Trends

[paddyor]

Slapping the scumhalves hands has rapidly become part of the game as teams have learnt how easy it is to loiter in rucks.

At the moment it's a little bit too effective in disrupting phase play. We'll see if teams adapt better or if the interpretations get adjusted better.

You have to be on-feet so you'll see them get more strict about being fully on your feet not leaning against another player in the ruck before diving at the 9's hand.

Just like they got strict on bind-changing in mauls.

Skelton trying to head teh bal out of PCPs hand might be out of bounds for the Oz game

[ronk]

A lot of focus from Leo on being narrow in relation to our loss last week: https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/ ... ing-staff/

While we as fans were mostly talking about playing a tighter game, Leo was focused elsewhere. There was also improvement at set piece. We beat defences by exploiting space.

[LeinsterLeader]

Think this is a good place to put this. From the IT today:

"He who dares, loses?
Does rugby have a style problem? New Zealand completed a perfect trend in Saturday’s final, that of every team that attacked more ending up on the wrong side of the result in the World Cup knock-out stages.

The All Blacks had more carries (150 vs 83), metres made (481 vs 358), line breaks (seven vs three) and defenders beaten (36 vs 13) than the Springboks. Yet, as with every other knock-out, attacking quantity doesn’t lead to more positive outcomes, with only 68 per cent of New Zealand’s possessions not ending with an error or turnover. South Africa’s figure? 80 per cent.

It’s been a long-held belief that kicking and defending well is a safer winning ploy, especially in knock-outs, than holding on to the ball. The chances of winning the territory battle are better while the likelihood of mistakes costing points in your own half diminishes.

But for not one single team in the World Cup knockouts to be an outlier and win while backing their attack over their defence and aerial game is curious, if not concerning. World Rugby is aware of the need to make some sort of change to promote attacking creativity. In recent years, laws have been tweaked, such as the removal of five-metre scrums when held up over the line. Is further action needed?

Rugby aficionados will always appreciate the beauty of a dominant defence and strong kicking display. Neutrals that only tune in during the World Cup, who we want to stay connected to the game, may not agree."

[fourthirtythree]

Protecting people catching the ball from “contestables” has regressed. The team kicking it away regularly jumps into the team trying to catch it with no actual realistic avenue to catch the ball but forcing knock ons or fumbles as the actual goal.

That and the leeway given to defending teams spoiling the attacking ball is pretty ludicrous compared to the stringent approach on attackers not releasing.

Both have been evident for some years so the authorities are happy with it.

[Dexter]

Saw that piece in the IT. It's pretty damning on the state of the game.

Why are side entries into rucks so rarely penalised?

[Ruckedtobits]

Protecting people catching the ball from “contestables” has regressed. The team kicking it away regularly jumps into the team trying to catch it with no actual realistic avenue to catch the ball but forcing knock ons or fumbles as the actual goal.

That and the leeway given to defending teams spoiling the attacking ball is pretty ludicrous compared to the stringent approach on attackers not releasing.

Both have been evident for some years so the authorities are happy with it.

The development of the 'helicopte' or 'butterfly' jump by small wingers (e.g. SA wingers) is a practised technique to 'flip' an arm or shoulder of the defender (usually full-back) and produce a knock-on, or a shoulder or chest bounce of the ball. The SA version usually had a big back-row forward close at hand and also distracting the catchers eye-line. It was highly effective against France and NZ, less so against England.

Will Nienabar attempt to introduce Russell to the tactic? Interestingly, SA used it most often when the opposition were under the pressure of a Yellow Card and thus short a defender. As it was generally used from first phase, that optimised the presence of the 'loose' forward for this tactic.

One of my old soccer friends explained to me that it is equivalent to the Argentina defenders tactic of gently pushing an opposing forward on his hip (almost invisibly) at a corner, or from a wide free kick. The effect in both cases is to marginally unbalance a player who requires total concentration on his technique to execute what he's attempting - whether catching or heading a ball.

Just another example of the success of the SA tactical expertise of closely examining how small aspects can produce big effects.

[LeinsterLeader]

A good clip this. I don't know what the answer is but its certainly getting worse (although this is an extreme case I would think)

https://twitter.com/brettruganalyst/sta ... 7119544823

[ronk]

I saw that. 2 things jumped out: I wasn't convinced the carrier had moved 5m. Get strict on that, really strict and if you're not 100%, blow the whistle. Also law 10.1 says you're offside if you prevent your opponent playing the ball as they would like (it also says includes, which givesmore latitude). So if a player can't trap the ball with his feet because of a loitering offside player then he's been prevented from playing the ball as they'd like. An offside defensive line would have the same effect, as would turning down a favourable pass due to loitering players. Refs could shut this down without too much bending of the laws. It also violates the principle of law 10, which is unsporting.

[FLIP]

When was this changed? It's always been my understanding for years that you had to be bought onside after a kick regardless of how far the carrier takes it

[Oldschoolsocks]

How was this not a penalty against the bath olayer with his hands in the air?

[ronk]

When was this changed? It's always been my understanding for years that you had to be bought onside after a kick regardless of how far the carrier takes it

No. It's been that way for a long time. Refs wouldn't have tolerated such cynicism. Replays and endless reviews have made it harder.

7. Other than under Law 10.4c, an offside player can be put onside when :
a. An onside team-mate of that player moves past the offside player and is
within or has re-entered the playing area.
b. An opponent of that player :
i. Carries the ball five metres; or
ii. Passes the ball; or
iii. Kicks the ball; or
iv. Intentionally touches the ball without gaining possession of it.

[ronk]

Hybrid lock-blindsides and massive tighthead locks have me generally thinking that it's better to think of the back as a tight 4 and a loose 4.

Not everyone plays that way but I think it's now the case that it can be more common for a player to be comfortable 4 and 6 than 4 and 5.

[Morf]

Counter-rucking then spinning your lower body around the side of the ruck to get your legs/lower body in the way of the 9 while keeping the same bind has to stop. One where you feel they're finding the right law to reaffirm to combat it.

[hugonaut]

Not really a trend, but a question: if Bielle Barry had been clipped/pushed by the Scottish No14 just after he chipped the ball, do you think France would have been awarded a penalty try?

video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBvh2SsKwEo

He is absolutely surrounded by Scottish defenders, but ends up beating everyone to the ball by about three metres.

[MylesNaGapoleen]

They are trialling new rule changes in super rugby to stop kick tennis: https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/350175727 ... ard-attack

[Dave Cahill]

Newtons third law of rugby states that for every action there is an equal and opposite loophole

[offshorerules]

Not really a trend, but a question: if Bielle Barry had been clipped/pushed by the Scottish No14 just after he chipped the ball, do you think France would have been awarded a penalty try?

video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBvh2SsKwEo

He is absolutely surrounded by Scottish defenders, but ends up beating everyone to the ball by about three metres.

A definite possibility is my answer. Depends on how blatant it was.

[SoupyNorman]

Not really a trend, but a question: if Bielle Barry had been clipped/pushed by the Scottish No14 just after he chipped the ball, do you think France would have been awarded a penalty try?

video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBvh2SsKwEo

He is absolutely surrounded by Scottish defenders, but ends up beating everyone to the ball by about three metres.

For me at the moment, still enough uncertainty with covering defenders, so I would have just thought a yellow card and penalty.
Don't think how blatant it was, should impact the likelihood of a try being scored or not.

[offshorerules]

Not really a trend, but a question: if Bielle Barry had been clipped/pushed by the Scottish No14 just after he chipped the ball, do you think France would have been awarded a penalty try?

video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBvh2SsKwEo

He is absolutely surrounded by Scottish defenders, but ends up beating everyone to the ball by about three metres.

For me at the moment, still enough uncertainty with covering defenders, so I would have just thought a yellow card and penalty.
Don't think how blatant it was, should impact the likelihood of a try being scored or not.

Maybe so but I bet it would.

[Laighin Break]

Not really a trend, but a question: if Bielle Barry had been clipped/pushed by the Scottish No14 just after he chipped the ball, do you think France would have been awarded a penalty try?

video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBvh2SsKwEo

He is absolutely surrounded by Scottish defenders, but ends up beating everyone to the ball by about three metres.

For me at the moment, still enough uncertainty with covering defenders, so I would have just thought a yellow card and penalty.
Don't think how blatant it was, should impact the likelihood of a try being scored or not.

Agreed. If he had have been taken out, they wouldn't have been able to say with certainty that he would have outpaced the other two players and made it to the ball before them/it went dead.