Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Rugby Union
The Rugby Championship 2023
Romain Poite's credibility
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="smartcooky" data-source="post: 738162" data-attributes="member: 20605"><p>The reason we have such complicated Laws is because one of the game's guiding principles is that the ball is contestable at every stage of the game; line-out, scrum, maul, ruck, tackle, loose on the ground and in the air. As a result, the Laws have to define ways to make that contest a fair one. In that context, the Laws around the breakdown are both delicate and vital; they are prone to unwanted in-game consequences if the Lawmakers don't get the balance right. </p><p></p><p>If the breakdown Laws allow turnovers to be gained too easily, the result will be that coaches will instruct their players not to take the ball into contact for fear of losing possession. They reason that if there is a 50/50 ir worse chance of losing the ball at the tackle, then they might as well give it away in a more advantageous field position by kicking it a long way downfield, or by bombing the opposition and having a contest in their territory. This is what happened in 2009, when <em>"aerial ping-pong"</em> became a key tactic. Teams were winning matches with less possession, less passing, less running metres, less clean breaks and more kicking. It was not uncommon to see 100 to 120 kicks in play in a game, most of them just aimlessly belted downfield. These days about 40 - 50 kicks is more common, and <em>"force-back"</em> is far less common.</p><p></p><p>If the breakdown Laws make it very difficult or near impossible to turn the ball over, then there is no benefit in contesting possession at all as the risk of giving away a penalty for a breakdown infringement is not compensated for by the reward of winning possession. The coaches reason that it is better to <em>"line the trenches"</em> and defend in the hope of dislodging the ball with a big hit, or ripping the ball out, or failing that, using a choke tackle to keep the ball off the ground and win a maul turnover. The consequence of this is that we end up with the<em> "trench warfare"</em> style of play, where teams send just a couple of players to the breakdown, and the rest flood the midfield with defenders, making it a struggle for attackers to get the ball over the advantage line. We get <em>"shuffle-ball"</em> where the two teams play the game in the meddle half of the field.</p><p></p><p>Simplifying the laws while maintaining the contest would not be a trivial task. Of course, we could always do away with the contest for the ball; then we might as well drop two players off the scrum and play the ball.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="smartcooky, post: 738162, member: 20605"] The reason we have such complicated Laws is because one of the game's guiding principles is that the ball is contestable at every stage of the game; line-out, scrum, maul, ruck, tackle, loose on the ground and in the air. As a result, the Laws have to define ways to make that contest a fair one. In that context, the Laws around the breakdown are both delicate and vital; they are prone to unwanted in-game consequences if the Lawmakers don't get the balance right. If the breakdown Laws allow turnovers to be gained too easily, the result will be that coaches will instruct their players not to take the ball into contact for fear of losing possession. They reason that if there is a 50/50 ir worse chance of losing the ball at the tackle, then they might as well give it away in a more advantageous field position by kicking it a long way downfield, or by bombing the opposition and having a contest in their territory. This is what happened in 2009, when [I]"aerial ping-pong"[/I] became a key tactic. Teams were winning matches with less possession, less passing, less running metres, less clean breaks and more kicking. It was not uncommon to see 100 to 120 kicks in play in a game, most of them just aimlessly belted downfield. These days about 40 - 50 kicks is more common, and [I]"force-back"[/I] is far less common. If the breakdown Laws make it very difficult or near impossible to turn the ball over, then there is no benefit in contesting possession at all as the risk of giving away a penalty for a breakdown infringement is not compensated for by the reward of winning possession. The coaches reason that it is better to [I]"line the trenches"[/I] and defend in the hope of dislodging the ball with a big hit, or ripping the ball out, or failing that, using a choke tackle to keep the ball off the ground and win a maul turnover. The consequence of this is that we end up with the[I] "trench warfare"[/I] style of play, where teams send just a couple of players to the breakdown, and the rest flood the midfield with defenders, making it a struggle for attackers to get the ball over the advantage line. We get [I]"shuffle-ball"[/I] where the two teams play the game in the meddle half of the field. Simplifying the laws while maintaining the contest would not be a trivial task. Of course, we could always do away with the contest for the ball; then we might as well drop two players off the scrum and play the ball. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rugby Union
The Rugby Championship 2023
Romain Poite's credibility
Top