There will be more than the usual trepidation ahead of the second round of Super Rugby. This is caused by a match played at Twickenham between England and Italy last week, in which the laws of the game were once again put under the spotlight.
Simply put, Italian players refused to form a ruck around a tackled player, choosing instead to loiter in the England back line, arms in the air, in a successful attempt to delay the movement of the ball from the breakdown area. It caused pandemonium, with the crowd baying for the referee’s blood and England coach Eddie Jones demanding a swift change to the law at the post-match press conference.
The referee in question, Romain Poite of France, defended the tactic, saying it broke no law. So everyone is now wondering whether this week’s games will be similarly disfigured.
It’s not a new tactic. It has been tried several times in top rugby and the Chiefs have had it in their arsenal since 2015. But it is probably the first time the tactic has been used from start to finish in a match.
The law is clear: there is no offside line until a ruck has been formed, which happens when a player from the defending team binds on to one from the attacking team. If that doesn’t happen, the defenders may stand among the attackers, but they must not stand close to the number nine, or the player who is doing the job of clearing the ball from the tackle.
The clearing player can only be tackled by a player coming through “the gate” — that is, from directly behind the tackled player and the ball — and so he has several options.
Steven Knoop, a South African who coaches at the University of Cork, says: “In your own 22 it’s easiest for the [number] nine to box-kick to clear. Further out, the attacking team needs to attack the small space around the tackle with quick, dynamic carries.”
The problem is not the legality of the tactic but rather the fundamentals of the game. A tackle that is not followed by an attempt to win the ball is rugby league. It is not something that union’s lawmakers have ever truly considered, and for very good reason.
You can’t play the game without the ball, so the assumption is that you try to win the ball at all times. If you choose not to compete, you are abdicating responsibility. Sport is supposed to be a contest; take away contestation and there is nothing left.
But at the elite level, it is the job of the coach to gain advantage for his team wherever possible. The mouse thus gets cleverer than the mousetrap, which is why the laws of rugby union get amended every 12 months.
The England coach says the situation is easy to fix by introducing an offside line at the tackle, but it is far from being as simple as that. Like many bright ideas, offside at the tackle has been trialled in this country as part of the ongoing experimental law variations (ELVs). University and club rugby tried it in 2007 and found, as ever, that the devil is in the detail.
If, for instance, an attacker gets one on one with the fullback as the last defender, it’s not necessary to try to beat his man. If he takes the tackle instead, all the defenders streaming back are offside until they cross the line of the tackle, while all the attackers are onside. So unless the ball has become unplayable, a try is inevitable. In effect, it negates the last line of defence.
This is an example of the law of unintended consequences, and one of the principal reasons that it was not adopted at the end of 2007. Similar tinkering is ongoing, as anyone who watches the Varsity Cup will know.
We are now in season three of the Varsity Cup ELV that allows a mark to be made anywhere on the field of play. The idea of the variation was that it would stop aimless kicks downfield but it has had little significant effect, despite being hailed as a game-changer when it was introduced.
The likelihood is that the brouhaha around the England/Italy game will die down as soon as people remember that it is a spoiling tactic aimed at limiting damage, rather than a serious attempt to win the game without the ball.
Like many other anomalies, there will be times when not contesting at the tackle will make sense. It has long been accepted that uncontested line-outs are sometimes a necessary evil, especially close to the try line where it is important to stop the formation of a driving maul by the attacking team. But generally speaking, the benefits of winning possession against the throw outweigh those of non-contestation.
As ever, the team that uses the ball best will dominate proceedings this weekend.
The Stormers were the best of the local sides on display in week one and they will be expected to be too good for the Jaguares at Newlands. The Bulls need to be better than they were against the Stormers to beat the Cheetahs in Bloemfontein. They are not a bad side, but need time to gel as a team.
The Lions will have their work cut out against the Waratahs in Johannesburg. The Australian unit will come with a plan and the real quality of the home side will be tested.
Overseas, the Kings will feel they have a chance against the Sunwolves in Singapore, but the result will have zero effect on the destiny of the competition.
The Sharks lost a game they probably should have won against the Reds last week. Neither side looked like playoff material, however, and the Brumbies will be hot favourites in Canberra. A bonus point is probably the best the Sharks can hope for.