The Andre de Waal High Kicks Theorem

[Andre de Waal]

Preamble: As with any other team ball sport, possession is the critical success factor in Rugby.

In no other ball sport, where the objective is to score goals, tries or touchdowns, does a team intentionally kick or strike the ball to/at the opposition in the hopes of retrieving it.
Observation: The Box Kick, or "Garry Owen" Up-and-Under high kick tends to be utilized when a team's conventional attacking tactics with ball in hand are ineffective or continue to prove unsuccessful.
While widely touted as an attacking strategy, a High Kick de facto instantly transforms ball possession from Certainty to Chance (hence the recently introduced term "contestable").

THEOREM: The instant the ball leaves the kicker's boot, the attacking team's Ball Possession is immediately modified from a guaranteed 100% possession to a Possession Probability of 1 in 2 (50%).
This Possession Probability can be further adversely affected by the following variables:
- The height, distance and accuracy of the kick
- The wind speed
- The attacking team's charge-down ability
- The defending team's blocking strategy
- The relevant players' speed and challenging ability

André de Waal
George, South Africa
23 Oct 2023

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

In no other ball sport, where the objective is to score goals, tries or touchdowns, does a team intentionally kick or strike the ball to/at the opposition in the hopes of retrieving it.

The above, for starters, is absolutely not true. I could go on and on but let me give the simplest example: football (soccer). It happens every day, in every corner of the planet, from 7-year-olds playing interschool tournaments in Malaysia to UCL knock-out games. It's just not true.

Regarding the theorem, there are a few problems with your theorem, but the main ones are
- you do not account for the fact that distance from the ball to the goal line is a critical factor with regards to scoring. Sometimes possession is worth gold, but sometimes territory is worth even more. It is quite circumstantial,
- you appear to be considering this only from an offensive point of view. That is a mistake. In rugby you can go forward (closer to your op's goal line ) defending and giving away possession.
- the probability of retrieving the ball might very well not be 50%. If you decide when and where to kick you could easily alter that. If you have a good kicker, someone good in the air, and notice a weakness in your opposition back 3 you could very well tweak that stat to your advantage and exploit it.

 

[die_mole]

ice hockey has the dump and chase and soccer has the kick and press.
Basketball, gridiron, and league are probably the only sports of this kind where it doesn't happen and that's because possession is limited in some fashion.

 

[Andre de Waal]

Thanks for the feedback, much appreciated. However, the premise of the Theorem is irrefutable - the moment you kick a high ball (even if you are alone on the field), there is no 100% guarantee that you will gather/retrieve it cleanly. The CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTOR addressed in this Theorem is POSSESSION, not territory. (By the way, I played both soccer and rugby all my school and club years. When in possession, I never kicked the ball to/at the opposition hoping to win back possession. Territory is another matter.)
Also, I did list all the variants affecting the Possession Probability.
My motive for posting this Theorem arose out of sheer frustration. I am South African, and while I am pleased that the Springboks retained the 2023 World Cup, I am not proud of the way in which they did it. One respected SA rugby pundit publicly stated that kicking (high) is "embedded in the Springboks' DNA". Well then, best they acquire some retrieving DNA as well! Another pundit stated that the Springboks use a "beautiful brutality".
So, in my view, the simplistic strategy of the Springboks in the last 2 World Cups (certainly in the final games) has been to kick high ("DNA") and then go and scrap for it using "beautiful brutality", primarily by the forwards, leaving a talented backline to do more defending than attacking. Very, very frustrating!
By the way, Cruz-del-Sur, I did state ball sports. Ice hockey?

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

the moment you kick a high ball (even if you are alone on the field), there is no 100% guarantee that you will gather/retrieve it cleanly.

That is precisely not the point. Nothing in this game is 100%, exactly why you play the odds that you consider most favorable considering factors like your team's specifics, opposition, situation, etc. All things you are not considering.
In a nutshell, you are analysis gives a ridiculous weight to possession and very little to territory and effectiveness.

 

[Everyday EggChaser]

The actual term is invasion games not ball sports. The idea is to get into the oppo territory and create scoring opportunities, not play keep away with the ball. At least that was what we were taught by Phil Davies the current director of rugby at world rugby.

Its all great having the majority of possession but if you're pinned in your 22 constantly due to a good kicking game there's not a lot you can do. Defenses are too good to run everything from deep and the amount of energy wasted by having ruck after ruck after ruck would just kill players legs.

 

[Andre de Waal]

The actual term is invasion games not ball sports. The idea is to get into the oppo territory and create scoring opportunities, not play keep away with the ball. At least that was what we were taught by Phil Davies the current director of rugby at world rugby.

Its all great having the majority of possession but if you're pinned in your 22 constantly due to a good kicking game there's not a lot you can do. Defenses are too good to run everything from deep and the amount of energy wasted by having ruck after ruck after ruck would just kill players legs.

 

[Andre de Waal]

...and that's why touch kicks (with distance) or long kicks are more effective than high kicks. All too often I have seen high kicks converted into points by the opposition. And high kicks from your 22 do not result in "getting into the oppo territory" creating scoring opportunities.
It's interesting to analyse a game to see how many high kicks actually result in successful retrieval and attack by the kicking team.
My last point is that the All Blacks as an example are very effective at sustained ball retention (repeated phases) until such time as an attacking opportunity presents itself.
In a simplistic nutshell, to score a try you have the ball in hand - if you kick it in the sky, you don't.

 

[Everyday EggChaser]

...and that's why touch kicks (with distance) or long kicks are more effective than high kicks. All too often I have seen high kicks converted into points by the opposition. And high kicks from your 22 do not result in "getting into the oppo territory" creating scoring opportunities.
It's interesting to analyse a game to see how many high kicks actually result in successful retrieval and attack by the kicking team.
My last point is that the All Blacks as an example are very effective at sustained ball retention (repeated phases) until such time as an attacking opportunity presents itself.
In a simplistic nutshell, to score a try you have the ball in hand - if you kick it in the sky, you don't.

I did as part of my university degree and the all blacks would do successive box kicks down the touchline to keep the defence turning and facing the wrong way and the resulting clearance kick from the oppo team would result in what we call a net gain in the pro circles. The all blacks would box kick turnovers then regather and box kick again, They had an amazing kick chasing game and its been proven multiple times they kicked the ball more than most teams. They just had the ability and smarts to make it work for them. I have literally seen the data with my own eyes as our course lead was the head of analysis for Namibia during the 2015 world cup.

You are right. You need the ball, but I am also right as you need the territory and with defences so good now a tactical attacking kicking game is absolutely necessary ie kicks with the intent to compete and put the catcher under pressure forcing mistakes. Its a percentage game in the modern time and anyway you can exert that you need to as the mistakes that come with pressure cause the opportunities to make plays to score.

This is so much fun, you make me miss my uni days

 

[Andre de Waal]

I did as part of my university degree and the all blacks would do successive box kicks down the touchline to keep the defence turning and facing the wrong way and the resulting clearance kick from the oppo team would result in what we call a net gain in the pro circles. The all blacks would box kick turnovers then regather and box kick again, They had an amazing kick chasing game and its been proven multiple times they kicked the ball more than most teams. They just had the ability and smarts to make it work for them. I have literally seen the data with my own eyes as our course lead was the head of analysis for Namibia during the 2015 world cup.

You are right. You need the ball, but I am also right as you need the territory and with defences so good now a tactical attacking kicking game is absolutely necessary ie kicks with the intent to compete and put the catcher under pressure forcing mistakes. Its a percentage game in the modern time and anyway you can exert that you need to as the mistakes that come with pressure cause the opportunities to make plays to score.

This is so much fun, you make me miss my uni days

Thanks EE Great discourse! I FULLY understand and appreciate your points about territorial advantage and the percentage game.
To me tactical box kicks do indeed turn the opposition (Pat Lambie (Sharks) single-handedly hammered W Province in one Curry Cup Final with continued "dinks" over the oppo backline). However, continued aimless(?) high kicks (a la Springboks, very predictable) very often result in possession turnover if the kicking team isn't sufficiently capable of fulfilling your:

the intent to compete and put the catcher under pressure forcing mistakes.

So, apart from all the discussions about territory (perhaps I shouldn't have posted a preamble , and very definitely your points regarding pressurizing mistakes), the Theorem in its simplest form remains irrefutable in terms of Possession.

 

[Scotty]

Preamble: As with any other team ball sport, possession is the critical success factor in Rugby.

In no other ball sport, where the objective is to score goals, tries or touchdowns, does a team intentionally kick or strike the ball to/at the opposition in the hopes of retrieving it.
Observation: The Box Kick, or "Garry Owen" Up-and-Under high kick tends to be utilized when a team's conventional attacking tactics with ball in hand are ineffective or continue to prove unsuccessful.
While widely touted as an attacking strategy, a High Kick de facto instantly transforms ball possession from Certainty to Chance (hence the recently introduced term "contestable").

THEOREM: The instant the ball leaves the kicker's boot, the attacking team's Ball Possession is immediately modified from a guaranteed 100% possession to a Possession Probability of 1 in 2 (50%).
This Possession Probability can be further adversely affected by the following variables:
- The height, distance and accuracy of the kick
- The wind speed
- The attacking team's charge-down ability
- The defending team's blocking strategy
- The relevant players' speed and challenging ability

André de Waal
George, South Africa
23 Oct 2023

If a player kicks the ball is it 50/50. lose possession but gain territory or regain with territory.

But keeping the ball isnt 100% guarenteed, as if you dont kick it you have to do something with it, pass, take contact you could just as easily drop the ball, pass foward, throw an intercept pass. How is any of this 100% and if you do anything you dont always gain territory, so your risking the ball in your half for no guarenteed gain.

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

High kicks serve two purposes though, firstly adds pressure to the opposition to catch and potentially knock the ball on (we all know how SA love a scrum) so this could be a great attacking option for them to get points on the board.

And secondly to avoid giving a penalty away. We've seen the stats, teams often give penalties away after a certain amount of phases etc etc. so if you are going know where in attack, then surely it's a positive to avoid giving a penalty away and put pressure on the opposition.

 

[Andre de Waal]

Thanks for the input guys, really appreciate it. I must repeat, as I stated previously, that the posting of the Theorem was borne out of sheer frustration with the Springboks' one-dimensional, Forwards-orientated strategy.
I do understand and appreciate all the nuances of territory and the "mistake pressurizing" of the modern game (thanks EE!), but the Springboks' lack of varied tactics, e.g. an expansive (wide) attack using the backline, seem to have been long forgotten. (It's almost as if there is no confidence in an exceptionally talented backline).
Maybe I'm just old-fashioned but watching other teams like the All Blacks and Les Bleus move the ball around from hand-to-hand in sustained attack, retaining possession, is a rugby joy to behold!

 

[BPM]

If a player kicks the ball is it 50/50. lose possession but gain territory or regain with territory.

But keeping the ball isnt 100% guarenteed, as if you dont kick it you have to do something with it, pass, take contact you could just as easily drop the ball, pass foward, throw an intercept pass. How is any of this 100% and if you do anything you dont always gain territory, so your risking the ball in your half for no guarenteed gain.

Exactly. A good defence can definitely make the team in position go backwards with the ball. Even if you keep the ball, a team can keep closing you down and pushing you back behind the gain line. A few phases of that and you've probably lost 15-20m. A very low % chance of a miracle break is probably the only way out. Alternatively, you recognise you're going backwards, kick and give yourself a 50%+ chance of regaining the ball 20-30m further up the pitch. Tactically, that's a no brainer.

 

[Scotty]

Exactly. A good defence can definitely make the team in position go backwards with the ball. Even if you keep the ball, a team can keep closing you down and pushing you back behind the gain line. A few phases of that and you've probably lost 15-20m. A very low % chance of a miracle break is probably the only way out. Alternatively, you recognise you're going backwards, kick and give yourself a 50%+ chance of regaining the ball 20-30m further up the pitch. Tactically, that's a no brainer.

Put say Chiefs vs Falcon, chiefs will grind a push teams back or be comfortable in keeping possession to get a chance to go wide when as Falcons(used as the current bottom team) would be the opposite and not make ground or gaps and end up being forced to kick.

The whole theorem is pointless as it ignores key parts of the game as earning the right to do anything. Ability of individual/team in attack/kick chance. Kicking to compete with say Steward compared to say Hodge,

 

[Andre de Waal]

Thanks for all the input, really appreciated. I have repeatedly stated my motive for posting this Theorem. Please note that I did list the variables which affect possession recovery probability. The Theorem is not pointless: In a nutshell, if you kick the ball in the air, you don't have it anymore.
My frustration remains with a one-dimensional strategy (a la Springboks, of high-kicks, even on attack) and a lack of DIVERSE tactics, e.g. retaining that 100% possession and playing the ball wide, or at the very least cross-field kicks, dinks/grubbers to turn the backline, and/or deep kicks for territorial advantage, which keep the opposition guessing.
Any opposition team against the Springboks in a high-pressure game knows exactly what to expect: A forwards-oriented match (6/2 or even 7/1 bench split), and lots of high kicks resulting in repeated challenges for possession, with at the very least a 50% chance (thanks for the validation BPM!) of overturning possession.
And, of course, EVERYTHING relies on a kicker's ability and consistency (the most important Theorem variable (Rider)).

 

[Pontefractious]

Thanks for the feedback, much appreciated. However, the premise of the Theorem is irrefutable - the moment you kick a high ball (even if you are alone on the field), there is no 100% guarantee that you will gather/retrieve it cleanly. The CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTOR addressed in this Theorem is POSSESSION, not territory. (By the way, I played both soccer and rugby all my school and club years. When in possession, I never kicked the ball to/at the opposition hoping to win back possession. Territory is another matter.)
Also, I did list all the variants affecting the Possession Probability.
My motive for posting this Theorem arose out of sheer frustration. I am South African, and while I am pleased that the Springboks retained the 2023 World Cup, I am not proud of the way in which they did it. One respected SA rugby pundit publicly stated that kicking (high) is "embedded in the Springboks' DNA". Well then, best they acquire some retrieving DNA as well! Another pundit stated that the Springboks use a "beautiful brutality".
So, in my view, the simplistic strategy of the Springboks in the last 2 World Cups (certainly in the final games) has been to kick high ("DNA") and then go and scrap for it using "beautiful brutality", primarily by the forwards, leaving a talented backline to do more defending than attacking. Very, very frustrating!
By the way, Cruz-del-Sur, I did state ball sports. Ice hockey?

You have just redefined the theorem. Your original definition held that upon execution of the kick, possession stops being 100% certainty and becomes a 50% certainty. You have modified that definition so that possession stops being a 100% certainty. And you omit an important dynamic - forward motion. In kicking the ball you are sacrificing percentage probability of possession in return for a gain in forward motion. In the form of rugby played today, if you retain possession the largest probability is that you will tackled with little or no forward motion gain. It is unfortunately the most frequent outcome which is one of the reasons why rugby today is so boring. The second largest probability is that you will find sufficient room to initiate a passing movement, but these are usually short lived because of the lack of an effective off-side rule and the inability of any player to execute a decent pass (look at some rugby film from the 60s and you will see what I mean). So 90% of the time you are back with a tackle and a ruck (see probability one). If you kick the ball there is a high probability of forward motion but a concomitant reduction in the probability of future possession. Ability instantly to assess field status and calculate these probabilities is an important skill in the game.

 

[Andre de Waal]

Hi Pontefractious, thanks for the observation. I haven't redefined the Theorem, I simply recognized the input from "modern game" pundits who argue in favour of high kicks for territory and pressurizing for mistakes as well as your dynamic of "forward motion". The Theorem holds absolutely true in terms of Possession, as perfectly elucidated in your second last sentence (sometimes there is no forward motion, thanks to the kicker!). My point is that coaches and players (where your last point most certainly applies) should diversify strategy and tactics and recognize that as soon as the ball is kicked high, the Theorem applies. And you can't score a try if you don't have the ball.
You mention that "rugby today is so boring" - Imagine being a Springbok supporter and watching a high-pressure game. I KNOW before the game starts - high kick after high kick, continuous scrapping for possession, primarily by the forwards, and a talented backline which seldom, if ever, gets the chance to attack with ball in hand.

 

[dirty harry]

The issue I'm having with this discussion is twofold...

1. Why are you obsessed with possession. The history of rugby union has proved over and over that possession isnt important. For decades NZ dominated with 40% odd posession, constantly scoring tries from transition from turnover ball. As the game has changed, SA have adapted to negative breakdown law changes for attacking teams, and now evade risk at the breakdown by kicking more. In both cases, posession isnt important.

2. Your whole premise is propagated on the tact that tries win games, this hasnt been the same for a long time.
Pressure wins games, keeping the scoreboard ticking over wins games, and penalties are the easiest low risk way to do that in the modern game.

So I would ask, why is box kicking the ball and going from 100% posession (for a few seconds, while in the ruck, and reducing to maybe 90% when making a pass or carry) to 50/50 in a much better area of the field less important when the alternative outcomes are almost all negative.

Let's use a favourable scenario for your theorum, a ruck on the 15m on halfway. Let's ignore the context of score, so its 0-0, and the context of game management so its 8 minutes in. Let's also ignore context of mismatch (1 team having a strong defence, 1 team having a weak wider attack) so let's say it is England vs England. Also lets ignore exterior factors, like crowd or ref tendancies, so Barnes is reffing and its behind closed doors, and finally let's take fatigue out of the question also.

your theorum suggests that keeping ball is more favourable than kicking it, but let's look at possible outcomes...

1. Box kick to the 22m, you either retain posession or lose posession in multiple ways.
In this scenario there is very little risk, even giving for mistakes of kicking too long, calling a 22, or kicking short. The worst outcomes are a 22, scrum to defend on opposition 22, or the minuscule % of a counter attack.

2. Use the forward pods. Posession is kept, but still on half way, best case scenario 4/5m higher up pitch. The % of mistake at the resulting ruck increases, and further increases with every ruck. Attacking teams go 7 phases at best 5/6 times per game. That's usually a 12% rate of getting to phase 7. So you have a 12% chance of NOT turning over ball on your half way.

3. You go outside 10. This is the highest risk play, despite the highest % of retaining ball. Balls get to 13 using 3 passes better than 3 forwards carrying into 3 rucks. However the turnover rate outside 12 is 3 times higher.

So, in our favourable scenario, the lowest risk smartest play is the kick, it eliminates the risk of conceding a kickable pen, a high % turnover, but not only that of the other 2 options the 2nd smartest play is the lower % attainable posession.

If we then add the other factors like defensive strategies, ref tendancies, skill execution under fatigue, context of the score board etc, they all pretty much add to the theory that kicking is the lowest risk play.

So to conclude, trying to win a game ball in hand is the easiest way to lose score board equity, and put pressure on yourself and force higher risk plays. Like a black Jack player asking to hit on 17 when the dealer has 5 showing, why would you risk those odds for glory?


As we have just witnessed, not losing the scoreboard is far more Important than trying to win, not only SA's recent victories by a mere point on breakdown turnovers, but Fijis revival playing smart and not fancy, every Warren Gatland win ever, Saracens dominance in England, La Rochelles recent upward curve.


The fundamental misunderstanding that posession wins games is pivotal here, posession doesnt win games, pressure does, and pressure can be exerted in a myriad of ways.

 

[Andre de Waal]

Hi DH, thanks for the detailed explanation.
My "possession obsession" stems from the fact that a team can apply Pressure all game long, but it can't score points (changing "score board equity") without the ball (infringement penalties, usually resulting from Pressure, result in Possession Recovery - a perfect example is the Springboks winning scrum penalties (recovering Possession), which they usually convert. Quite simply, you can't score if you don't have the ball.
As I said before, maybe I'm just old-fashioned, but to see a backline in attack with the ball in hand is a rugby joy to behold. If you compare the Boks vs All Blacks pre WC Friendly to the WC Final, the strategies were completely different - in the Friendly, the Boks played the ball wide, ran in tries and won by a record margin. In the WC Final, same old, same old, predictable high-kick strategy, where Possession is subject to the Theorem.