The Kicking problem

[smartcooky]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jethro @ Aug 28 2009, 07:41 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (smartcooky @ Aug 26 2009, 01:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jethro @ Aug 26 2009, 02:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

To add to the list, if the ref shots his arm out for an advantage and some numb nuts then proceeds to bollock a shot at goal, then advantage over.[/b]

Its not as simple as that.

[/b][/quote]

Actually it is, the current DG ******** is certainly an awesome advertisement for the game for the non rugby casual viewer, similar to those hollywood flops the wendy ballers persist in making. Neither does their respective sports any good and it simply looks naff. You took your advantage by having a snap at goal, why should a completely bollocked play get what is seen as rewarded (as my wife asked me after a particular horrid example last year). The idea of advantage is you try to take, oh I don't know, advantage of the situation knowing you have the penalty in the bank, not simply doing something dire to immediatly take the penalty.

Test match rugby isn't exactly inundating us with tries and classy plays currently, judging from this year's T3. Okay the last one was intense and nail biting, but try sitting through a second viewing .. don't get me started on what ever the hell the Saffas are currently doing, it makes the Waratahs look like they are playing an exciting brand of rugby.

Kicking should be a tactic no the only tactic.

[/b][/quote]

I was just explaining the Advantage Law, but I do agree with you. Kicking has become the tactic of choice, almost the only game it town, especially mindless, aimless kick and hope. It is destroying the game.

It began with the 2007 RWC final (note - that was PRE ELV's!!!) where there were nearly 100 kicks in play over the 80 minutes, most of them aimless up-and-unders (or Garryowens or bombs, whatever you want to call them). The South Africans basically won the World Cup final by simply kicking the ball in the air for 80 minutes and capitalising on five errors by England. The Poms were only able to capitalise on two errors by the Saffas. That's one aimless kick about every 50 seconds. It was the worst possible advertisement for Rugby Union in a match that should have been an international showcase for The Game.

The whole reason for this boring and interminable kickfest is not the ELVs as some would have you believe (it began well before then) but its the appalling shambles at the breakdown. Working out which team will be penalised at the breakdown has become such a lottery, that most teams have become unwilling to play with the ball in their own half or within kicking range, so they kick the ball away. It has almost become better to NOT have the ball at all in your own half.

I have examined the video of all the penalties from which goals were kicked in the Sydney Bledisloe match. Most of the decisions were correct; what Kaplan penalised was actually happening. The problem is that there were other offences taking place on both sides that could equally have attracted a penalty as well. A different referee might have chosen to penalise those other things instead. As I said, it has become a lottery.

 

[Blindside6]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (smartcooky @ Aug 27 2009, 11:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

I was just explaining the Advantage Law, but I do agree with you. Kicking has become the tactic of choice, almost the only game it town, especially mindless, aimless kick and hope. It is destroying the game.

It began with the 2007 RWC final (note - that was PRE ELV's!!!) where there were nearly 100 kicks in play over the 80 minutes, most of them aimless up-and-unders (or Garryowens or bombs, whatever you want to call them). The South Africans basically won the World Cup final by simply kicking the ball in the air for 80 minutes and capitalising on five errors by England. The Poms were only able to capitalise on two errors by the Saffas. That's one aimless kick about every 50 seconds. It was the worst possible advertisement for Rugby Union in a match that should have been an international showcase for The Game.

The whole reason for this boring and interminable kickfest is not the ELVs as some would have you believe (it began well before then) but its the appalling shambles at the breakdown. Working out which team will be penalised at the breakdown has become such a lottery, that most teams have become unwilling to play with the ball in their own half or within kicking range, so they kick the ball away. It has almost become better to NOT have the ball at all in your own half.

I have examined the video of all the penalties from which goals were kicked in the Sydney Bledisloe match. Most of the decisions were correct; what Kaplan penalised was actually happening. The problem is that there were other offences taking place on both sides that could equally have attracted a penalty as well. A different referee might have chosen to penalise those other things instead. As I said, it has become a lottery.[/b]

It's a pity I'm not allowed to rep you for this post. You've got it spot on, everyone blames the ELVs for the amount of kicking but it was creeping into the game before them. I saw the Wales v Argentina game before the RWC and Argentina were using the high kick to space as a tactic then, far more than was normal. The IRB needs to take a hard look at the breakdown and simplify what arriving plyers are permitted to do to make it easier to referee. There seems to be an overwhelming desire to 'speed up' the game, sometimes at the expense of common sense.

 

[Nickdnz]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gingergenius @ Aug 28 2009, 06:50 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

There isn't a kicking problem.

Rugby Union is a code of football. As such, I should expect there to be a fair amount of kicking. The fact that the standard of kicking is poor; or that there is more used than there used to be; is down to players and coaches. There is no need for loads of new laws - we've just seen a big bunch of laws trialled and they mostly did not work.

The problem in fact with this year's Tri-Nations is that South Africa's style of play has forced the lesser teams in Aus and NZ to play more conservatively. So they've kicked more. As it happens, they were employing these tactics 1) behind a beaten pack, 2) with a rubbish lineout and 3) with a stand off who is not up to it (Donald) or one who had a bad day (Giteau).

We saw in last Saturday's game that when there is no-one exerting the sort of pressure that the Boks can from 1-8, then there's room more a much more open and exciting game.

'Kicking' is being used as a distraction from the fact that the real reason there was little genuine excitement before last week's game was because South Africa were too good and the format of the Tri-Nations is too drawn out.[/b]

Disagreed. Rugby, is a ball in hand sport. Kicking is fine if it is to the advantage of the kicking team, as long as it allows room for other tactics, which the way the current game is playing it dosn't. As smartcooky pointed out, having the ball is too risky these days, that to get rid of it as fast as possible, and hope for a mistake from the other team, is one of the only working tactics. The other problem with the break downs, is that it no longer requires most of the forward pack to be there, as having too many players at a break down will often result in penalties. Which means that you have props standing in mid field. This new defence everyone talks about is not an improvment in tactics, it is simply there are now 5 men making it to the breakdown, and 10 men on defence, which will obviously make running with the ball much harder. If the breakdown rules ment more people had to enter the break down, and the ruck was less heavily enforced, it would clear room for running rugby, which is what people want to watch, and players usually want to play.

 

[Zambaman]

I find the suggestion of allowing players to take marks pretty much all over the field as a way of reducing kicks to be pretty ironic. You read about some of the really old games where you could take a mark anywhere on the field and there was even more kicking (e.g. you'd take a mark then go for a drop goal). So I don't think that's the solution.

 

[DonBilly]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Zambaman @ Aug 29 2009, 11:51 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

I find the suggestion of allowing players to take marks pretty much all over the field as a way of reducing kicks to be pretty ironic. You read about some of the really old games where you could take a mark anywhere on the field and there was even more kicking (e.g. you'd take a mark then go for a drop goal). So I don't think that's the solution.[/b]

The Aussie Rules players could switch to Rugby...

 

[smartcooky]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Zambaman @ Aug 29 2009, 09:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

I find the suggestion of allowing players to take marks pretty much all over the field as a way of reducing kicks to be pretty ironic. You read about some of the really old games where you could take a mark anywhere on the field and there was even more kicking (e.g. you'd take a mark then go for a drop goal). So I don't think that's the solution.[/b]

Obviously you cannot read.

No one has suggested that.

 

[Melhor Time]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (smartcooky @ Aug 26 2009, 07:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

MT

Don't get me wrong. The Top 14 IS a very good competition and I do watch the occasional match. The play is uncompromising and you cannot question the intensity, although the skill level (IMO) seems a little lacking at times. Also, it almost appears to be two divisions in one. There seems to be a greater disparity between the top and bottom teams in Top14 than in say the S14 or the ANZC. I'm sure you will be able to quote matches that buck that trend, but from what I have seen, Top 14 and Pro-D2 (16 teams) would almost seem to more naturally divide into three divisions of 10 (so Top 14, ProD2 and ProD3)

However, for me, the main reason I am not so interested and therefore don't watch it regularly, is THAT I HAVE NO STAKE IN THE OUTCOME. I hardly even know where some of the teams are located. I could easily stick a pin on a blank map of France for Paris, Toulouse, Biarritz, Brive and Perpignan, but I couldn't for Agen, Narbonne, Albi, Montauban, Montpellier or Castres. Having lots of players from various countries is interesting, but its not enough to get me about of bed at 3am - 6am to watch.

I have often felt that having a few foreign players playing in the ANZC would add interest. Players with the obvious skills of Ben Gollings (Tasman) and Francisco Bosch (Manawatu) really added value to that competition when they were here, but I'm not sure I would want to see the same in Super 14. We have fourteen ANZC teams, so there is room for foreign players, but we only have five Super 14 teams so not a lot of room there.[/b]

The coverage of the Currie Cup on French rugby websites is all about Juan Martin Hernandez and the man making news from the 3N is Dan Carter.

In terms of the comp being two divisions it looks a lot more competitive than last season. After three rounds the results bare very hard to predict. Some amazing upsets already. No team has won all three matches. Don't worry about getting out of bed. Just tape the games!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thingimubob @ Aug 26 2009, 07:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

So in other words people should stop watching International Rugby because there are only the players from 2 Countries are on the pitch, and watch Top 14/other leagues because there are many? :huh: That really makes no sense.
International Rugby is the pinnacle of our sport, and yes there have been some boring games recently on the International Stage recently, but you can't really say none of the Top 14 (or any other league) games haven't been either. I saw a fair bit of Toulon v Stade Francais (22 - 22 all draw) nd there was a lot of kicking going on in that, so you can't really say the Top 14 in better on that front. International Tournaments and Club leagues are two very different things, so it's a bit daft to attempt to compare them.[/b]

The point is that a test match has two teams involved and is thus or prime interest to people of these two countries and secondary interest to others. Australia vs South Africa is not as interesting to Smartcooky as Australia vs New Zealand because, in his own words, he ''has no stake in the game". This is precisely my point in referencing Bayonne vs Stade Francais. The number of test teams represented was larger. Again, Juan Martin Hernandez is not French but dominated the Top 14 for a number of seasons and so now the French media are continuing to follow his career even though he is in South Africa. The point, should therefore be clear of the wonders that club rugby can do for the game. Test rugby is 10 games per year. Exposing more players from more places is doing wonders for the sport. A player plays towards 40 games per year. French clubs having so many elite players from Italy, France, England, Argentina, Fiji, Scotland and elsewhere is wonderful.

Should people watch the Top 14 instead of South Africa vs Australia? No, of course not. People will continue to watch whatever is relevant to them. It just so happens that the Top 14 is so cosmopolitan now that it has players from all World Cup 2007 countries and every game is packed with test players. Funnilly rnoguh this also means that many Top 14 games provide reasons for many countries to be interested as so many teams elite players are involved. Is there any wonder the competition is booming? Or that Bayonne were able to get 30,000 to a game in Spain? The thing about international rugby is that it is hard to see multiple teams. Argentina not being in the Tri Nations is so embarrassing. It is truely pathetic. Fiji should be there based on rugby's results over recent years. They only got to play South Africa in a World Cup quarter final.

So, in terms of test rugby being the pinnacle the reality is that for most teams they play little test rugby and often meaningless test rugby. Aside from the 3N and the 6N what is in it for others? Argentina hav only 1 home test this year, yes only one. Their fans getting to see Leguizamon, Roncero and Pedro Ledesma today vs Todeschini (SF Paris vs Montpellier) carries a lot of significance, does it not? The same game had France's two flyhalves, Beauxis and Trinh-Duc playing head to head and had the 6N battle of Haskell vs Ouredraogo too. A test second row of Pape / Palmer for SF and Italian winger Bergamasco was there too as was Samoan prop Taleafoa and others from England, Australia and South Africa. Aussie Mark Gasnier played well. So, indeed, yes test rugby is the most important thing, this is, infact my point. Smartcooky has a good explanation for why this is the case. Here, in this Top 14 example I have used test rugby to show why SF Paris vs Montpellier ought to be of higher importance to more people than South Africa vs Australia. If you are from Argentina you have players from your team playing. Same goes if you are English, Samoan, Italian or French. In the interests of ones national team anyone from these countries has a lot to watch for. One from these countries, on the other hand, has nothing from RSA vs Australia.

 

[Zambaman]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (smartcooky @ Aug 29 2009, 11:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Zambaman @ Aug 29 2009, 09:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I find the suggestion of allowing players to take marks pretty much all over the field as a way of reducing kicks to be pretty ironic. You read about some of the really old games where you could take a mark anywhere on the field and there was even more kicking (e.g. you'd take a mark then go for a drop goal). So I don't think that's the solution.[/b]

Obviously you cannot read.

No one has suggested that.
[/b][/quote]
On the contrary, your first suggestion of allowing players to take a mark anywhere in their own half will promote that style of play. Teams that are strong in the air will target players that are not and will find themselves with free-kicks close to half-way. Free Kicks that can be turned into attempted drop goals if the catcher is strong at kicking ala some of the South African backs. Additionally, your second suggestion will have no effect on that situation but will be over punitive on players looking for touch but coming up short. The end result will be teams exploiting marks for ground position and an AFL style game occurring against team with weaker aerial games. Further there'll be more of the rubbish grubber kicks that occur frequently enough as is.

 

[Steve-o]

Going a bit off topic here but one thing people must remember is that Melhor Time is an ultra-neutral rugby fan (abeit a bit of South American bias), so naturally his priorities are much different compared to us fans from big rugby nations. Vice versa Melhor Time must understand our priorities.

We have emotional attachments to the leagues/tournaments/teams we watch. I do however think we can learn from fans like Melhor Time when we look to target the masses. On the other hand we must take what neutral fans have to say with a pitch of salt. They don't have long term aspirations for any team in particular, so you'll be more than happy to see two French league teams packed full of foreigners, not worrying about how domestic players will come through the systems.
As everything in life a balance is needed. Personally I'd rather have rugby be second fiddle to soccer in popularity at the expense of it not becoming like modern day soccer. Full of egos, over payed players and cheating. Well English rugby are the exception in the cheating part .
Anyway, rugby should strive to keeps it's soul. Rugby is SO different from other sport in terms of ethics and values, one of the reasons why people are so drawn to it. Making it too free market like soccer in a bid to get more fans will kill rugby's soul imo.

PS Hernandez had a shocker against WP last night.

Back on topic, rugby is so dynamic that it's very hard for a winning team to keep doing one trick.
I've noticed a there seems to be a cycle in rugby. This is my interpretation of how rugby has been evolving. keep in mind that I was 5 when rugby went pro.
IMO Australia started the 1st major change in pro rugby back in the late 90's. Mobile props and extremely organized defence. They caught out the opposition big time especially with mobile props imo. They sacrificed a bit of bulk in the scrum to be more competitive at the rucks and tight-loose. Top teams caught on and then a mobile prop was a must. Then the ruck became more competitive, so players like McCaw and George Smith emerged. So now at this stage the set piece has been slightly neglected, scrums and lineouts have less focus. Then a team like England notice and make sure that they target the set pieces. Now there is pressure on the opponents getting their own ball, basically back to rugby pre-99 Wallabies, with some exceptions.

Basically once a team starts focusing on their strengths and beat teams with a certain style, they leave other aspects out which other teams can exploit. It's a cycle, and only for a short period of time can a team play a complete game, holding of that cycle briefly, due to the very specific roles each player has in rugby.

I hope that makes has much sense as it does in my head

 

[smartcooky]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Zambaman @ Aug 30 2009, 08:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (smartcooky @ Aug 29 2009, 11:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Zambaman @ Aug 29 2009, 09:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I find the suggestion of allowing players to take marks pretty much all over the field as a way of reducing kicks to be pretty ironic. You read about some of the really old games where you could take a mark anywhere on the field and there was even more kicking (e.g. you'd take a mark then go for a drop goal). So I don't think that's the solution.[/b]

Obviously you cannot read.

No one has suggested that.
[/b][/quote]
On the contrary, your first suggestion of allowing players to take a mark anywhere in their own half will promote that style of play. Teams that are strong in the air will target players that are not and will find themselves with free-kicks close to half-way. Free Kicks that can be turned into attempted drop goals if the catcher is strong at kicking ala some of the South African backs. Additionally, your second suggestion will have no effect on that situation but will be over punitive on players looking for touch but coming up short. The end result will be teams exploiting marks for ground position and an AFL style game occurring against team with weaker aerial games. Further there'll be more of the rubbish grubber kicks that occur frequently enough as is.
[/b][/quote]


Err, I don't know where you learned English but.

"pretty much all over the field".... IS NOT EQUAL TO ...."anywhere in their own half"

What I AM suggesting is to effectively move the protected status of the 22 for the mark up to the half-way line. Someone else has suggested perhaps to only move it to the 10m line. I could go with that.

However, this following statement of from you is complete ********, and shows me that you have neither read and understood my initial post, nor do you have a sound understanding of the Laws relating the the Mark and the Free Kick

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

"Teams that are strong in the air will target players that are not and will find themselves with free-kicks close to half-way. Free Kicks that can be turned into attempted drop goals if the catcher is strong at kicking"[/b]

In case you don't know the Laws (and obviously you don't)

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

LAW 18 MARK - DEFINITION
......The player must make a clean catch direct from an opponent's kick and at the same time shout "Mark". A mark cannot be made from a kick-off, or a restart kick except for a drop-out.[/b]

So a player (Green 10) cannot "target" a "weak in the air" opponent (Gold 13) with a kick, then have his own teammate (Green 12) Mark the ball, just inside his own half. The Law doesn't allow it.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

21.6 SCORING FROM A FREE KICK
( a ) A goal cannot be scored from a free kick.
( b ) The team awarded a free kick cannot score a dropped goal until after the ball next becomes dead, or until after an opponent has played or touched it, or has tackled the ball carrier. This restriction applies also to a scrum taken instead of a free kick.[/b]

A player taking a mark near half way is NOT be allowed to have a drop kick at goal. The Law prohibits it.

Now I don't mind objections to my suggestions. Far from it, I invite debate; its why I posted the ideas in the first place. However, I really take issue with posters objecting to things that I haven't said, and arguing consequences that won't happen, because they don't know the Laws.

Now go back and read my original post, and try to understand what it says, then if you have an issue, make sure you are debating sensibly from a position of knowledge the Laws. You can download your own copy here;

 

[InsaneAsylum]

i like this topic and the suggestions made. i really feel the underlying problem (disregarding the fact that aimless kicking is boring) is to protect the bloke standing under the ball trying to take it.

rugby should be protecting it's players from being blatently smashed. if you're standing under the ball whether or not you're jumping in the air, you should be protected from having a circa 100kg blob working up a head of steam and smashing you to the ground before you even have time to react.

i don't have a problem if a player spills a bomb... it's knocked forward, tough ****, but it shits me when i see someone commit themselves to taking a high ball and no sooner as they touch the ground, they get smashed.

throwing another idea into the hat...open to suggestions,flames etc: if a player takes a high ball, any opposition player within 5M is in an offside position. if the player who takes the high ball is takles by a player within the 5M zone, then a penalty is awarded.

this will encourage players to fairly contest the high ball both in attack and defence, knowing thay can be confident that they wont end up being knocked out. in defence, this guarantees you some chance of clearing the ball and in attack, taking the high ball cleanly means you have a chance to gain some territory, if not a chance to score a try.

thoughts?

 

[smartcooky]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (InsaneAsylum @ Aug 31 2009, 04:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

throwing another idea into the hat...open to suggestions,flames etc: if a player takes a high ball, any opposition player within 5M is in an offside position. if the player who takes the high ball is takles by a player within the 5M zone, then a penalty is awarded.[/b]

Fair enough, but it would require a whole new law to be enforced, and it would be very difficult to enforce;

► How high would the kick be before it's called a "high-ball".
► Do we want players fielding chip-kicks to be protected by a 5m Law?
► Would your 5m law still apply if the catcher immediately passed the ball?

One suggestion I liked earlier was to have a 15m or 20m offside Law instead of the current 10m, but you would still have the problem of onside chasers making no attempt to play at the ball, and instead timing their run to mow down the catcher the moment his feet touch the ground.

Perhaps another would be to make it impossible for players ahead of the kick to be put onside by any action of their team-mates, and instead, they must immediately stop where they are and begin retiring, only becoming onside when their opponents have moved forward 10m from where the ball was caught.


In my original suggestion, I would allow the catcher to mark the ball (inside their OWN HALF ONLY) and this would force the onside chaser to compete for the ball. Perhaps that could be their own 10m line instead.

The whole approach I took to this problem was how to come up with a solution that;

► Required only small Law amendments, not wholesale changes
► Did NOT to legislate kicking out of the game
► Punish poorly executed or aimless kicking while rewarding well executed kicks
► Offered an inducement for players to improve their general "in-play" kicking skills.

So far, I have seen no valid arguments that would make what I have suggested unworkable.

One good tactic I have seen practised locally is for the catcher to catch the ball "AFL style" and then tap or palm it to a team-mate "line-out style" while still in the air. When the original catcher hits the ground and is mowed down by the chaser, the chaser gets penalised for a late tackle. That will get the chaser looking up instead of down.

 

[InsaneAsylum]

valid points. i honestly didn't think about it in that much detail, i mean we all know what a high ball looks like, but yeah how do you clearly define it. i understand that you can't make up rules with grey areas otherwise it's useless having them.

i don't have any probs with your suggestions either, but how do you get the irb to stop living in a bubble and listen to what the punters have to say?

 

[smartcooky]

Here is the area covered by the current Mark law for a team defending the left end of the field

I am proposing it be increased to this;

or this;

Not the dramatic change that some are suggesting.

 

[Charles]

Cooky, I see your point . However, I think that this will not change a lot. Sure, the bomb bore fest might disappear but I fear that teams would still refuse to take the risk of playing expansive rugby. I think rather than trying to force the team to attack, and playing in a way that is contrary to pro rugby (a win is a win) we should try to weaken/limit the defense, making it easier to attack and play running rugby.

 

[smartcooky]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Charles @ Sep 1 2009, 01:53 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Cooky, I see your point . However, I think that this will not change a lot.[/b]

Its doesn't have to change all that much. Just taking away the incentive to kick bombs into the area between the 22 and 10 might just be enough to make players think more intelligently about how and why they are kicking.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Charles @ Sep 1 2009, 01:53 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Sure, the bomb bore fest might disappear but I fear that teams would still refuse to take the risk of playing expansive rugby. I think rather than trying to force the team to attack, and playing in a way that is contrary to pro rugby (a win is a win) we should try to weaken/limit the defense, making it easier to attack and play running rugby.[/b]

Only way to do what would be to somehow force more players to be committed to the breakdown. For that you have to give them a reason to be there. e.g., increased chance of a turnover in a better contest for the ball.


PS: How was Japan? Haven't seen you at RF since the JWC.

 

[Charles]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (smartcooky @ Sep 1 2009, 10:02 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Only way to do what would be to somehow force more players to be committed to the breakdown. For that you have to give them a reason to be there. e.g., increased chance of a turnover in a better contest for the ball.


PS: How was Japan? Haven't seen you at RF since the JWC.[/b]

Agree entirely. And we're back to square one, a consistent and stringent refereeing of the break-down/ruck area, and a consistent refereeing of the offside line.

Japan is good, albeit a bit difficult to find a job right now. Living there right now with the wife.

 

[shtove]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Charles @ Sep 2 2009, 12:16 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (smartcooky @ Sep 1 2009, 10:02 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Only way to do what would be to somehow force more players to be committed to the breakdown. For that you have to give them a reason to be there. e.g., increased chance of a turnover in a better contest for the ball.


PS: How was Japan? Haven't seen you at RF since the JWC.[/b]

Agree entirely. And we're back to square one, a consistent and stringent refereeing of the break-down/ruck area, and a consistent refereeing of the offside line.[/b][/quote]
That's what keeps the Boks so conservative in possession. JDV (or someone in the centre) got turned over in a back move at about 60mins in the Aus game, and it was done fairly easily, so after that it was all kickkickkick.

Offside lines and zones must be a nightmare to ref, especially the zones - like 3D calculus. And it's crap when a player does anticipate the gun and everyone screams false start.

 

[smartcooky]

It has been very interesting watching some of the Guinness Premiership games recently, particularly the last Saracens match

Last weekend Sarries played Gloucester at home, and during the match there were several sessions of aimless ping pong and the Vicarage Road crowd started booing and jeering their OWN team. This led to the following statement from Edward Griffiths, the Saracens chief executive....

Griffiths said he was astonished by the reaction during a tedious period of aimless kicking that drew jeers and slow hand-clapping.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

“When was the last time Leicester were booed by any section of the crowd at Welford Road? Ever?†he said. “When was the last time Manchester United were booed by even a small section of the crowd at Old Trafford? Ever? At winning clubs with a winning mentality, the home supporters simply do not boo the players. Ever.[/b]

Here are my thoughts, from a referee's perspective......

Aimless kicking is the reward we have reaped because, despite all the chances we, as a game, have had to fix the things that ail it, namely, the breakdown, we have failed, and failed dismally.

The breakdown is such a contentious, controversial and difficult area to manage with so many different interpretations from referees, that players no longer feel they can do anything at that phase of the game, and be sure they aren't going to be pinged this week for something that last week's referee was happy with.

You need only look at the varying points of view on rugby forums all over the net to understand that there are vastly different interpretations of what is OK and not OK at the breakdown. The result is that coaches are telling their players not to take the risk of being penalised. Instead, they kick downfield and put the ball in the opposition's hands and let them make the mistakes and concede the penalties. Get two teams playing each other with this game plan, and the 15-a-side tennis commences.

This is the tactic that the Springboks used this year to win the Tri-Nations. They played as little rugby as they possibly could, by kicking and chasing at every opportunity reasonable opportunity, making sure that they were hardly ever caught in possession in their own half of the field. In other words, they minimised the risk... if you minimise the number of breakdowns that happen in your own half, you will minimise the number of kickable penalties you give away. Its a winning formula. However much we might hate what we see as a result, i.e. the seemingly never-ending games of force-back, you can't blame the Boks for doing what they're best at; creating nothing and and pouncing on opposition mistakes to get points. Its how they won the 2007 RWC final (96 kicks in play, remember) and the season after that, they tried to run the ball and got royally Rogered, so they have gone back to what they know best.

I don't blame them for doing this, and why would GP coaches not see the Boks' tactics and try to emulate them?

The booing and jeering of teams by their own supporters is Phase One of dissent and dissatisfaction. Until the iRB does something to simplify the Laws governing the breakdown, which are currently too complicated and too open to individual referees interpretation, the current farcical aimless kicking contests will continue. Then we'll move on to Phase Two, supporters will begin to stop showing up. Aimless kicking will continue to drive supporters away, probably right into the ranks of the Dark Side, where they play a similar game but without the seemingly endless periods of "Force Back". While it might be winning rugby, its not winning the MOST important aspect of the game.... the supporters;


No supporters > No bums on seats > No pay-TV subscriptions > No sponsors > No money > NO GAME.

Its a direct line of cause and effect. Rugby NEEDS to change some of the Laws of the game that are enabling coaches to take overly defensive stances.

In Europe they have, for the last few years been proclaiming that the game is in "rude health" and "it isn't broken and doesn't need fixing". That is a "head-in-the-sand" mentality. In seeing what has happened with the behaviour of Sarries supporters at Vickerage Road, what we are seeing is the beginnings of dissatisfaction with the way rugby is being played. In the SH, we cottoned on the this some time ago, it seems that it has taken just a little longer to sink in in the NH, but sink in it will.

Having watched what happened in the Tasman v Auckland match last weekend, and comparing that with Saracens v Gloucester, I realised that we have managed to get past the phase that the GP and ML are about to go into. In Sarries v Gloucester, there were 67 midfield/downfield kicks, but in Tasman v Auckland, there were 18, mostly by Auckland, and ALL BUT FIVE OF THEM WERE RUN BACK. Not a single downfield kick was returned with another downfield kick; the remaining five were kicked (bounced) into touch.

Just on a closing note, to anyone who says that the ELV's are responsible for the aimless kicking, I say ********!!!. It all began with the 2007 Rugby World Cup Final (96 kicks in play) and the subsequent realisation by elite rugby's leading coaches, that they could win games of rugby by kicking the ball away. Until we have Laws that make it difficult, if not impossible to win games without possession, the current tripe we are seeing in both hemispheres (ANZC excepted, where the average number of kicks in play is less than 25 per match) will continue.

 

[TRUE LEGND]

Nice read Cooky and well said... Exactly what i was thinking as well