Breakdown trend swinging back towards attack?

by Brendan Cole

The breakdown is rugby’s most important ‘game within a game’ and the approach referees take can have a major influence on dictating the ebb and flow of matches at the highest level. No surprise, then, that preparing for different refs is a vital part of pre-match preparation for professional teams.

Crucially important to the debate about what should and shouldn’t be allowed is Law 14 – which plainly states that the game is ‘to be played by players on their feet’ and the majority of rulings at the breakdown turn on it. If the player attempting to strip the ball from a tackled player is adjuged not to be on his feet, he is generally penalised. If not, he either wins the ball or gets a 'holding on' call in his (or her) favour.

'Poaching' at the ruck - always a contentious issue

So, simple enough? Well, not really. The breakdown has frequently tied the game up in knots since the 'poaching' skill came into the game during the 1990s, partly because of differences in interpretation but also due to slight anomalies in the rulebook.

The trend over the last number of years, led by the Southern Hemisphere Unions (South Africa, New Zealand and Australia: SANZAR), has been to allow the tackler to do more and more, and to make it more difficult for attacking teams to protect their own ball. Arguably, that needed to happen as teams like Munster had taken the skill ensuring they didn’t lose the ball in contact to a fine art – building on an approach begun by Rod McQueen’s Australia teams in the late 1990s.

But the drift in favour of the tackler may have begun to reverse with moves afoot to allow the team in possession more scope to protect the ball. In fact, according to Ireland defence coach Les Kiss, the game’s administrators are once again in danger of transforming Rugby Union into a version of Rugby League by minimising the defender's ability to compete for possession on the deck.

Les Kiss: Union becoming Rugby League lite?

Speaking to RTÉ Sport’s Michael Corcoran, Kiss said: ‘I agree we should be trying to clean that (breakdown) area up…but if we go to a game where every call goes against the defender, we’re taking out the Brussows, the McCaws, the Smiths, and the Wallaces. They play an important part and if we dilute that area too much, that would be a shame.'

Speaking about the game's administators, Kiss added: 'I’m not saying they’re trying to do that. But they have got to be careful about how they take this. I’m probably on the other side of it. For me, (the responsibility) should be on the attack.

‘(The contest) is the fundamental beauty of this game and if we take that away, we might as well go to Rugby League.’

The background to Kiss’s stance is the beginning of the new Super 14 season, and a number of statements emanating from Southern Hemisphere refereeing sources. Take, for example, SANZAR referees’ manager Lyndon Bray’s remarks prior this week.

According to Bray: ‘We (SANZAR) have agreed philosophically to change what the tackler can and can't do. He is doing too much. We've allowed, in the evolution of the game, to let him remain in contact with the ball and ball carrier after he leaves his feet and he stays on the ball as he jumps up and rips it away.

‘It looks great in the one-on-one scenario, but it's actually against the law. It creates in the game a repetitive scenario where the ball carrier ends up with no rights because he can't do anything with the ball.

‘The tackler inevitably gets the penalty which philosophically goes against what we are trying to achieve. We've agreed the tackler must release everything when he goes to ground and not hold on as he gets to his feet.’

Super rugby - new season set to get underway

A number of issues are thrown up here. For example, if a second tackler latches onto to a ball carrier who is already in the process of going to ground, is he obliged to release the tackler on the ground before attempting a turnover? The vast majority of rugby people would probably say not.

However, Law 15, stipulates that the tackled player is entitled to a chance to play the ball immediately after he hits the ground, and that would seem to support the SANZAR stance - namely a full release of the tackled player by tackling players before any attempt is made to turn the ball over (ironic, given that SANZAR are the ones who broke the game in the first place with the ELVs!). The law also says that the tackled player must ‘immediately’ get up or move away from the tackled player and from the ball ‘at once’.

And then, if the tackler does 'release everything', is the tackled player in a position where he is judged 'not held' and thus entitled to continue playing on himself? Again, we are in the territory of anomalies within the laws.

What is also a concern is that Bray’s statement read more than bit like a Southern Hemisphere solo run. Is it? Not entirely, at least according to IRFU referees’ manager Owen Doyle.

He told me: ‘They may be just re-confirming what we all agreed at a meeting of the international referee group in London in the Autumn where we said that a tackler who goes to ground must release the tackled player and the ball and get to his feet before he can play it again. That was agreed by everybody.

‘More importantly, what was agreed is that rather than over-zealous refereeing, it is important that the referee sanctions the clear and obvious only.'

Tackle situation: a subjective problem

The general problem is that an opinion on the difference between 'holding on' and 'not releasing' can come down to whether the player involved and the supporter roaring at the referee are wearing the same colour jersey.

According to Doyle, the issue of what is material - a key concept for Union referees - is key and the balance is in favour of ensuring play continues in marginal situations. Centrally important is that tackled players must get a chance to place the ball, as per Rule 18.

Explaing the broader picture, Doyle added: ‘There are an awful lot of things happening and the referee has to judge what has a material impact and what has not. So the referee has to prioritise what is happening very well.

‘If a tackler clearly has not let go before getting to his feet he is liable to sanction. The game is supposed to be for people on their feet and that is why this re-emphasis is important. The tackled player has to get a chance to release and/or place the ball.’

Broadly speaking, the likelihood is that the game will muddle along for now, with each referee hopefully communicating prior to kick-off exactly what his interpretation of the breakdown is (a section in the match programme devoted to explaining his take on the same subject would also be very helpful for spectators!)

And for Ireland? The impact may actually be positive, despite Kiss’s concerns. Recall that, under Jonathan Kaplan, Ireland struggled to contain Australian poacher David Pocock, possibly the best player in the game at the skill at the moment, during their 20-20 draw in November. Kaplan is among the referees inclined to whistle that bit more swiftly when it comes to offences on the deck and, as a consequence, Ireland’s ability to attack for sustained periods was limited.

Heinrich Brussow - minimal impact against Ireland

In contrast, Ireland had a much easier time minimising the impact of Heinrich Brussow with Nigel Owens in charge when beating South Africa 15-10 in the final match of the November series. Owens is a referee who, I think it is fair to say, generally allows the tackled player more leeway to continue to play the ball after he hits the deck.

Ireland don’t play a specialist ‘groundhog’ and are better known for linespeed, good organisation and aggressive containment than their ability to compete at the breakdown. In attack, I think it is also fair to say that Irish players are generally mentally happier if they can take contact and win rucks. So, anything that makes the ball easier to protect is, on the face of it, likely to suit the team as a whole, even taking into account their defence coach's concerns.