Better Rugby Rules

Jump to Comments

Please review posts: Chess vs Checkers, Experiment Law Variations

In the above posts I high lighted the need to focus on the balance between the structured and non structured play with underlining intention to maintain the traditional rugby union contests. A traditional rugby union contest requires the use of the specialised skill bestowed upon that player’s position.

This article will focus on the tactical plays of rugby with analysis to the bias of either attack or defence, and how the ELVs should enhance the balance.

I will examine each plays in Rugby Union: Kick Off, Full Lineout, Short Lineout, 22 Drop Out, Scrum, Maul (fast and slow), Ruck (fast and slow), Setup Move.

Attack Advantage Defined: To attack you must have possession and forward momentum (or on the front foot). For a play to receive the attack tactical advantage there must be a fair chance of breaching the advantage line. If you don’t have possession then you are (most likely) defending.

Kick Off and 22 Drop outs

Play Type: Structured. Forwards and backs are separated.

Tactical Advantage: Defensive, to the side making the kick. Why, the kicking team looses possession and can immediately set up the field wide trench defence. The receiving team acquires possession but with a loss of territory and retreating momentum (or on the back foot). This is not a preferred attacking platform.  

Full Lineout and Scrum

Play Type: Structured. Forwards and backs are separated.

Tactical Advantage: Attack, to the side with possession. Why, as forwards are separated from backs, there is more space to conjure up an attack via the backs. 

Short Lineout

Play Type: Non structured. Forwards and backs are mixed.

Tactical Advantage: Defensive, to the side with possession. Why, as forwards are mixed with backs creating an effective field wide trench defence.  

Maul

Play Type: Non structured. Forwards and backs are mixed (more often than not).

Tactical Advantage: Defensive, to the side without possession. Why, the number of forwards required to defend a maul can be and often is less than the number of forwards involved in the attacking maul formation. The maul has the acquired risk of ‘user or loose it’ rule associated with its execution. The defensive players not committed to the maul join the field wild trench defence. As maul momentum slows the tactical advantage swings from attack to defence as time allows the defending team to establish the field wild trench defence. Therefore a fast maul is definitely an attack tactical advantage.

Ruck

Play Type: Non structured. Forwards and backs are mixed (more often than not).

Tactical Advantage: Defensive, to the side without possession. Why, the number of forwards required to defend a ruck can be and often is less than the number of forwards involved in the attacking ruck formation. The defensive players not committed to the ruck join the field wild trench defence. As ruck momentum slows the tactical advantage swings from attack to defence as time allows the defending team to establish the field wild trench defence. Therefore a fast ruck is definitely an attack tactical advantage.  

Set Up Move

Play Type: Non structured. Forwards and backs are mixed.

Tactical Advantage: Defensive, to the side without possession. Why, as forwards are mixed with backs creating an effective field wide trench defence. The team with possession may prepare a move that resembles a separation of forwards and backs, however the defensive team need not.  

Tactical plays bias to attack: Scrum, Full lineout, Fast ruck, Fast maul. 

Tactical plays bias to defence: Kick Off, 22 drop out, Slow ruck, Slow maul, Set up move, Short lineout.

Consider all other attributes within a game of rugby as equal for this discussion (fitness, player strength and abilities, tackles made, unforced errors, etc) thenI can easily conclude that the bias of pre ELV rugby plays is to the defensive side.  

This is supported by teams winning the big games by superior defence tactics (eg All Blacks vs South Africa RWC final 1995, All Blacks vs Australia RWC semi final 2003. In both cases the All Blacks was an attacking machine, but the defensive abilities of the opposition shut down the attack and won). In finals rugby many of the attributes between the teams are squared off: each are secure in the tackle, each have a good kicking game, players are equally fit and unforced errors are minimal. It has been the team that exercises the attack risk that are more likely to loose. Jake White stated that defence wins world cups, in response to Graham Henry stance on winning with attack or be damned. Jake white 2007 RWC win said it all.

Q1: How has the super rugby ELVs moved the tactical balance of rugby from defence to attack? Short answer they have not, unfortunately post ELV super rugby defensive bias has become stronger. The balance between structured and non structured play has swung far too far to the latter and the horrible field wide defensive trench dominates the game.   

Scrums have increased per game to reign in the defensive trench line, but lineouts have reduced, tap and go returns little, kick and hope is popular, the game can quickly look like bull rush slash touch rugby. The ELVs are not to blame solely, it can be shared with the lack of imagination from the captains and coaches, but I put forward the ELVs should be there to save the players from themselves and to prevent the true rugby fan going nuts.

But what can one do from a free kick, a set up move and maul is easily defeated, kicking looses possession, lineouts are not available, tap and go immediately becomes a stalemate ruck, a scrum is the only logical attack option. 

Further more the ELVs announced on 1^stMay 2008 de powers the maul and lineout to the extent that mauls and full lineouts may not been seen in test matches at all. The maul will be deemed to risky to implement, and lineouts need only 2 forwards while the rest join the field wide defence trench. This does not support attack.

Q2: What ELVs are required to promote attacking rugby?

(a)     Promote Attacking Mauls: Do not allow mauls to be pulled down, and further once a maul is established (confirmed by the ref) the defending side (only) must be back 5 meters. This would make it very expensive for the defending side to allow the maul to roll forward, this would encourage the defending team to commit more or all forwards to attacking maul, thus removing the forwards from the field wide trench defence.

(b)     Promote Attacking Full Lineouts: Do not allow short lineouts, as the consequence is more forwards in the field wide trench defence. Quick lineouts are ok.

(c)     Introduce 50/22 rule. Description: If a kick is made from the attacking teams half and it bounces out in the defending teams 22, then the attacking team receives the lineout put in. The kick must not go out on the full, the bounce need not be in the 22 but the touch line breach must be in the 22. (Not after kick off) This rewards the attacking team for an excellent tactical kick. It also encourages the defending team to have players further back and out of the field wide trench defence.

(Note: I have expand on mauls, lineouts and the field wide trench defence in a latter posts : ELVs – Endangered Species: Maul and Lineout, ELVs – ‘The Field Wide Trench Defence’ or ‘FWTD’)

These 3 ideas attempt to break up the field wide trench defence by creating a demand for the forwards to be out of the defensive line. These also increase the opportunity for the traditional rugby contest within each combination to flourish. That’s rugby, yeah baby! 

In rugby you traverse from structured play to non structured play (scrum to a ruck), the rule 50/22 allows the play to move from non structured play to structured play (ruck to lineout) after an excellent kicking attack. This us a good idea, what say yee!

I would still retain most of the super rugby ELVs (see previous post) but the balance of structured, non structured, attack and defence must be measured carefully to ensure that the game of rugby remains great.

The goal of the ELVs was to make the game easier to referee and understand with less stoppages, I suggest that the IRB have swung to far to the ‘easier’ camp as the cost is the loss of the chess game that rugby union should be. Even with my rule suggestions stoppages would have reduced significantly for the better. My blog is hopefully constructive criticism on how to fine tune the ‘balances’ of the game.

I believe the 2008 super rugby ELV semis and final will support my view, that defence with be the prevalent tactic and attack will be sourced from the strength of the defence rather than rugby union structured plays. (Just like RWC 2007 semis and final).

I would further use the TV ref to check a try (forward passes and touch line breaches) and yellow card offences (or player on report) legitimacy. All TV sports are bending to technology to ensure the millions of fans get the correct verdict.

UPDATE1: McGeechan attacks `illogical` ELVs

Ian McGeechan supports my view that the lineouts and the mauls are dead.

Extract..

..”McGeechan is considered to be one of rugby’s great strategist”..

“If you don’t want to contest the line-out, you can put two players in, pull down the opposition, and string the other forwards across the field,” McGeechan told the Times

“It’s probably the end of the short line-out and of the maul. Two players can go in and pull it down, the others join the defensive line.

“A good maul (me: and full lineout) attracts players to it and creates space elsewhere. It’s illogical and very short-sighted.” 

I am not sure what Ian McGeechan means when he says “It’s probably the end of the short line-out”. Maybe he meant full lineout and he was misquoted , because I support the removal of the short lineout as it will dilute the field wide defensive trench.