• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

Hansen worried about future of rugby

Tony Manx

TRF Season Ticket Holder
TRF Legend
Joined
Apr 12, 2011
Messages
8,538
Club or Nation
Biarritz
Steve Hansen the All Blacks coach says in an interview in Wales (Daily Telegraph) that he is concerned that the lack of tries in current rugby is going to turn Fans off rugby.

Certainly with the introduction of Rugby League defensive lines, and coaches use of scrums as penalty making machines, he has a point in my way of thinking!!

Instead of gifted centers like Guscott, Bod, Greenwood, we instead get the bish bash bosh centers like Tuilagi, Roberts, Bastereaud. The art of looking for space, in the main, has been left the wrong side of the whitewash in the hope that defenses will keep their line and tire the opposition out which is more difficult due to the prolific use of substitutes. Surely the day of a sub getting to a century of caps is not that far away belittling the achievements of Sella, McCaw and their ilk!!

Is modern rugby becoming a bore fest! Can we do anything to make it more attack orientated? Is Hansen right?
 
Last edited:
Steve Hansen the All Blacks coach says in an interview in Wales (Daily Telegraph) that he is concerned that the lack of tries in current rugby is going to turn Fans off rugby.

Certainly with the introduction of Rugby League defensive lines, and coaches use of scrums as penalty making machines, he has a point in my way of thinking!!

Instead of gifted centers like Guscott, Bod, Greenwood, we instead get the bish bash bosh centers like Tuilagi, Roberts, Bastereaud. The art of looking for space, in the main, has been left the wrong side of the whitewash in the hope that defenses will keep their line and tire the opposition out which is more difficult due to the prolific use of substitutes. Surely the day of a sub getting to a century of caps is not that far away belittling the achievements of Sella, McCaw and their ilk!!

Is modern rugby becoming a bore fest! Can we do anything to make it more attack orientated? Is Hansen right?
I agree. Rugby league style defensive system are in now and it is extremely more difficult. As a result subs will easily pass 50 as with the new style comes more physical and draining work which in turn means rugby now truly is becoming a 23man game. It's rare enough to see a front row finish a game for example
 
The choice is

a) Increased injuries through players not coming off at all
b) Incentivised cheating due to players only being subbed when injured
c) Widespread use of substitutes

I would suggest that c is the only logical answer.

I would also suggest that if people are sensible enough to judge each by their own era, then there is no belittling. Or do people think the likes of Edwards, McBride, Meads et al are belittled by guys with far bigger cap totals due to the enlarged international calender?


People have been wringing their hands about the sport getting dull for more or less as long as I've been following it seriously. It's never really been accompanied by it actually getting dull. I don't want to be blase, but milking the scrum and Rugby League style defences have been in play for a while, and the game is generally still fairly watchable, as much as it was 4 or 5 years ago.

The best thing we can do is stop tampering with the thing. Let coaches get the measure of it and come up with attacking strategies that work without changing the rules every 5 seconds. Greenwood, Guscott and BOD all played fair amounts of their careers besides players known more for their physicality than their skill (BOD less than the others obviously) - now we have Smith, Fofana, Joseph and others. The day of centres known for more than sheer power has not yet passed and never will.

So, yeah, I'll pass on sharing this concern.
 
I actually love low scoring tactical affairs, it's probably due to the fact that I rely heavily on a solid kicking game when I play 10 although I am a lot more adventurous at 9. Open games that end up with both sides scoring 30+ points always feel very cheap to me, although it's probably the way to attract new fans. As for the subs issue, I have to agree completely with Peat there.

Leave rugby alone and, like soccer, different styles of rugby will be dominant at different times as sides copy each other and something new and innovative is brought about, Spain's Tika Taka losing it's dominance to Germany's mechanical style of play for example.
 
I don't really like the phrase "rugby-league defenses" - in reality they are simply defenses... it's just that in the amateur era defense wasn't really organised at all.

What we have now are professional defenses.

Scrum and breakdown need some serious ****ing "refining" though - there are some games (and this comes down to intent mainly) where they simply do not function.
 
What we have now are professional defenses.

And that there is the crux of this.

Whatever we change, or don't change, we will have a number of intelligent, very dedicated men who are free to dedicate their entire working life to exploiting the systems - and have constant access to the players to inform them what needs doing.

We are always going to see really strong defences from now on. Can't be helped.
 
Something that isn't mentioned is that rugby is only getting its first generation of truly professional coaches now. That's coaches who have done their playing and therefore derive all of their knowledge from the pro game. Look at the difference in terms of quality and knowledge of systems between the pundits that are just emerging now to the likes of Guscott - it's night and day. That's only going to be magnified in a coaching situation.

Good defenses have always been easier to put in place than good attacks. It'll come. I don't think that the constant tinkering with the rules helps in that regard.
 
It's easier to defend to a high level than attack. Teams are going to work on applying an incredibly rigid systematic approach to defence first.
There'll be ways to break the rock hard defence we see now. Indeed there are always , always ways to break a team down and exploit space.

That said if the average amount of tries scored in games continues to plummet I think the simple answer is to widen out the pitch by a bit. A stretched defence is an easier one penetrate.
 
At which point they'll come up with something new and so on ad nausem.

Meh... coaches are smart... but I somehow doubt they can change the laws of physics.
The way the scrum and breakdown are reffed ignore very basic physics and bio-mechanics when applying laws (or the laws themselves do not provide the basis which to enforce themselves (loopholes/grey areas))
 
Steve Hansen the All Blacks coach says in an interview in Wales (Daily Telegraph) that he is concerned that the lack of tries in current rugby is going to turn Fans off rugby.

Certainly with the introduction of Rugby League defensive lines, and coaches use of scrums as penalty making machines, he has a point in my way of thinking!!

Instead of gifted centers like Guscott, Bod, Greenwood, we instead get the bish bash bosh centers like Tuilagi, Roberts, Bastereaud. The art of looking for space, in the main, has been left the wrong side of the whitewash in the hope that defenses will keep their line and tire the opposition out which is more difficult due to the prolific use of substitutes. Surely the day of a sub getting to a century of caps is not that far away belittling the achievements of Sella, McCaw and their ilk!!

Is modern rugby becoming a bore fest! Can we do anything to make it more attack orientated? Is Hansen right?


Rugby League defensive lines
Ruck and Maul: The problem here is that the defensive line is flat, while the attacking line is usually back from the hindmost foot. This means the attacking line has very little space to work in, even less if the defence uses a "rush" defence style. The result is that teams use a big man at 12/13 to try to brute-force their way over the advantage line. Defences are also using the tactic of having a single player rushing up ahead of the rest of the defensive line at the 13 to cut off the ball to the wings. I believe one solution to this is to push the offside line at rucks and mauls back from the hindmost foot to 5m behind the hindmost foot.

1. Players would be required to either be bound into the ruck/maul, or 5m back so no more unbound defensive pillars. (exception: one player from each team acting as halfback is allowed; his offside line being the hindmost foot of his own ruck/maul, and he must stay within a metre of the ruck/maul (as in the scrum).

2. A player unbinding from the ruck/maul must either rejoin as he does now (behind the hindmost foot and next to the hindmost player), or retire to the 5m offside line.

3. A player at the 5m offside line may join the ruck/maul provided he does so from directly behind the ruck/maul ("directly behind" meaning that he advances ahead of the 5m offside line within the width of the ruck/maul. If he steps forward outside the width of the ruck/maul, then he is offside.

4. As per the scrum and line-out exceptions, a player may run forward to receive a pass from a ruck/maul.

5. At the moment when the ruck/maul ends, any player who has detached from the ruck maul and has not yet rejoined, or who is in the act of retiring to the offside line, or who is advancing from the offside to join a ruck/maul, remains offside until he runs behind an onside teammate.

NOTE: This is not a new suggestion. Anyone who thinks this is too complicated or unworlkable would be wrong. In 2005, myself and another ex-referee mate got together to organise a trial match. We got two teams of 14/15 year old 2nd XV players at a local school and spent a half hour briefing them on this trial ruck/maul offside law. A current referee was at the briefing and he refereed the match which consisted of 30 minute halves with a brief break half way through the first half for a Q&A session . The kids had no trouble understanding how it worked and the only problem we had was the odd occasion of players acting as pillars and forgetting to retire. It happened less and less as the game went on. and IIRC not at all by the second half. The kids really enjoyed it and said it was a much more open game than they are used to. If teenagers can follow this, then adults ought to be able to.

Scrum & Line-out:
Reduce the depth of the offside lines for the side throwing in.

1. For scrums the offside line for the team throwing in should be the hindmost foot of the No. 8. For the side not throwing in, the offside line should be 5m back from the centreline of the scrum.

2. If the ball is lost by the throwing in team at the scrum, the offside lines swap, so the ball winning team's players can come up to their offside line, and the non-ball winning team have to retire back to theirs (this is what teams often do when a ruck/maul is lost)

3. For line-outs the offside line for the team throwing in should be 5m back from the line of touch, For the side not throwing in, the offside line should be 10m back from the line-of-touch.

4. If the ball is lost by the throwing in team at the line-out, the offside lines swap, so the ball winning team's players can come up to their offside line, and the non-ball winning team have to retire back to theirs.

5. If a ruck or maul forms at a line-out, the ruck/maul offside lines apply.

Use of scrums as penalty making machines
This has become a real blight on the game, needless resets as teams try to gain kickable penalties through scrum ascendency. We need to stop this happening without making the scrum a group hug (like RL scrums)

1. As I suggested in another thread, make all scrum sanctions a penalty that can be kicked to touch for a gain in ground and retention of the throw in but cannot be kicked at goal. This keeps the scrum as a contest, the reward for a dominant scrum being possession and field position, but preventing it from being a points generator.

2. Increase the value of the conversion to 3 points, and reduce the value of the penalty goal to 2 points. This keeps a high value on having a good goal-kicker.

The Australian National Rugby Championship did both of these things very successfully in a trial last season. All the bleating about this being a "cheats charter" never eventuated. Teams that infringed up being punished with 5 or 8 points rather than 3 points.

3. Take away the incentive to get a scrum turnover by wheeling. If a scrum is wheeled, the original team that threw the ball in retains the throw in.
 
Rugby League defensive lines
Ruck and Maul: The problem here is that the defensive line is flat, while the attacking line is usually back from the hindmost foot. This means the attacking line has very little space to work in, even less if the defence uses a "rush" defence style. The result is that teams use a big man at 12/13 to try to brute-force their way over the advantage line. Defences are also using the tactic of having a single player rushing up ahead of the rest of the defensive line at the 13 to cut off the ball to the wings. I believe one solution to this is to push the offside line at rucks and mauls back from the hindmost foot to 5m behind the hindmost foot.

1. Players would be required to either be bound into the ruck/maul, or 5m back so no more unbound defensive pillars. (exception: one player from each team acting as halfback is allowed; his offside line being the hindmost foot of his own ruck/maul, and he must stay within a metre of the ruck/maul (as in the scrum).

2. A player unbinding from the ruck/maul must either rejoin as he does now (behind the hindmost foot and next to the hindmost player), or retire to the 5m offside line.

3. A player at the 5m offside line may join the ruck/maul provided he does so from directly behind the ruck/maul ("directly behind" meaning that he advances ahead of the 5m offside line within the width of the ruck/maul. If he steps forward outside the width of the ruck/maul, then he is offside.

4. As per the scrum and line-out exceptions, a player may run forward to receive a pass from a ruck/maul.

5. At the moment when the ruck/maul ends, any player who has detached from the ruck maul and has not yet rejoined, or who is in the act of retiring to the offside line, or who is advancing from the offside to join a ruck/maul, remains offside until he runs behind an onside teammate.

NOTE: This is not a new suggestion. Anyone who thinks this is too complicated or unworlkable would be wrong. In 2005, myself and another ex-referee mate got together to organise a trial match. We got two teams of 14/15 year old 2nd XV players at a local school and spent a half hour briefing them on this trial ruck/maul offside law. A current referee was at the briefing and he refereed the match which consisted of 30 minute halves with a brief break half way through the first half for a Q&A session . The kids had no trouble understanding how it worked and the only problem we had was the odd occasion of players acting as pillars and forgetting to retire. It happened less and less as the game went on. and IIRC not at all by the second half. The kids really enjoyed it and said it was a much more open game than they are used to. If teenagers can follow this, then adults ought to be able to.

Scrum & Line-out:
Reduce the depth of the offside lines for the side throwing in.

1. For scrums the offside line for the team throwing in should be the hindmost foot of the No. 8. For the side not throwing in, the offside line should be 5m back from the centreline of the scrum.

2. If the ball is lost by the throwing in team at the scrum, the offside lines swap, so the ball winning team's players can come up to their offside line, and the non-ball winning team have to retire back to theirs (this is what teams often do when a ruck/maul is lost)

3. For line-outs the offside line for the team throwing in should be 5m back from the line of touch, For the side not throwing in, the offside line should be 10m back from the line-of-touch.

4. If the ball is lost by the throwing in team at the line-out, the offside lines swap, so the ball winning team's players can come up to their offside line, and the non-ball winning team have to retire back to theirs.

5. If a ruck or maul forms at a line-out, the ruck/maul offside lines apply.

Use of scrums as penalty making machines
This has become a real blight on the game, needless resets as teams try to gain kickable penalties through scrum ascendency. We need to stop this happening without making the scrum a group hug (like RL scrums)

1. As I suggested in another thread, make all scrum sanctions a penalty that can be kicked to touch for a gain in ground and retention of the throw in but cannot be kicked at goal. This keeps the scrum as a contest, the reward for a dominant scrum being possession and field position, but preventing it from being a points generator.

2. Increase the value of the conversion to 3 points, and reduce the value of the penalty goal to 2 points. This keeps a high value on having a good goal-kicker.

The Australian National Rugby Championship did both of these things very successfully in a trial last season. All the bleating about this being a "cheats charter" never eventuated. Teams that infringed up being punished with 5 or 8 points rather than 3 points.

3. Take away the incentive to get a scrum turnover by wheeling. If a scrum is wheeled, the original team that threw the ball in retains the throw in.

Have I ever told you I love you? Because I do!!!!
 
I wonder if there could be a 5 (or so) second 'Use it' call for scrums, whereby if the scrum isn't moving forward noticeably, the sides have to just get on with it. Far too often now you get teams waiting and waiting with the ball in the scrum, hoping they'll get a nudge on. Ultimately the scrum should be seen as a way of getting the ball back into play

Have I ever told you I love you? Because I do!!!!


You give your heart away too easily
 
Steve Hansen the All Blacks coach says in an interview in Wales (Daily Telegraph) that he is concerned that the lack of tries in current rugby is going to turn Fans off rugby.

Certainly with the introduction of Rugby League defensive lines, and coaches use of scrums as penalty making machines, he has a point in my way of thinking!!

Instead of gifted centers like Guscott, Bod, Greenwood, we instead get the bish bash bosh centers like Tuilagi, Roberts, Bastereaud. The art of looking for space, in the main, has been left the wrong side of the whitewash in the hope that defenses will keep their line and tire the opposition out which is more difficult due to the prolific use of substitutes. Surely the day of a sub getting to a century of caps is not that far away belittling the achievements of Sella, McCaw and their ilk!!

Is modern rugby becoming a bore fest! Can we do anything to make it more attack orientated? Is Hansen right?

Agree with most of that, the worst games currently are ones that look like League but with 2 more players and the scrum is now become boring to point were it is damaging the game and the fat lads in the front row will only have themselves to blame is they end up scrapping it, perhaps making it a free kick for Scrum offences intead of a full penalty might just might stop the stupid pantomine that the scrum can be but too many coaches would not want that.

Dont agree that tries=Entertainment though. Soccer is the most popular sport on the planet and games are low scoring for the most part.
 
Rugby League defensive lines
Ruck and Maul: The problem here is that the defensive line is flat, while the attacking line is usually back from the hindmost foot. This means the attacking line has very little space to work in, even less if the defence uses a "rush" defence style. The result is that teams use a big man at 12/13 to try to brute-force their way over the advantage line. Defences are also using the tactic of having a single player rushing up ahead of the rest of the defensive line at the 13 to cut off the ball to the wings. I believe one solution to this is to push the offside line at rucks and mauls back from the hindmost foot to 5m behind the hindmost foot.

1. Players would be required to either be bound into the ruck/maul, or 5m back so no more unbound defensive pillars. (exception: one player from each team acting as halfback is allowed; his offside line being the hindmost foot of his own ruck/maul, and he must stay within a metre of the ruck/maul (as in the scrum).

2. A player unbinding from the ruck/maul must either rejoin as he does now (behind the hindmost foot and next to the hindmost player), or retire to the 5m offside line.

3. A player at the 5m offside line may join the ruck/maul provided he does so from directly behind the ruck/maul ("directly behind" meaning that he advances ahead of the 5m offside line within the width of the ruck/maul. If he steps forward outside the width of the ruck/maul, then he is offside.

4. As per the scrum and line-out exceptions, a player may run forward to receive a pass from a ruck/maul.

5. At the moment when the ruck/maul ends, any player who has detached from the ruck maul and has not yet rejoined, or who is in the act of retiring to the offside line, or who is advancing from the offside to join a ruck/maul, remains offside until he runs behind an onside teammate.

NOTE: This is not a new suggestion. Anyone who thinks this is too complicated or unworlkable would be wrong. In 2005, myself and another ex-referee mate got together to organise a trial match. We got two teams of 14/15 year old 2nd XV players at a local school and spent a half hour briefing them on this trial ruck/maul offside law. A current referee was at the briefing and he refereed the match which consisted of 30 minute halves with a brief break half way through the first half for a Q&A session . The kids had no trouble understanding how it worked and the only problem we had was the odd occasion of players acting as pillars and forgetting to retire. It happened less and less as the game went on. and IIRC not at all by the second half. The kids really enjoyed it and said it was a much more open game than they are used to. If teenagers can follow this, then adults ought to be able to.

Scrum & Line-out:
Reduce the depth of the offside lines for the side throwing in.

1. For scrums the offside line for the team throwing in should be the hindmost foot of the No. 8. For the side not throwing in, the offside line should be 5m back from the centreline of the scrum.

2. If the ball is lost by the throwing in team at the scrum, the offside lines swap, so the ball winning team's players can come up to their offside line, and the non-ball winning team have to retire back to theirs (this is what teams often do when a ruck/maul is lost)

3. For line-outs the offside line for the team throwing in should be 5m back from the line of touch, For the side not throwing in, the offside line should be 10m back from the line-of-touch.

4. If the ball is lost by the throwing in team at the line-out, the offside lines swap, so the ball winning team's players can come up to their offside line, and the non-ball winning team have to retire back to theirs.

5. If a ruck or maul forms at a line-out, the ruck/maul offside lines apply.

Use of scrums as penalty making machines
This has become a real blight on the game, needless resets as teams try to gain kickable penalties through scrum ascendency. We need to stop this happening without making the scrum a group hug (like RL scrums)

1. As I suggested in another thread, make all scrum sanctions a penalty that can be kicked to touch for a gain in ground and retention of the throw in but cannot be kicked at goal. This keeps the scrum as a contest, the reward for a dominant scrum being possession and field position, but preventing it from being a points generator.

2. Increase the value of the conversion to 3 points, and reduce the value of the penalty goal to 2 points. This keeps a high value on having a good goal-kicker.

The Australian National Rugby Championship did both of these things very successfully in a trial last season. All the bleating about this being a "cheats charter" never eventuated. Teams that infringed up being punished with 5 or 8 points rather than 3 points.

3. Take away the incentive to get a scrum turnover by wheeling. If a scrum is wheeled, the original team that threw the ball in retains the throw in.

Although most of it makes sense sat reading it on a PC would adding those rules simply make the game even more complex and harder to ref?
 
I would say that moving the offside line back by 5m will make it even more like Rugby League as you essentially get closer to a 10m stand off.

For what it's worth a flat aggressive defence can be countered by gaining forward momentum through pick and goes and using pods to get over the gain line - once a defence is retreating it is harder for them to get off the line in a rush style.,
 
I would say that moving the offside line back by 5m will make it even more like Rugby League as you essentially get closer to a 10m stand off.

For what it's worth a flat aggressive defence can be countered by gaining forward momentum through pick and goes and using pods to get over the gain line - once a defence is retreating it is harder for them to get off the line in a rush style.,

I agree with this. If you want to manipulate a defence into creating space it's possible. But its also very easy for a defensive side to have one man chop and one hit high and completely stand off defensive rucks giving themselves 13 men to defend the entire pitch even a full 15 if they are bothered getting up quickly enough.

The more I think the more I reckon disciplined and fresh defences are next to impossible to break down at the top level without either majestic creativity or disgracefully patient build up and ball retention.
I don't like the idea of the men having to retreat five metres whatsoever though. If a team want to counter ruck in a moment of oppertunisim it will either have to be a half back doing so or a forward will have to carreer in from 5m away. Lads will just continue to stand off rucks and fan out to defend space reverting to the original issue.

I think there is definitely a case to be made for a wider pitch.
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Top