The new age attack plan.

I always watch the All Blacks and New Zealand franchises in the Super rugby competition with keen interest to see what they bring new to the party.

Now one thing they rely on is quick ball from the ruck, but as we saw with the summer tour statistics their percentage of quick ruck balls were less than 10% of their total rucks.

Now most of us would have seen by now that the All Blacks have an uncanny ability to tweak their tactics at the ruck in order to gain any possible advantage. One thing they have been doing since 2010 and most teams have been following suit (albeit not yet as effective as the All BLacks) is to have pillars in front of the ruck which creates as blockers for their half backs.

The newest tactic that I picked up is one where the player that goes "through" the ruck will turn around with his back facing the oncoming supporters to the oppositions ruck, and then with outstreched hands "show" the referee they are retreating away from the offside position. It is however ver clear hat those outstretched body positions buys time for their counter ruckers to ruck over the ball, before the opponent's supporters arrive to ruck over, which means they can contest opposition rucks much more successfully.

The Australians on the other hand have Pocock who doesn't necessarily "steal" the ball, but does gain an inordinate number of penalties for his team by being the tackle assist or second arrival, standing at the ready to get hands on the ball. Now the theory here is when you play australia is to run onto Pocock and ensure he is the tackler, hence he won't have the body position to stand "prone" and at the ready to get his hands on the ball.

Ireland in the RWC have used the tactic where they attempt to keep the ball carrier in the air to ensure maul being called by the referee. Problem with this is you need to ensure one of your defenders can keep the ball in the air and prevent immediate release of the ball as the maul goes down.

There is now a new tactic that has been used by not only ew Zealand but also their franchises to extreme effect and that is the offload, yes, before you say but it has been done for yonks and everyone uses it, true it isn't a new thing.

However, after looking at the 3rd test against Ireland and also the Ciefs vs Highlanders on the weekend, it struck me how they now do it more effectively and also why it is that they didn't need quick ruck ball to beat the Irish.

Their newest tactic I would like to dub the "no ruck" motto.

It is very clear that they have been practicing the offload in the tackle to the extreme as (by memory) 4 of their tries were scored by offloading in the tackle, but the difference here is the offloading player was already on the ground by the time they offloaded.

Essentially what they do then is that the supporting runner comes in on the same position of the tackled player, mere inches away so the offload doesn't go into space where the runner has to pick a different line to run, but simply continues on the same running line as the tackled player.

By coming onto the pooped up ball at pace, there is no defending line in place. Think of it similar to the runner that comes off your shoulder, but where you offload in the tackle whilsy still on your feet, the defenders if they see the player coming off your shoulder can hone in onto the next reciever. Where as when you have been tackled and are on the ground, the defenders are expecting you to place the ball back, and are ready to come into ruck position, not ready for the oncoming support runner they deem to be coming into the ruck. So their mindset, body positions and readiness is all aimed at the ruck and not immediate defence.

Just come thoughts.

I haven't had a chance to see either the New Zealand Irish tests or any super rugby although the pass off the floor does get used but not i guess as a planned move and tactic, more off the cuff? - Ashley Becks first touch in international rugby was such a move - the pass off the floor to Cuthbert to run in, doubt it was planned, more instinct?

I understand what you mean. It is, in essence, what the French do, albeit France do it in on their feet. It is very, very difficult to defend against. If you've played, you know that the man with the ball often the easiest to read, he telegraphs his run because there are only so many places he can go if he wants to avoid being tackled.

Supporting players are, then, to varying degrees, more difficult to pick up or read, because they cannot (in theory, though obviously an important defensive tactic these days is to go the exact opposite of this) be tackled off the ball. So they can run far closer to a defender than the man with the ball can. Thus, they have a wider scope of lines/runs which they can choose to go on. Making them difficult to mark. This is exacerbated when the defensive line is broken, and you're having to do try and read this as a defender whilst backtracking.

In essence, as a support player, if you go wide of the man, either side, early on in a break, you have played your hand. The defender knows your line. If you stay behind the man, you can go one of three if the tackle/offload is made. Which makes it more difficult for scramble defence. The French especially are the best at the world at this. When a break is made, they don't overrun it, they just slot in, five yard behind, and the ball goes back over the shoulder. May sound simple and obvious, but there's a reason the French are the best counter attackers in the world. They do not go alongside the breaking player, but behind.

What makes this difficult is that, in Super Rugby, all three nations, but especially NZ and Australia, have wonderful players who have great hands, pace, power, and, ultimately, instinct with one another. That means, though the defence cannot read what the breaking player and his supporters might do, the team with the ball does.



I'm not sure this is an out and out 'tactic'. The beauty of rugby is that it's a simple game that, despite the minor contemporary differences in philosophies and tactics, will always be pretty much the same. Outside of the set piece, if you can have what is deemed 'quick ball', you ought to cause problems for the opposition if it is used correctly. Fixing the man before passing will always be an effective attacking tool. As mentioned above, all it takes is an opportunistic support runner not giving up on the ball, and the tackled player getting his arms free and the ball away immediately as he hits the ground (otherwise it is, obviously, holding on).

I wouldn't call this a new tactic, more a response to poor defending, either through lack of concentration, or just being worked/stretched to the point where they don't pick up (block off) support runners, or complete a tackle fully so the player cannot offload. It's just a case of playing against highly skilled, intuitive players, who see things and then execute them, the end result being points. And with NZ/Australia, you can plug as many holes as you like, often, they will breach you somewhere. Stop them out wide, they'll go through the middle. As, indeed, the case is here.

Miaow, good points there, however the reason why I think the New Zealanders are making a concerted effort to offload not only in the tackle but from the ground as well is because I have seen it being a lot more prominent in the last few weeks.

Biltong hi.<you are suffering from Paranoia ,you have been banging on about this for literally years.At nearly EVERY Ruck players will go steaming past THEN slowly retreat.So called LAZY RUNNING,also you can usually have players. ACCIDENTALLY falling at the base of the other sides Ruck effectively Obstructing the defending side trying to clear the ball.Those tactics have been practiced ever since the dogs breakfast called THE BREAKDOWN has been formed.I won`t called it a Ruck it has no relationship to that great Art form of Rugby Union now abandoned.These tactics are widely practiced especially by SA sides very successfully for years.Illegal practices have happened since the dawn of RU many like lifting in the Lineout[before legalization]was a SA speciality and is the reason it was legalized.ALL SIDES practice illegalities especially in the dark caverns of lineout and Scrum.Get your retaliation in FIRST!!![and I don`t mean VIOLENCE] out cheat the cheaters.

emack, are you drunk?

Don't worry Alan, I am gettig treatment for my paranoia.

No Miaow,i`m NOT DRUNK or on drugs,I know as much or more about Rugby and the subjects you mentioned than ANY here.IF you have read many of Biltongs posts you will know that this is his particuler hobby horse. Also That Biltong and myself go a long way back and each are as passionate about our particular teams.That in someways my comments tho true are also a sort of private joke between us hence HIS reply.

Miaow stepped on a sleeping Rottweiller in the dark by the looks of it.

Good posts fellas, informative

Biltong, are you doing an oz, get us focusing on the cheating ABs before the 4N, tut tut

Don't think the ABs cheat, they're just very good at doing the basics right, and let the other side make the mistakes. Playing to the rules efficiently is not cheating. We've played against them often enough to itch me when we lose to them, but try as I might I cannot say we lost cause they cheat, as I think they are quite a clean side (not as clean as the Wallabies of course, who are bleeding angels ) but they are, at the mo, quite good at just playing rugby.

My 2c worth

Its still about maximising ways to maintain momentum isnt it.

I've noticed the same Biltong. SBW brought the idea back and got others thinking and others- particularly little wizards like Cruden, who always runs to the line anyway, are fashioning it in their own little ways. Thats part of why hes suddenly very effective. Its quick and theres no time to prevent it if its done well.

Cant recall who it was but theyre even now going to the deck on their backs, looking back, holding the ball up looking for runners coming through to pass to. One try was scored that way on the weekend? Highlanders I think.

Let's face it all teams constantly change their tactics to win games. It doesn't matter if it's the Ospreys, Stormers, England or New Zealand. It's amazing how NZ constantly manages to con referees from other countries and their ru's to allow us to get away with cheating. One would have thought it would be the other way around......

Just want to say in my defence I never used the word cheat.

This is from my observations and it was blatant on the weekend. (the retreating into oncoming supporters)

It is completely legal to clearing out the space about 1-2 meteres beyond the point of the ruck forming and then to go back to on side. This has been legal for over a decade and has been using by most SANZAR team for over a decade. The only restricting is that you must stay to your feet.

This is not some "new trick" of the All Blacks. In fact this is exactly what Graham Henry repeatedly criticise ENG for not do! They tend to flop over the ball and killing it and seal off.

The SA trick is to barge in with the shoulder and fall onto the wrong side of the ruck which they do a lot in the recent serie against ENG and also lose a lot of penalty for it (but not as many as should getting).

Yeah I know biltong, sorry, just being a spoon

Good observations, I'd usually miss these subtleties.

About some of these offloads, they happen so fast, it's a wonder they pull them off. Few years back, players would drop these passes, they stick these days. It's the crudens that hit that gap, get scragged, and then pop it on the way down that's really doing the damage. The static offload that SBW does a lot of because he's strong and has long arms are less effective, just kinda keeping the game off the ground rather than fooling defences.

Remember the poms used to being good at 'unintentionally' getting in the way a lot, cheeky devils. The players doing it look so innocent, but they know what they're doing. Ref's got his eye on other things.

The quicker you can play the ball the less time your opposition has to defend.

But how does this style not contradict playing the ball when tackled law? You aren't allowed to play the ball on the floor, you aren't allowed to pass off the floor, especially when tackled.

Maes, I think it is seen (well I see it this way) that you may place the ball immediately, but they offload as that immediate action.

biltongbek wrote:Maes, I think it is seen (well I see it this way) that you may place the ball immediately, but they offload as that immediate action.

Which is passing off the ground when tackled.

maestegmafia wrote:

biltongbek wrote:Maes, I think it is seen (well I see it this way) that you may place the ball immediately, but they offload as that immediate action.

Which is passing off the ground when tackled.

Well, however you or I see it, that is the way it has been interpreted.

The newest tactic that I picked up is one where the player that goes "through" the ruck will turn around with his back facing the oncoming supporters to the oppositions ruck, and then with outstreched hands "show" the referee they are retreating away from the offside position. It is however ver clear hat those outstretched body positions buys time for their counter ruckers to ruck over the ball, before the opponent's supporters arrive to ruck over, which means they can contest opposition rucks much more successfully.

I GOT IT... I got it!!!


Grab the git by the ears and pull him off-side and out the ruck! Simples

I am of firm belief that teams must prepare and train for these eventualities.

First guy is the tackler, second guy is the pilferer, third guy removes players in the ruck, 4th guy removes any and all players that are in an offside position, by scragging them by the arm and jersey and pull them violently aside.

Let the bugger hit the ground, it results in three things, he is out of the way, he is on the ground and out of play, and maybe next time he will think twice.

They say play to the referee, well that in my view is playing to the referee.

Regarding the offloads, i noticed a couple of things:

1. How late they were happening. They were as you say happening off the deck or very much on the way to the deck. Very impressive skill execution. There was by and large zero reaction time allowed to defenders; and

2. in terms of how the offload was delivered it was a couple of times from a position with the ball tucked under an arm and then delivered "backhand". Impressive. Normally when a guy has the ball under his arm i think "well that's that then he's going to die with it or score himself". The pass doesnt look likely/possible at all.

In European rugby we've been saying for the last two years that Leinster are playing "All Blacks rugby". Quick ball, accurate passing and offloading. It can be unstoppable at times.

And it looks so simple, I sometimes wonder why every team doesn't play like this. Obviously the "quick ball" part is easier said than done, and you need great handling skills.

Feckless Rogue wrote:I sometimes wonder why every team doesn't play like this.

Simply, a lack of quality. In players and coaches. Look at how Ireland could play, considering how many Leinster players they have. And how often do they put it a 'Leinster' performance? Not often enough. That's a case of coaching. I think for most other teams, it's a combination of the two.

If i was Coach (particularly of England who need this more than most) I would damned well ensure that every player under my command acquainted themselves with the sacred zepellin that is the rugby ball.

Every player regardless of position would be given 3 rugby match balls and ordered to:

1. Learn to juggle them within a short space of time. I can do it so i would excpect an international rugby player to be able to; and

2. Spend every waking minute of their spare time with a rugby ball in hand, holding it, nurturing it, playing with it, flicking it hand to hand, bouncing it off walls.... and yes......at night time sleeping with it.

If it ever touches the ground the rule is 100 pushups. WAGS to be told to help enforce all this.

Jimmy Hendrix was inseperable from his guitar. He used to cook his bacon and eggs with his axe over his shoulder.

Sir Don Bradman used to practice practice practice hitting a golf ball against a corrugated iron water tank with a cricket stump.

It should be thus with the ball and the player. They need to become at one.

maestegmafia wrote:The quicker you can play the ball the less time your opposition has to defend.

But how does this style not contradict playing the ball when tackled law? You aren't allowed to play the ball on the floor, you aren't allowed to pass off the floor, especially when tackled.

This is just plain wrong. The law says you must play the ball immediately if held in the tackle. (If you aren't held you can keep hold of the ball, get up and keep going though you'd be safer to place it get up,pick it up and keep going to avoid an interpretation of "held" going against you).

If you are held in the tackle you must play the ball imediately. Playing the ball includes placing it behind you, placing it in front of you to score a try and passing the ball to a team mate.

The Gist of the law states when tackled,"You MUST play the Ball IMMEDIATELY OR Release it and Roll Away"THAT includes passing the ball inthe tackle to support legally.THAT has been practiced at least since 1946.Bob Dwyer used to a week BEFORE a Bledisloe Match with the ref pointing out the ALL BLACKS CHEATING methods.NOTHING was said about the WALLABIES cheating too this smacks of the same.

emack, your bizarre capitalisation makes me think you're still on the beers...?

It is illegal to pass off the floor. But then, it's also illegal to use hands in the ruck, and, when tackled, you are meant to release it immediately. In reality, refs can often arbitrarily allow the player several seconds to place it back, especially if he is being challenged for the ball/struggles to present it 'cleanly' to his scrum half. You also see teammates of the tackled player helping the ball makes its way back with a hand, which is obviously illegal, but refs seem to let this go for the sake of making the game 'a better spectacle' if there is no challenge on the ball.

The matter in question, offloading/passing off the floor, is a less common phenomenon. Whilst it is illegal to try and position yourself to find a supporting player when 'out of the game', I'd say you'll likely have refs letting it go, for the same reasons as above (not stopping the game for what is a 6 of one half a dozen of the other, grey area decision...).

Agree about the driving beyond the ruck, both in terms of it being frustrating when playing against but also necessary and clever tactic. Higginbotham conceded a penalty for driving one of the Welsh players, think it was Priestland, out of the ruck and drove him to the ground about four-five yards beyond it. For me, there was nothing wrong with this, he followed through with his momentum and only disrupted the player he had rucked clear, but the penalty was given. What's more frustrating is the hyper-aggressive driving/smashing at the ruck, followed by the same player then strolling back with their arms aloft, blocking the support/running across the scrum half's view. Refs should enforce this as obstruction if more of an 'effort' is not made to retreat.

I have to say I agree with a lot of Biltong's points the most important IMO being the offload/support player system the Kiwi's use.

If my 10 gives the ball to my 12 and I am a blind side winger coming around behind I can trail the 12 with a number of different options.

The fact that I am directly behind means that if he steps a direction I can fill the space he has stepped out of looking for the offload. By running hard behind him I am also most likely to arrive at the breakdown first and create quick ball for my team.

The fact the support player is behind the carrier means than he can judge whether he needs to ruck or can take an offload and yet he doesn't have to shift his line majorally. It is very intelligent but then again holding your depth generally is.

Thank you Pete.

Biltong and Pete. How much you think this is a "strategy" by the all blacks and how much is just good combinator between Aaron Cruden and SBW that come from familiar in the chiefs?

It was most noticing in the 3rd test when Cruden and SBW rip apart Ireland for 20 minutes with over and over the same move.

But to me was no so much more than Australia continue to break up Wales in the first Wallaby v Wales test with the inside ball to full back joining the line. Which they make a lot of breaks by.

Is not just some combinator working and so the team recognise and try and try again?

For example in third test Wales get smart to this cunning and stop it and force Wallabies wider and not so much success and almost win.

Miaow ,I use capitals as BULLET POINTS,also i am completely tee total nor do I use drugs.Also I object to people inferring that i am a drunk .

What is germane to the upcoming 4Ns,irrespective of the rights and wrongs is what the Referees are doing in the SH in Super Rugby.Hi.Biltong expect you are about roundabout now.Presumeably the stricter interpratations as laid down by the IRB will continue into the 4Ns.What has become more and more apparent strong defences and Great goalkicking is now more important than attacking flair.Penalty shootouts are more and more common this year and something like 8 penalties to 6 with the odd drop is not uncommon.The 2009 kick for territory and make every chance you get in the "redzone" count a least attempt to set up drop goals.Which would suggest that the Boks Game plan mixed with strikes from tries when chance occurs could be the way to go.The Second Irish test was more beneficial to the AllBlacks than the blow outs no way are Ireland 60 points worse than a AB team except on a bad day .
SBW may be hailed as the new messiah by the Chiefs especially if is possible it means a Super final maybe even a Super title.As he is almost certainly a non 4N starter now[if the NZHT is right].After Nonu there isn`t exactly a load of 12`s around with test experience.

anotherworldofpain wrote:Biltong and Pete. How much you think this is a "strategy" by the all blacks and how much is just good combinator between Aaron Cruden and SBW that come from familiar in the chiefs?

It was most noticing in the 3rd test when Cruden and SBW rip apart Ireland for 20 minutes with over and over the same move.

But to me was no so much more than Australia continue to break up Wales in the first Wallaby v Wales test with the inside ball to full back joining the line. Which they make a lot of breaks by.

Is not just some combinator working and so the team recognise and try and try again?

For example in third test Wales get smart to this cunning and stop it and force Wallabies wider and not so much success and almost win.

I think it is a strategy but at the same time it should be more universal than it currently is.

We were coached by a Kiwi for a bit and one excercise he did was a 2 on 1 full contact drill in a 2 yard channel. So the guy would be tackled and have to offload/pop to the guy coming on at pace.

It is strategic in the sense that certain back plays or trigger moves involving the back 3 coming from deep. We'd have a move called 62. Sixty refers to blind side winger and the number after the sixty refers to what reciever he is recieving the ball from. So 63 would be blindside winger off 13 61 would be blindside winger off 10. The difference is we included an 'i' or an 'o' refering to inside or outside. This plays your hand as it is set.

The Kiwis could do the same move leaving out the 'i' and 'o' and the carrier could run at his man, step one direction and pop the ball into the space he has created waiting for the support man.

It is planned (prepared) improvisation.

Add in to that the fact that if the ball carrier doesn't get his hands free that support player is immediatly perfectly positioned to secure that breakdown to increase quick ball.

I think it is a "bigger picture" strategy or style of play.

biltongbek wrote:Thank you Pete.

Haha! No worries bud.