Revisiting our Psyche Around the Breakdown by Matt Referee Education Advisor

A Challenge for Referees and Coaches Alike – A Personal View.

Having been involved in numerous rugby courses over the years, it has become obvious there is often a certain psyche attached to the way coaches expect breakdowns to play out and for how referees should referee them.

My philosophical approach to the game revolves around the IRB Playing Charter, a section of the law book, very few rugby people have read. For me the most important section in that charter refers to balance between possession and contestability. It is indeed the key element that delineates Rugby Union from its rugby cousins Rugby League and American Football. Every time the ball is in play in Rugby Union, it is supposed to be contestable. As I have  written in previous papers, this key rugby union element has been compromised significantly because the contestability/possession balance has leaned well towards the possession factor. In essence, the ball carrying team gets significant rights the non-ball carrying team does not. This has been compounded by referees reinforcing this by not refereeing law equally for both teams.

Key trends which ball carrying teams currently get away with are:

• Support players flopping off their feet to seal the ball
• Support players running past the breakdown area to clean out defensive players to create low pressure zones through which they can attack once the ball has been recycled
• Support players entering directly from the side to roll out genuinely contesting players from the non-ball carrying team
• Support players rolling out genuinely contesting players from the non-ball carrying team by grappling them around the head and neck
• Support players flying into non-ball carrying team players with shoulders under the premise of cleaning out/moving bodies

These trends have evolved over a lengthy period where continuity through possession was seen as a primary driver in leading to points. Indeed when rugby union turned professional, large scores were amassed due to this continuity, largely because the non-ball carrying team could not get their hands on the ball. They had to go somewhere so in time, they designed the picket fence defence, which still exists today.

When listening to coaches speak, I often hear things like “they are slowing our ball down”. The key word here for me is “our”. They for some reason feel once they have the ball, the opposition have no rights to it. In many cases when I hear this, the opposition is genuinely contesting for the ball. This leads to another focus of coaches; moving bodies. From my observations, coaches spend a lot of time practicing drills for moving bodies. This to me is negatively geared. In most cases, when a team has to move bodies, they have been beaten in the race to the ball, and this is what leads to the illegal trends identified above.

A more positive approach for coaches would be to spend a lot more time on skills and drills which ensure bodies do not have to be moved in order to retain ball and recycle quickly. Video analysis clearly shows that if a team executes one or more of three things well, there will be no contest, therefore, no need to move opposition bodies. These three things are ball protection when entering a collision, quick support, and long ball placement. All three combined realise a virtual 100% retention rate.

In order to progress rugby, it is vital the contest is allowed. It is now turnover ball that leads to tries, not recycling phase after phase. Referees and coaches need to understand that our game’s integrity relies on law implementation and philosophical recognition that one team does not have all rights to the ball for the whole game. Put simply, the game needs turnovers, not perpetual recycling.

Referees have a significant role to play here. The referee process has been dominated over the past decade or more with the execution of the tactical and management pillars when refereeing the ball carrying team, with a significant de-emphasis on the technical pillar. When refereeing the non-ball carrying team however, it has been quite the reverse. Referees have overtly refereed the non-ball carrying from a technical perspective. This has been for the sake of continuity and ball recycling. A good example of this is if one was to listen to the verbal cues a referee offers, they are almost always to the non-ball carrying team players, when at the same time ball-carrying team players are often the ones offending.

In order to initiate change, referees need to make a philosophical shift in the first instance. They need to decide philosophically the game does not require them to judge what the game needs wherever the ball is. The players decide that by their actions, and if they get that right, the referee is not required. If they don’t get it right, the referee will be brought into the decision making equation. Importantly, this will involve both teams equally. This means a shift towards the technical pillar anywhere the ball is. The tactical and management pillars are still very important everywhere the ball is not e.g. players off-side but not interfering with play can be managed.

The next change referees require is a cognitive one. They need to be able to see and cognitively digest the key pictures the players present and decipher dominance from there. As the breakdowns evolve, the picture as to who is the dominant team changes, and so too can the picture of the team’s performance at the contest. In order to simplify this for myself, I separate the breakdown into three parts; pre-contest, contest and post-contest. The key dominance pictures at each part are:

• Pre-contest – territory relative to the advantage line and possession. Who has possession and where are they relative to the gain line.
• Contest – speed to the contest and the numbers getting there.
• Post-contest – the shape of what is set up to attack relative to what is set up to defend.

Under current referee process, the main dominance picture is possession followed by territory relative to the gain line. Not near enough recognition is made of the change in dominance factors when a contest ensues. When ball carrying teams are beaten at the contest, which is often, this is when illegal tactics are deployed to retain possession largely without recognition by the referee. The ability to recognise and understand breakdown evolution and changing dominance factors will allow referees to referee both teams more equitably, allow both teams to contest equally, create turnover opportunities and open the game up as a result. When this happens, it will force coaches into a more positively geared mode of coaching with emphasis on accuracy with ball security in contact, accuracy in player support, and accuracy in ball placement. It will also encourage positive play by the team not taking the ball into contact, the defending team. They know they will have a chance of regaining possession at the contest because the referee will allow it to happen with both teams under the same level of scrutiny.

My thesis here is that with greater opportunity for turnover, non-ball carrying teams will put more people into the breakdown area to have a “crack”. This means less people in the defensive line, more space to move and hopefully more mid-field breaks leading to tries. Quick accurate recycling will lead to less time for defences to establish therefore fragmentation of defensive systems which attacking teams can exploit.

With coaches coaching positively, referees refereeing more technically and equally for both teams, smart well skilled players will have the opportunity to adapt and do well. Negative coaches and players with poor attitudes and skill will be found out, if the referees are vigilant. Coaches, it is not “your ball”, it is “the ball”. Referees, there are two teams playing under the same laws.

My sense right now is that coaches and players will tend to stick with the status quo in terms of breakdown dynamics, until the referees act. Based on much top level rugby over the last decade and certainly much of the rugby in the last two Rugby World Cups, is it time to act?

Matt Peters

Referee Education Advisor – Manawatu/Wanganui/Taranaki

• «Previous Post
• Next Post »