SANZAR gives nod to referees to reward attacking teams

[travelling_gerry]

SANZAR gives nod to referees to reward attacking teams

• Wayne Smith
• From: The Australian
• January 25, 2010 12:00AM

THE shackles are set to be taken off Super 14 rugby following a directive by SANZAR to its international referees to start rewarding the attacking side.


National referees coach Andrew Cole has told The Australian that SANZAR has advised referees to focus their attention less this season on the attacking side and more on the non-compliance of defenders at the breakdown. It is an edict that has the potential to completely open up the presently kick-dominated code.
The directive can be traced back to the post-season review of the 2009 Super rugby season conducted in Australia, New Zealand and South Africa last August.
At those meetings, representatives of the coaches and referees identified that too many attacking movements were being killed because referees were almost automatically penalising any tackled player isolated from his support, no matter how briefly.


SANZAR's referee manager, New Zealander Lyndon Bray, last month conducted seminars in all three countries with leading coaches at which it was decided that instead of cracking down so hard on the team in possession, the new focus would be on ensuring that defending players roll away from the tackle and then contest the ball only once they have regained their feet.
The experiment was given its first serious test at the Waratahs-Reds pre-season trial match in Lismore on Saturday night, when referee Ian Smith took a hard line against defenders who attempted to illegally slow down the ball. Even players who subtly interfered with the tackled player while getting back to their feet were penalised.
"As far as I could tell, there was not one penalty against the team on attack," said Cole after observing the experiment.
Rival Queensland and NSW coaches Ewen McKenzie and Chris Hickey withheld their opinion of the new approach. And McKenzie warned that SANZAR needed to take care that the contest did not become too heavily weighted in favour of the attacking team, as happened in the closing years of Super 12. But equally he said attacking sides needed to be given more latitude than they were last year.
While it would be reckless to draw too much from a trial match in January, where players generally attempt to impress by keeping the ball in hand, the Lismore game was played at a cracking pace.
Initially it seemed the 2009 pattern was about to reassert itself when the match opened with a box kick from Reds halfback Richard Kingi.
But when it became apparent Smith intended to give the attacking side every opportunity to clear the ball, the imperative to kick for field position eased.
"There was less kicking as teams became more confident they could build phase play," Cole said.
Last season it was a case of kicking triggering even more kicking because the kick-receiver invariably looked up to find himself confronted by a wall of defenders. Rather than risk being isolated behind their own advantage line, fullbacks and wingers tended to take the soft option of putting up a return garryowen.
The result was one Tri-Nations Test in which the Springboks passed the ball only 43 times. Many of those passes were thrown by halfback Fourie du Preez to the designated South African kickers Morne and Francois Steyn.
There will be some good news for defending sides this season, with referees told to be on the alert to ensure players are not obstructed from contesting possession with the ball-winner immediately after he has come back down to earth in the lineout.
The reintroduction of the law forbidding defending sides from collapsing the driving maul has handed attacking teams an advantage. But SANZAR has directed the ball-carrier must be in contact with the defence, at least initially, before the ball can be smuggled to the rear of the rolling maul.
Cole also revealed SANZAR would be targeting scrum collapses this season. "Referees will be looking to cut down on the number of scrum resets in games, without detracting from the scrum contest overall," he said.
"Statistics show that as much as 10 minutes of 80-minute matches can be taken up setting and resetting scrums."


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news...-1225823043793

[GIGS20]

Doesn't the law state that the tackler must release the tackled player, return to his feet and onside and then play for the ball or enter the ruck (if formed) and the tackled player must immediately play the ball either backwards or forwards?

I've got a novel Idea, let's penalise every player who doesn't comply with law, since this seems pretty balanced to me!

[shasta]

I've got a novel Idea, let's penalise every player who doesn't comply with law, since this seems pretty balanced to me!

Sounds good - in theory. Until you get to the part where the various referees have to apply their individual interpretations. Some need a white stick, others have the whistle glued to their gob. Few manage to strike that balance you mentioned off their own bat.

[beige]

Or when the tackled player holds on to the ball because the tackler hasn't released, and the tackler doesn't release because the tackled player is holding on to the ball...

[GIGS20]

Simple, who infringed first! the way I understand it (Ecky can correct me I'm sure) it goes a bit like this, Tackle made (and ensured by the tackled player being held on the ground) tackler releases, ball played, play on. If the tackler hasn't released, IMHO the tackler is in the wrong, If the tackler releases too early and the player's not held, then he can hold the ball on the ground as long as he likes, he can even get up and run.....that would be the true interpretation call, at which point does a tackled player become "held" I don't think there's any advice in law for that one.

Ooooh how about if the tackler regains his feet IN THE PROCESS of completing the tackle?

am I flipflopping here?

[Burgs]

Bam, George and Ritchie will certainly be looking on with great interest.

[James]

Doesn't the law state that the tackler must release the tackled player, return to his feet and onside and then play for the ball or enter the ruck (if formed) and the tackled player must immediately play the ball either backwards or forwards?

I've got a novel Idea, let's penalise every player who doesn't comply with law, since this seems pretty balanced to me!

Doesn't have to return to an onside position if a ruck hasn't formed though do they?

[GIGS20]

Doesn't have to return to an onside position if a ruck hasn't formed though do they?

Not clear on that one James, certainly the ELVs stated that the onside situation began at the tackle, for mine implying that the tackler certainly does need to step around to onside (but since there's no ruck, there's no gate.....) I'm not sure if that was the intent of that ELV neither am I sure whether that still applies.

[Burgs]

Been waiting for Ecky, but my understanding is s long as you can get to your feet in the act of tackling and demonstrate you are carrying your own weight then, provided it is 1v1, you don't have to actually let go between tackle and pilfer.
Bam against Wales gives fantastic demonstrations of that technique, some of the best I have seen.

[GIGS20]

Is that law, or interpretation thereof?

[Burgs]

"My understanding of", I don't know if even Fulv could defend that one

[Sheikh]

Is this a SANZAR directive or an IRB one? If the S14 is being played to different rules/interpretation than the internationals/WRC, what's the point?

[brokendown gunfighter]

why dont the IRB bring in laws that are clear & concise & do not have to be open to"interpretation"


nah,that would be too easy

[Ecky]

Sorry I am late lads...............

OK:
15.4 THE TACKLER
(a) When a player tackles an opponent and they both go to ground, the tackler must immediately release the tackled player.
(b) The tackler must immediately get up or move away from the tackled player and from the ball at once.
(c) The tackler must get up before playing the ball.

So, if he goes to ground at all, he must release the tackled player.

Ergo, if he doesn't go to ground he wasn't "the tackler" and he has rights to the ball from the tackled player. And he doesn't have to come through "the gate" unless the ruck has formed by the time he gets up.

Back to the thrust of the article but - it will be interesting if a player from the attacking team goes to ground to seal off the ball (hmmm has anyone ever watched Soaks play?) is immune from being penalised by this directive.

[GIGS20]

I would guess this directive allows a certain amount of leeway in that area along with others. The Kiwi Teams won't be happy, because it appears that everyone else is pretty much being told that the refs won't stop you from sealing off your own ball, but the Sheep Shaggers have been getting away with that for years.