Since the November Tests of last year I have been pondering referee interpretations and the tactics teams will come up with prior to the Rugby World Cup.

With the first two rounds of Super Rugby done and dusted, and observing some of what has transpired during the Six Nations, here are my thoughts.

I have left out the names of the innocent and guilty for the sake of just discussing the tactics and interpretations.

Facebook Twitter Whatsapp Reddit Email Share

Tactics

At the contact area the first observation is that tackled players now grab onto the tackler at the moment of impact and pull them in with supporting attacking players pinning the tackler immediately, so there is no way for him to roll away.

Tacklers use the body of the tackled player as a rest stop in order to ‘look’ like they are on their feet.

A new trend at the breakdown by the defending team is to go over the ball in a downward motion then grab onto the ball and roll over into a position whereby your supporting defenders can ‘ruck over’ the tackled player. It is however completely illegal as you cannot get on your feet, neither are you supporting your bodyweight.

It is similar to the rucking over and ‘attempting’ to remain on your feet, however the collective counter rucking players are in fact sealing off the ball, in the aforementioned tactic there is no need for them to go off their feet as the ball has already been secured.

The ‘footloose’ motion employed mainly by European teams in trying a ’roundhouse kick’ from the ruck to spoil attacking ball.

It is still entering the ruck from the side, the only difference is you are using your feet. I have seen some players starting the same tactic during the Super Rugby.



The clearance of players beyond the ruck, thus causing obstruction and a clear pathway for the attacking team. is still being employed. However, unless he is followed by a ball carrier, the referees see no need to penalise this. It still takes out a defender, but completely ignored – even though it should be illegal.

One aspect that is quite different between the Southern Hemisphere and Northern Hemisphere is the fact that the Northern Hemisphere players ‘flop’ more readily around the ruck area, something they seem to get away with, thus creating a bottleneck and slow ball.

Being off their feet does not however refrain them from continuing to spoil quick ball.

Pulling the halfback in is another tactic often used, and what makes this rather debatable is when the player being employed as the halfback (the real one may be on the ground) is often pulled in and thus ball is slowed down, but because he isn’t the actual halfback referees ignore this tactic.

I have always seen the Crusaders as the pioneer obstruction or shadow running, but it has been refined by other teams to the point where it has now become akin to an orchestrated move whereby ‘front runners’ will shadow the defending line. Their backline play occurs behind the shadow line where the defending line cannot rush and their view is obstructed as to where the ball is going.

The secret to this is being very subtle about it, and you might as well call it lazy running by the attacking team, difference being the attacking team is offside.

The scrums have not been without their innovations either. The secret lies in the first scrum, and preferably not your own ball as you want all 16 feet on the ground. If a scrum shows dominance first up you already have half the battle won and the 50-50 calls are sure to go your way.

Once dominance has been established, there is the benefit of being able employ illegal tactics as it is mostly a 50-50 call to tell who did what first. Scrumming in on the opponent is naturally still the number one illegal tactic, however the binding on the arm or ‘short bind’ another.



Referee interpretations

I would dare to suggest that the failsafe method at the breakdown is a numbers game and the deciding factor in 50-50 decisions by referees 90 per cent of the time will go to the team who has engaged more numbers at the breakdown, whatever the infringement.

After watching what happened in November and during the Six Nations at the aerial challenge, the failsafe for engaging is simply to be the highest jumper, and getting to the ball first. On evidence I have seen, it does not matter whether you are the chaser or receiver, height and getting to the ball first is the only aspects referees concern themselves with when the two players make contact.

Players there for need to make quick decisions on whether to engage the high ball or be in a position to bring down the receiver as soon as he makes contact with the ground. Half-hearted attempts are sure to be penalised with a penalty, or worse, a card.

An example of where controversy reigned supreme was the two yellow cards issued during the Scotland versus Wales match, whereby Dan Biggar jumped at full tilt into Finn Russell who remained grounded, but in his attempt to avoid Biggar he made contact with Biggar’s legs.

In the same match Jonathan Davies was carded for hitting Russell while he was in the air, but on further investigation Davies was actually pushed into Russell.

This suggests that there are no extenuating circumstances considered, only who was highest and in a position to receive the ball.

Most referees will use the first quarter of a match to establish which team is dominant at scrum time, and that assessment will hold true for them for the remainder of the match. However that is a huge pitfall in that the match day 23 now consists out of two complete front rows, and the number of combinations suggest that the dynamics will change with every substitution.

If Rohan Hoffman reassessed the scrum dynamics between the Lions and Sharks, or observed more closely to the tactics being employed, he would have seen the reason why Thomas du Toit was cleaning up the Lions scrum. It was due to illegal scrumming at an angle the entire match.



The interpretation at the maul and when a player is legally coming through the middle is one that I have not yet found a failsafe method to use against referee interpretations.

Swimming around the maul is interpreted differently by each referee and thus the study will continue.

I can however attest to the fact that attacking teams are now pulling down their own mauls in very subtle manners to attain penalties, especially when they feel their mauls are being successfully negated.

The obstructive or lazy running I mentioned earlier is something referees hardly ever pick up on, unless there is actual contact between the defender and the shadow runner. Then it has to be very evident that the direct path to whomever was in possession of the ball was obstructed.

The areas where laws are up for interpretation is where 50-50 decisions occur. There is hardly ever a cause for complaint when a player is called for being offside, lifting in the line out, high tackles etc.

The challenge for teams are to adapt to refereeing interpretations at these close quarter combat facets, be it the breakdown, maul or scrums. This is where cunning tactics can most easily be employed with the knowledge that they are the most challenging to observe.

Thus teams need to either find failsafe methods which would work against most referees, or be able to adapt on the day to the specific quirks of the referee of the day.

I was once told by an old Transvaal referee, that he would pick two aspects for the breakdown scrum or mauls in a particular match. According to him it is impossible for a referee to observe and assess the full law book at the close combat sectors and depending on the teams playing, these would vary from match to match.



In my view it is the team that is the smartest in exploiting the obvious inability for referees to observe every tactic and infringement that can be employed at any given time and therefor outfox the officials that will ultimately be the most successful.