All Blacks vs Ireland
-
@mariner4life It’s hard to convey everything in stills. I suppose gifs would work better. Maybe another time, depending on how handy I am in making them.
With the first two pictures, I didn’t so much want to compare the exact same phase as the different starting points for the opposition attack. In the Irish example, Tele’a is able to contest the ball and the Irish receiver is immediately tackled. The Irish need to secure the breakdown and, in these three seconds, the NZ defence is able to fully set and prepare for the phase attack. In comparison, the Argentinean backfield of Carreras and Mallia is able to take the ball without any defenders close to them, and the fractured chase allows them to get behind the first upcoming AB defenders. Already, the line is compromised and there isn’t a prepared defensive line to take on the different attacking patterns of the Argentina attack. It’s really interesting to just watch it unfold on video. In the first minute, the AB defence gets systematically dismantled. As a result, Argentina builds confidence in their attack.
With the second pair of pictures, I’d argue that looks are deceiving. While the NZ defensive line is well-set in the Argentina example, what you are looking at is a passive defensive line of 6 AB defenders against a fully set Argentina attack: there’s a pod waiting to take the ball, another one waiting to set behind them and there is Carreras looping behind as a hidden option. So there’s the possibility of tip passes, backdoor passes, and an inside cut to Carreras. What happens, is that Mallia himself just waltzes through the line as the AB defenders are taking all those options into account and are immobilized by them. Being passive and holding off against a Leinster-type attack, with its many passing and blocking options, is a linebreak waiting to happen.
Contrast this to the Irish test where AB defenders are continuously attempting to insert themselves into the Irish passing lanes, instead of passively waiting for the attack to come to them (another good example is the Jordie Barrett intervention in the 74th minute, where he simply runs into the Irish space). What is the result: dropped balls, indecisiveness and an attack which never gets going. When Sititi sprints out of the line like that, he creates a space to run into. But the Irish attack is quite structured so they don’t want to constantly move out of it and the space available leads into more AB defenders and a potential turnover.
The problem for this system is faulty execution, like you see with ALB in the Argentina test. The trigger for his sprint, like Sititi’s, is exactly the same: turnover possession for Argentina (he literally sprints out of line as soon as Lomax loses the ball). But, like I said, he’s too far away from the source to get inside these passing spaces, leaving him stranded. The other AB defenders don’t shoot up alongside him, because I don’t think that’s the system they’re trying to implement. And ALB gambles but he doesn’t gamble enough: he sprints away from his fellow defenders but he stops before getting into the Argentina line. It’s the worst of two worlds. If he is going to go, he needs to make sure he is, at least, able to disrupt the easy overlap rather than create the space for the Argentina attackers to run through.
I thought Ioane was exceptional on Friday but analysing midfield defence takes a lot of work and I’m too lazy for that right now. There’s a massive amount that goes into a successful defence (others have already signalled the disruption of the Irish lineout, for example), so I definitely don’t want to claim that these facets that I highlighted were the crucial factors. It were just some things that stood out to me when watching these two games side-by-side.
@Mauss said in All Blacks vs Ireland:
I thought Ioane was exceptional on Friday but analysing midfield defence takes a lot of work and I’m too lazy for that right now.
Gregor Paul agrees with you
-
@Mauss said in All Blacks vs Ireland:
I thought Ioane was exceptional on Friday but analysing midfield defence takes a lot of work and I’m too lazy for that right now.
Gregor Paul agrees with you
-
@nostrildamus Shit, that's never a good sign.
@Mauss said in All Blacks vs Ireland:
@nostrildamus Shit, that's never a good sign.
I was reading his article, thinking, am I actually agreeing with it / him for once?!
But yeah he should also be talking up Wallace, given who Wally is named after. -
@Mauss Some good defensive disruption from our guys for sure, but I don't think we'd want to be patting ourselves on the back too much - there were a really unusual number of unforced errors from the Irish too. He certainly wasn't alone, but the ginger Frawley knocking it on cold twice springs to mind - you'd think nerves looking at it happen, but pretty sure he was the chap who drop-kicked the win against SA.
@reprobate said in All Blacks vs Ireland:
Some good defensive disruption from our guys for sure, but I don't think we'd want to be patting ourselves on the back too much
I'd certainly agree with that. When looking back at the Argentina game, it's honestly surprising they didn't concede more points. In the Ireland test, I'd say the AB defence was simply good enough to give themselves a shot at winning. It wasn't perfect by any means. Steps in the right direction, though!
-
@Mauss said in All Blacks vs Ireland:
@nostrildamus Shit, that's never a good sign.
I was reading his article, thinking, am I actually agreeing with it / him for once?!
But yeah he should also be talking up Wallace, given who Wally is named after.@nostrildamus said in All Blacks vs Ireland:
I was reading his article, thinking, am I actually agreeing with it / him for once?!
The bit about Ioane being forbidden to run at training was interesting. Bit extreme from the coaches but Rieko seems to have responded well to it. It's good to see that the noise around him is starting to shift in a more positive direction.
-
-
Also whats the new ruling about defending a high ball chase? The commentators seemed to suggest its a new tweak but could understand why we got pinged when no one obviously changed their line. Was I just blind?
@Lancaster-Park said in All Blacks vs Ireland:
Also whats the new ruling about defending a high ball chase? The commentators seemed to suggest its a new tweak but could understand why we got pinged when no one obviously changed their line. Was I just blind?
I'd like to know too as it appeared to my weary eyes that players were penalised for running a straight line back to there the ball was predicted to land.
-
@Lancaster-Park said in All Blacks vs Ireland:
Also whats the new ruling about defending a high ball chase? The commentators seemed to suggest its a new tweak but could understand why we got pinged when no one obviously changed their line. Was I just blind?
I'd like to know too as it appeared to my weary eyes that players were penalised for running a straight line back to there the ball was predicted to land.
@antipodean said in All Blacks vs Ireland:
@Lancaster-Park said in All Blacks vs Ireland:
Also whats the new ruling about defending a high ball chase? The commentators seemed to suggest its a new tweak but could understand why we got pinged when no one obviously changed their line. Was I just blind?
I'd like to know too as it appeared to my weary eyes that players were penalised for running a straight line back to there the ball was predicted to land.
Me too.
-
@Lancaster-Park said in All Blacks vs Ireland:
Also whats the new ruling about defending a high ball chase? The commentators seemed to suggest its a new tweak but could understand why we got pinged when no one obviously changed their line. Was I just blind?
I'd like to know too as it appeared to my weary eyes that players were penalised for running a straight line back to there the ball was predicted to land.
@antipodean said in All Blacks vs Ireland:
@Lancaster-Park said in All Blacks vs Ireland:
Also whats the new ruling about defending a high ball chase? The commentators seemed to suggest its a new tweak but could understand why we got pinged when no one obviously changed their line. Was I just blind?
I'd like to know too as it appeared to my weary eyes that players were penalised for running a straight line back to there the ball was predicted to land.
In fact, as Chandler might have said about Jordie’s line, ‘Could it be more straight?’!
-
@Lancaster-Park said in All Blacks vs Ireland:
Also whats the new ruling about defending a high ball chase? The commentators seemed to suggest its a new tweak but could understand why we got pinged when no one obviously changed their line. Was I just blind?
I'd like to know too as it appeared to my weary eyes that players were penalised for running a straight line back to there the ball was predicted to land.
@antipodean said in All Blacks vs Ireland:
@Lancaster-Park said in All Blacks vs Ireland:
Also whats the new ruling about defending a high ball chase? The commentators seemed to suggest its a new tweak but could understand why we got pinged when no one obviously changed their line. Was I just blind?
I'd like to know too as it appeared to my weary eyes that players were penalised for running a straight line back to there the ball was predicted to land.
Below is what I have been able to gather - noting World Rugby have done an awful job communicating this.
From what I can gather it's an emphasis on ensuring the kick receipt team allow more access for the chaser to have a clean challenge.
Basically it's no longer good enough to subtly block or 'escort' by running back towards the ball.
You need to allow access or get out of the way
I actually see the merit in it and I think it's paying dividends.
I've seen more one on one contests and less dangerous contests as chasers can time their contest better as they don't have to deal with as much 'traffic'
Below I found in some different articles.
Basically, match officials have been told by World Rugby that they needed to clamp down on 'kick escorting' this autumn. A 'kick escort' is a player who retreats downfield after the opposition has kicked, impeding chasing players and allowing their team-mate to have a better chance of catching the ball cleanly.Players who block their opponents from contesting a high-ball against their team-mate are known as 'escort runners', and up until now, provided you didn't change your running line, then everything was legal. Officials will be more strict with this in the autumn games. If players slow down with an attacking chaser behind them, then they will risk being penalised. -
@antipodean said in All Blacks vs Ireland:
@Lancaster-Park said in All Blacks vs Ireland:
Also whats the new ruling about defending a high ball chase? The commentators seemed to suggest its a new tweak but could understand why we got pinged when no one obviously changed their line. Was I just blind?
I'd like to know too as it appeared to my weary eyes that players were penalised for running a straight line back to there the ball was predicted to land.
Below is what I have been able to gather - noting World Rugby have done an awful job communicating this.
From what I can gather it's an emphasis on ensuring the kick receipt team allow more access for the chaser to have a clean challenge.
Basically it's no longer good enough to subtly block or 'escort' by running back towards the ball.
You need to allow access or get out of the way
I actually see the merit in it and I think it's paying dividends.
I've seen more one on one contests and less dangerous contests as chasers can time their contest better as they don't have to deal with as much 'traffic'
Below I found in some different articles.
Basically, match officials have been told by World Rugby that they needed to clamp down on 'kick escorting' this autumn. A 'kick escort' is a player who retreats downfield after the opposition has kicked, impeding chasing players and allowing their team-mate to have a better chance of catching the ball cleanly.Players who block their opponents from contesting a high-ball against their team-mate are known as 'escort runners', and up until now, provided you didn't change your running line, then everything was legal. Officials will be more strict with this in the autumn games. If players slow down with an attacking chaser behind them, then they will risk being penalised.@KiwiMurph said in All Blacks vs Ireland:
@antipodean said in All Blacks vs Ireland:
@Lancaster-Park said in All Blacks vs Ireland:
Also whats the new ruling about defending a high ball chase? The commentators seemed to suggest its a new tweak but could understand why we got pinged when no one obviously changed their line. Was I just blind?
I'd like to know too as it appeared to my weary eyes that players were penalised for running a straight line back to there the ball was predicted to land.
Below is what I have been able to gather - noting World Rugby have done an awful job communicating this.
From what I can gather it's an emphasis on ensuring the kick receipt team allow more access for the chaser to have a clean challenge.
Basically it's no longer good enough to subtly block or 'escort' by running back towards the ball.
You need to allow access or get out of the way
I actually see the merit in it and I think it's paying dividends.
I've seen more one on one contests and less dangerous contests as chasers can time their contest better as they don't have to deal with as much 'traffic'
Below I found in some different articles.
Basically, match officials have been told by World Rugby that they needed to clamp down on 'kick escorting' this autumn. A 'kick escort' is a player who retreats downfield after the opposition has kicked, impeding chasing players and allowing their team-mate to have a better chance of catching the ball cleanly.Players who block their opponents from contesting a high-ball against their team-mate are known as 'escort runners', and up until now, provided you didn't change your running line, then everything was legal. Officials will be more strict with this in the autumn games. If players slow down with an attacking chaser behind them, then they will risk being penalised.This puts the thumb on the scales in favour of the attacking team. A retreating player can be in exactly the same position to compete for the ball as an attacking player, but by the virtue of them being a defending player they're liable to be penalised if they don't secure the ball,
-
@KiwiMurph said in All Blacks vs Ireland:
@antipodean said in All Blacks vs Ireland:
@Lancaster-Park said in All Blacks vs Ireland:
Also whats the new ruling about defending a high ball chase? The commentators seemed to suggest its a new tweak but could understand why we got pinged when no one obviously changed their line. Was I just blind?
I'd like to know too as it appeared to my weary eyes that players were penalised for running a straight line back to there the ball was predicted to land.
Below is what I have been able to gather - noting World Rugby have done an awful job communicating this.
From what I can gather it's an emphasis on ensuring the kick receipt team allow more access for the chaser to have a clean challenge.
Basically it's no longer good enough to subtly block or 'escort' by running back towards the ball.
You need to allow access or get out of the way
I actually see the merit in it and I think it's paying dividends.
I've seen more one on one contests and less dangerous contests as chasers can time their contest better as they don't have to deal with as much 'traffic'
Below I found in some different articles.
Basically, match officials have been told by World Rugby that they needed to clamp down on 'kick escorting' this autumn. A 'kick escort' is a player who retreats downfield after the opposition has kicked, impeding chasing players and allowing their team-mate to have a better chance of catching the ball cleanly.Players who block their opponents from contesting a high-ball against their team-mate are known as 'escort runners', and up until now, provided you didn't change your running line, then everything was legal. Officials will be more strict with this in the autumn games. If players slow down with an attacking chaser behind them, then they will risk being penalised.This puts the thumb on the scales in favour of the attacking team. A retreating player can be in exactly the same position to compete for the ball as an attacking player, but by the virtue of them being a defending player they're liable to be penalised if they don't secure the ball,
@Nepia said in All Blacks vs Ireland:
but by the virtue of them being a defending player they're liable to be penalised if they don't secure the ball,
I'd put it a different way - liable to be penalised if they aren't genuinely competing to secure the ball.
If you are a defender who is legitimately part of the contest for the high ball you aren't going to get penalised as it relates to this new emphasis
-
@Nepia said in All Blacks vs Ireland:
but by the virtue of them being a defending player they're liable to be penalised if they don't secure the ball,
I'd put it a different way - liable to be penalised if they aren't genuinely competing to secure the ball.
If you are a defender who is legitimately part of the contest for the high ball you aren't going to get penalised as it relates to this new emphasis
@KiwiMurph said in All Blacks vs Ireland:
@Nepia said in All Blacks vs Ireland:
but by the virtue of them being a defending player they're liable to be penalised if they don't secure the ball,
I'd put it a different way - liable to be penalised if they aren't genuinely competing to secure the ball.
If you are a defender who is legitimately part of the contest for the high ball you aren't going to get penalised as it relates to this new emphasis
Like most things in rugby that's down to interpretation. A player could start sprinting back, realise they're not going to make the ball, pull up and get penalised because they didn't make a path.
I don't like it, it was like the law makers were fixing a hole that wasn't broken. Meanwhile the NH team's run players, at best parallel with the ball player, and it's not a problem.
Anyway, that's my opinion, I'm not going to fight you if you like the law.
-
@KiwiMurph said in All Blacks vs Ireland:
@Nepia said in All Blacks vs Ireland:
but by the virtue of them being a defending player they're liable to be penalised if they don't secure the ball,
I'd put it a different way - liable to be penalised if they aren't genuinely competing to secure the ball.
If you are a defender who is legitimately part of the contest for the high ball you aren't going to get penalised as it relates to this new emphasis
Like most things in rugby that's down to interpretation. A player could start sprinting back, realise they're not going to make the ball, pull up and get penalised because they didn't make a path.
I don't like it, it was like the law makers were fixing a hole that wasn't broken. Meanwhile the NH team's run players, at best parallel with the ball player, and it's not a problem.
Anyway, that's my opinion, I'm not going to fight you if you like the law.
@Nepia said in All Blacks vs Ireland:
it was like the law makers were fixing a hole that wasn't broken
That was my thinking before I saw it in action
Since seeing it in action I actually think they have solved an issue
However, I get where you are coming from.
-
@KiwiMurph said in All Blacks vs Ireland:
@Nepia said in All Blacks vs Ireland:
but by the virtue of them being a defending player they're liable to be penalised if they don't secure the ball,
I'd put it a different way - liable to be penalised if they aren't genuinely competing to secure the ball.
If you are a defender who is legitimately part of the contest for the high ball you aren't going to get penalised as it relates to this new emphasis
Like most things in rugby that's down to interpretation. A player could start sprinting back, realise they're not going to make the ball, pull up and get penalised because they didn't make a path.
I don't like it, it was like the law makers were fixing a hole that wasn't broken. Meanwhile the NH team's run players, at best parallel with the ball player, and it's not a problem.
Anyway, that's my opinion, I'm not going to fight you if you like the law.
@Nepia said in All Blacks vs Ireland:
@KiwiMurph said in All Blacks vs Ireland:
@Nepia said in All Blacks vs Ireland:
but by the virtue of them being a defending player they're liable to be penalised if they don't secure the ball,
I'd put it a different way - liable to be penalised if they aren't genuinely competing to secure the ball.
If you are a defender who is legitimately part of the contest for the high ball you aren't going to get penalised as it relates to this new emphasis
Like most things in rugby that's down to interpretation. A player could start sprinting back, realise they're not going to make the ball, pull up and get penalised because they didn't make a path.
I don't like it, it was like the law makers were fixing a hole that wasn't broken. Meanwhile the NH team's run players, at best parallel with the ball player, and it's not a problem.
Anyway, that's my opinion, I'm not going to fight you if you like the law.
retreating players would almost never sprint back if there is someone further back coming forward, always defer to the full back coming forward, the overwhelming majority of retreating players are just trying to get get on side rather than compete for the ball
I thought the ref and commentators explained during the game
-
@antipodean said in All Blacks vs Ireland:
@Lancaster-Park said in All Blacks vs Ireland:
Also whats the new ruling about defending a high ball chase? The commentators seemed to suggest its a new tweak but could understand why we got pinged when no one obviously changed their line. Was I just blind?
I'd like to know too as it appeared to my weary eyes that players were penalised for running a straight line back to there the ball was predicted to land.
Below is what I have been able to gather - noting World Rugby have done an awful job communicating this.
From what I can gather it's an emphasis on ensuring the kick receipt team allow more access for the chaser to have a clean challenge.
Basically it's no longer good enough to subtly block or 'escort' by running back towards the ball.
You need to allow access or get out of the way
I actually see the merit in it and I think it's paying dividends.
I've seen more one on one contests and less dangerous contests as chasers can time their contest better as they don't have to deal with as much 'traffic'
Below I found in some different articles.
Basically, match officials have been told by World Rugby that they needed to clamp down on 'kick escorting' this autumn. A 'kick escort' is a player who retreats downfield after the opposition has kicked, impeding chasing players and allowing their team-mate to have a better chance of catching the ball cleanly.Players who block their opponents from contesting a high-ball against their team-mate are known as 'escort runners', and up until now, provided you didn't change your running line, then everything was legal. Officials will be more strict with this in the autumn games. If players slow down with an attacking chaser behind them, then they will risk being penalised.@KiwiMurph said in All Blacks vs Ireland:
@antipodean said in All Blacks vs Ireland:
@Lancaster-Park said in All Blacks vs Ireland:
Also whats the new ruling about defending a high ball chase? The commentators seemed to suggest its a new tweak but could understand why we got pinged when no one obviously changed their line. Was I just blind?
I'd like to know too as it appeared to my weary eyes that players were penalised for running a straight line back to there the ball was predicted to land.
Below is what I have been able to gather - noting World Rugby have done an awful job communicating this.
From what I can gather it's an emphasis on ensuring the kick receipt team allow more access for the chaser to have a clean challenge.
Basically it's no longer good enough to subtly block or 'escort' by running back towards the ball.
You need to allow access or get out of the way
I actually see the merit in it and I think it's paying dividends.
I've seen more one on one contests and less dangerous contests as chasers can time their contest better as they don't have to deal with as much 'traffic'
Below I found in some different articles.
Basically, match officials have been told by World Rugby that they needed to clamp down on 'kick escorting' this autumn. A 'kick escort' is a player who retreats downfield after the opposition has kicked, impeding chasing players and allowing their team-mate to have a better chance of catching the ball cleanly.Players who block their opponents from contesting a high-ball against their team-mate are known as 'escort runners', and up until now, provided you didn't change your running line, then everything was legal. Officials will be more strict with this in the autumn games. If players slow down with an attacking chaser behind them, then they will risk being penalised.I think it's complete nonsense. The idea that a player on the receiving team, actually has to actively move so that a tackler can get to his teammate to make a tackle/contest the ball, putting his team under pressure (more tackles made, can't get as many support players to the tackled player etc), just seems utterly bizarre.
Run a straight line as a defender, and the tackler can judge where he wants to run and time it accordingly. If the attacker doesn't get there to compete or make a tackle because the defenders are retreating, then so be it.
-
If i am a coach, i am having minimum three genuine chasers to every box kick now. Receiving team players physically won't be able to avoid every player, move away from one, you impede another. Only option is stand still. And you create yourself a huge advantage even if the receiver makes a clean catch.
-
If i am a coach, i am having minimum three genuine chasers to every box kick now. Receiving team players physically won't be able to avoid every player, move away from one, you impede another. Only option is stand still. And you create yourself a huge advantage even if the receiver makes a clean catch.
@mariner4life said in All Blacks vs Ireland:
If i am a coach, i am having minimum three genuine chasers to every box kick now. Receiving team players physically won't be able to avoid every player, move away from one, you impede another. Only option is stand still. And you create yourself a huge advantage even if the receiver makes a clean catch.
2 players actively compete for the ball (one in the air, the other as a tackler), while the 3rd looks to initiate some contact and takes a swan dive
-
@Nepia said in All Blacks vs Ireland:
it was like the law makers were fixing a hole that wasn't broken
That was my thinking before I saw it in action
Since seeing it in action I actually think they have solved an issue
However, I get where you are coming from.
@KiwiMurph said in All Blacks vs Ireland:
@Nepia said in All Blacks vs Ireland:
it was like the law makers were fixing a hole that wasn't broken
That was my thinking before I saw it in action
Since seeing it in action I actually think they have solved an issue
However, I get where you are coming from.
Ireland looked lost. One of their main ways of « cheating » was gone. I think it’s a great rule change. As long as refs aren’t over zealous.
