Why do they kick in rugby

[bomberdude18 2]

I'm watching a bit of the rebels game at the moment but i'm struggling to understand why both teams kick so often? To me it looks like they're just giving possession to the opposition. Can someone explain the tactics and reasoning behind kicking it to the opposition?

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

To compare to AFL, in AFL possession is key, with the ball able to travel 150m in the blink of an eye.

The offside rule means that Rugby has to be run that distance to score - there are only a few scores each game, and with so many errors, defense is paramount.

Field position is more important than possession.

AFL used to be that way, and in a rather unique result of the growing professionalism and defensiveness of the game, could well start heading back in that direction.

 

[Swans120]

As said above, field position is hugely important in rugby.

For example, if you're stuck inside your 22 (the area about 20 metres out from your try line) you are allowed to kick the ball out on the full and it will be a lineout at the point it went out (if you're outside your 22 and you do that the ball comes back for a lineout from the spot you kicked it from). Normally, you would much prefer to contest a lineout 40=50 out from your line than to keep the ball inside your 22 in your posession and risk turning it over so close to your line. Sometimes you'd rather defend from about 60 out from your line than to have the ball 30 out from your line.

 

[Mint Condition]

Basically if the defense is set and you're well within your own half it's very difficult and fairly risky to try and work your way down the field with the ball in hand (though not impossible and some teams will have a go more than others - the rules do generally try and favour the team with the ball).

Because there is a contest for possession at every facet of play you'd often rather kick it so that it either goes out 30 or 40 metres down the field and you have a chance to contest the opposition line out...or if it doesn't go out, you can try and force a mistake, or win a turnover from the opposition in the middle part of the field (thus giving you possession in decent territory).

Rugby Union, more than probably any of the other football codes is just as much a battle for territory as it is for possession. It's close to 50/50 IMO. Aussie Rules and soccer are far more about possession, league and NFL are far more about territory. In 2007, rugby union was definitely heading towards the territory side as well, but in the last couple of years some changes in rule interpretations has brought it back again.

 

[Exe Gesis]

A key to remember also is that in Rugby there are unlimited tackles. So losing the ball in your own territory is pretty costly, as teams can maul their way for many minutes, getting a Try, Field Goal or Penalty Goal.

It's much easier in Rugby than League to lose possession in your own territory, because by rule, when you're tackled you must release the ball. So if you only have a Fullback and Winger back there at the time, and they try to run the ball, the defense can outnumber and monster them to gain possession.

Another aspect to all this is that in Rugby, Field Goals and Penalty Goals are worth more than in League, and like in American Football, Field Goals are treated as good point-scoring options. You can rack up a lot of points thru FGs/PGs whenever winning possession in the opposition's territory.

Not to start some cross-code war, but personally, this is why Rugby is a superior game than League. There's far more layers to the game, the rules are near perfect logically (whereas a lot of League's rules are illogical).

American Football and Rugby imo are the best "rugby-born" games.

 

[Mint Condition]

I agree with you GG in the sense that they're tactically the most interesting. Sort of like chess games played with men (especially American Football).

But not everyone is attracted to sport for the strategic battle and I can understand why people prefer league to either rugby union or american football.

 

[Exe Gesis]

Yep, spot on. Sport is a preference/entertainment, like any other (movie genres, music, etc).

For me then....I find Rugby a more absorbing battle, there's more different aspects going on from play to play, more variety, more philosophical football styles that teams can personalize...than in League. Like American football, teams can be far more aggressive with the ball going for the long touchdown/try. Whereas League is more 4 scurries from dummy half, everyone standing around doing nothing, spin out wide once, then kick. And teams just grubbering/bombing next to always as that's all they can do else. Scrums are useless. Rugby has lineouts, scrums, mauls, good ole "forcings back" contests, more chip and chases, etc. A team in am.football going on a long "drive" is there in Rugby too. There's just a lot more depth to both games.

There's so many flaws to League from a rules perspective. League used to be unlimited like Rugby, and hence the knock-on was relevant. But League then tried to copy an american football aspect (4 then 6 tackles) but didnt apply the same rule logic as am.football did.....4 tackles per 10 yards gives far more attacking incentive. Whereas 4 tackles to score a try (70 meters to gain) forces the game to be negative, cautious. Also, they shouldve removed knock-ons completely if they went to 4 or 6 tackles per team, like am.football, where there is just fumbles, because the whole point of scrums and knockons was because of the unlimited tackle. I could go on and on about how since the 1960's league's changing rules have made the game illogical rules-wise, as a structure of a game.

I've posted about this before in the league forum. Basically, my assertion is that once League went to limited tackles, and ever since then, it's been bit by bit heading towards copying am.football ideas but WITHOUT implementing the logic behind those rules, that league is a sport that doesnt know what it really is anymore---kind of trapped in a limbo between Union and Gridiron, holding onto rugby rules that no longer make sense + applying gridiron ideas/rules without applying more drastic changes that compliment and justify those rules.

 

[Mint Condition]

Interesting points! I think I remember reading your post on the league forum about this a while ago and I agree with most of what you say, though I'm sure it got the big league fans riled up.

The scrum is completely irrelevant in league. It's evolutionary waste...like the tail bone in a whale. You're right that as possession is guaranteed for a limited amount of tackles that keeping the knock on (and maybe other things like it being a turnover if you take the ball over the sideline) is illogical.

I suppose you could argue that as the defensive line is back 10 metres in league it's not completely fair to compare running 70 metres to score a try so unfavourably with making 10 yards in American Football. Just taking away some of the importance of treasuring possession in league would be an interesting change and make the general pattern of the game less predictable.

 

[Exe Gesis]

Another example of something becoming redundant is the sideline. In Union/League with unlimited tackles, all kinds of 'mistakes' like knock-ons, forward passes, and running out the sideline were there to ensure the other team had chance at getting the ball back. Justification for it.

League with limited tackles, the sideline should also be treated like it is in gridiron, where it just ends the tackle, team retains possession, a play the ball.

I have proposed many ideas to the ARL/NRL, but i gave up eventually. Unfortunately, to really improve League's structure it requires a lot of changes that all back each other up logically. I've put together an array of these changes, and youve seen portions of it posted in the league forum that you mentioned.

but yeah, that's the essence of it...union/gridiron more variety styles, unpredictable. League more predictable and one-styled (4 hit ups, punt, close to opposition's line, a little more ball-handling but constant bombs/grubbers as ultimate scoring option). My vision for league is cool, gives it a few more options, variety, and tidies up illogical redundant rules, but people would resist it and so be it. Imho, if it were accepted, the game would be more exciting for fans and players, and grow. But i can see rugby ultimately killing league off in the years ahead. Just far too international.

 

[Exe Gesis]

Just on your devil's advocate point...

Just on average each team starts with their 1st tackle around the 20-30 meter mark like it does in gridiron and Union.

Union...unlimited, you can work the ball however slowly or quickly you want/can upfield into scoring range. The game is non-stop and a lot of broken-field, bodies congested in mauls, so big plays are there regularly, big attacking sweeps in your own territory, risky chips and chases etc. Again, scoring-range for Rugby is more rewarding, FGs worth more, penalty goals worth more.

Gridiron...limited, but there are incremental marks of advancement to earn more 1st tackles to get into scoring range. It's very incentive-laden system. And with the beauty of being able to forward pass or run, two-dimensional, it really opens up the game where big plays happen as regularly as little plays. Again, scoring range is more rewarding, FGs worth more.

League.....limited, but the chances of getting into scoring range are much harder because FGs are worth next to nothing, and so it's basically a try or bust. So the game is negative-laden. Even with the defense back 10, you pass backwards to a deep backline and lose ground. Or you resort to quick dummy half scurries and quick play the balls to grab 10 meters a pop. You therefore get to about the opposition's 40 by the last tackle, FGs are meaningless and too difficult, so bombs away. The game is very negative, it's all about minimizing mistakes, relying on the other team giving up penalties to get you into scoring range, hence quick play the balls and scrurries. It's all about mistakes the other team makes not aggressiveness that YOU do. So really, due to all that, it is 6 tackles to go 70 meters or bust, and that therefore creates a negative cautious wait for the other team to make mistakes one-dimensional game.

 

[Mint Condition]

Oh I agree with you on all that...I was thinking more that with the 10 metre rule if you can make a line break or even a half break early in the tackle count then you can gain advantage from quick play the balls (starting the next play before the defence has set properly) and thus very possibly make 70 metres or so in a set of 6 tackles.

However, because ball protection and minimising mistakes is so important (because of things like the knock on rule, sidelines etc), this is unlikely and the first 3 or 4 tackles are almost always one out hit ups or dummy half runs. Take away or lessen the punishment of some of these mistakes and you'll get teams running big plays early in the tackle count and then maintaining the momentum throughout the set. If the big plays don't come off then they'll kick, but these changes alone might take away the pointless 3 or 4 tackles/plays as in the current game without having to add any other more radical changes.

I think a lot of league fans like their game as it is though because it's relatively neat. Rugby Union and American Football can be a lot more scrappy. If a big play doesn't come off then you stop for a set piece (rugby) or you go back and try again from where you started (AF). League is constantly and consistently progressing one way or the other. Predictable yes, but a lot of ball in play action etc and simple to understand. It's all about restarting the game as quickly as possible after each tackle/play.

But I agree with you that excitement and scoring in the game is often more reliant on opposition mistakes than your own creativity or good tactical play.

 

[Exe Gesis]

I agree with everything you posted there. You're preaching to the choir lol.

All about as you said, "take away or lessen the punishment of mistakes, the fear of mistakes" and also add more incentives in general play (i have devised many ideas), and then league would become more aggressive/positive-minded in BOTH defense and offense.

And yes, the leaguers are very stubborn about it all. Some of the replies and things ive been told by people inside the ARL/NRL reflects that. I think fans are more open to the idea of changes. There were some league fans who agreed and liked some of the ideas when i posted that stuff in the league board.

I wish I could influence, help the evolution of the game. Maybe one day I'll post a dedicated thread about it, showing and explaining how it all fits together, email it to the NRL again, post it in that RL site, etc. But in the meantime, i continue enjoying Rugby and try but quickly lose interest in League games.

 

[Mint Condition]

Worth another shot I think. The NRL should be more like the AFL and trial new rules pre season - or even in their under 20's comp. Maybe when/if they get their independent commission they'll be more open to ideas.

Out of interest, what rule changes would you make to rugby union?

 

[Exe Gesis]

I don't think Rugby needs any changes. Where it is right now is almost perfect. If any changes were to be made it would be merely cosmetic little things that I dont think would be beneficial. And if little cosmetic things were changed seasonally it would end up making it worse.

Ie, Rugby doesn't need fixing like League needs it. But do tell me what ideas you might have regarding Union, and I'll think about them and give you some constructive feedback if you like?

Ok, I'll give it another shot posting a dedicated thread about RL changes, emailing it around etc etc. I'll put it together over the week and post it in League board initially. And if it doesnt get deleted by mod, I'll take it to the RL site, try to contact Wayne Bennett again etc.

 

[Mint Condition]

I wouldn't actually want to make any major changes to rugby either, but I have a couple of smaller suggestions, the first of which I've seen suggested by others and the 2nd one that I haven't.

1) I'd like to see them trial removing the 'hit' on the engagement in the scrum...with a more passive engagement and pushing only after the ball is fed into the scrum I think you'll get less collapses and a better contest.

2) I don't like the fact that penalty goals and conversions are made by place kick. I think it makes them too easy to score and with balls able to travel so much further than they used to it encourages team to take a kick at goal from penalties more often then I'd like to see (and possibly makes the scoring area a little too big). I'd make all kicks at goal drop kicks. I think this works logically too, as in regular play you can't set the ball down nicely, take your time and kick it over. At least in American Football field goals are set up the same as conversions. It's consistent. And if you make all kicks at goal drop kicks you can also limit the amount of game time taken up by the kickers taking the shots by about half.

 

[Exe Gesis]

#1....the hit on scrum engagement...ive thought about that before too. I think the main reason for it imo would be to reduce spinal injuries itself or the danger of it occurring, rather than anything else. I like how that's another aspect of rugby, one pack dominating another, the physical intimidation of wearing them down. why i wouldnt remove it for any cosmetic reason, only for safety reason.

#2.....i really like this idea. It's something i also proposed in my league rules. In the past, Rugby allowed the defense to run at the kicker from the goalline trying to block it. They took that away in recent years. But id bring that back and emphasize it like gridiron.

Either...both penalty-shots and conversions have to be drop-kicks. starts with a maul set up, the half-back passes the ball back.

Or...both penalty-shots and conversions to be place-kicks, again starts with a maul set up, but the place-kicking must be done like gridiron, the ball passed back to a holder who places it down for the kicker.

The key tho is that for both conversions and penalty-goals, whether by drop-kick or gridiron-place-kick, the play should be set up like a normal rugby general play, the defense and offense lined up at the line of scrimmage, to allow the defense a viable shot at rushing the kicker for a blocked kick. The question is, whether you allow the offense to be able to block defenders or not. You could make it lawful to block just for these set pieces, but remain unlawful in general play, or you may have to find a way to make blocking lawful in rugby, either to the full extent you see in gridiron, or some other way like only 1 blocker allowed per play (an idea i have for RL btw).

 

[SchumiUCD]

The scrum is completely irrelevant in league.

That's not entirely true, the League scrum still ties 6 players from each side into a small area so it creates more space out wide. As a Union fan, League scrums do look weird though with no one pushing.

2) I don't like the fact that penalty goals and conversions are made by place kick. I think it makes them too easy to score and with balls able to travel so much further than they used to it encourages team to take a kick at goal from penalties more often then I'd like to see (and possibly makes the scoring area a little too big). I'd make all kicks at goal drop kicks.

I don't agree with this, one of the problems in rugby is that it's relatively easy for a defending team to illegally slow the attacking team's possession and making penalties more difficult would only encourage this.

In the past, Rugby allowed the defense to run at the kicker from the goalline trying to block it.

You can still do this for conversions but I don't ever remember that being possible for penalties. You have to stay 10 metres back, same as if they were running the penalty.


There are issues with rugby's rules. The scrum engagement is a mess (in the Northern Hemisphere anyway, might be different down there), a faster "crouch, touch, engage" would work much better than the current "crouch... touch... ... pause... ... engage" nonsense. More fundamentally, the refereeing of the breakdown could do with being simplified. The variation in decisions from different referees is huge and very annoying to watch.

 

[stuart27]

To the OP, the Rebel Army wrote a few articles for those new to the game to help explain the rules. Here's the kicking one.

http://www.rebel-army.com/archives/1115

 

[Mint Condition]

That's not entirely true, the League scrum still ties 6 players from each side into a small area so it creates more space out wide. As a Union fan, League scrums do look weird though with no one pushing.

True, but how often does the ball get spread out wide from the scrum in league anyway? Teams know they have an additional 5 tackles and don't want to risk losing the ball on the first so just hit it up through a centre. And it just looks like a joke.

I don't agree with this, one of the problems in rugby is that it's relatively easy for a defending team to illegally slow the attacking team's possession and making penalties more difficult would only encourage this.

I don't think it would. Getting to kick for touch and throw into the lineout is a pretty big advantage from a penalty. And the more teams are encouraged to attack from penalties, the more likely the defending team will receive a yellow card if they continue to illegally slow down the ball (and the yellow card has to be used as a deterrent). You'd still be able to kick most penalty goals from within about 35 metres out and within 15 metres from the sideline...you'd just get rid of the vast majority of attempts from 40 out, 5 in from touch.

More fundamentally, the refereeing of the breakdown could do with being simplified. The variation in decisions from different referees is huge and very annoying to watch.

I agree, but the problem with simplifying the breakdown laws is that you'd make it easier for the defensive team to slow the ball down. As it is, defensive teams have to be very accurate to force a turnover or to slow down the ball legally. I think the current laws, which emphasise the tackler releasing the tackled player work pretty well. After the tackle is made, the tackler has to get away and the tackled player has to release the ball. Then the other players arriving at the ruck can fight for it so long as they don't come in from the side and stay on their feet (or at least don't dive in to seal off the ball cynically). This is how it should be. That makes it sound very simple...I know there are a number of other pedantic little rules around the ruck and maybe some of them could be rid of. The most contentious issue is often surrounding when the ruck has formed because while it's just a tackle you can use your hands if you're on your feet, but after it's formed you can't. And this interpretation can vary. Maybe you allow hands in the ruck for players on their feet. They trialled it in the ARC a couple of years ago and it worked alright.

 

[Mint Condition]

#2.....i really like this idea. It's something i also proposed in my league rules. In the past, Rugby allowed the defense to run at the kicker from the goalline trying to block it. They took that away in recent years. But id bring that back and emphasize it like gridiron.

Either...both penalty-shots and conversions have to be drop-kicks. starts with a maul set up, the half-back passes the ball back.

The defence are still allowed to attempt to charge down attempts at conversion just not penalties. Not sure you'd need to start it with a maul set up. I'm not sure how you'd set up an artificial maul in rugby. It'd be like a league scrum. For a penalty just have the halfback tap the ball from the mark and pass to the kicker who then takes the shot (or like you said, you could use the AF method where someone holds the ball for a place kick). The defence have to start 10 metres back from the mark but as soon as the ball is tapped can attempt a charge down. For conversions I'd keep it the same as it is now, just with a drop goal instead of a place kick (like is practiced in sevens rugby) with the defence able to charge from the try line once the kicker starts his kicking motion.

 

[Caesar]

The complicated scrum engagement process in rugby is for the safety of the players. I can't agree with dropping steps purely for the sake of speeding it up.

Whilst I agree with GG's and Mint Condition's reasons about why rugby is a 'better' game (in terms of why I like it more) I don't agree with the following logic about changing league. As a rugby man who grew up in a league-rabid community I can tell you that suggesting you change league to be more like rugby is little different to suggesting you change it to be like Australian football. The games should be viewed separately rather than trying to add the good elements of one to the other. It's partially why I was very reticent about the initial unmodified Stellenbosch laws.

Yes, league is a less nuanced and more one-dimensional game than rugby. But that's not necessarily a bad thing. Lawn tennis is a less nuanced and more one-dimensional game than real tennis - which one's more popular?

League has taken one particular aspect of the game, pared it back and optimised the hell out of it - fast, efficient running rugby. It may be boring to some of us, but for a lot of people that's what they want to see.

Agreed that there are a lot of anachronistic rules, but that's not a big deal. Most of them (like the scrum) are kept mostly for sentimental purposes.

 

[Mint Condition]

The complicated scrum engagement process in rugby is for the safety of the players. I can't agree with dropping steps purely for the sake of speeding it up.

The thing is the hugely forceful 'hit' at the engagement of the scrum is a relatively modern phenomenon and this is what causes a lot of collapses and ultimately injuries. Watch a rugby match from even 10-15 years ago and it was much less powerful at the initial engagement. Further back than that and it was hugely different.

The rules of rugby actually say that you can't push until the ball is fed into the scrum. This is blatantly ignored now by referees and players because the initial hit on engagement is one massive push. I think if you make the engagement passive (have the front rowers bind together first, and then the rest of the scrum pack after), and no pushing until the ball is fed, you'll get a massive reduction in scrum collapses and an increase in the actual scrum contest. It's not so much about removing steps as to changing them. With the hit as it is, props try to get an immediate advantage out of different binds, angles and other technical tricks. Remove the hit, have them bind in the optimal way for stability from the beginning and it'll be better.

The hit in the scrum looks and sounds fantastic in a good game when neither side plays cynically and the scrums don't collapse...but it happens too infrequently. I know this is something being looked at by the IRB. It will depend how things go in the world cup though. If the scrums work well in the world cup there'll be no change. If they don't there will have to be.

 

[Caesar]

As you say, what you're talking about is more about changing the engagement process than merely speeding it up.

I've got no problems with making the scrum engagement process safer, but I think what was being suggested by Schumi in terms of removing the 'pause' phase would actually have the opposite effect. That's what I was objecting to.

 

[SchumiUCD]

I think what was being suggested by Schumi in terms of removing the 'pause' phase would actually have the opposite effect. That's what I was objecting to.

My point was that the "pause" stage is redundant because the referees have big pauses between each stage anyway. If there could even be a consistent gap between each stage, it would solve lots of the problems. "Touch" (2 seconds) "Pause" (2 seconds) "Engage" rather than the variable gaps we have now. If players knew when the "Engage" call will come, things would run much smoother IMO.

I'd actually much prefer what Mint Condition proposed. It drives me mad seeing a scrum moving all over the place and the scrum half being penalised for not putting the ball in. The stronger scrum can still assert itself but there'd be much fewer collapses. I don't see it happening though.

 

[Caesar]

Have you played in the forward pack? The pause phase is crucial for the referee to stop everything dead and check that the players are set properly. Going from touch to engage is a big jump - if a team goes early you can end up with extremely nasty injuries (completely aside from the fact that a scrum collapse is more likely).

As a former referee there is no way I'd be comfortable setting a scrum without a pause phase.