Off-side or not?

Are the backs off-side or not? Currently, and it has been a trend all the 2005 season, commentators have been urging referees to get non-balling carrying teams to get on-side at the secondary phases. It is my belief that in fact these players are not off-side.

The speed with which the modern player can run ”out of the blocks‘ in the modern game is phenomenal. Contemporary training techniques have created players with immense power and pace. From a standing start, backs can cover 5 metres in a very miniscule time. This allows them to be up and in the face of ball-carrying team players very quickly, to the point that observers suggest —how did they get there so quick, they must be off-side“.
The second important factor is the fact that the non-ball carrying team has generally committed very few, if any, players to the secondary phases as they cannot compete for the ball on an even playing field basis. (Refer to my paper on the tackle/ruck/muck).

These players are now stacked on defense. This means that instead of having seven backs and maybe a forward or two defending wide of the secondary phases, there are now up to 14; the whole team minus the team member who has just made a tackle and who is likely to be out of play at the bottom of a pile up which the referee has just called a ruck. With this number of players being able to defend, it appears to be a wall of defence, with no holes for the ball-carrying team to penetrate. This then is visually deceiving. With all the ball retention and the ability to recycle at will, the ball-carrying team still appears to go nowhere and therefore defenses are being over-scrutinised. —They must be off-side“ is the notion.
The next factor to consider is one of tactics. The ”rushing defence‘ is being talked about a lot currently.

Historically, when there were less players wide of the secondary phases to defend, these defending players did not rush up in defence as this could widen the holes already available for the ball-carrying team to exploit. Now with so many players defending wide of the phases, it allows a rush defence with a lot less likelihood of holes appearing due to the shear number of players on defence.

This rush defence has been developing for a number of years now, but for some reason has only been talked about in 2005. In fact it has been developing simultaneously relative to the demise of the tackle/ruck as it is supposed to be in law, and the demise of the balance between possession and contestability. With the genuine power and pace of the modern day player, described above, the rush defence is accentuated. Again observers and commentators alike are being fooled into thinking officials are not monitoring the off-sides wide of the phases.

The fourth factor to consider in this issue is the depth of the secondary phases. With the non-ball carrying team committing very few if any players to the secondary phases, these phases are a lot more shallow than they were fifteen years ago and longer.
What does this mean?

Consider the size of a scrum when all the forwards of both teams are legally required to participate. At the first class level, a scrum would be between 5-6 metres from the hind-most feet of one team to the hind-most feet of the other team i.e. from off-side line to off-side line. This means the backs of the non-ball winning team at a scrum have 2-3 metres to run before they even get to the mid-line of the scrum.

Consider the secondary phases now. With very few or none of the non-ball winning team committing to the secondary phases, there is no depth on their side of the phase. Their off-side line is now often where 15 years ago the mid-line of the ruck would have been. The non-ball carrying team players now have 2-3 metres less depth, or put another way, they are 2-3 metres further up in the modern game than they were when the majority of the forwards committed to the secondary phases, creating larger and deeper phases. Put another way still, they have 2-3 metres less to run when moving forward to get to their opponents. Add this to the increased number of players now being able to defend, the rush defence, and the speed and power of them, no wonder observers think they are off-side.
The last factor to add to the problem is the fact that the secondary phases are now static.
After a tackle has been made, the ball carrying team ”hit and seal‘. Very few genuine rucks form as players are generally off their feet. With them being off their feet they can no longer drive forward. Games go from one static pile up to another.

If we look historically, genuine rucks used to move forward with players on their feet driving on their feet. This meant the non-ball winning team backs were moving backwards in order to stay on-side i.e. remain behind the hindmost feet of their side of the ruck. Now they are no longer having to back-peddle. They simply line up wide of the static phases and get a good footing ready to rush ”out of the blocks‘. It has now become very easy for non-ball winning team defences to regroup and attack on defence. With the team of three officials working together on off-sides, I believe that very few times these players are off-side.
Commentators and other observers who claim non-ball carrying teams are continually off-side are being fooled by a game which no longer resembles the game played a mere 10 years ago and beyond. It will not be until our game begins to re-resemble how it is intended it should, given law and the playing charter, that these people will be silenced.

Matt Peters
Referee Education Officer
NZRU Referee Squad Member

• «Previous Post
• Next Post »