Why does the SH produce so many good 7s?

After Chris Pollock's display in the last Lions test, there has been much debate suggesting that his interpretation of the breakdown law is universal amongst the Southern Hemisphere.  As O'Driscoll found even minor (or no) indiscretion could land you with a penalty.  As such if the breakdown is policed to such an extent where it is not a competition, but merely a way of recycling ball for the attacking team, why is it that Southern Hemisphere teams are quite rightly lauded for developing outstanding 7s?  Surely the likes of McCaw, Waugh, Smith, Pocock, etc do not get any practice at the breakdown, so why are they so good?

Pollocks interpretation of the breakdown was a complete mystery to me. Ruined the match for me. Really frustrating.

Joubert to come. I am already half bald, will have no hair left soon.

McCaw's the king but as skip he's in constant discussion with the referee so he obviously gets a better idea about the ref's interpretations and then adjusts how he attacks the play.

The body weight thing has been more closely scrutinised in the SH. I was explaining this to an Irish guy who wanted to bite my head off-I merely told him that the ref interpreted O'Driscoll as not supporting his weight. Personally I think BOD was pretty hard done by as he was able to spring up and you can't do that if most of your weight is on your arms. Well done BOD for sucking it up and adjusting his play.

The SH plays a faster game so the 7s are used to having to get to the breakdowns really quick smart to make a difference. So on firmer grounds with expansive play the SH 7s are more likely to get to the tackle first, often before it becomes a ruck so in that case the hindmost foot rule goes out the window and you can come in from any bloody which way you please. I've heard people scream at McCaw for being offside in those situations so many times it's not funny.

Actually it is pretty funny.

Maybe also if the SH guys are stricter at the breakdowns it means that the 7s that do well in the SH comps do even better under NH refs as they play with more relaxed interpretations and get away with more.

Just my reasoning anyhow.

I put it down to poor reporting. Pollock is reasonably predictable. I starteda thread prior to the match because I knew given the way the Lions and French were playing they would get pinged in the tackle and ruck. I think in general the Lions made some attempt to modify their technique. But I'm not sure ODriscoll should be mystified, nor should Gatland. Gat's boy plays at School in NZ, he still has connections here. I find it hard to believe he wasn't educated. We are talking about a few key differences and minor changes to technique. The issue for players is to change the autopilot. The commentators either didn't do their homework (it was even in the papers in the lead up), were to emotionally attached or were interested in sales (controversy sells). But it applies to both sides. Do you think NZ didn't find it hard to adjust to the serial infringing of the French? It's a great way to deflect criticism of your team and to try an influence the next ref.

Pollock reckons he got it about 90% right, which is probably par for the course for most international refs. Rugby's an international game and the issue of rucks and consistency of refereeing and how to referee the tackle  and the maul is always an issue. Imagine in world were England complained to the IRB that the ruck needed to be sorted out because the game was becoming a giant game of force back, where the ball was kicked from one end of the field to the other because teams were afraid of giving away ruck penalties or turnovers in their own half. Imagine if the president said silly boys the  rules just need to be allpied as they are written. Imagine if the IRB issued a clarification statement that amongst other things said that players involved in a tackle must release the tackled player, that  indicated players must get to the feet, nit supported on the ground, etc. Imagine if the reiterated the rules 2 years later going into a world cup. Imagine if they, and the worlds media castigated a referee for not applying these rules in a major game. Imagine if these are the same rules we are talking about now. No need to, it's reality.


At the end of the day it's not even remotely a Barnesque performance. Seeing as that is an acceptable limit I can't see any reason to complain.

Adapting to the ref is one thing and certainly the Lions should have done it quicker however, Pollocks interpretation of the breakdown was a shambles. Its extremely frustrating because he routinely pinged perfectly acceptable turnovers which just ruins the game IMO. Effectlvely when he refs you arent allowed compete at the breakdown which is just ridiculous. If I wanted to watch rugby where there is no breakdown Id watch rugby league.

Stop ruining games with nonsense interpretations refs!!!

Surprised there hasn't been more made of how quickly he called advantage over when the Lions were playing a penalty advantage. If you watch it again, you see it was about 25 seconds after he called the advantage for offside and the Lions had hardly made any ground and were not exactly looking like breaking through. Just as he called advantage over they lost control of the ball and he allowed about 3 Aussies to dive over the top and kill the ball and then penalised BOD (I think). Very unusual to see a penalty advantage called as over so quickly.

jelly wrote:Surprised there hasn't been more made of how quickly he called advantage over when the Lions were playing a penalty advantage. If you watch it again, you see it was about 25 seconds after he called the advantage for offside and the Lions had hardly made any ground and were not exactly looking like breaking through. Just as he called advantage over they lost control of the ball and he allowed about 3 Aussies to dive over the top and kill the ball and then penalised BOD (I think). Very unusual to see a penalty advantage called as over so quickly.

Thats true. Pollock didnt seem to mind diving over the top in the ruck at all. Baffling.

The variation between some refs is like having to speak a different language in the office every day at work and trying to get the job done.

GunsGerms wrote:Adapting to the ref is one thing and certainly the Lions should have done it quicker however, Pollocks interpretation of the breakdown was a shambles. Its extremely frustrating because he routinely pinged perfectly acceptable turnovers which just ruins the game IMO. Effectlvely when he refs you arent allowed compete at the breakdown which is just ridiculous. If I wanted to watch rugby where there is no breakdown Id watch rugby league.

Stop ruining games with nonsense interpretations refs!!!

I disagree. It's obvious that you can. That was the point of the IRB clarification in 2009 and 2011. In my opinion to compete with Pollock as a referee a couple of changes will make things a lot easier if you are a NH player. When on defence you need to be careful. If you are involved in the tackle (either as the tackler o tackler assist). you have to release the player before you go for the ball (plenty of players have in the past been pinged for this by refs from both sides of the equator in the past) and 2: if you are going for the ball ensure you are not supporting yourself using you hands or knees. It actually allows effective competition for the ball, quick ball and quick turnovers. Where we are headed at the moment is a game of forceback as predicted by the RFU in 2009. Where teams kick for territory and grind along until hopefully the referee finds something to penalise (50/50) and gives you points to win the game. If you want to score tries your most likely to score from a counter attack (with a poor kick chase) or from set piece (either of which will probably involve some minor obstruction by another player).

Who defines nonsense interpretation? Every other major game has an issue with the refs.

blackcanelion wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:Adapting to the ref is one thing and certainly the Lions should have done it quicker however, Pollocks interpretation of the breakdown was a shambles. Its extremely frustrating because he routinely pinged perfectly acceptable turnovers which just ruins the game IMO. Effectlvely when he refs you arent allowed compete at the breakdown which is just ridiculous. If I wanted to watch rugby where there is no breakdown Id watch rugby league.

Stop ruining games with nonsense interpretations refs!!!

I disagree. It's obvious that you can. That was the point of the IRB clarification in 2009 and 2011. In my opinion to compete with Pollock as a referee a couple of changes will make things a lot easier if you are a NH player. When on defence you need to be careful. If you are involved in the tackle (either as the tackler). you have to release the player before you go for the ball (plenty of players have in the past been pinged for this by refs from both sides of the equator in the past) and 2: if you are going for the ball ensure you are not supporting yourself using you hands or knees. It actually allows effective competition for the ball, quick ball and quick turnovers. Where we are headed at the moment is a game of forceback as predicted by the RFU in 2009. Where teams kick for territory and grind along until hopefully the referee finds something to penalise (50/50) and gives you points to win the game. If you want to score tries your most likely to score from a counter attack (with a poor kick chase) or from set piece (either of which will probably involve some minor obstruction by another player).

Who defines nonsense interpretation? Every other major game has an issue with the refs.

I repeat Drico was penalised for doing nothing wrong at the breakdown. The Lions just didnt bother competing anymore and when the did (Mako in the last few mins) they were penalised for nothing.
He was supporting his own weight, he did release after the tackle or wasn’t part of the tackle etc.
Warburton was asked after the match “Did you adjust your approach to the breakdown area following the two early penalties against Brian O'Driscoll?”
Sam Warburton: Yes, I didn't bother competing for the ball on the floor. It was better to counter-ruck or get your feet in there.
The Aussies didn’t counter ruck either they just dived over the top instead to get turnovers which in Pollacks bizarre world of refereeing seemed fine.
The bottom line is Pollocks interpretations were farcical and ruined the match. Most tries are scored from counter attack but also from turnovers which are part of the game. The result of Pollock’s dreadful refereeing was a very dull rugby league type encounter.

blackcanelion wrote: Where we are headed at the moment is a game of forceback as predicted by the RFU in 2009. Where teams kick for territory and grind along until hopefully the referee finds something to penalise (50/50) and gives you points to win the game. If you want to score tries your most likely to score from a counter attack (with a poor kick chase) or from set piece (either of which will probably involve some minor obstruction by another player).

Interesting view BC. this is what we mainly saw in that NZ-France series : NZ applying that game plan with success and France having a go at it in the 3rd test as well. Was reading an interview of Todd Blackadder before the 3rd test saying that france got it completety wrong in terms of tactics as possession doesnt win games anymore which is in line with that assessment .

I'm not sure which event you are talking about. I have only seen one and I know he was penalised twice. I'll assume you were talking about the other one. Pollock is up front in saying that he probably got about 9/10 decisions right. That's not unusual. We've just had three NH refs who were as bad or worse.

In terms of the Warburtons comments. It's not as uncommon as you might think. I have to say that I disagree with you. I think he was predicable. I think he actually curbed his calls a bit. The issue for me is that the Lions hadn't prepared enough. To be fair it's an issue the AB's faced over the last three weeks as well. The difference is they tried to adjust their technique and game plan and didn't whinge to the media. By in large it was probably a bit easier for them, as they had to go from not infringing to infringing they were less likely to give away penalties. Where it did cost them was turnovers, the effects of which were minimised due to their defensive line and poor decision making and execution by France. Well that's my take anyway.

NZ will actually handle this a lot better than they did in 2009 as they have pure footballers who are fantastic at defusing all types of kicks. The 2011 semi was one of the best aerial displays I've ever seen from a team and Deans missed a trick in not moving away from his game plan of bombardment.

It's frustrating as we all want an even contest with a singular interpretation/application of the laws. The ref is too often an influence and also a default option is to slate a ref as the main reason for losing which obviously comes across as sour grapes but is most of the time legitimate due to the lottery of the interpretations.

Just gotta focus on playing well enough to take the ref out of the equation which is sad and it hasn't happened in a few huge games hence the scrutiny.

BC, personally I agree with you.

I do though understand why the Lions management have openly talked about their annoyance, when theres 3 penaltys called against you that with 9/10 other refs would be perfectly legal turnovers, in a one score game...

Also, you've got to consider the effect all of this spotlight will have on the breakdown and the ref's interpretations of it in the next game. Perhaps Gatland & co are looking forward rather than backwards with these comments? They were bossed at the tackle area in the 1st test and we know how Gats like the mental side of things...

blackcanelion wrote:I'm not sure which event you are talking about. I have only seen one and I know he was penalised twice. I'll assume you were talking about the other one. Pollock is up front in saying that he probably got about 9/10 decisions right. That's not unusual. We've just had three NH refs who were as bad or worse.

In terms of the Warburtons comments. It's not as uncommon as you might think. I have to say that I disagree with you. I think he was predicable. I think he actually curbed his calls a bit. The issue for me is that the Lions hadn't prepared enough. To be fair it's an issue the AB's faced over the last three weeks as well. The difference is they tried to adjust their technique and game plan and didn't whinge to the media. By in large it was probably a bit easier for them, as they had to go from not infringing to infringing they were less likely to give away penalties. Where it did cost them was turnovers, the effects of which were minimised due to their defensive line and poor decision making and execution by France. Well that's my take anyway.

Im not debating as to whether Pollock was predicable or consistent. I agree he was consistent but consistently wrong which ruined the game IMO. I already said before that the Lions should have adapted sooner I think the fact that they didnt is more akin to the bewilderment they were feeling towards the decisions.

ps. as far as the SH producing better 7s and the reasons....

the SH generally produces better players than us in the NH, why wouldn't they tend to produce better 7s aswell?!

The Lions were right to voice their opinions re the breakdown. Just prior to the match Bob Dwyer very publically branded the Lions cheats at the breakdown. The Aussies often try to use the media to influence the refs or get at opposition. This isnt hearsay its fact. Rod Kafer when interviewed recently explained how they did this on the last tour. It seems to have had an affect on Pollack as the Lions conceeded almost double the penalties than their opponents.

Guns - I'd say every nation has its fair share of pundits, ex-players and coaches chipping in their points and trying to sway the opinions of officials. Agreed!

We have had plenty of good 7's of our own up here....and plenty coming through over the next few years...

I'd like the IRB to just make it a free for all again (obviously making some care for actual safety)...Let players just have a good old wrestle on the floor for the ball.

I'm with you Geordie, bring back Shoe Pie!

HongKongCherry wrote:I'm with you Geordie, bring back Shoe Pie!

+1. No hands in the ruck unless you're standing (not leaning) behind it

I think what you meant was, Why do WALES produce so many good 7's. Easy mistake just pointing it out

Sam Warburton Justin Tipuric

Ill give you Martyn Williams - top class...who else Hamer?

GeordieFalcon wrote:Ill give you Martyn Williams - top class...who else Hamer?

Robin Sowden-Taylor.

Comfort wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Ill give you Martyn Williams - top class...who else Hamer?

Robin Sowden-Taylor.

Ill repeat, ill give you Martyn Williams, who else

Gavin Thomas

Sam and Tipuric with knew welsh U'20's captain Ellis Jenkins coming through.