at times with their discipline, particularly in the fixture against the Lions in Johannesburg. But in the big semi-final clash with the Bulls, they produced an improved showing. This performance showed that in a high-intensity, all-or-nothing game, they could keep their aggression in check.
With Joubert refereeing the final, all bets are off as far as season stats are concerned. A Super 14 study done on the referees and their varying management styles revealed that Joubert favoured the attacking team 90% of the time at the breakdown. It’s a figure that suggests keeping the ball in Saturday’s final will prove prosperous.
Keeping the ball doesn’t mean either side will look to chuck it around sevens-style. It will be a war of attrition, with both the Sharks and WP waiting for the opposition to make the early error. And both teams have the kickers to translate penalties into points.
Follow SA Rugby mag on Twitter
22 Comments
28 Oct 2010, 10:29 am
WeePee doennit!!
28 Oct 2010, 10:32 am
What has Jonathan Kaplan done, that he now has to stand in line behind a cowering little kortbroek like Craig Joubert – a guy who has already ruined one major final this year and now has a shot at his second?
28 Oct 2010, 10:40 am
“Statistically, WP are the second-best team in the competition when it comes to penalties conceded (the Cheetahs are the best with only 131 penalties conceded during the league stage). It’s interesting to note that apart from the lowly Leopards, the Sharks have the worst penalty record, having given away 170 penalties during the round robin phase.”
How many of the Sharks’ 170 penalties were conceded by the Du Plessis brothers?
28 Oct 2010, 10:44 am
@ 3 – LOFL!! I’ll guess about half?
28 Oct 2010, 10:53 am
With regards to Joubert favouring the attacking side 90% of the time at the breakdown – in my opinion this is how it should be.
The laws of the game were originally designed to reward retention of possession.
I am perfectly happy if Joubert favours the attacking side. I just hope my Province team keeps the ball in our backline, and not waste everything on aimless box kicks (one reason I’m actually happier that Ricky Januarie is starting and not Dewaldt Duvenage, Dewaldt is a bit of a kicking addict).
28 Oct 2010, 11:39 am
@WP Till I Die(WP-Forever) : Ja, except he doesn’t favour the attacking side. He favours the home side.
28 Oct 2010, 11:44 am
Anyway, doesn’t matter. WP must just consider Joubert an opposing player, factor that into the game plan, and win by a wide margin so as to make him irrelevant. Shock and awe. Use the model of France in the ’99 RWC against New Zealand, in the face of some disgustingly one-sided officiating from drunken Scotsman Jim Flemming.
28 Oct 2010, 12:29 pm
fleckie should read the article by Eddie Jones on kicking and the all blacks. For illumination I’ll post it below:
By Eddie Jones
Games last year could have had up to 90 kicks a game – more than one a minute. This year, under the ‘new’ tackle/ruck law interpretations, teams are kicking far less and in the Tri-nations this year games had less than 40 kicks a game. What are the implications?
Firstly a couple of questions:
A) What Tri-nations stand-off averaged the most number of kicks per game?
B) Secondly, which team was the best attacking team in the Tri-nations?
If your answers were:
a) Dan Carter
b) New Zealand
You are right.
The implications are that good kicking has become even more important. Kicking to re-arrange the back field and how the wingers defend is crucial to keeping the ball and attacking with purpose. The Kiwis initially in the Tri-nations basically ran everything. Then, tactically, they introduced the short kick – grubber and chip kick behind to push the wingers back and make the 9 defend out of the line. This reduced the front line to 11 defenders, creating space.
Then, they started kicking long – forcing the wingers further back – and therefore taking 2 defenders right out of the line which meant the next time they receive the ball they can explore this space by running and passing. They kept the defence guessing allowing the All Blacks to have various attacking options – run, pass or kick plays.
A kick or run philosophy in attack is now vital. Look at how the defence position, then use kicks or running, passing plays to manipulate the defence.
Last year’s teams just kicked, now teams just run, the best teams do both to control the defence. Kicking well, short and long is crucial to this.
28 Oct 2010, 15:46 pm
@pierre(pierre) :
He doesn’t seem to see forward passes (or understand what they are) when made by WP?
I think it was the same JK that shouted ‘forward momentum’ in another match when a pass went forward. However, this is not the law.
28 Oct 2010, 17:28 pm
@OCO(OCO) : don’t want to be the boring, technical guy, but the forward pass law states that the ball must leave the passer’s hands forwards. however, if a player is at full sprint and from exactly on the half way line, he passes a perfectly flat pass (ie the ball leaves his hands completely perpendicular to his body), the ball would come to rest or be caught in front of the line because of his running momentum. It essentially was passed sideways but from a moving vehicle, so traveled forwards. The same way if you dropped an apple out of a moving car window, you might release the apple exactly above a certain point, but it will hit the ground ahead past that point because of the momentum of the vehicle it has left.
so, sometimes a running player may make a pass that left his hands flat or backwards, and yet the ball is caught by another player at a spot in front of where the pass was made, and this is perfectly legitimate – even if frustrating for most spectators who will swear blind that the ball was passed forward.
28 Oct 2010, 17:29 pm
ruined my whole last post in the first sentence! bugger! should read “….must NOT leave the passer’s hands forwards….”
28 Oct 2010, 17:36 pm
@dump_divvy(dump_divvy) :
No, actually the law states that the ball must not be ‘passed’ in such a manner that it is closer to the opponent’s line.
“A throw forward occurs when a player throws or passes the ball forward. ‘Forward’ means towards the opposing team’s dead ball line.”
That’s the official IRB regulation.
No ‘momentum’ in that at all.
QED
28 Oct 2010, 17:40 pm
@OCO(OCO) :
BTW I’m a scientist and I do know what vectors are!
The rule should be more accurately stated (to be unambiguous) that a forward pass is “Where the receiver collects the ball closer to the opposing line than from the point at which it is delivered”.
Ultimately one has to imagine a strong back wind. If a player passes the ball backwards but is collected say 5 meter’s ahead of the pass, is this a forward pass or not?
28 Oct 2010, 17:40 pm
Eddie Jones is very astute. However, South Africa lacks the coaching brainpower to teach that type of play to its players. SA has got vastly gifted/talented players, but these players are never mentally conditioned to play smart rugby. Instead they have to use their natural skills and size to try and dominate the opposition.
28 Oct 2010, 17:45 pm
I see your point, but imagine the opposite. Imagine a strong head wind. The player exploits this by passing forward ‘around’ the opposition, the wind carrying the ball back to his teammate. I think the rules favor the action of passing as the deciding factor over where the ball goes, if the pass is ‘backward’ or ‘lateral’, it is a legal pass, regardless whether momentum/wind takes it forward or not.
28 Oct 2010, 17:45 pm
@Nanashi(Nanashi) :
A good point, but then again, ‘rugga-buggers’ have never been known as intelectually gifted. Sort of like American Football players and their cheer leaders.
28 Oct 2010, 17:50 pm
@Nanashi(Nanashi) :
“Towards the opposing team’s dead ball line” says it all (almost) There is no, ‘Iff the wind blows’ or ‘If the player is running at the speed of light’ etc.
If the ball travels closer to the opponent’s ‘dead ball line’, no matter what method of delivery takes place, it’s a ‘throw forward’. Those are the rules (and I didn’t make them to upset WP supporters!).
As they say in the classics ‘Rules is rules’.
28 Oct 2010, 17:53 pm
@OCO(OCO) :
Let’s face it, do we need refs to carry a slide rule and have to know the ‘delivering players’ momentum, plus the momentum of the ball, to determine if the ball is forward or not?
Can see all the Cray Supercomputer sales that would result if this is the case.
28 Oct 2010, 18:29 pm
17. bang on OCO, forward is forward, period.
28 Oct 2010, 21:32 pm
I remember Andre Watson, or maybe it was Tappe, explaining the law once on boots and all.
He said “watch the hands” to see if the ball was passed properly, as forward momentum doesn’t constitute a forward pass.
29 Oct 2010, 01:53 am
OCO, the law actually says the following:
A throw forward occurs when a player throws or passes the ball forward. ‘Forward’ means towards the opposing team’s dead ball line.
So it is all about the action of throwing the ball forward and not where it ends, that is why Andre talked about watching the hands. If a ball is past flat or backwards and end up in a position closer to the opposition try line, it is NOT judged as a forward pass.
29 Oct 2010, 08:46 am
Ho humm, i have seen some shockers this year, Blatant forward passes ruled good and good paaes ruled forward. I am still of the opion that Teams Captains should have one defensive ‘query’ and one offensive query a half.
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.