Neck rolls – a dangerous offence?

June 28, 2017 / theblitzdefence / Leave a comment

We know rugby is a complex game to follow and understand, but are there any other sports that can leave seasoned followers completely unable to answer basic questions about the sport?

In the recent game between the British and Irish Lions and the Hurricanes, the following tweet appeared in our timeline:

After ummming and aahhhing for a while we were completely unable to come up with a logical explanation! Perhaps there isn’t one.

Let’s have a look at the two incidents that the tweet is refereeing to.

Henderson yellow card for “tip tackle”

First up, we have the Iain Henderson yellow card; awarded after he picked up the ‘Canes player, lifted him through the horizontal so causing him to land on his shoulder.

The response on Twitter ranged from a penalty all the way to a red card. It’s the sort of offence that could justify a red card, if we took the World Rugby guidelines in their literal sense.

In our view a yellow card is probably about right.

If we consider the safety risk to the tackled player, he is put down more on his side than directly on the top of his shoulder or neck/head and there is little downward force.

Laumape neck roll

Moving on to the second offence, which involved the ‘Canes Laumape, we see the centre make contact at the clear out, initially with Halfpenny’s shoulder, but as Laumape tries to move the Lions’ player he pulls the neck to the side to force him off the ball.

This is a classic example of what we have come to call a neck roll.

It occurs when a player clearing the ruck holds the jackal’s head or neck, and twists or forces it to the side of the ruck. Where the head goes the body usually follows, forcing the jackal off the ball and away from the ruck.

World Rugby clampdown

World Rugby were conscious that this technique was dangerous, so as part of the 2016 focus on high tackles they also included a specific reference to contact with the neck in their guidelines (see below):

The reference to the neck roll is clear and the sanctions are clear, so why are we seeing the neck roll being treated as a relatively minor offence?

In terms of danger to players, the Laumape offence is equally (if not more) dangerous as the Henderson tackle, but referees have been very reticent about issuing yellow cards for these offences. Why?

The other issue to mention is the frequency with which a clear out by the neck occurs in a top level game. Watch any professional fixture and you will see it every few minutes. On this tour there have been numerous examples – the vast majority of which were picked up at the time or later cited.

Here are a couple of examples. The first involves James Haskell, who provides an excellent clear out in the Chiefs’ game, but closer inspection shows him making contact with the top of the shoulders and neck area.

The second incident is also taken from the Chiefs’ game and ends with Dan Cole being treated for a neck injury after having his neck grabbed in a head on tackle.

What’s the solution?

There are two actions that World Rugby need to urgently take.

The first is to properly enforce the law that says the jackal (the defending player trying to win the ball at the tackle), has to support their body weight at the breakdown.

This is rarely enforced which is leading to the jackal having his head inches above the ground over the ball, leaving the player clearing out no option but to make contact with the head or upper shoulders to clear out.

By forcing the jackal to support their own body weight, the head will be higher off the ground, so allowing space for the clearing player to get under the jackal to move him.

The second action should be to enforce their own directive around the neck roll, both on the field and with subsequent citings.

This isn’t just an area for World Rugby to tackle though. Ultimately it is the players – usually following directions from coaches, who are making these dangerous actions. We know from a previous article that players have been coached to attack the neck area – here.

It’s time for players to consider the welfare of their fellow professional and stop the practice of neck rolls.

To follow theblitzdefence on Facebook like us here.

Why Professional Rugby is Impossible to Referee

March 24, 2017 / theblitzdefence / 2 Comments

In 2015 we wrote an article asking if professional rugby is now impossible to referee (read here); 18 months on and nothing has changed and there is a case to say that the referee’s job has become even harder.

If you read any rugby forum or Twitter conversation about a top end rugby game the comments always end up being focused on how poor the referee was – but how can this be the case when we have the best referees in the world officiating?

One of the main reasons that rugby watchers end up with this view is because they see infringements against their team, that the officials don’t pick up. The natural conclusion therefore is that the officials are incompetent? But how have we got to this position?

Rugby – the only sport that ignores infringements?

Rugby must be the only sport in the world where (at a conservative guess) more than 90% of infringements are ignored by officials. In every other sport, if a player infringes the rules or laws of the game they are penalised – but not in rugby!

This selective penalisation of offences is partly a function of the complexity of the game but in today’s world of professional rugby, it is more a function of the mass coaching of players to infringe, knowing referees can only penalise a small number of offences or they would render the game unwatchable.

To explain this concept in more detail let’s look at a 10 second clip from the 2017 6 Nations game between France and Wales. The clip shows the last second or two of a scrum, a penalty tap and the ensuing ruck.

Yes, this clip was in the dying stages of the game and the Welsh defence was hanging on but the offences are pretty common at any stage of a game at professional level. What the footage shows is replicated across all professional rugby on a regular basis.

To replicate the view of the respective supporters of each team, watch the clip again, firstly as a supporter of France and then as a Welsh supporter, and note down how many infringements you spot by the opposition in each case.

What’s an infringement?

When trying to spot the infringements, the first question that may pop in to a reader’s head is, what do you mean by infringement? Again, the complexity of rugby means we have perhaps 4 levels of laws and how they are officiated and applied:

The Law Book – the laws of rugby as written down. Sometimes these are followed, often they are ignored or “interpreted”
Law application guidelines and clarifications – these are official interpretations by World Rugby that are available on the website
Officials’ guidelines – if you are referee then you will receive coaching and information that helps you in your job. At the top level, the elite referees are given instructions by World Rugby that dictate how they adjudicate the game but these instructions aren’t made widely available to the rugby watching public
Individual referee’s interpretation – we still have referees interpreting laws differently, particularly across the two hemispheres

We won’t go in to this topic in any more detail now but it’s worth flagging the uncertainty we all have around what is or isn’t against the laws of the game.

The French View

As a French supporter these are the Welsh infringements we spotted – there may be more you have seen that can be added to the list.

(1) Welsh loose head “hinges” with his head way below his hips, causing the scrum to collapse

(2) Welsh tight head collapses scrum under pressure – we can’t see what exactly happened given the camera angle, but this is what Wayne Barnes singles out as he penalises Wales

(3) Preventing a quick penalty tap – as Barnes signals for a French penalty, Rhys Webb tries to prevent or slow down the quick French tap by grabbing Picamoles.

(4) Failure to retreat from penalty – as Picamoles taps the ball at least 2 of the Welsh players in the camera view have not retreated to the try line.

(5) Not coming through the gate – as the tackle was made on Picamoles, Luke Charteris (number 19) approaches the tackle but fails to come through the Welsh gate, instead he flops on the tackled player on the French side in an effort to slow the ball down.

(6) Not getting to feet or rolling away after a tackle – Liam Williams (number 11) assisted with the tackle but instead of getting to his feet or moving away from the tackle he attempts to play the ball (or at least slow it down) while still on his knees (he is the middle player in the screen shot below).

(7) Failure to release the ball while off feet – we can’t see who the player is but Barnes eventually penalises a Welsh player on the floor. We can just see the ball and the players arms as he belatedly tries to get away from the ball.

The Welsh View

Now switching sides and watching the events from a Welsh perspective there are a number of French infringements we spotted:

(1) The French tight head prop Slimani binds on the arm of his Welsh opposing prop pulling him downwards and causing the scrum to collapse.

(2) Penalty kick taken from the right place? It isn’t clear from the camera angle but it looks like Picamoles took the penalty tap in front of Waynes and not behind him or through the line of the mark.

(3) Offside at the tap – any players infront of the ball when the penalty is taken must immediately retire. In this case the French number 7 continues to move forward immediately after the tap rather than retreat until he was put onside.

(4) Not joining the ruck at the back foot – Maestri (wearing 5) at the top of the image doesn’t join the ruck at the back foot but halfway down the ruck and ends up on the Welsh side (see second image where we can make out his number 5 shirt).

11 Infringements in 10 Seconds

If we sum these infringements we get 11 infringements in total, spread across the 2 teams. This total does not include other laws that are part of the law book but are not applied today, like having heads and shoulders no lower than hips when when joining a ruck or endeavouring to stay on one’s feet at the ruck. There are numerous examples of ruck laws that are just not applied any more.

Given the number of offences by each side that are ignored by the officials, we can easily see how supporters end up feeling their team has been hard done by and then blame the referee.

There isn’t an easy solution to the problem. The 3 possibilities are:

i) coaches and players back off and stop offending so frequently – which isn’t likely to happen given the win at all costs of modern rugby

ii) the officials start to penalise more offences

iii) we move towards the american football model of officiating, with a number of officials looking at different types of offences at any time

We will look at these options in a future blog, but for now it is easy to appreciate why supporters from all sides get frustrated during matches. For those supporters who know the laws of the game, rugby can be a frustrating game to watch at the moment.

To follow theblitzdefence on Facebook like us here.

Reckless? Deliberate? What deserves a red card?

December 17, 2016 / theblitzdefence / Leave a comment

Over the last couple of weeks we have seen 3 separate incidents which have highlighted two of the biggest issues in the game concerning the officiating of acts of serious foul play.

These two issues we are going to look at are:

World Rugby’s current emphasis on penalising acts that are deemed reckless, rather than those that are deliberate or intentional
The confused approach to defining what we use to measure the severity of the incident; is it the action of the offending player or the outcome of the action that we should be looking at?

The 3 high profile incidents we will look at are George North on the receiving end of Adam Thompstone’s challenge in the Leicester Northampton fixture, Kurtly Beale’s yellow card for Wasps and the red card given to Cardiff Blues’ George Earle.

George North

We covered the George North controversy in some detail in this article but let’s remind ourselves of the incident:

The tackler (Thompstone) was given a yellow card for his actions because the officials deemed that North fell on to his side and not his head, neck or shoulders. The guidelines deem this a yellow card.

This decision clearly highlights a problem with the way tackles in the air are dealt with, in that the officials are told the card colour depends on where the tackled player lands on his body and not on the actions of the tackler.

Thompstone’s actions weren’t meant to harm North but his instinctive reaction was certainly deliberate and reckless. When he made the tackle he had no idea what the outcome was going to be be, it was pure luck that North didn’t land on top of his head or neck.

This lack of knowledge of the outcome of an action is the reason why World Rugby has to penalise the action and not the outcome; these are within the control of the offending player while the subsequent outcome isn’t.

George Earle

As the footage below shows, the Cardiff second row was sent off in the Challenge Cup fixture against Bath for making contact with the eye area of a Bath player in a maul.

Under current World Rugby guidelines this offence is now a red card but most people would argue that it was a reckless, rather than a deliberate act. If a player has his head down in the maul and blindly swings his arms should this be punished?

One school of thought is that players need to take more responsibility for their actions but the contrary view is that World Rugby is now penalising accidents.

In the North example where a player is taken in the air, the sanction was based on the outcome of the incident. However, as the Earle example shows, in the case of contact with the eye area the outcome of the action isn’t considered, it is the action itself that is assessed and punished.

Earle was certainly reckless in his arm and hand movements but he was arguably far less reckless than Thompstone, who took out a player in the air. One incident resulted in a minor injury (if any injury), while the other resulted in a neck injury/concussion [delete as appropriate].

Kurtley Beale

Our third incident involved Kurtley Beale and a yellow card award for a high tackle on Connacht’s wing:

Given World Rugby’s recent pronouncement on a further tightening of the officiating of high tackles (read here), we are going to see far more of these sorts of tackles being penalised, and probably a few more red cards.

The video shows the Connacht winger dip in to the tackle and Beale certainly makes some contact with the head. He doesn’t swing his arm or apply a stiff arm in the tackle and it certainly looks like a genuine attempt to make a tackle.

In this case the officials have deemed it reckless and therefore adjudged Beale has committed an offence, but does it deserve this level of sanction, if indeed any sanction at all?

The officials focus on the action, rather than the outcome, in these sorts of incidents which is the opposite approach to the tackle in the air. If the high tackle guidelines were written in a similar way to the tackle in the air then officials would be looking at the point of impact on the head and the force used. We would get a completely different outcome to the approach used today.

Final Thoughts

Firstly it is worth saying that World Rugby have good intentions at heart in these guidelines but they are in danger of making rugby unplayable. We all agree that risks should be minimised where possible but we need to ensure that the focus is in the right areas.

If we imagine a spectrum with a deliberate attempt to maim at one end and a complete accident at the other, where do we draw the line which defines if an act is reckless or not?

Is there now no such thing as an accidental coming together, or will officials be asked to determine which party was the most reckless and therefore be subject to a sanction?

Our view has always been that it should be the action that is punished and not the outcome. This would mean we are comfortable with the red card for George Earle but would also have deemed Adam Thompstone’s offence to be a red card. Beale’s actions would not warrant a card.

To follow theblitzdefence on Facebook like us here.

Keith Earls and Tip Tackle Tombola

October 22, 2016October 22, 2016 / theblitzdefence / Leave a comment

Given it was less than a week after the tragic passing of Munster legend Anthony Foley, the Munster, Glasgow game was always going to be one full of emotion. Would the Munster players be able to focus on the game or would this be a fixture that was scheduled too soon after the events of the last week?

It was perhaps understandable then, that a momentary lack of control from Keith Earls provided the main talking point of the first half, when he was awarded a red card for a tip tackle.

The Munster centre does have a bit of form for dangerous tip tackles and has been lucky in the past not to be shown a red card for lifting the ball carrier through 90 degrees and not returning him safely to the ground.

Here are two examples from the 6 Nations fixture against Wales, earlier this season:

It’s a bit of a rugby cliche, but if you lift a player through 90 degrees and they don’t come down safely, you will always run the risk of a red card.

Earl tackle against Glasgow

In the Champions Cup fixture against Glasgow Earls once again picks and lifts the player. Here are the two angles of the tackle.

The laws on this have been clarified and provide some guidance around the difference between a red and a yellow card. Here they are:

Law 10.4(j) reads: Lifting a player from the ground and dropping or driving that player into the ground whilst that player’s feet are still off the ground such that the player’s head and/or upper body come into contact with the ground is dangerous play.

A directive was issued to all Unions and Match Officials in 2009 emphasising World Rugby’s zero-tolerance stance towards dangerous tackles and reiterating the following instructions for referees:

– The player is lifted and then forced or ‘speared’ into the ground (red card offence)

– The lifted player is dropped to the ground from a height with no regard to the player’s safety (red card offence)

– For all other types of dangerous lifting tackles a yellow card or penalty may be considered sufficient

Given the Glasgow player is picked up, tiled through 90 degrees and then comes down on his head or upper shoulders a red card was always likely to be shown.

Matt Toomua tackle

There is an interesting to point to note about the Keith Earls tackle when we compare it to another tip tackle – Leicester centre Matt Toomua’s against Glasgow in last week’s Champions Cup match.

The Australian centre picks and lifts the Glasgow player and as the still shows below he comes down to earth from a steep angle.

Toomua was given a yellow card because Finn Russell has the sense to put his hand to the ground meaning it isn’t his upper body, head or neck that comes in to contact with the ground first.

The law guidelines are wrong

If we now compare the Earls and Toomua tackles we see that the defender does virtually the same action, the only difference being that Finn Russell puts his hand out to prevent himself landing on his upper body while the Glasgow player in the Earls tackle doesn’t.

The guidelines are wrong because they are based on the outcome and not the act itself.

Neither Toomua nor Earls knew what the outcome would be when they lifted up the attackers and yet they have received different sanctions (Toomua only received a yellow). This is plainly illogical and doesn’t help to stamp out dangerous tackles.

What’s the solution?

The solution is simple. Players are not allowed to lift a player and tilt them through 90 degrees in the tackle. Any tackle that meets these two criteria is an automatic red card.

This practice didn’t used to be prevalent in rugby and there is no need for it to become accepted practice. As long as the boundaries are know and clear, then we shouldn’t have the ambiguity we have today.

To follow theblitzdefence on Facebook like us here.

Maul law officiating – new for June tests

June 9, 2016June 9, 2016 / theblitzdefence / 1 Comment

The lack of a global calendar is a major blight on professional rugby and is an issue that needs to be resolved urgently.

An example of unintended consequences of the disjointed rugby season can be demonstrated through World Rugby’s recent announcement regarding law amendments for the coming June tests.

A lot of readers won’t necessarily know this but since the turn of the calendar year 2016, there have been a number of laws that have been officiated differently in the northern hemisphere compared to the southern hemisphere.

These “minor law amendments” have been applied in the southern hemisphere since the start of the year but will be in force in full in the northern hemisphere from 1 July 2016. Confusing.

To add more confusion there is one particular law amendment (maul) which applies in the northern hemisphere from 1 June; which means that the under 20 World Championship hosted in England, is subject to this new law.

The fact that southern hemisphere teams have been playing with the new maul guidelines for a few months should give them an advantage in this area, when it comes to the forthcoming June test series.

We will now look at this change in a bit more detail.

What was the problem?

We have written previously about why most mauls are illegal and highlighted 3 key areas:

Lifters step forward to block defenders reaching the jumper when he lands
The ball carrier in the maul breaks his bind and re-attaches at the back
Players from the team with the ball in the maul join in front of the back foot

This minor law amendment seeks to solve the second problem on this list.

As a reminder of what we mean by breaking the bind and “shifting” to the back of the maul, have a look at this short clip:

We can clearly see that the South African number 2 joins the maul, the ball carrier then breaks his bind and magically re-binds behind the hooker.

It is an illegal ploy that officials have overlooked for some time…until now, with the introduction of the law amendment.

What will change?

Officials will now require the ball to be moved backwards by hand once the maul has formed. This has two implications:

Firstly, as shown in the clip above, a player is not allowed to move – or slide, to the back of the maul when he is in possession of the ball. This is a positive move as it will bring back one of the elements of skill in a maul, which is the ability to coordinate the transfer of the ball from the front to the back.

The second implication is that the ripper (the player who takes the ball from the jumper as he lands), must be in contact with the jumper when he takes the ball until it has been transferred.

In the recent Wales Ireland u20 World Championship game both teams were penalised by the (southern hemisphere) referee for passing the ball back to the ripper, before the ripper was bound to the maul. Most of the players looked perplexed by the decisions so it is obviously not yet ingrained in the northern hemisphere way of playing.

The still below taken from the game, shows the Welsh catcher returning to ground and the ripper (with the black scrum cap) taking the ball before he is a part of the maul.

Once the ball is transferred to him he then binds on to the players in front. The fact that the ripper wasn’t bound when he took the ball from the jumper and then attaches to the maul, is now illegal.

In this example the referee explained to Wales the offence was for an “illegal transfer, illegal transfer….long arm”.

How has this been refereed in the south?

In general the officials in Super Rugby have applied this law correctly and players are forced to transfer the ball back by hand.

The following clip comes from a pre-season game between the Blues and Chiefs and shows the ball firstly being ripped from the catcher and then transferred by hand to the hooker.

This law guideline is a positive step towards rectifying the imbalance between the way officials have dealt with the team with the ball in a maul and the team defending it. In the last few years officials have turned a blind eye to a number of offences committed by the attacking teams which has resulted in the driving or rolling maul dominating games to the point of tedium.

World Rugby now needs to turn its attentions to point 3 on the list above, and ensure that players from the attacking team join the maul at the back foot.

To follow theblitzdefence on Facebook like us here.

Why Georgia and Romania won’t join the 6 Nations

March 26, 2016November 26, 2016 / theblitzdefence / 4 Comments

The 2016 6 Nations wasn’t a great tournament for the Italians. After a promising opening game against the French in Paris their tournament went rapidly downhill with heavy defeats against England at home (9-40), Scotland at home (20-36), Ireland away (58-15) and culminated with a chastening defeat in Cardiff (67-14).

Under Jacques Brunel, Italy’s now departed head coach, the Italians style of play shifted from a forward dominated approach to a more open, expansive game. There is a strong case to make that this new game plan has not played to their strengths and has contributed to their stuttering development. Indeed, in Conor O’Shea’s first game in charge of Italy against South Africa, you could see a shift in emphasis back to traditional Italian strengths.

On the same day as the Italians assured themselves of the bottom spot in the 2016 6 Nations, about 2000 miles east in Tbilisi, Georgia were sealing the European Nations Cup title with victory over Romania in front of a crowd of over 50,000.

With the European Nations Cup being the second tier European competition, questions have now been raised regarding the prospects for Georgia and Romania and whether a route to the top European table – the 6 Nations, should be opened up for them.

In our view, the day when Georgia or Romania play a 6 Nations fixture is some way off. Here are the 3 main reasons why it is unlikely to happen.

(1) Playing standard

Let’s be honest about this. If we bemoan the quality of Italy in this 6 Nations, adding a Georgia or a Romania in their place will further dilute the standard, not improve it.

Georgia has been the class act in the recent Nations Cup with 10 wins out of 10 and only 75 points conceded, giving them a healthy points difference of +271. At the Rugby World Cup they defeated Tonga and Namibia and were competitive for periods against New Zealand and Argentina, before suffering fairly heavy defeats.

The Georgian domestic league is semi-professional but a lot of the top Georgian players ply their trade in the French Top 14. Age grade rugby in Georgia is improving and their under 20 team will appear in the 2016 World Rugby u20 Championship for the first time, following promotion from the tier below. Georgia will also host the 2017 event which should further support rugby development in the nation.

Romania has long flirted with being the best European side outside the traditional old “5 nations” countries but was overtaken by Italy in the push to formally join the top table. Sadly, Romanian rugby went in to a post-communist slump but has recently started to regain some of the form that saw them beat Wales, Scotland and France in the early 1980s.

They are some way behind Georgia in terms of playing standards and were comfortably beaten by Italy at the World Cup earlier this season.

As it stands, Romania are not strong enough to compete with the bottom teams in the 6 Nations. Georgia would provide a sterner test but even if they beat Italy in a one-off playoff game the quality of the 6 Nations will not be improved in the short term.

(2) 6 Nations ownership

The second reason why Georgia and Romania will find it hard to force themselves in to the 6 Nations is because of the ownership structure of the tournament.

At present the tournament is “owned” and run by the respective unions of the member nations, which would mean an existing member would have to give up their right to play in the 6 Nations to allow Georgia or Romania a potential spot in the tournament. Given the tournament revenues are so crucial for the unions why would they choose to give up this guaranteed income stream?

The 6 Nations chief executive, John Feehan, is on record talking about the importance of the revenues that flow from the tournament as a key driver in the commercial decisions of the member nations. It seems unlikely that the unions would vote for a change in structure that would see their revenues decrease.

(3) Commercial realities

Rugby is now a professional sport so all decisions need to be viewed through a commercial lens. We know that TV deals are big revenue earners for the 6 Nations and therefore the member unions, indeed the most recent BBC deal for the exclusive UK broadcast and online coverage of the Six Nations, is reported to have been worth £160 million for four years from 2014.

The value for the broadcaster (and therefore the 6 Nations) in the TV deals is a function of the number of viewers of a programme and the buying power of those viewers; put crudely, the wealth of the consumers who watch the programme.

If the 6 Nations brought in a play-off system with the bottom team moving in to the lower tier this would bring two problems. Firstly, it would be difficult to sell a TV package to a broadcaster if there is uncertainty over the teams that would be competing. For example, would the BBC or Sky pay as much for the rights to the 6 Nations if they knew that instead of Scotland or Wales playing in the tournament it was going to be Romania?

Secondly, we can’t ignore the fact that Georgia and Romania are not wealthy nations, so they are unlikely the bring with them the sort of commercial clout that would tempt the existing members to make a deal.

The reality is that if it was Russia and Germany pushing for inclusion the route open to them would have far less hurdles than those faced by Georgia and Romania.

The Italian problem

Italian rugby is not in good health with the national team struggling and the regional teams propping up the Pro12 table. As it currently stands, any route to the 6 Nations for Georgia or Romania would be at the expense of Italy, but if the rugby world can’t make Italy competitive what chance do we have with Georgia or Romania?

On the face of it Italy has lots going for it as a potential major rugby playing nation. It has a large population at 60 million, compared to Georgia (4.5 million) and Romania (19 million) and a healthy number of registered rugby players (82,143), against 7,113 in Georgia and 7,605 in Romania. It is also one of the largest economies in the world which should make it an attractive commercial option.

Italian rugby needs support or the good work of the last 10 years may be undone and the 6 Nations will become less competitive; World Rugby should not develop Georgia and Romania at the expense of Italy.

Follow the Argentina model?

Proponents of opening up the 6 Nations to Georgia and Romania often point to Argentina’s inclusion in a revamped Tri Nations as the model to show developing teams can make the leap across to the big leagues, but this is not an analogous situation.

Argentina were a strong, competitive nation before their inclusion in SANZAR’s competition; they are a populous and wealthy nation and their inclusion has made the old Tri Nations tournament a stronger commercial “product”.

The three major hurdles that stand in Georgia and Romania’s way did not apply to Argentina when they were seeking entry to the Tri Nations.

So what next for Georgia and Romania?

This article has set out why it is unlikely that we will see Georgia and Romania competing in the 6 Nations, by looking at it from the perspective of the 6 Nations committee, but if we consider the issue as a rugby supporter we get a different view.

If we want rugby to grow and develop we need World Rugby to provide strong direction and leadership and make the case to the traditional rugby nations for change. Practically this means:

Financial support for tier 2 nations
A clear path for progression of the tier 2 nations to the top competitions
Incentives for the major nations to play tests against the leading tier 2 nations
Coaching exchanges and development programmes
Introduction of rugby at school and age grade levels

Once these initiatives are put in place the case for the likes of Georgia and Romania’s inclusion in an extended 6 Nations becomes a far stronger sell. If these nations get to play – and beat, some of the existing 6 Nations teams on a regular basis the defence for their exclusion becomes untenable.

Whether these levels of support will be fully provided are yet to be seen but the appointment of Bill Beaumont as the Chair of World Rugby in the place of Bernard Lapasset doesn’t auger well for the future of the game’s development. The excellent Tier 2 rugby blog by @T2Rugby discusses this appointment in more detail here.

To follow theblitzdefence on Facebook like us here.

The scrum through the decades

March 20, 2016 / theblitzdefence / 5 Comments

The modern day professional scrum is one of the biggest frustrations for the average rugby supporter. The eradication of the “hit” seems to have removed some of the issues but we are still faced with any number of re-sets, collapsed scrums, flankers pointing at offences before the referee awards a seemingly unintelligible penalty. It’s not great value for money.

It didn’t always used to be this way though, and through a selection of short films we can see how the scrum has evolved through the years to get where we are today. This isn’t a technical analysis of the changes but more a high level view of the evolution of the scrum.

1970s

This first clip comes from the 1972 test match between Wales and New Zealand in Cardiff. Following a crooked throw at the lineout the referee blows his whistle for the scrum:

The first thing that stands out is the Welsh hooker jogs to get around and in to position for the Welsh pack to form around him! From the point when the whistle is blown the scrum forms and the ball is fed in around 15 seconds – quite incredible by today’s standards.

There is a hit of sorts but the packs find an equilibrium and stabilises before the ball goes in. The ball is hooked and quickly channelled to be released; there is no keeping of the ball at the number 8’s feet to try and milk a penalty.

1980s

We fast forward about 10 years and look at a Wales, England fixture from 1981.

Once again it takes about 15-20 seconds from the whistle for the scrum, to the ball being fed in to the scrum. In this example it is the front 5s from the respective packs that form and then the back rows attach.

1990s

We head to the southern hemisphere for this video from the 1995 Rugby World Cup final between South Africa and New Zealand.

The game was ostensibly amateur in the mid-nineties but it was widely recognised that players had been on a professional footing in the southern hemisphere for a number of years.

The 1995 scrum shows a big change when we compare it to the earlier versions. From the whistle to the ball feed is about 45 seconds, which is a big increase on the previous decades with the main reason being that we have had to re-set the scrum.

The now ubiquitous scrum collapse has entered the game as the front rows jostle for the upper hand during the hit. The scrum itself still forms fairly quickly and the New Zealand hooker Fitzpatrick manages to disengage from his front row colleagues, shift the scrum without the need for the whole engagement process to start again.

Once the scrum has collapsed both teams quickly get off the ground and reform. There is no arm waving or pointing by to help the referee penalise the opposition when the scrum went to ground.

From the same game we see another scrum awarded and a quick set by both packs. The interesting think to note is that in the absence of the referee calling an engage sequence the only word he utters is “wait”. He then moves out of the way and the front rows engage with no fuss.

2000s

It’s now the 2007 Rugby World Cup final and South Africa are taking on England. As we will see from this video clip the referee has now become the most important person on the pitch and does a lot of talking during the phase of play.

This scrum has one reset and still takes around 40 seconds to complete but the noticeable changes are the scrum engagement sequence has been introduced, including a “touch” phase which was supposed to reduce the gap between the two front rows. The referee also talks to both front rows between scrums and advises them on how much gap to leave and what he wants to see at the scrum.

The second obvious change is the focus on the ‘hit’ as the packs collide and the immediate feed from the scrum half.

The hit and and subsequent drive became the dominant aspect of the scrum, which suited certain props over others. The scrum half would feed the ball once the scrum had formed.

Modern day

The modern scrum example is taken from this year’s 6 Nations clash between Wales and France in Cardiff.

Nearly 40 seconds after the whistle has blown for the scrum the front rows still haven’t even formed. This has the advantage of allowing the TV companies more time to show reruns but has the disadvantage of giving some of the less fit French props time to recover before they push again.

Wayne Barnes and the front rows have a chat about the scrum as if they have never had to form one before and there is lots of pulling of mud from boots and readjusting of binds.

Other than the number 8 all 3 rows form before the engagement, with the second rows on their knees. The engagement has had the hit taken away but the referee blows for a reset, even though it looks like the two packs have already formed. Instead of readjusting in the positions they are, both packs stand up and the whole sequence has to be repeated.

We now see front rows questioning the referee and Barnes needs to explain again what he wants at the scrum. The scrum half is now only allowed to introduce the ball on a signal from the referee.

This one scrum has taken over 90 seconds and ends in a penalty; which just about sums up the modern scrum – painfully slow and usually ending with a questionable penalty.

The last thing to note about the modern day scrum is the angle the props take when the scrum forms. In this still from the Wales France game, look at the angle of the prop’s legs on this side of the scrum.

On this side the French prop’s right leg is about 45 degrees from the vertical, with his feet about a foot behind his knee. Compare that leg shape with one from the 1995 South Africa, New Zealand game:

The New Zealand prop’s left leg is clearly visible and we can see it takes a very different position than the French player’s. In this example the top half of the leg is nearly vertical and the heads and shoulders of the props are about 6 inches higher than those in the modern day scrum.

With the low body position with the legs at about 45 degrees to the vertical it is no wonder we see so many collapsed scrums in the modern game.

What needs to change?

Firstly, the whole scrum sequence and formation needs to be speeded up so those that pay good money to watch rugby aren’t sitting there in boredom. Secondly, the players have to take responsibility for the number of collapsed scrums and make a decision for the good of the game to try and improve the spectacle. Finally, referees need to stop guessing who has offended and look to improve their knowledge of offences at the scrum.

To follow theblitzdefence on Facebook like us here.

Difference between touching and binding in the maul?

March 5, 2016March 5, 2016 / theblitzdefence / 1 Comment

In Saturday’s Sharks against Jaguares game an interesting incident occurred mid way through the first half that left us googling for the maul laws.

The Jaguares had just conceded a try from a driving maul and were struggling to contain the Shark’s pack, when they decided to stand off the maul at the next lineout. Here is the Vine of the incident:

The tactic is to stand off, wait for the Sharks to transfer the ball to the back of the maul then tackle the front player, ensuring the penalty is won for obstructing the ball carrier. Great plan, but the referee Jaco Peyper picked up that the Jaguares number 8 had put his hands on the front player in the maul before taking them off and then re-engaging.

When the maul broke down the penalty was given by Peyper with the direction that, “The player at the back cannot make contact with it {the player], then it’s a maul. So they have to open up [Peyper makes a gesture of his hands coming off a player]”.

He then said to the number 8, “You’re at the back and you touch it, it’s a maul”.

The key word that Peyper uses here is “touch”. The Vine seems to show the number 8 doing exactly that; placing his hands on the back of the Sharks’ maul. The problem is that “touching” a player in the maul doesn’t constitute that player joining the maul and therefore he couldn’t be penalised for causing the maul to be formed and then disengaging.

Law 17.2.c specifically says that:

“Placing a hand on another player in the maul does not constitute binding.”

So, if Peyper did indeed think that touching the maul means it is formed, he has got it wrong.

To give him the benefit of the doubt Peyper might have meant “bind” when he said “touch”, in which case his decision was correct, but looking at the footage it doesn’t look like the Jaguares player was bound.

To follow the blitzdefence on Facebook like is here

John Lacey – breakdown interpretation (Scarlets-Treviso)

March 5, 2016March 5, 2016 / theblitzdefence / Leave a comment

This was a poor game of rugby. The sort of Friday night fixture that makes you wish you had agreed to watch a Coronation Street – Eastenders double header rather than 80 minutes of Pro12 dross.

The two teams looked disinterested and the game was littered with errors but the referee, John Lacey, really didn’t help matters with his “interpretation” of the breakdown, which will be the focus of this article.

In a week when there have been a number of discussions about the paucity of quality rugby in the 6 Nations we were given a reminder by John Lacey why the northern hemisphere struggles to match the pace and intensity of the game down south.

Lacey greatly favours the defending team at the tackle area, to the point where any attacking move was scuppered by the jackaling player flopping over the ball on his hands, elbows and sometimes shoulders in order to steal or slow the ball down. It is no wonder that the game had no pace or rhythm.

Here are some examples:

(1) Scarlets attack. The Treviso player is not supporting his body weight. Lacey did not penalise this and play was allowed to carry on.

(2) Treviso make a clean break and the Scarlets make a last ditch tackle under their posts. The first defender, Steffan Evans is not supporting his body weight. This should have been a penalty and a yellow card but Lacey allowed play to continue.

(3) Treviso have the ball and James Davies has his nose nearly on the floor as he attempts the jackal. This was given as a penalty to the Scarlets for holding on.

(4) As the Scarlets attack it is the Treviso number 8 who comes off his. Lacey gave this as a penalty given to Treviso.

(5) The Scarlets make a clean break to 5m from Treviso line. The Treviso tackler positions his body to slow the release as he falls on the wrong side. This was not penalised but should have been a yellow card and a penalty.

(6) The Scarlets take the ball in to midfield and Treviso come off their feet to kill the ball. You can see the right leg and knee of the defender resting on the Scarlets player on the floor. Lacey is in a good position to see what is going on but gives Treviso the penalty.

(7) Treviso on attack and it’s James Davies who again goes over the ball off his feet and Lacey awards him the penalty.

(8) With about 10 minutes to go the Scarlets attack Treviso 5m out and two Treviso players are off their feet to slow the ball. Lacey finally gets it right and penalises the two players but inexplicably misses a clear obstruction in the build up. Again, he is well positioned to see the offence but ignored it.

If you have a few spare minutes today, try and see if you can get yourself in to any of these jackaling body positions – and still support your own body weight. It’s impossible.

You may want to try these with another consenting adult to make it more fun.

To follow theblitzdefence on Facebook like us here

1 year of theblitzdefence rugby – the most read articles

February 6, 2016 / theblitzdefence / Leave a comment

Time flies. It has been 12 months since the first theblitzdefence article (The day of the jackal) was written and 60 posts later we are still here.

The last 12 months have been an interesting time in rugby and we have written about cheating, diving, jackaling, mauling, Eddie Jones, Pat Lam, Warren Gatland, the TMO process, the difficulties of refereeing and lots more.

Thank you to all those who have read the articles and have contributed via Twitter or Facebook. We look forward to the 2016 6 Nations and to celebrate the last 12 months here are the most read articles from the past 12 months.

1. 5 existing rugby laws that referees need to apply

2. The greatest try of all time has been disallowed

3. Alex Cuthbert – the rise and fall

4. Foreign born players in RWC squads

5. The footballisation of rugby #1 – Pat Lam

6. Tom Woods, Liam Williams’ head and similar incidents

7. Professional rugby is impossible to referee?

8. Cut-out-and-keep guide to Gatland’s law

9. Why most mauls are illegal

10. The night Larry King came to the Millennium Stadium

Like us on Facebook to follow – here