Closing out games legally

Snickers Man

Now that the dust has settled on a deserved 6N win, maybe it's time to consider how close Ireland came to actually losing it and finishing in third place. This is not begrudgery; it's looking at something that nearly went wrong (for the second time I might add) and attempting to put it right.

In the game against New Zealand last November, Ireland were leading with less than a minute left; they were picking and driving--scrum half feeding a forward who would go immediately into contact, fall to ground and set up a ruck.

After several such "phases" the ref, Nigel Owens, suddenly pinged Jack McGrath for going off his feet. It was more of a stumble than a ball-killing exercise and many more blatant examples were to be found in New Zealand's subsequent match-winning drive but a penalty it was and it changed the match.

In the papers the following week, somebody, possibly Neil Francis, wrote that refs have been instructed to penalise teams attempting to run out the clock in this manner at the end of games. Doesn't matter if they are intentionally fouling or not, if they're picking and going: ping 'em. Find something. Anything.

I remember thinking at the time what a tragedy that was and if only Ireland had been aware of it, maybe they could have done something else like giving Rob Kearney a dropped-goal attempt from half way. Even if he had missed, a genuine attempt on goal results in a 22 drop out not a scrum back. So, if it goes over; game over. If it misses, you've pinned the opposition in their 22.

Fast forward to last Saturday and an identical scenario unfolds. Ireland were picking and going, no first receiver was passing it down the line. It was straight scrum half=forward-ruck-scrum-half-forward ruck. I knew we would get pinged and inevitably we did.

Mercifully the French were not as cool under pressure as the All Blacks had been but we were still a snatched forward pass away from being third place also rans.

Are coaches generally aware of this directive? How do we let Joe know (poliltely) never to run the risk of this happening again?

who_me

IIRC, that directive existed since the start of the '09 season, possibly triggered by Munster running down the HEC final just like that. When I watched the final minute or two of Ireland vs NZ, I was wincing for just that reason. I doubt if the penalty was any worse than many 'legal' rucks earlier in the game, but because of what we were trying to do we ending up being pinged and losing.

We do seem to be at a bit of a loss on how to run down a clock. We seem to be erring more on the side of "kick the ball away so we don't get caught in possession, and trust our defence to win us the game". Which is a bit risky, to say the least.

Podge_irl

Wouldn't be entirely fond of that being a directive - seems odd to me that activity would be more strictly penalized just because of the time of the match.

I'd be interested in seeing stats on how often this kind of closing out of the game works. Teams obviously do it as a low-risk strategy, but I wonder if making a more genuine attempt to put points on the board might actually be more effective. Picking and driving or short one-outs are pretty dangerous if you start more than a minute or two from the end.

.ak

Funnily enough, Schmidt discussed Owens call with a referee adjudicator afterwards and was told the penalty was probably incorrect. So you get the feeling that yes, pressure was on Owens to look for anything.

Buer

I would still consider it the lowest risk approach to closing out a game. Kicking or going for a drop goal is giving up possession and risks a charge down or it going horribly wrong. Trying to move it further out the line risks a player becoming isolated which would give a referee an even greater opportunity to identify an infringement.

Keep it tight, come through the gate, stay on your feet and whatever happens, happens. If you're in your own territory, I'd be in favour of kicking long and organising a structured chase to keep them out of kicking range. Otherwise, hang onto the ball as much as possible.

irishbucsfan

.ak wrote: »

Funnily enough, Schmidt discussed Owens call with a referee adjudicator afterwards and was told the penalty was probably incorrect. So you get the feeling that yes, pressure was on Owens to look for anything.

I really don't believe that directive exists. Not a chance.

Buer

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I really don't believe that directive exists. Not a chance.

I think it was communicated in relation to being more stringent on teams going off their feet and sealing off etc. I highly doubt there was anything suggested in relation to it being officiated more stringently at any particular point in the game.

[Jackass]

The entire sport of rugby was changed after Munster won the Heineken Cup in 2008. Strictly laws surrounding the breakdown, as about 30 minutes of in play rugby of that final was spent watching Munster players flopping over rucks (which was legal at the time) and it was just the most dire spectacle imaginable.

If this was adopted by teams as a manner of winning at all costs, the sport would become like watching slugs crawl up a field, so the vast rule changes came in.

I agree if you're killing a game, you should be penalised, but I don't agree with a penalty for the sake of it, there should be a clear directive and not some unspoken rule.

rockbeast

All points very valid.

There is a tendency in all refs, and all people too, I suppose, to give a losing team that could win a final chance.

Human nature.

Snickers Man

I seem to remember the directive, formal or otherwise, was to remove all leniency with regards to ruck infringements by the attacking team once a first receiver had taken it into a ruck four or five times in succession.

So if you had a few pop passes from scrum half to prop to ground and then on the fourth recycle you passed it down the line you would then be able to recommence another series of pick and drives with impunity.

It seems fair enough, actually. Running down a clock can be a tedious experience for the watcher. And there are other ways round it. Especially if you have a long-range drop goal specialist like Kearney. He could stand so far back that a charge down would be impossible and as I said earlier, as long as the kick goes the distance, you still have the opposition pinned in their own 22 even if it misses.

Buer

The drop goal approach is very patchy. How many teams have a player capable of hitting a drop goal from halfway? If he's standing that far back that means you have possession inside the opposition 10m line at which point taking a low percentage option like that kick is throwing away possession instead of trusting your pack not to concede a penalty in a non-dangerous area of the field.

If it's the last 2 minutes of the game, I'd be pretty irate with a high risk/low percentage play with a single score in it. The kick might not be clean and not go near the distance, it might take an awkward bounce and not go dead, it might hit the post, it might be charged down, the kicker might have to check the drop and take contact, yielding 10 yards of territory and putting the opposition into penalty range.

dub_skav

[Jackass] wrote: »

The entire sport of rugby was changed after Munster won the Heineken Cup in 2008. Strictly laws surrounding the breakdown, as about 30 minutes of in play rugby of that final was spent watching Munster players flopping over rucks (which was legal at the time) and it was just the most dire spectacle imaginable.

If this was adopted by teams as a manner of winning at all costs, the sport would become like watching slugs crawl up a field, so the vast rule changes came in.

I agree if you're killing a game, you should be penalised, but I don't agree with a penalty for the sake of it, there should be a clear directive and not some unspoken rule.

I could be wrong as it was a long time ago, but I don't believe that was legal, even back then.

It was just rarely enforced and accepted practice to close out a minute or so. I believe it was the extensive use of the tactic in that game, indeed being the deciding factor in a game of that magnitude which lead to actual enforcement of the rules.

phog

.ak wrote: »

Funnily enough, Schmidt discussed Owens call with a referee adjudicator afterwards and was told the penalty was probably incorrect. So you get the feeling that yes, pressure was on Owens to look for anything.

Do you or anyone really believe that to be the case?

CatFromHue

The best way to close a game out "legally" with 2 or 3 mins to go.......just knock it on in their half and mess about in the scrum for 2 or 3 mins!

Buer

CatFromHue wrote: »

The best way to close a game out "legally" with 2 or 3 mins to go.......just knock it on in their half and mess about in the scrum for 2 or 3 mins!

Deliberate knock on, penalty!

rockbeast

^^^ ///Thread.:D

Snickers Man

Buer wrote: »

The drop goal approach is very patchy. How many teams have a player capable of hitting a drop goal from halfway?

I wasn't suggesting it as a catch-all tactic for just ANY team. But in the case of Ireland, Kearney is well able to kick dropped goals from distance.

Buer wrote: »

If he's standing that far back that means you have possession inside the opposition 10m line at which point taking a low percentage option like that kick is throwing away possession instead of trusting your pack not to concede a penalty in a non-dangerous area of the field.

If it's the last 2 minutes of the game, I'd be pretty irate with a high risk/low percentage play with a single score in it. The kick might not be clean and not go near the distance, it might take an awkward bounce and not go dead, it might hit the post, it might be charged down, the kicker might have to check the drop and take contact, yielding 10 yards of territory and putting the opposition into penalty range.

The point is that the strategy we adopted in the last minute of both the NZ and French games WAS high risk. It resulted in the concession of a penalty in each case, albeit in the opposition's half but closer to midway than their goal line.

New Zealand kept their cool and scored. France fumbled a pass forward and didn't. But if you want to avoid high risk strategies, then surely putting your faith in a French team butchering a pass is not so much high risk as suicidal.

I like the "fumble forward" approach from CatfromHue. Yes a deliberate knock on is a penalty, but ham fisted forwards are renowned for their subtlety. At least when it comes to hoodwinking referees.

Snickers Man

Or as an alternative, why not set up a maul in the last minute? As long as it goes forward then you can run the clock down for a few seconds. Then even if you turn over possession to a scrum, you can adopt the "feck about with collapsing" suggested by CatfromHue for the remainder.

If we lose another match to a last minute penalty after a succession of players go to ground......I'll be very cross.

awec

I'm sure Kearney misses as many long drop goals as he lands. He is capable of getting them, but it's not as if he's unlikely to miss and may not even reach.

Stev_o

Snickers Man wrote: »

Or as an alternative, why not set up a maul in the last minute? As long as it goes forward then you can run the clock down for a few seconds. Then even if you turn over possession to a scrum, you can adopt the "feck about with collapsing" suggested by CatfromHue for the remainder.

If we lose another match to a last minute penalty after a succession of players go to ground......I'll be very cross.

If you screw it up then it's a scrum to the opposition. Your probably best sticking to what has been successful for you. More likely you will get a penalty for playing positively as the other team will resort to anything to turn the ball over.

pickarooney

The best is still to press for a try. The opposition has to actually stop you getting through and not just hold you off until you cough up a penalty.

sydthebeat

More practise on the skill of leeching (or latching) should be done.
Its borderline illegal in some situations and is all based on the ball carrier getting go forward in a collision... but is a very necessary skill to close out a game.

Personally, when i saw ireland picking and going with five minutes left i was scream at the tv that it was "too soon for that sh!te" and you may get to 20 phases in 2-21/2 minutes... but its practically impossible to do with 5 minutes left. I think ireland put in something like 14 or 17 phases in those last few minutes

.ak

phog wrote: »

Do you or anyone really believe that to be the case?

I believe that there's pressure on ref's to stop teams killing games by picking and going and putting it up the jumper. Yeah.

Dave_The_Sheep

Snickers Man wrote: »

I like the "fumble forward" approach from CatfromHue. Yes a deliberate knock on is a penalty, but ham fisted forwards are renowned for their subtlety. At least when it comes to hoodwinking referees.

A nice forward pass might be handier, can you be pinged for a deliberate forward pass?

Teferi

It was good to hear Poc's comments at the end of the game re: closing out the game and how he (and the team) wouldn't be happy with that. It's something to work on as it lost us the New Zealand match (whether the penalty was given correctly or not) and nearly lost us the 6N.

Buer

Dave_The_Sheep wrote: »

A nice forward pass might be handier, can you be pinged for a deliberate forward pass?

If not as a knock on it can be penalised under the acts contrary to good sportsmanship if the referee deemed it to be on purpose.

who_me

[Jackass] wrote: »

The entire sport of rugby was changed after Munster won the Heineken Cup in 2008. Strictly laws surrounding the breakdown, as about 30 minutes of in play rugby of that final was spent watching Munster players flopping over rucks (which was legal at the time) and it was just the most dire spectacle imaginable.

If this was adopted by teams as a manner of winning at all costs, the sport would become like watching slugs crawl up a field, so the vast rule changes came in.

I agree if you're killing a game, you should be penalised, but I don't agree with a penalty for the sake of it, there should be a clear directive and not some unspoken rule.

Not sure about 30 minutes, but certainly given Toulouse's ability to counter Munster were never going to try anything that would risk a turnover & score. Though Munster did have a great 'try' disallowed in the second half (I remember, as it resulted in 4 empty pint glasses, 3 very soggy match programmes and a few wet shoes).

I don't particularly care for the tactic, though if Ireland had done the same vs New Zealand and won the game, I think I'd have found a way around that dislike!

There is an actual law regarding bridging/sealing/players going off their feet at the breakdown, which - IMO - if it were enforced verbatim could result in 50+ penalties per game. It's very difficult for a player charging in to clean out a ruck to avoid going off his feet - even a hand on the ground constitutes 'off your feet'.

For the sake of fairness, competition and the flow of the game, refs have to have a bit of leniency. In '09, that leniency was greatly reduced, and it was destroying the game. It certainly seems to have been restored, whether by an explicit directive or just common-sense by the referees.

I'd love to see some other move taken instead to try and prevent these endless 1-out rucks. Perhaps end pre-binding onto the ball-carrier; or else introduce a "a team cannot form a ruck within 5m of the last ruck", so if you don't go 5m forward or wide, it's just a tackle and the defending team can compete for the ball with their hands. Move it or lose it.

.ak

Ah it's fairly easy to make a knock on look accidental! Let it slip out of your hands on a pass. Like Picamoles.

who_me

Teferi wrote: »

It was good to hear Poc's comments at the end of the game re: closing out the game and how he (and the team) wouldn't be happy with that. It's something to work on as it lost us the New Zealand match (whether the penalty was given correctly or not) and nearly lost us the 6N.

Hard to be too critical, when we were 9 points up against France away from home, and 19 points up against one of the finest AB sides of all time (at home), but we needed a bit of luck to hold out in the first one and lost the second.

Fantastic that we have the quality to get into those positions in games, now just a smidge more composure to close them out. Considering we have 3 provinces worth of players who have been closing out key HEC games for a few seasons now, we can't be too far off the next step up.

keith16

It's an interesting problem. The equivalent of back-passing to the goal keeper in soccer I suppose.

Did you know that in the Ireland v Egypt game in 1990, Packie Bonner held on to the ball at one point for 6 minutes! In soccer, it was easy to deal with the problem (not allowed pick up on back pass and 6 second rule), but how to address it in Rugby?

I do agree it was very cynical the way Munster closed it out v Toulouse. I wouldn't be altogether be surprised that it was an unwritten rule to ping anyone doing it (for any reason) during the closing stages of a match.

These days, when I see Ireland doing it, I just know a penalty is coming. So what can be done?

Aside from the rule changes already in place, I guess it would be very hard to do anything more. Fundamentally, nothing illegal is happening without bringing in some sort of Rugby League rule - last 5 mins = 5 tackles = turnover? But then that's a very basic facet of the game turned on its head and not one I would like to see introduced.

You could introduce some sort of meters rule, in the same way mauls must keep moving forward, so too should the pick and go.

In the absence of such radical changes, the team defending the lead should adjust tactics.

aimee1

I thought we were a lot more adventurous late on against france compared to the nz game. Maybe they did look to go wider to run the clockdown.

Buer

keith16 wrote: »

You could introduce some sort of meters rule, in the same way mauls must keep moving forward, so too should the pick and go.

Indeed. We could give the attacking side 4 chances to gain, say, 10 yards and if they didn't then they turn over possession. However, if there was an infringement, the referee could award them the gain in territory. To assist the referee, they could mark the pitch accordingly.

decisions

Buer wrote: »

Indeed. We could give the attacking side 4 chances to gain, say, 10 yards and if they didn't then they turn over possession. However, if there was an infringement, the referee could award them the gain in territory. To assist the referee, they could mark the pitch accordingly.

Omaha!

who_me

Buer wrote: »

Indeed. We could give the attacking side 4 chances to gain, say, 10 yards and if they didn't then they turn over possession. However, if there was an infringement, the referee could award them the gain in territory. To assist the referee, they could mark the pitch accordingly.

Sounds like a very physical game. Think you'd need extra padding for the players. Plus with the half-backs being virtual spectators in these rolling drives, I'd demote them, maybe to third-backs or less.

bleg

Do not do what Kearney did and kick a Garryowen to the half way line!!!

entangled

The deliberate knock on idea is also a bit dangerous because the ref will play advantage and give the other
team a chance to counter attack. So you need to knock it on and keep possession somehow.

Zeebs

Its for this reason that players like Kearney opt to kick away the ball in the dying moments when you are in any postion other than the opponents half. The risk that you will be pinged and that the opposition will get a kickable penalty is just too great. I don't know if there has been a directive but for whatever reason it does seem that teams with a small lead and who are holding onto the ball in the dying minutes get penalized a disproportionate amount of times.

Stev_o

bleg wrote: »

Do not do what Kearney did and kick a Garryowen to the half way line!!!

And nearly throw away the game as a result ugh felt like NZ all over again.

Zeebs

Stev_o wrote: »

And nearly throw away the game as a result ugh felt like NZ all over again.

I think it was Murray that time, I remember the loud groan from the crowd after he did it.

Stev_o

Zeebs wrote: »

I think it was Murray that time, I remember the loud groan from the crowd after he did it.

I meant more the tactic rather then the player. I think you have to have confidence that your attack can carry you through to the end.

captbarnacles

If you're doing pick and go's try and stick near to the sideline so if they do get a penalty it's an awkward angle to kick to touch.

henryporter

First tactic for closing out a game with a couple of minutes to go would have to be making sure you have more than a converted try's lead If that fails why not try banging it in to touch in the corners, pinning the opposition to the right end of the field at least, and with the likes of Toner and PoC to contend with in a line out, it's a near guaranteed game closer without too many possibilities of getting pinged for a penalty.

Piliger

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I really don't believe that directive exists. Not a chance.

No such directive exists. I am certain, like in many sports, that the ref sees the game being closed out and makes sure the team doing it is kept to the letter of the law. And that is perfectly fair. Our problem is that we haven't done it right ! if we did it right, we would have succeeded.

Piliger

Zeebs wrote: »

Its for this reason that players like Kearney opt to kick away the ball in the dying moments when you are in any postion other than the opponents half. The risk that you will be pinged and that the opposition will get a kickable penalty is just too great. I don't know if there has been a directive but for whatever reason it does seem that teams with a small lead and who are holding onto the ball in the dying minutes get penalized a disproportionate amount of times.

I don't believe that that argument makes any sense whatsoever. The risks that come with handing the opposition a runnable ball in open field is way way more, especially when they can keep the ball as long as they can. We have to change this viewpoint if it is exists. The clear best choice MUST be to run into opposition and pick and go. It is the clear best choice, and I agree with the above choice that the pick and gos should aim to go up the line 15m in from touchline.
We made the same mistake again at the end of the French game of not committing enough to those rucks. With less than a minute to go there is no possible reason to hold back players. You need to commit everyone available and make 100% sure the ball comes back. I hope that Schmidt develops a pre-planned set of pick'ngo combinations that the players can use in the future. It is such a cricical part of the game now.

Kayless

We always seem to get pinged at the half-way line, so what I would do is pick and go a few times and have Sexton (or whoevers playing 10) sit back in the pocket, send the ball back to him and try to get it into the opp 22 for a lineout, with the kickers we have we should be able to do this much.

This and a lineout should be enough to run up the clock down but of course the other team will more than likely still have the ball (if we don't win there lineout) though they will either have to run it from there own half or kick it back to us or touch so your leaving them with no option but to run it because by this point were over the 80 min mark, as we seem with France and NZ only the very best team in the world can do this and succeed, so it means we would win those tight games more often than not.

ionadnapokot

Joe's take on the finish:
....but I think the strategy that the lads had (against France) was really well played. It was a pressure cooker time for someone like Ian Madigan to have to come on and try to play that strategy, and talking to Paul O'Connell afterwards he was saying: 'Did we manage that right?' And I said: 'Yeah we did it really well'. And he agreed and gave credit to Ian in that he'd made a couple of good calls. We put ourselves in the right positions to look after the ball and put a little bit of pressure on, but do it on our terms down into their half as opposed to playing in our half where you can always get turned over and penalised."

gaius c

rockbeast wrote: »

All points very valid.

There is a tendency in all refs, and all people too, I suppose, to give a losing team that could win a final chance.

Human nature.

Except when the team chasing a slim lead is playing against the AB's.