Rugby’s Greatest Tries Should Have Been Disallowed! Rugby in a World Before the TMO.

As the 2020 6 Nations rumbles on, social media is awash with footage of the greatest tries the tournament has seen. Jinking outside halves, flying wingers, switch moves and no shortage of attacking play; rugby as it should be played.

One particular clip that caught the eye was Phil Bennett’s spectacular try in the 1977 Scotland v Wales fixture, as the mercurial fly half finishes off an 80 metre move under the posts.

 

But hang on…..looking at this try with the eye of the modern rugby viewer, we can’t help but notice a couple of those passes looked a bit marginal.

Rugby was a different beast back in the amateur days of the 1970s, with no ability for referees to view replays and no Third Match Official (TMO) sitting in a box, watching play back for offences.

So how would the greatest tries in rugby history be assessed under the modern scrutiny from the TMO? Let’s start with Bennett’s try.

 

Phil Bennett (Scotland v Wales 1977)

“Check, check…..it’s Ben Skeen here”…..

The TMO would probably want to look at two passes in the build up to Bennett’s try.

The first is the pass from Bennett to David Burcher.  As we can see from the clip, the ball travels a long way forward from the point of release, but of course it’s the direction of hands that we use as a guide as to what constitutes forward.

Bennett’s hands look like they are pointing forward and the ball comes out of the hands in a forward direction.

Burcher then throws a one handed over-head pass that also has the hint of the forward pass about it (see below).

TMO decision: No try. Forward pass. Scrum to Scotland on half way line.

 

Gareth Edwards (Barbarians v New Zealand, 1973)

Often known as the greatest try of all time, we poked a bit of fun at this in an article a couple of years ago.

It’s a beautiful try that combines backs and forwards in a flowing move from one end of the pitch to the other.

 

If this was being refereed in a 2020 game, the move may well have been brought to a halt deep in the Barbarian’s 22, when JPR Williams is on the receiving end of a neck high tackle.

As play develops, we see some lovely interplay between forwards and backs and the ball being kept alive in contact. But what’s this…..Quinnell to Edwards….

Even without the advent of the TMO, this pass should really have been picked up by the referee.

Verdict: No try. Forward pass. No advantage for the high tackle, penalty to the Barbarians in their 22m.

 

Shane Williams (Wales v Scotland, 2010)

With 3 minutes remaining Scotland led Wales by 10 points. What transpired was rugby’s greatest ever come back, which was sealed by Shane Williams dotting down under the posts after a multi-phase attack from deep in the Welsh half.

Why did Stephen Jones kick the ball cross-field when he had a number of players out wide? Who knows, but the bounce of the ball falls for Wales and as Lee Byrne gathers the ball and is tackled, he throws a forward pass to Leigh Halfpenny, who has only just got up off the floor.

Verdict: No try. Forward pass. Scrum to Scotland.

 

Serge Blanco (France v Australia, 1987)

It was a try that showed French rugby at it’s best, as forwards and backs swept down the field, culminating in Serge Blanco going over in the corner to put France in to the final of the inaugural Rugby World Cup.

 

Apart from a nasty no-arms tackles from Australia, it was the pace of France’s number 4 (Alain Lorieux) to follow up Patrice Lagisquet’s kick that caught the key. How did he put pressure on Australia in midfield? It’s because he was about 2 metres in front of the kick.

 

Verdict: No try. Offside. Penalty to Australia.

 

The TMO is a mainstay of modern, professional rugby. It was brought in to highlight obvious infringements that the match officials missed, but has this made rugby a better spectacle?

Would rugby in the 1970s and 1980s have been better if the TMO had been used? Imagine a rugby history where these tries had been disallowed?

 

To follow the blitzdefence on Facebook go here.

To follow us on Twitter go to rugby@theblitzdefence.

Wales v Ireland Preview: The Maul. Ireland’s Attacking Weapon Against Wales’ Defence

One of the key areas of the game on Saturday will be the maul and how each side copes with the other’s strengths.

For Ireland, the driving maul has been a potent weapon for a number of years with the national team building off the success of Munster and Leinster in perfectly such a crucial area of the game.

By contrast, Wales has never established the maul as a strong part of their armoury but their defence of the driving maul has improved considerably over the last 12 months, meaning there is not a weak aspect to their defensive game.

Let’s look at Ireland’s maul and how Wales have set up to tackle similar maul situations in previous games.

 

Ireland’s Maul

Rugby’s legislators tried to de-power the driving maul through a few law guidelines a couple of years ago, but as ever, rugby’s players and coaches are one step ahead of the game and illegal practices have crept back in to the game at the top level and made the attacking maul a great way to score easy points, through tries or penalties.

Ireland are a great exponent of the art and indeed their first try against France in this year’s 6 Nations came from a close range driving maul after just 2 minutes of play.

They established their field position due to an excellent kick from Jordan Larmour, that again showed up the lack of organisation in the French back field defence (we covered this in more detail in the analysis of the England v France game).

After turning down the 3 points, they kicked for the corner, were awarded another penalty and again opted for the lineout and an attempt at setting their driving maul.

As the clip below shows, Rory Best plunged over for the try.

There are a few aspects of the maul that are worth pointing out, that give us a few clues as to the strength of the maul and how to combat it.

As it typical of most professional level driving mauls, by the time the catcher is on his way down, a number of his supporting players have left the lineout and formed behind the catcher (see still below), with the two lifters moving in front of the catcher to protect him.

These tactics are illegal but widely used and ignored by officials.

This means as the catcher hits the ground there are 3 other players ready to immediately drive through the catcher to quickly start the momentum. A 4th supporting player arrives to start a 3rd row of drivers and finally the hooker (Rory Best) sweeps around to take the ball.

Here are the positions of the Irish players at the 3 phases of the lineout and drive. At the formation of the lineout, Ireland only put 6 players in, with the open-side flanker van der Flier in the scrum half position.

 

The ball is caught at the front by 4 (Henderson), with 8 (Stander) leaving the line and 6 (O’Mahony) moving in to lift with 1 (Healy). Even though 3 (Furlong) starts at the back of the lineout he passes 5 (Ryan) and takes his place in the 2nd line of forwards, with Ryan slotting in the back with Best.

The ball is passed from 4 to 7 and back to 2.

France don’t compete for the ball in the air, as is quite common at this level, instead they form a defensive shape which attempts to drive the Irish maul towards the touchline. We’ll come to this shape in a minute.

If we go back to the still above, it’s worth noting the slow speed with which the French defenders get in to position to counter drive, which is exacerbated by the fact Ireland have formed that 2nd line of driving players before Henderson has even hit the ground after the catch.

The view from behind shows us where the maul defence failed. Have a close look at the position and movement of France 1 (Poirot).

 

Let’s look a bit closer at the French defence and the positions their forwards end up in as the Irish set for the drive.

We can see that France have gone man for man and put 3 players in the front line of defence with two more (8 and 5) providing the 2nd wave of support to force that diagonal drive.

3 and 6 don’t join the drive but try to firefight as the Irish come through. The hooker 2 (Guirado) defends the near side.

In this defensive system, the weight comes through at an angle towards the touchline. What this means is that the key person in initially holding the drive is the player at the front – 1 (Poirot). It’s his job to hold that initial drive until the power comes through from his team mates to take the maul towards the touchline.

If we look back at the clip above we can see what happens to 1; he is immediately driven sideways away from the touchline by his opposite number Healy, so removing the key stone of the French maul defence. The two players actually end up on the floor on the opposite side of the maul to where they started.

Look at the angle of Healy’s body (1) as he works hard to drive Poirot out of that crucial position.

Once Poirot is shifted, then Guirado is fighting a losing battle on his own against the 2nd wave of players, leaving Best one on one with the French scrum half.

 

In the 20th minute of the game, Ireland again turned down a penalty kick for goal and opted for the 5 metre lineout. Interestingly, they used exactly the same lineout formation as they did for the try after 2 minutes, with 6 players and van der Flier in the scrum half position.

This time they threw to the back and not the front of the lineout, winning a penalty in the process. Again, the easy 3 points were turned down and the 5m lineout option taken, which was over-thrown by Best.

Against Wales will we see this same approach or will the objective be to build the score board through penalties? If Sexton had taken the 3 points, Ireland would have had 10 points in the first 24 minutes, all of which had come from driving mauls.

 

Wales Maul Defence

What used to be an area of weakness is now an area of strength for Wales.

In the first example we will highlight the way England were kept out from an attacking lineout, just before half time in this year’s 6 Nations.

Wales actually compete for this lineout through 4 (Cory Hill) and stop the initial English drive well. As the drive comes on and the momentum starts, Ken Owens, Josh Navidi and Ross Moriarty add their weight, which splits the maul and allows Alun-Wyn Jones to get to the ball carrier.

It was the Welsh captain’s movement and targeting of the ball that ultimately stopped the maul. Watch how he moves down the side of the maul (illegally, but permitted by Peyper) and is allowed to get to the ball carrier.

The other good piece of work here from Jones is that as soon as the catcher is coming down he starts to drive against England 7 (Curry) to stop him getting in front of the catcher and protecting him.

Contrast this with the French defence above, where both players supporting the catcher were allowed to move across and protect the catcher.

In our 2nd example, we find Wales successfully defending another crucial lineout as they lead France with just 2 minutes left to play.

Once again, we see Wales are happy to put up a competing jumper to try and steal or disrupt the ball, which in this example was successful. Instead of allowing France to catch the ball and Wales just concentrate on setting up the maul defence, they are confident in their maul defence to the point that they feel they can also compete in the air and effectively defend a maul.

Wales had a few crucial lineouts to defend against Scotland. In the first clip, we see Scotland take a clean catch and get in to position to drive.

We saw Ireland’s players leave the lineout after the throw to form up a 2nd wave of driving players, but Scotland take it a step further by having 4 players leave the lineout and form up to drive before the ball has even been thrown!

The still below shows that Scotland’s forwards haven’t got in to good positions, with 2 of them facing the wrong way (see left hand side of the maul). The key player to watch is Wales’ Adam Beard with the scrum cap, who is working his way through the middle of the maul.

As Beard works his way towards the ball the maul fragments and Wales can pick off the carrier.

The final example shows both Wales’ ability to slow the driving maul and also their ability to then disrupt the carrier.

This time there is half an effort to compete for the catch, but we don’t see the out-to-in defence this France used, where the defence drove across the field towards the touchline.

Wales main threat was again Adam Beard who worked his way down the side of the maul and attacked the ball carrier. Does he break his bind and reattach illegally?

 

The Battle of the Mauls

Who will win the battle of the mauls; Ireland’s attack or Wales’ defence?

A major factor in answering this question will be the discipline that each side keeps and the number of penalties they concede. The majority of attacking maul positions come from kicks to the corner from penalties. Stop giving away penalties and the threat becomes much diminished.

The referee will again be crucial in deciding what he will, and won’t allow. at the maul. Most of the tactics we have highlighted above are illegal, so which ones will he allow on Saturday?

Time will tell, but the lineout and driving maul could well be a big factor in deciding the outcome of the game.

 

To follow theblitzdefence on Facebook like us here.

New for 2019 – the Illegal Maul is Back!

Time flies. It was nearly 3 years ago that we wrote an article stating that most mauls in the professional game were illegal, citing some common tactics that were being used that were not permitted in the law book.

These included the ball carrier in the maul disengaging from the maul and “shifting” to the back of the maul where they were afforded more protection from the opposition.

We used the example of South Africa in the 2015 Rugby World Cup (see below). Watch as the Springbok hooker (2) joins the maul, the SA 6 disconnects from the maul and re-binds behind the hooker. Completely illegal but a coached tactic.

The other common approach was for players (on the side with possession) to join the maul in front of the ball carrier. The laws say that if you want to join a maul you must do so at the back feet of your side of the maul.

The maul was becoming so dominant as an attacking weapon World Ruby decided to act and in 2016 they introduced law application guidelines around the maul.  These guidelines outlawed the player from sliding to the back of the ball and reiterated the law that the ball has to be passed by hand to the back of the maul, if a team wants to move the ball away from opposition defenders at the maul.

The clip below from the 2017 Lions tour to New Zealand shows how this guideline resulted in the ball being physically transferred to the back of the maul.

Referees also started to penalise players joining in front of the hindmost foot at the maul.

The 2019 Maul 

As is often the case in rugby, the coaches are one step ahead of the law makers and officials and this season has seen a return to the dominance of the maul as an attcking weapon.

Here we will highlight 3 tactics that are adopted by elite teams to gain an advantage at the maul – all of which are illegal, but are usually not penalised.

(1) Protecting the Catcher

This isn’t a new tactic but it is so infrequently penalised that it has effectively become permitted at the professional level.

A jumper usually has two players supporting him by the legs to get greater height to catch the ball. Once the catcher has caught the ball and is starting his return to the ground, the 2 supporting players step in front of the catcher to protect him from the defenders.

Here is an example from the recent Racing 92 v Scarlets game. Watch how the Racing 92 forwards get in front of the carrier to block the Scarlets defenders.

If we freeze the image at the point where the Racing 92 catcher hits the floor we can see 3 of his team mates in front of the ball acting as blockers.

Racing 92 scored directly from this maul.

(2) Backs Joining the Maul 

Bristol’s coach Pat Lam highlighted this issue as his side recently lost to Exeter Chiefs courtesy of 2 tries from close range driving mauls, pointing out that Exeter’s tactic of backs joining the lineout maul before the lineout is over is illegal.

Let’s look at a Saracens try from the weekend’s action against Glasgow Warriors and delve in a bit deeper.

You will probably have noticed from the clip that blacks centres (12) and wing (11) join the maul.

The first step is to determine if the lineout has indeed ended.  This is what the law book says:

None of the criteria in 37.a has been satisfied but 37.b is applicable – a maul has formed. Looking back at the clip we can see that both 12 and 11 black join the maul before the back foot of the maul has moved over the mark of the lineout, therefore they have joined the maul before the lineout is over.

We can also see that black 12 (black 11 is out of shot) moves towards the lineout before the lineout is over (because it hasn’t completely moved over the mark).

This tells us two keys things; Saracens backs have moved within 10 metres of the lineout before the lineout has completed and they have joined the maul before the lineout is completed.

Let’s see what the laws say about backs during a lineout? Section 18.35 and 18.36 say:

18.36 says that if the ball doesn’t go beyond the 15-metre line players must retire to their offside lines ie 10 metres from the lineout. In the clip above the ball doesn’t go beyond the 15 metre line so Saracens’ backs should remain 10 metres back until the lineout is completed.

Not only do Saracens players encroach within the 10 metres but they also join the maul before the lineout is completed.

It’s an illegal ploy that referees should be more savvy to.

Backs can join a maul, but only when the lineout is completed.

Finally, here’s Exeter using the same tactic in last year’s Premiership final.

(3) Forwards Leaving the Lineout 

This is another tactic that is quickly gathering pace with the top teams but is arguably illegal.

The still below cam from the Saracens v Glasgow game and we can see that the Saracens (black) catcher has taken the ball and is coming back down to the ground.

There has been a fair bit of chat about the legality of lineout drives recently.

Here 3 Saracens players have left the lineout and bound together before the catcher has landed.

You can leave the lineout but you must be “in a position to catch the ball”. pic.twitter.com/8UjEipJ0BS

— rugby (@theblitzdefence) 19 January 2019

The image shows that 3 of the Saracens forwards have left the lineout and are already binding together in a “mini-maul” which they then drive through the catcher to provide instant momentum to the maul drive.

Law 38.29.d says that once the ball has been thrown in to the lineout a player can:  “Leave the lineout so as to be in a position to receive the ball, provided they remain within 10 metres of the mark of touch and they keep moving until the lineout is over. Sanction: Free-kick”

This law should allow forwards to peel around the lineout to take the ball on the run, but is it really designed for a mass exodus of players to pre-bind against each other and prepare to drive in to the catcher?

It’s a fair argument to say that they are not in a position to “receive the ball” because they are bound to each other.

 

Does This Need Fixing?

Yes, the momentum has swung too far in favour of the team throwing the ball in to the lineout, so games are once again being dominated by tries from lineout mauls.

As ever, the laws are already in place to combat the tactics; they just need to be applied.

 

To follow theblitzdefence on Facebook like us here.

To follow us on Twitter go to rugby@theblitzdefence.

 

 

An Autumn of Discontent – What Happened to the Zero-Tolerance Approach to Head Injuries?

Let’s quickly recap on what has happened around the head injuries/concussion issue in rugby over the last year or so:

1.  Rugby found out it had a serious problem with head traumas and concussions causing life changing changes to players’ physical and mental health
2.  World Rugby carried out studies to look at how to best combat dangerous tackles and came out with revised guidelines on acceptable tackles
3. At first players struggled with the changes and the “game’s gone soft crowd” shoved their heads in the sand and pretended concussion wasn’t a big issue
4. Referees and disciplinary committees started to get to a sensible and consistent application of the high tackle guidelines
5.  Along came the 2018 Autumn internationals and the “norms” established over the last 18 months seem to have been thrown out of the window

In December 2016 World Rugby announced the latest high tackle guidelines with the bullish phrase, that they had  “……strengthened its [World Rugby’s] commitment to injury prevention by announcing details of a zero-tolerance approach to reckless and accidental head contact in the sport”.

Just consider this phrase as we work through the examples from this Autumn.

It’s not just around high tackles that we have seen a complete change in the approach from referee and disciplinary bodies; tackles in the air, the use of the TMO and even cynical rugby offences, all seem to have been treated far more leniently than they were just a few weeks ago when we were watching domestic rugby.

Here are the main incidents from the 4 weeks of Autumn internationals.

Owen Farrell tackle (England v South Africa)

This was in the last minute of the game and a South African penalty would have given them the chance to win the match. Referee Angus Gardener did refer the incident to the TMO but it was judged that Farrell had attempted to wrap his arm.

Pre-Autumn test judgement: If this occurred in a domestic fixture in October Farrell would have received at least a penalty against him and arguably a yellow card.

It is interesting to note that World Rugby’s own guidelines on illegal high tackles include an example very similar to Farrell’s.

 

Samu Kerevi collision with Leigh Halfpenny (Wales v Australia)

Kerevi was supposed to be charging the ball down as Halfpenny attempted a clearing kick but not only was he extremely late but his shoulder also seemed to make direct contact with Halfpenny’s head.

Referee Ben O’Keefe didn’t refer the matter to the TMO, telling the Welsh captain that it wasn’t deliberate.

Did the fact O’Keefe not use the TMO arise because he felt under pressure from World Rugby’s recent announcement on reducing the amount of TMO input?  This was a crucial moment at a key point in the game – exactly what the TMO should be used for.

To add to the confusion O’Keefe’s statement that the collision wasn’t “deliberate” is pretty irrelevant, given World Rugby’s own guidelines allow red cards to be issued for reckless challenges.

Pre-Autumn test judgement: A red card for Kerevi for reckless, direct contact to the head with force (Halfpenny is still suffering the adverse effects, nearly two weeks after the incident)

 

Alun-Wyn Jones high arm on Bernard Foley (Wales v Australia)

As Jones goes in to contact he raises his arm and makes contact with the tackler at the top of the chest/neck.

This wasn’t looked at by the TMO and Jones wasn’t cited.

Compare this incident with another from a Women’s Autumn test (below).

In the Women’s example, the USA’s Megan Rom was shown a red card during the game and subsequently banned for 3 games. Is there much difference with the Jones’ example?

Pre-Autumn test judgement: Jones’ arm does move straight to the top of the chest/neck area, but it is more of a push than a strike. Yellow card but a case for a red if it is considered a strike with force.

 

Dan Faleafa drives his shoulder in to Aaron Wainwright (Wales v Tonga)

Tongan flanker Faleafa ignores the ball and drives his shoulder in to the upper chest and then head of Wales’ Wainwright. Faleafa wasn’t cited after the game with just a penalty awarded during the game.

Pre-Autumn test judgement: Red card

 

Cheslin Kolbe is high tackled by Wenceslas Lauret as he reaches for the try line (France v South Africa)

Referee Nigel Owens got this one badly wrong. Instead of awarding South Africa a penalty try and giving a yellow card to Lauret for the high arm that makes contact with the head, Owens gives a knock on against South Africa.

This was looked at the by the TMO, but bizarrely neither the TMO nor the referee thought the tackle was high. Ball watching?

Pre-Autumn test judgement: Yellow card and penalty try

 

Siya Kolisi headbutt on Rob Horne (Scotland v South Africa)

Another great example of the “zero-tolerance” approach to head strikes.  In this incident Rob Horne was holding down the South African captain, who responded with a back head butt which appears to make contact with Horne’s head.

This incident was looked at by the citing commissioner who deemed it not to be worthy of a red card because of two mitigating factors; the player was held by Horne and that the strike was of moderate force.

Pre-Autumn test judgement: Red card

 

Sam Whitelock cynical block, while on the floor (Ireland v New Zealand)

Ever since the yellow card was introduced in to rugby, truly cynical offences have always warranted a yellow card…until the Autumn tests, when New Zealand’s Sam Whitelock got away with just a penalty for this.

Pre-Autumn test judgement: Yellow card

 

Sam Whitelock “clearout” on Cian Healy (Ireland v New Zealand)

Just a few minutes in to the game and with New Zealand attacking, Healy finds himself on the wrong side of the ruck and receives what looks like a shoulder to the head/neck from the clearing All Black Sam Whitelock.

Wayne Barnes seemed to see the incident because he immediately said “clear out is legal”.  Whitelock wasn’t cited.

Pre-Autumn test judgement: Red card

 

Rob Kearney air challenge

Kearney got lucky in the Ireland v New Zealand fixture after clattering in to Rieko Ioane. Barnes just gives a penalty.

Now it's Ireland's turn to receive a lenient decision from Barnes.

Kearney isn't in a position to catch the ball and Ioane lands on his back/shoulders.

It is a minimum of a yellow card.#IREvNZL pic.twitter.com/cPbB4ligAS

— rugby (@theblitzdefence) November 17, 2018

Pre-Autumn test judgement: We see this sort of challenge pretty often, with both players attempting to play the ball but the receiver jumping higher and earlier than the player from the kicking team. Rightly or wrongly, the tackling player is always penalised and will receive a yellow card or a red of the tackled player lands on his upper shoulders/head.

It was interesting to read on Twitter a number of people congratulate Wayne Barnes on a strong refereeing performance, but if a strong display means getting the big decisions right, Barnes’ fell well short.

 

Fraser Brown high tackle (Scotland v Argentina)

Paul Williams from New Zealand got this one badly wrong as Fraser Brown swings an arm in to the tackle and makes direct contact with the head.

Yes, the fact the carrier was falling is some mitigation but that should mean it was a yellow card and not a red (a direct hit to the head with force), rather than it being a penalty offence.

Another one for the Autumn leniency list.

Just a penalty says the referee even though the arm is straight to the head.#SCOvARG pic.twitter.com/MGEEX3Dk64

— rugby (@theblitzdefence) November 24, 2018

Pre-Autumn test judgement: Yellow card. Not a red because player is falling.

 

Owen Farrell no-arms tackle on Izack Rodda (England v Australia)

Farrell’s famous “no-arms” league style tackle was back in the spotlight as his effort saved a certain Australia try.  As Australia’s 2nd row Rodda charged to the line, Farrell failed to use his arms and sort of jumped in front of the big Aussie.

It wasn’t a particularly dangerous tackle but it was certainly illegal and given the location of the offence, a penalty try should have followed.

Not for the first time in a big game Jaco Peyper was reticent about penalising foul play. judging it a fair tackle.

Pre-Autumn test judgement: Penalty try.

 

Izack Rodda “spear” tackle on Elliot Daly (England v Australia)

As Daly takes the ball in to contact he is tackled, lifted through the horizontal and appears to land on at least his back (if not his upper back/shoulders).  Jaco Peyper is again keen to keep the cards in his pocket and only awards a penalty.

Pre-Autumn test judgement: Yellow card

 

What happen’s next?

Who knows. We have to assume that it was no coincidence that we had so many incidents in these three weeks that were dealt with more leniently than they would have been in October.

We know that the approach has caused more confusion in supporters’ and players’ minds over the way laws are applied, and it has undermined the campaign to make rugby a safer sport at all levels.

Will we see a return to the “norm” when the domestic rugby returns or was the approach to the internationals tests the “new” approach going forward? Brett Gosper has suggested that more cards should have been shown, but why is there such a disconnect between the boss of World Rugby and the elite referees on the pitch?

 

To follow theblitzdefence on Facebook like and follow us here.

To follow us on Twitter go to rugby@theblitzdefence.

The 5 Most Controversial Last Minute Refereeing Decisions: Farrell, NZ v Lions 1993, Australia v Ireland, Scotland v Australia, NZ v Lions 2017

Being a referee is hard enough at the best of times, but when a controversial moment happens in the last minute and your decision will determine the outcome of the game, you have to wonder why referees volunteer to do it!

Here are 5 of the most controversial last minute decisions.  Have we missed any others?

 

(5) England v South Africa – 2018 Owen Farrell

England were leading South Africa 12-11 in a scrappy Autumn international, the clock had turned red and South Africa were on the attack when Owen Farrell decided to put in one of his trademark shoulder hits on Andre Esterhuizen.

Referee Angus Gardener consults with the TMO, and between the two of them they decide Owen Farrell has used his arms in the tackle.

Interestingly, World Rugby’s website gives examples of the sorts of tackles they want to stamp out and one of them is nearly identical to Farrell’s hit.

It does a bit pic.twitter.com/J32YN3assV

— Smallclone (@Smallclone) November 6, 2018

This should have been at least a penalty to South Africa in a kickable field position.

 

(4) Australia v Ireland – 3rd test 2018

Ireland’s series win in Australia was their first away against the 3 big southern hemisphere teams, but it didn’t come without controversy in the 3rd and deciding test.

With over 80 minutes on the clock and Australia trailing 16-20, the Wallabies launched waves of attacks on the Irish try line. As Foley tried to get the pass out of the tackle, just metres from the Irish line, there appeared to be a hand from Jacob Stockdale that prevented the ball from reaching its intended recipient.

 

Referee Mathieu Reynal consulted the TMO who stated that there was no clear evidence of contact between Stockdale and the ball, so bringing an end to the game and a series win for Ireland.

What do you think? Does the ball deviate as it passes Stockdale’s hand?

 

(3) New Zealand v British and Irish Lions – 1993 1st test

The Lions’ performance in the 2nd test of the 1993 tour must rate as one of the greatest from the Lions, particularly after it came off the back of a very controversial 1st test, decided by a last minute penalty awarded to New Zealand.

Going in to the last minute of the 1st test the Lions were leading 18-16 and a monumental victory seemed to be within touching distance, when Australian referee Brian Kinsey decided to give a penalty to New Zealand, which Grant Fox successfully kicked to win the game.

Dean Richards wrapped up Frank Bunce but instead of penalising Bunce for holding on he awarded the All Blacks the penalty. Dewi Morris’ face conveys the shock and surprise.

 

(2) Scotland v Australia – 2015 Rugby World Cup quarter final

Scotland were heavy underdogs in this game and yet a Mark Bennett interception try with seven minutes to go, seemed to have given Scotland the victory and place in the semi finals.

With 2 minutes left to play, Scotland make a hash of their lineout, the ball bobbles around a few times and Joubert awards a penalty to Australia for Scotland playing the ball in an offside position.

At the time, the TMO couldn’t be used to review these sorts of incidents, so Craig Joubert was left to make a decision based on what he saw in that split second. Unfortunately for him, the penalty incident was replayed on the big screen as the kick was taken and the crowd could see the ball had hit an Australian player.

The game finished with Joubert beating a hasty retreat from the ground, after Foley had kicked the penalty to give Australia a 35-34 point victory.

World Rugby later released a statement saying that Joubert had got it wrong.

 

(1) New Zealand v British and Irish Lions 2017 – 3rd test

It’s the 3rd test in arguably rugby’s most high profile match, the British and Irish Lions against New Zealand. With the series standing at 1-1, the match at 15-15 and with less than 2 minutes on the clock Beauden Barrett restarts for New Zealand.

The ball comes forward from Liam Williams and Ken Owens momentarily catches the ball before dropping it. Referee Romain Poite immediately signals for a penalty for a deliberate offside, and in such a kickable position the series looks to be New Zealand’s.

After demonstrations from the Lions’ captain Sam Warburton, Poite decides to ask the TMO to check the incident.

After talking to the TMO Poite seems to be happy with his original decision that it was a deliberate offside and therefore a penalty, but by the time he has walked over to the two captains, his view has changed and he deems Owens’ intervention to be accidental and therefore just a scrum.

Make your own mind up. Did Read fairly challenge Williams in the air? Did the ball come forward off Williams? Was Owens’ contact accidental or deliberate?

 

To follow theblitzdefence on Facebook follow us here.

To follow us on Twitter go to rugby@theblitzdefence

Time to Simplify TMO Protocols and Ditch “Any Reason Why I Can’t Award the Try” – example from Cardiff Blues v Cheetahs

Rugby is a complicated game, but sometimes the law makers try and make it as complicated as they can. Take the protocols around the use of the Television Match Official (TMO) in helping to determine if a try has been scored.

The rules allow referees to consult the TMO when  the  referee  requires confirmation with  regard  to  the  scoring  of   a  try. Sounds simple enough but instead of allowing the referee to ask the TMO “is this a try?”, the lawmakers have brought in confusion by allowing the referee to ask one of two questions:

1) Is  it  a  try  –  yes  or  no?

2) Can  you  give  me  a  reason  why  I  cannot  award  a  try?

To highlight what this means in practise let’s look at an example from the recent Pro14 game between Cardiff Blues and the Cheetahs.

 

George Clancy – Cardiff Blues v Cheetahs

The footage picks up as Cardiff drive the maul towards the Cheetahs’ goal line.

 

The Cardiff players bundle over the line and Clancy is about as close to the action as one can get.

Clancy doesn’t explain what he saw but asks the TMO the question, “Is there any reason why I can’t award the try?”.

From the 1st TMO replay we see the ball initially grounding on a Cheetahs’ player’s leg but then the view is obscured. As the TMO watches the second angle Clancy interjects to say he has seen enough and is happy to award the try.

The question is what did Clancy see when he peered in to the melee on the floor?  We have to assume that he didn’t see the initial grounding, otherwise he would have given the try.

Did he then see the ball on the floor but a good few seconds after he blew his whistle?

The try was given, but we know that the TMO didn’t see the grounding and we have to assume that Clancy didn’t see the initial grounding, otherwise he would have awarded the try.

The try seems to have been awarded based on what Clancy saw, probably in the seconds after he blew his whistle when he was rooting around on the floor for a better view. Given the whistle had gone the ball should have been dead and any number of things may have happened to the ball in this period; the Cheetahs’ player may have let go or the Cardiff player may have shifted the ball again.

 

Marius Mitrea – Ospreys v Scarlets December 2014

Here’s another older example.

In this clip you will see the Ospreys set up a maul off a line out near the Scarlets’ try line. The Ospreys get an effective drive on and a mass of bodies flop over the Scarlets’ try line. Neither the referee (Marius Mitrea) nor the cameras seem to be able to see the ball, let alone whether it has been touched down but Mitrea asks the TMO “is there any reason I can’t award the try?”.

As soon as this question is asked the onus falls on the TMO and surprise surprise the TMO can’t see the ball (“we don’t have any sight of the ball” says TMO Derek Bevan) so he has to respond that he “can’t see a reason to award the try”! Bevan even says to Mitrea “you’d have to be happy you can award the try”.

This farcical scene has resulted in a try being awarded where the ball hasn’t been seen to have been touched down over the try line. It has only occurred because the TMO protocol allows referees to ask the TMO for a reason not to award the try.

 

Keep it simple!

There should be a basic rule – if the officials (on-field and TMO) haven’t seen the ball being initially grounded, the try shouldn’t be awarded.

If you are of the persuasion that tries should be awarded on the basis that they would likely have been scored or the attacking team should get the benefit of doubt you will disagree with this viewpoint.

Referees should only ask the TMO is it a try or not, and the referee and TMO should be allowed to communicate with each other to discuss what each of them saw from their respective perspectives. This would simplify the game and ensure tries are only awarded when we have seen them scored…..which must be a good thing?

 

To follow theblitzdefence on Facebook like us here.

All Blacks Rugby – A Week of High Hits and Referee Leniency?

Last year’s British and Irish Lions tour contained a real collector’s item.

No, not a Lions team that was finally competitive in the Land of the Long White Cloud, but that the All Blacks were shown a red card in a test match, when Sonny Bill Williams planted his shoulder in to the prone head of Anthony Watson.

This was the All Blacks’ third red card in their history and the first for 50 years! It was also their first ever red card on home soil.

There are plenty of scientific studies that show referees in a number of sports tend to subconsciously favour the favourite team and with rugby’s laws being so open to subjectivity and personal “interpretation”, it wouldn’t be a surprise if some of these officials’ decisions have a material impact on the game.

The All Blacks have set the benchmark on the rugby pitch for decades but there has been a sense that their sporting dominance has been aided by a reticence from officials to properly punish them, whether these were the sort of technical offences that  Richie McCaw was so adept at avoiding or incidents of serious foul play.

For those that believe referees show a leniency towards the men in black, this week brought up a number of controversial incidents to add to the charge list.

Sunday 3rd June: Baby All Blacks (u20) v Wales u20

There were 4 controversial moments in this game, 3 acts of foul play and one disallowed penalty try. Let’s look at each incident.

(1) Tackle in the air on Cai Evans (Wales full back)

For those that think the All Blacks get favourable referee decisions, here’s another exhibit.

Wild challenge not even penalised. pic.twitter.com/n2bxN48xBe

— rugby (@theblitzdefence) 3 June 2018

New Zealand kick the ball and it bounces in the air for the Welsh full back to take. Evans gets up in the air first but the chasing All Black doesn’t look at the ball but instead just clatters in to Evans in the air.

Neither the referee nor the TMO deemed this worthy of looking at again and it wasn’t penalised.

Our view: There was no competition for the ball and by the (badly drafted) World Rugby guidance it was at least a yellow card. If Evans lands initially on his upper back/head it should be a red.

(2) Wales have a call for a penalty try disallowed due to a deliberate knock on by New Zealand

The referee gives a yellow card against the All Black’s wing but not a penalty try.

Right call?#WorldRugbyU20s pic.twitter.com/rwu7VSOA1D

— rugby (@theblitzdefence) 3 June 2018

The referee does refer this one to the TMO but they decide that there was covering defence so no penalty try was awarded. The offending All Black was given a yellow card.

Our view: It was certainly a yellow card and there is a good case for a penalty try. The freeeze frame below shows the ball as it just strikes the New Zealand hand, with the Wales winger having a clear run. Would a try probably have been scored?

(3) No attempt to tackle with the arms in a hit on Cai Evans

Unfortunately for Cai Evans he’s again the subject of All Black foul play as their flanker (Tom Florence) makes no effort to wrap the arms in the tackle and puts a stiff arm directly in to his face.

Another case for leniency against the Baby All Blacks?

A straight arm direct to the head is a red card these days. #worldrugbyu20s pic.twitter.com/d0caseU0p4

— rugby (@theblitzdefence) 3 June 2018

The referee did refer this to the TMO but judged it to be a yellow card offence only.

Our view: Since the new guidance came in around tackles/hits to the head and neck area we have tended to see wrap tackles that directly hit the head with some force being a yellow card offence.

In this tackle, there is no attempt to wrap the arms at all and the “stiff arm” that connects with the head indicates that this is an attempt to cause deliberate harm rather than make a tackle.

(4) Late hit to the head of Ioan Nicholas by Tanielu Tele’a

Image from @smallclone on Twitter

3 yellow cards for New Zealand under 20s. No reds. If this isn’t a dangerous hit with force I’m not sure what is. #U20WC #jwcrUGBY pic.twitter.com/gRppiB1hYU

— Smällclöne (@Smallclone) 4 June 2018

This one went to the TMO who deemed it a yellow card offence, even though Nicholas had blood clearly visible in his mouth from a strike to the head.

Tele’a was subsequently cited for the incident and given a 3 week ban. The disciplinary committee determined that Tele’a had led with his shoulder and recklessly struck Nicholas’ head.

Our view: This was an easy one to spot. How can the TMO/referee come to such a different conclusion than the disciplinary committee?

In our view the referee’s decisions on all 4 incidents favoured the Baby All Blacks. A clear red card was missed and the tackle in the air was also a minimum of a yellow card.

Even at u20 level do officials feel under pressure to not penalise the All Blacks as they would other teams? If Japan had commits these 4 offences would the referee have come to the same 4 outcomes?

Saturday 9th June: New Zealand v France 

This game contained 3 controversial moments.

(1) Yellow card for France’s Paul Gabrillagues for a “seat belt” tackle

The tackle from the side or behind, where the arm comes over the shoulder has been outlawed by World Rugby and popularly coined the “seat belt tackle”.  With the scores even referee Luke Pearce gave a yellow card to the French lock Gabrillagues for exactly this type of tackle.

 

Thanks to @smallclone on Twitter for this gif.

 

Pearce didn’t refer the incident to the TMO and made a quick decision to give a yellow card. New Zealand then went on to score 2 tries while he was off the field and 1 more just after he returned to play.

Our view: The tackle was a classic seat belt incident with no contact made to the ball carrier’s head or neck. It’s a penalty only and has been all season.

 

(2) Double hit (Sam Cane and Ofa Tu’ungafasi) on winger Remy Grosso

Here are two different views of the hit on Grosso

Seat belt tackle followed by a shoulder to the face.

More leniency by referees towards the ABs?#NZLvFRA pic.twitter.com/P4JKLeP1S8

— rugby (@theblitzdefence) 9 June 2018

Ffs
pic.twitter.com/jonqzhPCru

— Brynt (@JohnBrynt) 9 June 2018

The first attempt at a tackle is by Sam Cane who swings an arm directly in the face of Grosso.

Tu’ungafasi then comes in with a shoulder directly in to the face of the French winger, in a manner not dissimilar to Sonny Bill Williams hit on Watson in the Lions tour.

Pearce’s view was that it was “just a penalty mate”.

Our view: Cane’s tackle in isolation deserves a yellow card. Put it in the context of the earlier French yellow card for a seat belt tackle and the decision from Pearce is even more baffling.

The Tu’ungafasi hit was a cynical attempt to harm an opposition and in that respect he succeeded given the reports that Grosso has suffered a double fracture to the face. This was a stonewall red card.

A pattern of leniency?

The two games this week have added a large body of evidence to the theory that referees treat New Zealand differently from other nations.  In all these big calls the All Blacks have benefited from very generous decisions.

Was the All Blacks v France game too big a step for the young English referee who had yet to take charge of a tier 1 v tier 1 fixture? Are officials subconsciously influenced in their decision making processes by the colour of the shirt rather than the offence they witness?

Does the reverence and respect demanded by World Rugby for the haka have some effect in the way referees feel they can treat the All Blacks players?

There is no doubt that when it comes to playing the game New Zealand are a level above the rest, but it would be nice though if this gap was closed by officials who have the courage to apply the correct sanctions, regardless of the colour of the jersey.

To follow theblitzdefence on Facebook follow us here.

When Did Referees Become Coaches? Examples From Leinster v Racing 92

Depending on your view point, the 2017 6 Nations fixture between England and Italy will be remembered as a game with a masterstroke of tactical coaching or one which rendered the game of rugby a farce.

The Italian tactic of not competing at the tackle when defending – and therefore not forming an offside line, had England’s senior players flummoxed. Dylan Hartley and James Haskell were forced in to a long conversation with referee Romain Poite about the legality of the tactic and how they could force a ruck to be formed.

Towards the end of the conversation Poite said to the England players, “I’m the referee, not the coach”.

Of course he’s right, he isn’t the coach but for a number of years we have seen the creeping practise of officials proactively “coaching” teams by issuing instructions in an attempt to reduce the number of infringements and maintain the flow of the game.

What do we mean by referees coaching players?

Watch any game of top level rugby and you will commonly hear these phrases being used by the referee:

• “Stop winger, don’t move forward” – an instruction to a winger (or any other player), who is in front of a kicker and starts to move forward in an offside position

• “You’re outside the 22” – informing the scrum half that he will be passing the ball back in to the 22m and therefore the ball can’t be kicked out on the full

• “Don’t go in there/hands off/you’re off your feet” – the myriad of directives used at the ruck

• “The ball’s out” – informing teams that the ball has come out of the back of the scrum or ruck and in to ope play

• “Release. The tackle’s complete” – telling players when the tackled player gets a knee to the ground and the tackle is officially completed

These are a few examples, but there are lots more. In these circumstances the intention of the referee is honourable; to reduce the number of offences by informing a team that they are about to offend.  A game with fewer penalties must be a good thing for rugby as a spectacle?

Is referee coaching a positive thing?

This proactive coaching raises a few questions. The most fundamental is should referees be proactively helping teams to reduce their penalty count? Surely one of the basic requirements of top level rugby is that teams should know the laws and it’s their responsibility to play within them?

Why should teams that play within the rules at all times not receive the credit for doing so? This advantage is negated to an extent when the referee points out potential offences to both teams.

On a more detailed level, why are some offences called out before they happen and others aren’t?

We also often see at the end of the game, when a team is pushing for those crucial last points that the referee will do even more coaching, in an effort to stop the game being decided on a technical penalty. Is this fair, given the same level of coaching hasn’t been applied throughout the game?

Another aspect to proactive referee coaching is that there is the suspicion that teams are now willing to offend, until the referee tells them not to. The onus has therefore shifted from the players not offending to the offence being permitted until the referee tells a player to stop doing it.

As an example, take the ruck situation where a jackal is off his feet but still playing the ball. Instead of the player instantly releasing the ball, it’s commonplace for him to hold on to it, knowing it only becomes an offence when the referee tells them “off your feet, leave it”.

Leinster v Racing – examples of coaching

The weekend’s big Champions Cup final was decided by just 3 points. No tries were scored and 9 penalties were slotted over.

Which penalties were given by referee Wayne Barnes were pretty much a lottery, as is often the case at this level.

He seemed to be focusing on high hits as the offence du jour but Devin Toner seemed to have one of the Racing players around the head in front of Barnes in those final moments. This was a penalty throughout the rest of the game but not then. It’s a lottery.

Those final phases of the game, where Racing were trying to get in to position for the drop goal, contain a number of great examples of referee coaching, which we will focus on in a bit more detail.

After Leinster’s final penalty to take a 15-12 lead, Racing 92 restarted with 78.41 on the clock and regathered the ball to launch their final attack. Let’s look at each phase and what (if any) instructions were issued by Barnes:

Ruck 1 – no instructions

Ruck 2 – Barnes asks the Leinster defence to step back in to an offside position

Ruck 3/4/5 – no instructions

Ruck 6 – Barnes indicates for Leinster’s defence to hold their defensive line

Ruck 7/8/9 – no instructions

Ruck 10 – “tackle, away you come” and then points at a Leinster player and says “don’t go in there”

Ruck 11 – points at the Leinster pillar defence and says “no”

Ruck 12 – no instructions

Ruck 13 – shouts “no Andrew, no” as Andrew looks like he might attempt a jackal

Ruck 14 – Barnes signals for the Leinster defence to keep back

After 2 minutes of play, and 14 phases Racing take a premature drop kick attempt and the game is lost.

If we look at a clip from ruck 13, we see a very good example of the referee influencing the game proactively.

An example of proactive referee “coaching”. Article to come soon. pic.twitter.com/DCL2Te8VYP

— rugby (@theblitzdefence) 13 May 2018

If Barnes hadn’t have shouted at Porter would he have gone in and tried to win the ball, giving away a penalty in the process? We won’t know.

 

Do we want more of less referee coaching?

Let’s be clear, referee coaching effects games and therefore the outcome of games. If it didn’t have a material impact on a game World Rugby wouldn’t be pushing their officials to take this approach.

There are certainly areas where a proactive approach from referees benefits the game, in particular where there is ambiguity around a specific scenario. For example, telling both teams that a tackled player’s knee is on the ground and the tackle has been made, benefits everyone and clears up any ambiguity.

In other aspects of the game the referee’s intervention isn’t required – telling players not to advance in an offside position, asking the defensive team to take their hands off the ball at the breakdown when the ruck has obviously formed. These offences are obvious.

With a refinement of the use of proactive referee coaching, this should also lead to an overall reduction in offences, if players take responsibility for their own actions and not rely on the referee to inform them when they are offending.

Imagine a world where players did actually release the ball when they went off their feet and not just when told to by a referee.

There are benefits to the proactive approach but there’s an argument to say that its scope has become too wide and is actually leading to more offences on the pitch.

 

To follow theblitzdefence on Facebook follow us here.

 

A Brief History of Eddie Jones Respecting Officials

“We’ve got to trust the referees, respect their integrity”, said Eddie Jones this week, after the furore over Wales’ disallowed try rumbled on with World Rugby confirming that the TMO should have awarded the try (let’s ignore Steff Evans’ knock on for now!).

Jones went on to say, “I just think once the game’s done and dusted that’s the game, you can’t have retrospective refereeing of decisions being done. We’ve got to trust the referees, respect their integrity. When I say respect the referee, that’s the TV process as well, and then you leave it at that. One side’s won, one side’s lost.”

Great stuff – very laudable, but let’s rewind a week and focus on another of Eddie’s interviews in the build up to the England – Wales game. In Jones’ view the Welsh captain Alun-Wyn Jones had prevented the Scottish fly-half from taking a conversion in the preceeding weekend’s Wales-Scotland fixture. Referee Pascal Gauzere was there on the spot and decided no action was needed, but that didn’t stop Jones:

“All we say is just to be respectful [to referees]……It’s not great for the game and I’ve said something to World Rugby about it, I feel that strongly. We’ve got to respect the integrity of the referee in the game.”

How and why the coach of a team can discuss with World Rugby the actions of a captain of a team he is due to play is a whole different issue, but the point here is Jones felt unable to trust Gauzere to do his job in the Wales-Scotland game but just 7 days later he feels the need to preach to the masses that officials should be left to do their job.

It’s great to see Jones has such concern for the integrity of referees but does his track record back that up?

 

Fine for criticising a referee

In 2007, as coach of Queensland Reds, Jones was fined A$10,000 for comments made about referee Matt Goddard after a Super Rugby fixture against the ACT Brumbies.

Jones pleaded guilty to breaching the code of conduct and described the referee’s second-half handling of the scrums in the Brisbane match as “ludicrous” and “disgraceful”.

 

Italy and the ruck tactic

Jones wasn’t a fan of the tactic Italy deployed in the 2017 6 Nations clash, where Italian defenders stood off the tackle meaning a ruck wasn’t formed – and therefore no offside line was created.

The England coach was less than complimentary about the tactic and accused the French referee Romain Poite of being “flustered”:

“The referee got flustered – I have never seen a referee lose his perspective of the game [like that].”

Remember Jones’ comment about the TMO controversy and that once the game is finished,  “…..you leave it at that.”, well he took the opposite tack after the Italian game and suggested that World Rugby should “look at it”, meaning change the law (which is incidentally exactly what happened):

“I don’t think anyone wants to see a game like that. No-one likes to see rugby not played in its proper form so World Rugby will have to have a very close look at it.”

 

Owen Farrell and Australia

In the 2017 test between England and Australia, Owen Farrell was criticised by some for seemingly influence the referee to consult the TMO for an offence in the build up to Marika Koroibete’s try.

When quizzed about this after the game Jones said:

“If the referee accepts the way he [the referee] spoke to him was alright then that’s alright for me” 

And yet when Pascal Gauzere was happy with Alun-Wyn Jones’ conduct during the recent Wales-Scotland game, he referred the incident to World Rugby!

 

Not so nice guy Eddie

Eddie Jones has no interest in protecting rugby’s integrity and ensuring respect for officials is maintained, as his history has shown, but what he does have is an interest in using the media to influence both the governing body and officials.

Jones is undoubtedly an excellent coach but he is in danger of tarnishing both his own legacy and rugby’s values with these harmful and inflammatory statements.

 

To follow theblitzdefence on Facebook like us here.

 

 

 

 

6 Nations Review: Finding Space – the Welsh & English Way

The opening weekend of the 2018 6 Nations wasn’t short of good attacking play, in particular from Wales and England.

In this article we will look at 2 ways of finding space on the rugby field which were in evidence on the weekend, both of which use pace and movement as the key to breaking the gain line, rather than brute power.

 

The Welsh Way

Get the ball wide and in to space regardless of where you are on the pitch, especially off turnovers.

Example 1: Steff Evans try

With 72 minutes on the clock Finn Russell summed up his performance by passing the ball to the reserve Wales scrum half Aled Davies.

As soon as the ball was then made available after the ensuing ruck, you could see that Wales had one objective – which was to get the ball to the opposite wing as quickly as possible. That’s where the space would be.

Wales teams of the recent past would probably have looked for a forward to try and make a burst close to the ruck and the space would have been filled. This new Welsh approach has an emphasis on not taking contact, or if there is contact move the ball on as fast as possible, as shown by Aaron Shingler’s pass to Josh Navidi and the subsequent wide passes.

The image below shows clearly where the space is on the pitch. The half of the pitch where the initial ruck formed is filled with 8 Scottish defenders, whereas the top half of the pitch has just 3 Scottish players defending a lot of open grass.

Example 2:  Rhys Patchell chip

With 22 minutes gone and Scotland already 14-0 down, they try some speculative passes under pressure which leads to a misplaced pass and Cory Hill picking the ball up on the deck.

Wales moving the ball wide from a turnover and in to space. pic.twitter.com/8IFxnosskx

— rugby (@theblitzdefence) 5 February 2018

The default options in recent seasons would have probably been a forward drive, an up and under to contest or a kick from the scrum half to win territory. Now, the players seem confident to move the ball wide, look for space and if there is none, then resort to another option to continue to pressurise the opposition.

 

Example 3: The Scarlets!

If you have wondered where you have seen this style of rugby before, it may have been when you were watching the Scarlets.  Under Wayne Pivac the west Walians have been very comfortable moving the ball wide, even in their own 22 if the space is available.

Here is a clip from the 2017 Pro12 final.

It looks like very simple rugby, but it relies on forwards to have the confidence to trust their handling skills and move the ball on under pressure.

 

The English Way

Two examples of how England made space through looping players, decoy runners fixing the defence and the blind side winger joining the attack.

Example 1: Watson try

England win a shortened lineout and the ball is spread to T’eo who drives in to the Italian midfield. The ball is then moved wide where Watson has a clear run in to the try line.

Let’s stop the action as the ball is spread from the midfield following T’eo’s charge.

As Ford takes the ball we can see that the Italian defence has realigned quite effectively. The Italian full back is just out of picture at the bottom of the screen but we can see that each English player is covered by his opposite number.

Passing the ball along the line to the winger would be unlikely to break the Italian defence  but England do 2 very clever things to create the numerical advantage and give Watson the space.

We have ringed Jonny May in yellow in the image above – watch his movement in the gif below and also keep an eye on George Ford.

Let’s slow it down to try and identify May and Ford’s movement.

The still below shows that Mike Brown (yellow line) runs a straight line towards Farrell, which fixes the two Italian defenders who are expecting Brown to take the ball.

Behind Farrell we see Ford has looped around and May has also taken a wide arcing run (red lines). Watson keeps his width knowing that Ford and May are going to hit the space between Brown and himself.

The ball is then played from Farrell to Ford (see image below).

The Italian wing reads the play and tackles Ford but it’s May’s work in tracking across from his wing that creates that extra man – helped a little by Brown making sure his opposite number is taken out of the game!

The Italian full back tackles May but he can then slip a simple pass to Watson who is the spare man.

A clever move which uses 2 players to create an extra man and give Watson a relatively simple run in.

Example 2: Watson 2nd try

This move isn’t quite a carbon copy of the first example but the 3 key elements we saw in the first Watson try are visible again; a loop from Ford, a midfield runner fixing the Italian defence and May hitting the line in an arc from the blind side wing.

The still below shows May (highlighted in yellow) following the arc from his wing, Ford has given an early pass to Farrell and T’eo is lining up to provide the decoy on the straight run.

As we move the footage on we can see T’eo’s angle of run (yellow arrow) and the loop by Ford cause the Italian defence to remain narrow. The still below shows that both centres are now facing inwards with the outside centre a good metre or so behind his colleague.

This is the point where we should highlight poor Italian defence and not just applaud effective English attacking plays.

Against better defensive teams like Wales, who will blitz the midfield and push their outside centre a metre or so beyond the inside centre to cut off the wider ball, England may have to play a variation on this play or they could find May isolated behind the gain line as he hits the 13 channel.

This simple loop and some poor Italian defence results in a 3 on 2 situation (see below) which England exploit through May running a line through a static defence.

 

These examples from the Wales and England games also highlight how northern hemisphere rugby has evolved over the last couple of years, with teams now having the skills to execute moves that rely on good handling and pace and not just rely on the power game.

 

To follow theblitzdefence on Facebook follow us here.