PDA

View Full Version : Interesting one



Dave Sherwin
17-03-15, 01:03
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYSXdoNc-Xs

Dave Sherwin
17-03-15, 01:03
Please excuse my technological ineptitude - I meant what follows to be in the same post as above.

This clip has been the basis of much animated discussion (if it is elsewhere on here, I apologise). Thoughts?

Taff
17-03-15, 02:03
If you went to the 10 that's fine.
Where does it say that then?

I still don't understand why some people make this difficult - if he stayed at least 1m from the tackle, he's fine.

Dickie E
17-03-15, 02:03
Where does it say that then?



No, what he meant was "if you went to where the opposition #10 was positioned to intercept the pass, that would be OK"

RobLev
17-03-15, 02:03
Please excuse my technological ineptitude - I meant what follows to be in the same post as above.

This clip has been the basis of much animated discussion (if it is elsewhere on here, I apologise). Thoughts?

Why no penalty against Blue #4 for playing the first player - who didn't approach the tackle too close - without the ball?

chrismtl
17-03-15, 04:03
I have more issues with what blue #4 did than what either of the players did.

Let's take him out of the picture, then I don't really see any argument to penalize unless you want to go for the acts contrary to good sportsmanship line. Both players are close to 1m away from the tackle area and I don't think that if they were 90cm away that it should result in a penalty otherwise we're opening up a whole new can of worms. The 1m understanding is to prevent someone from being a few cm's away, not for being almost 1m. Anyways, I would argue that both players were 1m away from the tackle zone. While it might not look "right", I think they were a bit hard done by a ref who just didn't like what he saw.

Ian_Cook
17-03-15, 05:03
This looks messy, and it will only get worse as teams catch on to the idea that if they don't commit any players to the tackle, no ruck formed, therefore no offside lines appear so they can stand anywhere they like. Its effectively a tackle version of the tactic of not competing at a line-out; the players make sure they don't engage opponents.

Its a difficult one that is not going to be easy for WR to deal with without some Law changes around the tackle area. Some solutions might be

1. Revisit the Offside at the Tackle ELV.
It has its own bad side effects with regard to midfield breaks being undefendable, but there might be ways around that, for example if the Law was written such that, when a tackle takes place
a. a player who is onside at the tackle must not move into an offside position.
b. a player who is offside at the tackle must not remain there, he must commence retiring to the offside line.
c. exception: if the ball is cleared or passed at least 1m from a tackle, a player in the act of retiring is immediately put onside.

and/or

2. The tackler must remain in the tackle zone. Remove the option of the tackler rolling or moving away. Make his only option to get to his feet and remain in the tackle zone where an opponent can grab him to form a ruck. Should also apply to the tackle assist.

The Fat
17-03-15, 06:03
I have referenced this tactic by the Chiefs previously in another thread and it would seem they are working on it at training as it is now part of their arsenal of tactics. Don't like it myself. As Ian said, "This looks messy, and it will only get worse as teams catch on to the idea that if they don't commit any players to the tackle, no ruck formed, therefore no offside lines appear so they can stand anywhere they like. Its effectively a tackle version of the tactic of not competing at a line-out; the players make sure they don't engage opponents".

I can see where Jaco Peyper is coming from. He is saying to the Chiefs captain that "...the players are approaching the tackle", meaning they are now within the "tackle zone". I tend to agree with him that Kaino was within the 1m zone just before the Stormers' #4 grabbed hold of him. Therefore, JP is pinging him for incorrect entry (i.e. not through the gate).
This is at 10 seconds on the youtube clock. The clock is still on 10 seconds when blue 4 grabs Kaino so it is as close as Kaino gets to the tackle.
3197

menace
17-03-15, 07:03
But doesn't Kaino breach
15.6 (g)
Any player who first gains possession of the ball at the tackle or near to it may be tackled by an opposition player providing that player does so from behind the ball and from directly behind the tackled player or the tackler closest to that player’s goal line.
Sanction: Penalty kick
As soon as he tackles blue #9 (if he want so unceremoniously removed from the area). But until he does so isn't he legal?

crossref
17-03-15, 07:03
Before changing the Law perhaps we could think about how to play against this tactic.. which is presumably to pick up the ball and trundle down the field with it

didds
17-03-15, 08:03
that is eventually where it will go I am sure - in the meantime the majority pof players - and it seems some refs! - just have a "does not compute" moment and just can't handle it.

I'm not sure which player is being penalised here (as in name) but I think its the bloke that blue #4 grabs and pulls away. If that was < 1m it was probably 95cm from the ball... You refs better have your measuring tapes ready... The guy with the ginger/blonde highlights seemed to know what he was doing as he hornpiped his way about the rear space...



didds

Ian_Cook
17-03-15, 08:03
Before changing the Law perhaps we could think about how to play against this tactic.. which is presumably to pick up the ball and trundle down the field with it

This won't work. Stormers have four/five players committed at the tackle. All the Chiefs need to do is line up four/five players in a line side by side two metres away from the tackle zone and spanning a man wider than the width of the tackle zone. Then a few more get in positions ahead of the tackle zone on left and right to cut off passes from the tackle. If a blue player does what you are suggesting, one or two Chiefs players run forward when he picks up the ball and bring him down on the same spot, the rest stay away.


The only practical way I can see around this is to force a ruck to form in order to create offside lines. If the tackler (or tackle assist) is made to get to (or stay on) his feet but is forbidden to leave the tackle zone, that will give the opponents that opportunity to grab him and form a ruck. He's near the ball so 15.7 (d) allows opponents to play him without the ball.

As an aside, its about time WR clearly defined a Tackle Assist rather then just lump him in with "other players"

RobLev
17-03-15, 10:03
that is eventually where it will go I am sure - in the meantime the majority pof players - and it seems some refs! - just have a "does not compute" moment and just can't handle it.

I'm not sure which player is being penalised here (as in name) but I think its the bloke that blue #4 grabs and pulls away. If that was < 1m it was probably 95cm from the ball... You refs better have your measuring tapes ready... The guy with the ginger/blonde highlights seemed to know what he was doing as he hornpiped his way about the rear space...



didds

I'm not sure it was that player (W2) he penalised. Blue #4 had already fouled him (10.4(f)) and he was going back for orange/blondie (W3) when the whistle went, several seconds later.

For me, even if W2 had offended, B4's actions merited a PK under 10.4(f) - or, if he claims he was reacting to the encroachments, 10.4(l). If the ref was going to penalise White, he should IMHO then have reversed the penalty for that foul play.

crossref
17-03-15, 10:03
The only practical way I can see around this is to force a ruck to form in order to create offside lines."

yes, so pick up the ball and start trundling down the field : assuming the oppo don't allow you to get all the way to the goal line, this is going to force a tackle (and then a ruck.. or repeat) or a maul.

The Fat
17-03-15, 11:03
I'm not sure it was that player (W2) he penalised. Blue #4 had already fouled him (10.4(f)) and he was going back for orange/blondie (W3) when the whistle went, several seconds later.

For me, even if W2 had offended, B4's actions merited a PK under 10.4(f) - or, if he claims he was reacting to the encroachments, 10.4(l). If the ref was going to penalise White, he should IMHO then have reversed the penalty for that foul play.

I think he penalised the player that was grabbed by blue 4 so if that was W2 thanks for picking up his number (I think I may have incorrectly identified him as the captain in an earlier post). The only reason it looks like W3 was pinged, IMO, is because I believe Jaco Peyper was processing what was happening with regard to the white team's players proximity to the tackle zone and there was a delay in blowing his whistle. If W2 had been OK, then as you say, blue 4 would have been the 1st offence.

I wonder if the Chiefs have run this tactic by a local referee before using it in a game?

EDIT: Have just checked my earlier post #8 and I have incorrectly identified W2 as the Chiefs captain Jerome Kaino. That may not raise an eyebrow with the northerners but it may have had the SH lads scratching their heads.

Ian_Cook
17-03-15, 11:03
EDIT: Have just checked my earlier post #8 and I have incorrectly identified W2 as the Chiefs captain Jerome Kaino. That may not raise an eyebrow with the northerners but it may have had the SH lads scratching their heads.

Well, this comment made me scratch my head too.... Jerome Kaino plays for the Blues! I think you mean Liam Messam.

menace
17-03-15, 12:03
EDIT: Have just checked my earlier post #8 and I have incorrectly identified W2 as the Chiefs captain Jerome Kaino. That may not raise an eyebrow with the northerners but it may have had the SH lads scratching their heads.
Oops. I also repeated your observation...my bad.

didds
17-03-15, 12:03
I
I wonder if the Chiefs have run this tactic by a local referee before using it in a game?


the blonde highlights player seems to kn ow EXACTLY what he is doing - he knows he is not offside and he staying a way back from the tackle.

on that basis whoever it was pinged is probably equally as au fait and just encroached a tad too close for the ref's liking - he just got it a bit wrong. I guess this is where in reality "1m" needs to be probably "2m" to leave no possibility of being interpreted as too close. But certainly the encroacher doesn't need to go and stand over beside the fly half!

didds

crossref
17-03-15, 12:03
I think the lesson here is, when executing this ploy : don't try and stand between the ball and the opposing #9.
-- If you are not going for ball, this is obstruction
-- and you can't go for the ball, as you can't approach the tackle from that direction.

so if you stand between the #9 and the ball you are going to get pinged. As the ref says : stand between the 9 and the 10...

Phil E
17-03-15, 12:03
Can someone teach SA Referees how to spell?


Clip 2 The Chiefs stand of a tackle but are penalised and the referee explains to Messam
SAReferees

"Off", not "of" :mad:

winchesterref
17-03-15, 12:03
Good use of existing laws, fair play to the Chiefs for coming up with ways to exploit it. Keeps the game interesting, I'm not buying this change the laws to stifle imagination crap!

ChrisR
17-03-15, 12:03
Evolution can be messy. It produces all sorts of dead ends such as the Neanderthals. When we have endless rucks in risk averse rugby we have reached the Neanderthal stage of development.

Now the Cro-Magnons have invaded the pitch and the days of the Neanderthals are numbered unless they cross-breed. That means they have to re-think their tactical approach to contact.

Count the number of Blues that are committed to recycling the ball. What are the chances of doing anything with it, other than setting another ruck, when you are outnumbered 14 to 10?

No need to change the laws right now. The Cro-Magnon coaches will find a way to punish the non-ruck tactic. The pick-'n-trundle will force the opponents to commit to the threat but may ultimately end up in the same scenario just a bit further up the pitch.

I think we may see more off-loads in contact as a team that can put three players over the ball at the tackle can have those three players running hard in support of the BC.

We may also see rolling mauls forming in general play. That will commit defenders to the ball and could be fun to watch.

Meanwhile, if we want the Cro-Magnons to evolve we can't limit them with a Neanderthal whistle.

didds
17-03-15, 13:03
I think the lesson here is, when executing this ploy : don't try and stand between the ball and the opposing #9.
-- If you are not going for ball, this is obstruction
-- and you can't go for the ball, as you can't approach the tackle from that direction.

so if you stand between the #9 and the ball you are going to get pinged. As the ref says : stand between the 9 and the 10...


what if the 9 is 5 metres away approaching the ball. A defender can't stand 2 m from the ball, which happens to be between the approaching #9 and the ball?

And what about standing between the #9 and the #15 and/or winger , all of whom (in the field position in the video above) might be clearance kickers? Or between the #9 and a pod of attacking forwards 5m away looking to take a pop pass and drive it up?

didds

didds
17-03-15, 13:03
It looks messy because it is messy.

This is the just the next progression of tactics that have developed since the laws were ignored to permit attackers to seal off/protect the ball to such a degree that it becomes pointless in contesting a ruck.

So we go from that to

- wide field trench defense with minimal contest
- jackler only attempts
- no contest at all
- no contest and now this envelopment of the tackle area such that the only option is a #9/acting s/h pick and go, straight into the defenders facing him

If we don't like it, we have to face that modern elite interpretations (filtering down) have had this result.

Of course, if those refs pinged players for holding onto players on the ground, shoulders below hips, and also pinged players that once tackled then wriggle and squirm around whilst holding the ball after being brought to ground, much of the reasons defenders do not compete and so look for other ways to pressure the attacking team would be removed...

didds

ChrisR
17-03-15, 13:03
.......and also pinged players that once tackled then wriggle and squirm around whilst holding the ball after being brought to ground......

... instead of pinging the defender who has his knees on the tackled player so he can contest for the bail ....

Then there would be cause to compete.

Browner
17-03-15, 14:03
People need to remember, there is a amateur game out there with amateur referees/coaches/players and no ARs to help .....

In the clip it looked like a f#####g netball match , possessionee has 5s to pass, everyone else shadows a player waving their arms !!!! .....

Now JP widens the 1m TZ to "near the fly half" ........ It will remain a goddamn mess ( for referees players and spectators!! ) whilst all the evolutions are factored bedded in, albeit I get marauders analogy.

When this code went professional few envisaged these tactical reinventions of this game, quite frankly it saddens me to see it.

The Fat
17-03-15, 21:03
Well, this comment made me scratch my head too.... Jerome Kaino plays for the Blues! I think you mean Liam Messam.

That would be the fella. Doh!!!
Haven't upset too many people with my WTF moment. Only 3 Kiwis on here isn't there?
Thanks Ian

chbg
17-03-15, 22:03
Presumably Chiefs have worked out a way to attack against this tactic being used against them, otherwise it is short term gain and a route to boredom when the attackers do nothing with the ball (not a ruck so a 'Use it' call would not be relevant, would it?). That would be interesting. Until then it does not improve the game IMO.

ChrisR
17-03-15, 22:03
How much resistance was there to lifting in the line-out? I bet there was some squawking about "ruining the game".I don't know as I was away from rugby during the time when it crept into the game in the guise of 'supporting'. I do know that line-outs are now a thing of beauty compared to what they were.

Would we have lifting in the game if we didn't have profesionals? Maybe not.

So give it some time and see where it goes.

menace
18-03-15, 01:03
Good use of existing laws, fair play to the Chiefs for coming up with ways to exploit it. Keeps the game interesting, I'm not buying this change the laws to stifle imagination crap!

Is it? At least one pro ref thinks it isn't a fair play on the laws? (JP did give me the impression he had doubts as the words fell out of his mouth but his reasoning was starting to have some merit about entry into (or being in) the tackle zone.

I'm in a quandary here....many people on this site say 'all good' no PK, while locally many of my colleagues (and those at the higher end) saying JP got it right! Not sure what I'll call when it happens at my level. No doubt whatever it is it will be on the referee coaches sheet as a 'discussion point' or law error!

Ian_Cook
18-03-15, 01:03
How much resistance was there to lifting in the line-out? I bet there was some squawking about "ruining the game".I don't know as I was away from rugby during the time when it crept into the game in the guise of 'supporting'. I do know that line-outs are now a thing of beauty compared to what they were.

Would we have lifting in the game if we didn't have profesionals? Maybe not.

So give it some time and see where it goes.


There wasn't much squawking about it from the Saffas; they have been lifting in the line outs since the early 1970's and because they always had hometown harry referees until 1994, they always got away with it.

I don't recall any resistance to lifting, although it didn't really come in into Law until 2009 as a part of the ELVs. Prior to that players could "support" their jumping line-out players but not actually lift them up.

2008 Laws
19.10 OPTIONS AVAILABLE IN A LINEOUT

(g) Lifting. A lineout player must not lift a team mate.
Penalty: Free Kick on the 15-metre line

(h) Support before jumping. A player must not support a team mate before the team mate has jumped.
Penalty: Free Kick on the 15-metre line


2009 LAWS
19.10 OPTIONS AVAILABLE IN A LINEOUT

(f) Lifting and supporting. Players may assist a team-mate in jumping for the ball by lifting and supporting that player providing that the lifting and/or supporting players do not support the jumping team-mate below the shorts from behind or below the thighs from the front.
Penalty: Free Kick on the 15-metre line

The Fat
18-03-15, 05:03
Is it? At least one pro ref thinks it isn't a fair play on the laws? (JP did give me the impression he had doubts as the words fell out of his mouth but his reasoning was starting to have some merit about entry into (or being in) the tackle zone.

I'm in a quandary here....many people on this site say 'all good' no PK, while locally many of my colleagues (and those at the higher end) saying JP got it right! Not sure what I'll call when it happens at my level. No doubt whatever it is it will be on the referee coaches sheet as a 'discussion point' or law error!

I intend to raise it at our GMG presentation by the big wigs from NSWRU this weekend.
I don't like the way the Chiefs are doing it but that's just my opinion. Opponents will probably find a way to counter it and hopefully we won't see it used extensively.

crossref
18-03-15, 08:03
And it's very easy to counter. If you want a ruck or mauk to form just pick up the ball and keep going up the pitch until it does.

Ian_Cook
18-03-15, 09:03
And it's very easy to counter. If you want a ruck or mauk to form just pick up the ball and keep going up the pitch until it does.

Four rounds of Super Rugby have gone. If it was so easy, why haven't four top coaches yet figured out your magic method in 320 minutes of rugby?

I've already explained to you why that will not work. If they can't get a ruck formed at the first tackle, what makes you think they will be able to do so at the next tackle, or the next, or the next?

crossref
18-03-15, 09:03
Four rounds of Super Rugby have gone. If it was so easy, why haven't four top coaches yet figured out your magic method in 320 minutes of rugby?

I've already explained to you why that will not work. If they can't get a ruck formed at the first tackle, what makes you think they will be able to do so at the next tackle, or the next, or the next?

but it will work! - it's not really that magical : each tackle gains you a few metres, so if the oppo don't form a ruck or a maul ... then repeat until you reach the try-line !

menace
18-03-15, 10:03
I intend to raise it at our GMG presentation by the big wigs from NSWRU this weekend.
I don't like the way the Chiefs are doing it but that's just my opinion. Opponents will probably find a way to counter it and hopefully we won't see it used extensively.
Interested to hear what they say. Just to arm you...my locals think that Messam was 'within 1m' therefore was near to tackle and entering tackle zone incorrectly.p (and obviously materially being a pain in the @ss by being there). My argument was that they looked just as easily outside 1m so was a c & o entry?

talbazar
18-03-15, 16:03
I must confess I went through the posts pretty quickly, but nowhere I've seen said that the decision is actually wrong against the law.
The law that defines "the gates" is
15.6.(d)
At a tackle or near to a tackle, other players who play the ball must do so from behind the ball and from directly behind the tackled player or the tackler closest to those players’ goal line.

None of the Chiefs' player is playing the ball, so "the gate" doesn't apply to them, does it?

My two cents!
Pierre.

Dixie
18-03-15, 17:03
15.6.(d)
At a tackle or near to a tackle, other players who play the ball must do so from behind the ball and from directly behind the tackled player or the tackler closest to those players’ goal line.

None of the Chiefs' player is playing the ball, so "the gate" doesn't apply to them, does it?

My two cents!
Pierre. I've made that point in the past, and got short shrift. The view most commonly held is that whatever the wording of the law actually says, in practice you have to come through the gate, even if you have no intention of playing the ball but merely acting as a potential blocking rucker. As a pedant, I like the argument; as a referee with the best interests of the game at heart, I agree with my detractors.

crossref
18-03-15, 17:03
None of the Chiefs' player is playing the ball, so "the gate" doesn't apply to them, does it?



but if they not playing the ball then by standing right there don't we have

10. 1 (d) Blocking the ball. A player must not intentionally move or stand in a position that prevents an opponent from playing the ball. Sanction: Penalty kick

also a PK.

So it's a PK either way.

buff
18-03-15, 18:03
The Chief's player wasn't blocking an opponent from getting the ball. He was blocking him from potentially passing it to a teammate.

winchesterref
18-03-15, 18:03
A) no attacking player was blocked from getting the ball
B) the Chiefs' players didn't play the ball so entry into tackle zone doesn't appear to me to be fully relevant

Menace- existing laws support the play as being legal. I'm all for that. I don't see how we can penalise something because we don't like how it looks if the laws don't support that.

If it quickly becomes a blight on the game then look at it again in the future, but the options for attacking coaches to counter it are nearly endless. Flood the channels to draw a PK (defenders can't prevent tackled players passing etc), pick and go round the fringes in units, 2+ players pick up at the back and offload around the defenders, form a maul etc. Sooner or later someone will have to engage, form a ruck to halt the attack. After 4 games I'm not convinced it is a massive issue, or that it is illegal, and I think JP was looking at it thinking "this must be wrong and now I've got to convince everyone"

winchesterref
18-03-15, 18:03
Anyway in the original clip if the 9 was any good he'd have picked and gone right early!

Ian_Cook
18-03-15, 19:03
but it will work! - it's not really that magical : each tackle gains you a few metres, so if the oppo don't form a ruck or a maul ... then repeat until you reach the try-line !


At least half the time, I would expect the tacklers to drive the ball carrier backwards because the ball carrier would be slowed down by having to step over his own players, so the tacklers will get to him before he has made any ground . Your idea sounds good in theory. I practice it would not work very well otherwise the Chief opponent would have done it already. Its just pick and drive; teams don't use that much these days outside of the last couple of minutes when they are in the lead and trying to shut the game down.

didds
19-03-15, 00:03
I'll wager the chiefs (and whoever else uses it) will have tried it out in training to try and find the weaknesses - ie is it suceptible top pick and drive?

didds

didds
19-03-15, 00:03
The immediate coujter is a pick and maul, ball with the front player until engaged, thus creatoing an offside line.

However, this tacxtic is probably only intendeed for use when the attackers (ball carriers) have over committed to the non-ruck . In that clip blue had FIVE players over/immediately around the ball. That only leaves three to set that mini-maul up, and if that team happened to have one in the bin then its almost a non starter.

the immediate riposte to the above is that any engagement with the attempted mini-maul HAS to be a tackle on the frront ball carrier to bring him to ground. Then the attackers slipping the ball leaves a 2 man drive with SIX team mates elsewhere.

Might be something to play with as an end of season bit of fun at training:-)

didds

talbazar
19-03-15, 01:03
I've made that point in the past, and got short shrift. The view most commonly held is that whatever the wording of the law actually says, in practice you have to come through the gate, even if you have no intention of playing the ball but merely acting as a potential blocking rucker. As a pedant, I like the argument; as a referee with the best interests of the game at heart, I agree with my detractors.

../..Menace- existing laws support the play as being legal. I'm all for that. I don't see how we can penalise something because we don't like how it looks if the laws don't support that.../..

That's exactly my point: I always have a problem with making the law say what they don't because "it doesn't look good"..

Come on guys, we all complain all the time that players and coaches don't know the law. We mock them at least as much for the same reason.

For once we've got a team reading the law and defining a tactic according to the law and we want to blow the whistle because "it doesn't look good"...
So much for Law 6.A.4.(a) :sad:

Browner
19-03-15, 16:03
but it will work! - it's not really that magical : each tackle gains you a few metres, so if the oppo don't form a ruck or a maul ... then repeat until you reach the try-line !

But if the scrum half picks up then he will either have own players in front of him, or he'll get tackled by the guy sitting on his shoulder waiting 1.05m from the ball for the 9 to pick up !!

But wait........ I've got an idea , as a defender try and go and get the ball that is 'freely available' on the ground after a tackle ..... You can't :shrug: x2 opponents are stood there guarding it both obstructing you from seeking to retrieve it ....... :deadhorse:

thepercy
19-03-15, 20:03
Could the ruck move down field, keeping the ball in, similar to a push over try? The defenders would have to engage to prevent this.

menace
19-03-15, 22:03
Could the ruck move down field, keeping the ball in, similar to a push over try? The defenders would have to engage to prevent this.
Percy - we are talking about it being a tackle only....if it was a ruck then they're offside and we wouldn't be discussing this.

menace
19-03-15, 22:03
But if the scrum half picks up then he will either have own players in front of him, or he'll get tackled by the guy sitting on his shoulder waiting 1.05m from the ball for the 9 to pick up !!

Ok but as I said earlier ...

But doesn't Kaino (Messam) breach
15.6 (g)
Any player who first gains possession of the ball at the tackle or near to it may be tackled by an opposition player providing that player does so from behind the ball and from directly behind the tackled player or the tackler closest to that player’s goal line.
Sanction: Penalty kick
As soon as he tackles blue #9 (if he want so unceremoniously removed from the area). But until he does so isn't he legal?
or have I misinterpreted what that means?

If not then the SH can move off with the ball and milk a PK...or if he has space then pass the ball and Chiefs now have 2 players out of their defensive line and possible overlap exists?

ChrisR
20-03-15, 04:03
and Chiefs now have 2 players out of their defensive line and possible overlap exists?

No, because attacking team is committing too many over the ball.

menace
20-03-15, 08:03
I get your point and I bow to your expertise of knowing there isn't, but I couldnt say for sure if there was or wasn't as the clip I was looking at didn't show position of all players, and hence my use of the word 'possible' as opposed to 'definite'. But you already know that.

didds
20-03-15, 10:03
and Chiefs now have 2 players out of their defensive line and possible overlap exists?

No, because attacking team is committing too many over the ball.


that's the crunch. The tactic would only be used when the attackers have way overcommitted. This leaves their backline at best man on man, and very limited forward support to try and rumble.

didds

didds
20-03-15, 10:03
I get your point and I bow to your expertise of knowing there isn't, but I couldnt say for sure if there was or wasn't as the clip I was looking at didn't show position of all players, and hence my use of the word 'possible' as opposed to 'definite'. But you already know that.

But the clip shows FIVE blue players committed, presumably plus a scrumhalf = SIX players. There are two other blue players in shot, fairly close then to the non-ruck.That leaves seven for other duties.

Versus one white player (tackler) on the ground (who pretty quickly gets up and back). The defenders at worst have fourteen men on their feet to defend.

Sure we don;t know if way out of shot to our right blue haven't got three men in the far 5m channel versus no whites at all there. But its a reasonable guess that 7 v 14 probably suggests no overlap.

didds

crossref
20-03-15, 11:03
I think people are really making heavy weather of this.

If defending team are intent on avoiding a ruck or a maul, then their only weapon is a tackle (and a very quick, accurate tackle at that, lest a maul develops)

If the attacking team simply pick and go after each tackle then tackle by tackle they are going to slowly make ground (yes, perhaps not every sinlge tackle, but on average)

Sooner or later the defenders are going to have to create a ruck, or a maul.

OB..
20-03-15, 12:03
Ok but as I said earlier ...

or have I misinterpreted what that means?

If not then the SH can move off with the ball and milk a PK...or if he has space then pass the ball and Chiefs now have 2 players out of their defensive line and possible overlap exists?15.6 (g) MUST be interpreted to apply only to the ball carrier while he is at or near the tackle (otherwise only those who had legally entered the tackle are would be entitled to tackle him).

Kaino might indeed have breached that provision, given the chance.

didds
20-03-15, 13:03
If the attacking team simply pick and go after each tackle then tackle by tackle they are going to slowly make ground (yes, perhaps not every sinlge tackle, but on average) .

IF... they have sufficient numbers to do so. There are 5 blue players+scrumhalf around that ball. One more not that far away. Everyone else effectively out of shot. Two whites clsoe by ready to pounce, the other 13 available to defend.

Pick and go, with 6 chums unavailable to help but all the opposition ready and waiting... your call.

I'm not saying don't do it. But... its an interesting place to go!

didds

menace
20-03-15, 13:03
15.6 (g) MUST be interpreted to apply only to the ball carrier while he is at or near the tackle (otherwise only those who had legally entered the tackle are would be entitled to tackle him).

Kaino might indeed have breached that provision, given the chance.

Thanks OB. That's what I thought. I can't tell for sure where Messam (misidentified as Kaino) was..but he looked pretty 'near' and if the BC went into his arms then 'could possibly' milk a PK.

crossref
20-03-15, 14:03
IF... they have sufficient numbers to do so. There are 5 blue players+scrumhalf around that ball. One more not that far away. Everyone else effectively out of shot. Two whites clsoe by ready to pounce, the other 13 available to defend.

Pick and go, with 6 chums unavailable to help but all the opposition ready and waiting... your call.

I'm not saying don't do it. But... its an interesting place to go!

didds

but the objective is to force a ruck/maul, right ? So commit some players.

Browner
20-03-15, 16:03
Ok but as I said earlier ...

or have I misinterpreted what that means?

If not then the SH can move off with the ball and milk a PK...or if he has space then pass the ball and Chiefs now have 2 players out of their defensive line and possible overlap exists?

No youve not, I hadn't spotted that, nice 1.

Browner
20-03-15, 16:03
If the 9 picks up and moves forward , then the players ahead of him ( those that positioned expecting the ruck that never happened ) would ( if the nearest white defender sitting behind the non-ruck moved/bumped into them ) be obstructing the blue 9 from being tackled ??

In other words they would have to move outta the way PDQ ?

Ian_Cook
20-03-15, 20:03
I think people are really making heavy weather of this.

If defending team are intent on avoiding a ruck or a maul, then their only weapon is a tackle (and a very quick, accurate tackle at that, lest a maul develops)

If the attacking team simply pick and go after each tackle then tackle by tackle they are going to slowly make ground (yes, perhaps not every sinlge tackle, but on average)

Sooner or later the defenders are going to have to create a ruck, or a maul.

Perhaps so, but,

a. Why don't treams do this all the time anyway if they are so guaranteed of making ground, and

b. sooner or later, as the ball-carrying team are inching their way up-field, tackle by tackle, they are not quite going to get one of them right, and an opposition jackler will pounce, turning over the ball or winning a PK for not releasing. Statistically, the more tackles that take place, the more chance of a turnover happening, if the ball carrying team keep presenting the opposition with turnover opportunities, eventually, the opposition will take one.

Dixie
22-03-15, 16:03
a. Why don't treams do this all the time anyway if they are so guaranteed of making ground I suggest this is because they are very rarely given the opportunity by teams standing off all tackles to avoid creating offside lines. If it became more common, I've no doubt coaches would coach this technique, which would very quickly halt the defensive practice
and

b. sooner or later, as the ball-carrying team are inching their way up-field, tackle by tackle, they are not quite going to get one of them right, and an opposition jackler will pounce, turning over the ball or winning a PK for not releasing. Statistically, the more tackles that take place, the more chance of a turnover happening, if the ball carrying team keep presenting the opposition with turnover opportunities, eventually, the opposition will take one. And this is an argument against the pick-n-go to wind down the clock, or indeed against the uniform tactic at a long kick-off or after you've taken the ball into your own 22 and so can't kick direct for touch. Yet we still see, at almost all levels, coaches drilling the drive onwards in these situations, to tie in the oppo and give yourself an opportunity to make a long, direct touch finder. So coaches aren't terrified of it - they just haven't got around to it in the context of the still-rare standoff tactic

crossref
22-03-15, 16:03
Perhaps so, but,

a. Why don't treams do this all the time anyway if they are so guaranteed of making ground, and

b. sooner or later, as the ball-carrying team are inching their way up-field, tackle by tackle, they are not quite going to get one of them right, and an opposition jackler will pounce, turning over the ball or winning a PK for not releasing. Statistically, the more tackles that take place, the more chance of a turnover happening, if the ball carrying team keep presenting the opposition with turnover opportunities, eventually, the opposition will take one.

it's not a method for gaining ground, it's a method for forcing a ruck or a maul to take place, and for the desired offside lines to form, to get the oppo behind the ball.