Earn the right

[TheOvalBall]

I've been hearing for a while now, rugby pundits in south africa for example, saying you have to earn the right to go wide.

What does that even mean ? It sounds so confusing ?

There's no right in rugby. You get what you create.

Nick Mallett for example hates that term.

 

[TRF_heineken]

I've been hearing for a while now, rugby pundits in south africa for example, saying you have to earn the right to go wide.

What does that even mean ? It sounds so confusing ?

There's no right in rugby. You get what you create.

Nick Mallett for example hates that term.

The way I understand it is that you need to create opportunities using the forwards and big runners to create space out wide, or gaps in areas for the backs to run into. Nick Mallett hates a lot of things though...

That term does make sense if you see how the Cheetahs played in the Currie Cup and the Lions played in the Super Rugby.

 

[AzaMatt]

from what i understand is its harder to create something if your not on the front foot. as the line speed of the opposition will be straight on you. although if the forwards (or backs in some cases) get over the gainline, the retreating team have further to run back whilst the attacking team have less distance to travel forward (to the back foot of the ruck). commentator jonathan davies (jiffy) says it all the time.

 

[welshglory]

The modern version is front foot ball as AzaMatt says.

There's no reason you can't have a wide attacking game from the offset but you need to be making yards and pushing the defensive line. In a wide attack the idea is to spread the defence so you can exploit mismatches and gaps. In a traditional "earn the right" method you play forward pods and crash balls until all the opposition are tied in. That gameplan is fairly ineffective at the top tier professional level nowadays but it less risky and it depends on the skillset of the players.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

Welshglory is spot on.

Rugby may look different these days with the defensive line, but teams are still looking to create mismatches and run at space. I still don't understand why the driving maul isn't used more in open play as it takes more of the opposition out of action than a ruck where they might only commit one or two. Used at the right time its a great weapon that many teams seem to overlook, bit like the drop goal.

 

[Every Time Ref]

The wording is probably misleading - it's more a case of earning the opportunity to go wide, using carries closer to the ruck to create space and/or mismatches out wide

Welshglory is spot on.

Rugby may look different these days with the defensive line, but teams are still looking to create mismatches and run at space. I still don't understand why the driving maul isn't used more in open play as it takes more of the opposition out of action than a ruck where they might only commit one or two. Used at the right time its a great weapon that many teams seem to overlook, bit like the drop goal.

Probably the danger of choke tackles?

 

[AzaMatt]

Welshglory is spot on.

Rugby may look different these days with the defensive line, but teams are still looking to create mismatches and run at space. I still don't understand why the driving maul isn't used more in open play as it takes more of the opposition out of action than a ruck where they might only commit one or two. Used at the right time its a great weapon that many teams seem to overlook, bit like the drop goal.

on the subject of mauls, how come if the defending team forms it (from choke tackle), it is ok for it to be collapsed and they win the put in. but when defending a maul from lineout etc it is an offence to collapse it. is it just because the defenders formed it? probably answered my own question but hey

 

[Every Time Ref]

on the subject of mauls, how come if the defending team forms it (from choke tackle), it is ok for it to be collapsed and they win the put in. but when defending a maul from lineout etc it is an offence to collapse it. is it just because the defenders formed it? probably answered my own question but hey

I think the distinction is between "X collapsed the maul" (penalty against X) and "the maul collapsed". Although I'm rarely sure how the referee decides which it is to be honest

 

[AzaMatt]

I think the distinction is between "X collapsed the maul" (penalty against X) and "the maul collapsed". Although I'm rarely sure how the referee decides which it is to be honest

it always looks like someone sacks the maul to me. i think brian moore said last weekend "noone is going to collapse their own maul when they are moving forward" yet sometimes no pen is given

 

[welshglory]

The wording is probably misleading - it's more a case of earning the opportunity to go wide, using carries closer to the ruck to create space and/or mismatches out wide

It's an old school view imo. Its the reason why they need to get rid of pundits who were only involved in the amateur game, they have no idea how the modern game is played. As long as you have the skills and the balls to play a wide game then you don't need to "earn" anything.

It's a bit disconnected to reality. At pro level in particular Phase play is so much longer these days, where teams can go upwards of 5 phases at a time. We need to look at things more from a rugby league point of view. The key is to make yards and create quick front foot ball. Earn the right should be replaced with 'win the gain line'

 

[Which Tyler]

it always looks like someone sacks the maul to me. i think brian moore said last weekend "noone is going to collapse their own maul when they are moving forward" yet sometimes no pen is given

I believe it's spotting the difference between deliberately sacking a maul, and simply failing to keep your feet in the tangle of legs and bodies; and sending the right message to the ref.
Mauls are also hard to set up correctly, even with your entire pack around you in a controlled manner, and especially so now that you have to move the ball backwards, not the ball carrier. Setting up a maul in open play must be damned-near impossible to do whilst protecting the ball; and if you fail, you turn-over the ball. You used to see it a lot more (and still pretty infrequently IIRC) in the olden days when the team moving forwards gets possession, so the only trick was to start it with momentum.

Bear in mind, that's all my interpretation, and as a SH I was always in favour of just letting them get on with it, and to make sure the fat boys remembered not to eat the ball.

 

[AzaMatt]

I believe it's spotting the difference between deliberately sacking a maul, and simply failing to keep your feet in the tangle of legs and bodies; and sending the right message to the ref.
Mauls are also hard to set up correctly, even with your entire pack around you in a controlled manner, and especially so now that you have to move the ball backwards, not the ball carrier. Setting up a maul in open play must be damned-near impossible to do whilst protecting the ball; and if you fail, you turn-over the ball. You used to see it a lot more (and still pretty infrequently IIRC) in the olden days when the team moving forwards gets possession, so the only trick was to start it with momentum.

Bear in mind, that's all my interpretation, and as a SH I was always in favour of just letting them get on with it, and to make sure the fat boys remembered not to eat the ball.

thanks for the info though. one thing that puzzled me, although i can never tell if it has been deliberately sacked or not. just seems like guess work to me

 

[Which Tyler]

thanks for the info though. one thing that puzzled me, although i can never tell if it has been deliberately sacked or not. just seems like guess work to me

Smart Cookie's by far the best place to comment on this.
To my eyes I look for people falling over and clinging on as dragging down, whilst people falling over and letting go are probably genuinely just getting their legs tangled.
In reality, I suspect all mauls of being brought down, but that ref's either guess, or just go with who chose to make it a maul - if the defender makes it a maul, then they'll assume it's fallen over; if the attacker makes the maul, then they'll assume it's been sacked.

 

[Every Time Ref]

Smart Cookie's by far the best place to comment on this.
To my eyes I look for people falling over and clinging on as dragging down, whilst people falling over and letting go are probably genuinely just getting their legs tangled.
In reality, I suspect all mauls of being brought down, but that ref's either guess, or just go with who chose to make it a maul - if the defender makes it a maul, then they'll assume it's fallen over; if the attacker makes the maul, then they'll assume it's been sacked.

I've honestly given up trying to guess much of the time. What happens happens, much like scrums!