Variety in Rugby League

[unapologetic pedant]

18 hours ago, Dunbar said:

I think that is part of the problem but they also don't take the tackled player to the ground as quickly as they should either... they keep the player upright and the ball clamped to buy the defensive line more time.

Two players in the tackle wouldn't achieve this effectively and there there would be the increased chance of the offload as well.

The quality of pre-contact attacking play largely dictates the degree of control defenders have in the tackle. Getting angles and timing right is crucial to finding bits of space, limiting the number of tacklers, and securing quicker PTBs. If a similar reward were made automatically available by a legal limit of 2 tacklers, it could blur the line between good and not-so-good play. And with less incentive to be more elaborate, there could be more one-out hit ups.

The ban on more-than-one tackler ball-stealing already facilitates offloads. Fear is the key. If coaches emboldened players to look for offloads, if every forward played like Marty Taupau, there would be no thought of rule changes. We need just a slight change of culture where we celebrate, rather than deprecate, risk-taking.

 

[unapologetic pedant]

51 minutes ago, dkw said:

Coaches are too focused on percentages, happy for a set of 6 to be completed on the back of 6-8 yard makes per tackle with no leeway to losing yards. It's interesting watching old games and how deep the plays often came from compared to the line passes in the modern game. There was no worry over losing territory as a risk of trying to manouver the opposition defence to create space or overlaps. Its a very Australian way of playing that now is prevalent in our game. 

Seen something, somewhere (I like to be precise) about a recent Australian academic study which proved that NRL teams that used more lateral ball movement were the most successful. Hence, some old truths are waiting for any coaches brave enough to rediscover them.

[Dunbar]

45 minutes ago, Saint 1 said:

This would be awful for the game. There is a trade-off between safety of attacking options and ruck speed currently. The lowest risk option is 5 scoots, followed by 5 one-out carries. Teams don't do that at the minute because if they do, defenders can solely commit to the ball-carrier and dominate the ruck.If you introduced a maximum of two defenders in a tackle, all you have to do is 5 one-out carries because you will have such quick rucks that you may as well take the safest option.

In addition to this, you would see bigger and bigger players, because there would be a greater competitive disadvantage to a lack of size. Currently you can have a smaller forward pack than the opposition but outplay them if you can put numbers into the tackle and win the ruck despite this. If you say a maximum of 2 players can make a tackle, smaller players are going to consistently lose out, so there will be a general trend upwards in terms of size. In addition to this, what happens when 2 players is simply not enough to tackle someone? Taumololo would score 5 tries a game while the remaining 11 defenders watched. 

 

These are all valid points but still conjecture.  I could easily say that a faster ruck would demand smaller, more mobile forwards.  Neither of us would know unless there was some testing of the ideas.

I liked the way the NRL games flowed this morning and there was certainly a feeling of more speed around the ruck... and no surprise that the smaller, more mobile Roosters and Eels packs outperformed the bigger Broncos and Rabbitohs.

45 minutes ago, Saint 1 said:

The thing about playing what you see isn't true either, it's just people think "playing what you see" is taking crazy unnecessary risks rather than merely choosing the appropriate option given the constraints present. Every professional team plays what they see, multiple times per tackle and pivots who cannot do that well enough will not be around for long. Imagine a team attacking the opposition's tryline. For example, they'll get to a scrum line and count numbers on the short-side to check for an overlap - they'll play what they see by passing left or right from the PTB to where they have the advantage. If the markers aren't set, forwards will play what they see by hitting behind the ruck or the hooker will jump out. Now if the halfback gets the ball, he'll play what he sees by taking an inside option if the defence are set out wide. If he's on the outside of his man, he'll play what he sees by throwing a dummy and running. Assuming he hits the man out the back, this player will also play what he sees. If a defender has turned his hips, he can play what he sees by hitting the short option. If no defender has turned his hips, he'll likely go out the back to the fullback. If the fullback sees the centre jamming in on him, he'll play what he sees by hitting the short or long pass in hardly any time. If he has time, he may double-pump the ball and make a decision based on whether he sees the centre plant his feet. If the defending winger is ahead of the ball, he may go over the top or put a grubber in behind.

All of this decision-making, along with information about individual match ups, game circumstances, weather, pitch condition etc are being factored in every play of the game. It's a myth that modern pivots can't play what they see, what they are seeing is just far less obvious than some of the awful defence from decades ago. 

I am the first to argue that the modern player is more skilful and game aware than previous generations.  But these plays you describe do tend to be within the same set structures with the edge forwards providing angles and options and the full back 'out the back'.  I like to see these plays executed well and (as you describe) there is more variety than the casual observer sees but I still see the game benefiting from less structured play as well.

[Tommygilf]

8 minutes ago, Celt said:

It sounds like Luther disagrees with you.  Am not sure who you play for, so will believe the guy in the SuperLeague (who came from professional union) meantime.

I can explain. In Union, Luther played in the centres, one of only 5 players involved in the majority of ball playing moves in a union team. That meant that he was involved in virtually every attacking set play either directly as a ball handler or a dummy runner. Bear in mind also that centres in union almost exclusively play on the open side, meaning they move across the pitch laterally. I know because I've played and been coached to it at a high level.

In league he is either a second row or centre. This means he sticks to a single side and will either be the final chain in the play or the one passing to the winger. He doesn't need to be involved in all the handling as far more players on the pitch are capable of catching and passing. The distinction between backs and forwards is far less discreet than in union, where a ball handling forward is rare and in many situations is heretical to the backs.

From his perspective it probably is less variation, but that is because there are far more players who can do the job reserved exclusively for the 10, 12, 13 and 15 in union on a rugby league pitch.

[unapologetic pedant]

On 29/05/2020 at 18:59, Saint 1 said:

 If the fullback sees the centre jamming in on him, he`ll play what he sees by hitting the short or long pass in hardly any time.

Reading this again, quite a timely observation in the light of Valentine Holmes` performance earlier in the day.