Why kicking is good? MUST READ

unce09f

http://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/rugby/duncan-casey-the-benefits-of-kicking-away-possession-358625.html

Duncan Casey trying educate the uninformed masses.

irishbucsfan

There are many people who could do with a better understanding of this really. Particularly certain people who have been blaspheming in their signatures.

Good kicking is good.

Good kicking in which you retain the ball is better.

Running rugby with ball in hand is the best.

irishbucsfan

Basil3 wrote: »

Good kicking is good.

Good kicking in which you retain the ball is better.

Running rugby with ball in hand is the best.

Running rugby with ball in hand is good in some situations. Just like kicking.

irishbucsfan

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Running rugby with ball in hand is good in some situations. Just like kicking.

Well sure, but running rugby with ball in hand is what we all want to see, right?

I don't think the article really says anything other than 'good kicking which gives you a chance of retaining the ball is good'. It also points out that the general public groan at a lot of in game kicks. They only groan at aimless kicks which neither gain territory, nor give a decent chance of retaining possession.

ThisRegard

I refuse to read it as I've been shouted at that I have to. It's a sign of a poor educator.

irishbucsfan

Basil3 wrote: »

Well sure, but running rugby with ball in hand is what we all want to see, right?

I don't think the article really says anything other than 'good kicking which gives you a chance of retaining the ball is good'. It also points out that the general public groan at a lot of in game kicks. They only groan at aimless kicks which neither gain territory, nor give a decent chance of regaining possession.

The general public groan when they misunderstand the intention of a kick. Constantly.

An example of this is the very explanation you gave. Retaining possession isn't actually always the best result. You might identify a weakness in the opposition protecting the ball at their first breakdown before 1st phase, so you outkick your support but put poachers around the first breakdown and overload them there. We've done that in certain games for years, including against France (both under Kidney and Schmidt). But at the time you'd hear countless people complaining about our box kicking being terrible. You saw the same thing when Wales played England in the World Cup recently, a lot of people commented on how terrible the Welsh kicking was during the game. It's a sort of pseudo-game-theory that a lot of people consistently over-simplify. Generally it just comes down to people needing to take into account the overall result of kicks including the resulting phases rather than just their immediate results.

irishbucsfan

irishbucsfan wrote: »

The general public groan when they misunderstand the intention of a kick. Constantly.

An example of this is the very explanation you gave. Retaining possession isn't actually always the best result. You might identify a weakness in the opposition protecting the ball at their first breakdown before 1st phase, so you outkick your support but put poachers around the first breakdown and overload them there. We've done that in certain games for years, including against France (both under Kidney and Schmidt). But at the time you'd hear countless people complaining about our box kicking being terrible. You saw the same thing when Wales played England in the World Cup recently, a lot of people commented on how terrible the Welsh kicking was during the game. It's a sort of pseudo-game-theory that a lot of people consistently over-simplify. Generally it just comes down to people needing to take into account the overall result of kicks including the resulting phases rather than just their immediate results.

Sure, but I've been watched plenty of matches with Irish people where they cheer a kick as if a try had been scored.

As much as box kicking and the like can be viewed as a tactic, many times it is just recognition that the defensive line is too strong, and another way needs to be found to make ground. Sure, it might be demoralising to the defensive side if the attacking side retains the kick, but it also encouraging that they have forced the opposition into that tactic.

Unfortunately, Ireland have been lacking in attacking creativity for quite some time. I'm expecting a barrage of box-kicks tomorrow.

irishbucsfan

Basil3 wrote: »

Sure, but I've been watched plenty of matches with Irish people where they cheer a kick as if a try had been scored.

Yes but that's generally only when it's a touch finder or if possession is retained. As I said people just need to become more comfortable with considering the overall outcome of a kick including the phases that follow it.

Basil3 wrote: »

As much as box kicking and the like can be viewed as a tactic, many times it is just recognition that the defensive line is too strong, and another way needs to be found to make ground. Sure, it might be demoralising to the defensive side if the attacking side retains the kick, but it also encouraging that they have forced the opposition into that tactic.

Unfortunately, Ireland have been lacking in attacking creativity for quite some time. I'm expecting a barrage of box-kicks tomorrow.

I don't think we lack attacking creativity. I think we're playing to our strengths. Leinster certainly never lacked for attacking creativity and their half backs and attacking coach are available to Ireland today. New Zealand didn't offload or make a single line break after the Argentina game at the last world cup. They don't lack for attacking creativity either.

Muahahaha

Where did the term box kick come from? Was it not always called a garryowen? And even then where did garryowen come from?

ThisRegard

Muahahaha wrote: »

lAnd even then where did garryowen come from?

Garryowen.

Muahahaha

Muahahaha wrote: »

Where did the term box kick come from? Was it not always called a garryowen? And even then where did garryowen come from?

Box-kick

This is a kick taken from behind a scrum, normally by the scrum-half, in which he turns away from the scrum facing the touchline, and kicks the ball back over the scrum into the clear "box" of space behind the opposition to allow his own team to chase through and regain the ball in undefended territory

They are two different types of kick. Growing up in NZ, we referred to a general high kick as an 'up and under'.

Muahahaha

ThisRegard wrote: »

Garryowen.

Did the Garryowen club first use the tactic? My brother said last week he always thought it was called after some guy called Gary Owen lol

marco_polo

Muahahaha wrote: »

Did the Garryowen club first use the tactic? My brother said last week he always thought it was called after some guy called Gary Owen lol

Not sure they invented it per say but it is named after the club and dates back to either the 1920s or 30s I think when they had alot of success with it.

Muahahaha

I thought it was along related lines to the Garryowen club. Is there a definition of the kick in comparison to what we know as a box kick and as explained by Basil3 above? Was a garryowen referring to any up and under kick regardless of the distance it gained? And has the term/tactic become redundant because of the rule change where a kick now caught in the 22 is a mark? I don't think it was always a mark but stand to be corrected.

irishbucsfan

Muahahaha wrote: »

I thought it was along related lines to the Garryowen club. Is there a definition of the kick in comparison to what we know as a box kick and as explained by Basil3 above? Was a garryowen referring to any up and under kick regardless of the distance it gained? And has the term/tactic become redundant because of the rule change where a kick now caught in the 22 is a mark? I don't think it was always a mark but stand to be corrected.

A box kick is a kick from behind a ruck or maul by the scrum half, a la Conor Murray.

A garryowen is a kick by anyone in open play that is put high into the air and intended to be recoverable by the kicking team, a la Rob Kearney.

A mark has always existed. It was changed in the 70s from being anywhere on the field to just being inside the 22. You used to have to have both feet on the ground to call a mark, also changed in the 70s.

marco_polo

Muahahaha wrote: »

I thought it was along related lines to the Garryowen club. Is there a definition of the kick in comparison to what we know as a box kick and as explained by Basil3 above? Was a garryowen referring to any up and under kick regardless of the distance it gained? And has the term/tactic become redundant because of the rule change where a kick now caught in the 22 is a mark? I don't think it was always a mark but stand to be corrected.

I would only consider any high kick (thats not a box kick) made with the intention of retaining possession to be a Garryowen. Not certain but I'd imagine the mark was introduced specifically to nullify it as an attacking tactic. I think it is mainly a defensive tactic to gain territory, its not all that much used in the attacking half of the pitch unless you have penalty advantage or are targeting a known weak player.

Edit:Just learnt the history of the mark from Irishbucsfan, so clearly that sentence above is incorrect

LeinsterDub

unce09f wrote: »

http://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/rugby/duncan-casey-the-benefits-of-kicking-away-possession-358625.html

Duncan Casey trying educate the uninformed masses.

He should forward that on to some of the island teams

Basil3

Basil3 wrote: »

Good kicking is good.

Good kicking in which you retain the ball is better.

Running rugby with ball in hand is the best.

Certainly the best to watch, but certainly not the best option for the team in every circumstance.

LeinsterDub

irishbucsfan wrote: »

A box kick is a kick from behind a ruck or maul by the scrum half, a la Conor Murray.

A garryowen is a kick by anyone in open play that is put high into the air and intended to be recoverable by the kicking team, a la Rob Kearney.

A mark has always existed. It was changed in the 70s from being anywhere on the field to just being inside the 22. You used to have to have both feet on the ground to call a mark, also changed in the 70s.

And interestingly the change to the mark lead to a means of scoring becoming redundant and removed from the game. The goal from Mark had a value of 4 points later reduced to 3.

I think it's safe to say that we saw the complete opposite of the 'why kicking is good' philosophy in the Ireland v France game today.

Tox56

Basil3 wrote: »

I think it's safe to say that we saw the complete opposite of the 'why kicking is good' philosophy in the Ireland v France game today.

A game in which the team that kicked significantly more won comfortably??

Tox56

Tox56 wrote: »

A game in which the team that kicked significantly more won comfortably??

They won despite the poor kicking. Did you not watch?

irishbucsfan

Basil3 wrote: »

They won despite the poor kicking. Did you not watch?

That doesn't apply to Ireland anyway, are you talking about a different game?

If you are I'd love to see some examples of what poor kicks you're talking about.

irishbucsfan

irishbucsfan wrote: »

That doesn't apply to Ireland anyway, are you talking about a different game?

If you are I'd love to see some examples of what poor kicks you're talking about.

The kicks themselves weren't poor. The end result of the kicks were. Multiple up and unders which Ireland didn't win back, and resulted in France putting them under pressure, for example.

Things changed with Madigan on, plus Ireland played a possession game in the second half.

Akrasia

Basil3 wrote: »

I think it's safe to say that we saw the complete opposite of the 'why kicking is good' philosophy in the Ireland v France game today.

Our kicking game demolished the french. Even when we didn't gather the ball we gained territory. France were barely out of their own half for the entire game

irishbucsfan

Basil3 wrote: »

The kicks themselves weren't poor. The end result of the kicks were. Multiple up and unders which Ireland didn't win back, and resulted in France putting them under pressure, for example.

Things changed with Madigan on, plus Ireland played a possession game in the second half.

That's just incorrect. Most of our kicks resulted in turnovers or mistakes within two or three phases by the French. The only poorly executed kick (not including kicks for touch) was that miss-kick by Sexton early on that went into the arms of Spedding which led to a French knock-on 2 phases later, but that was pulled back for POM's high tackle.

If what you said was true, then we wouldn't have had 72% territory and 69% possession. It's not a possibility, our kicking game was characteristically good yesterday and the French rarely got good field position on first phase.

irishbucsfan

irishbucsfan wrote: »

That's just incorrect. Most of our kicks resulted in turnovers or mistakes within two or three phases by the French. The only poorly executed kick (not including kicks for touch) was that miss-kick by Sexton early on that went into the arms of Spedding which led to a French knock-on 2 phases later, but that was pulled back for POM's high tackle.

If what you said was true, then we wouldn't have had 72% territory and 69% possession. It's not a possibility, our kicking game was characteristically good yesterday and the French rarely got good field position on first phase.

The basis of the article is to relinquish possession with kicking. I wouldn't mind seeing stats for the first 20 minutes, Ireland kicked away a lot of ball and France made ground in return.

You can't end up with the possession and territorial stats Ireland had at the end of the game with up and unders and box kicks, as described in the article. It was territorial kicking, which is something totally different.

irishbucsfan

Basil3 wrote: »

The basis of the article is to relinquish possession with kicking. I wouldn't mind seeing stats for the first 20 minutes, Ireland kicked away a lot of ball and France made ground in return.

You can't end up with the possession and territorial stats Ireland had at the end of the game with up and unders and box kicks, as described in the article. It was territorial kicking, which is something totally different.

You can end up with possession and territory with up and unders and box kicks.

Also, territorial kick is not something totally different any more. They used to be very different, nowadays a lot of teams will keep the ball in field just ahead of their chasers when they're kicking for territory (see Wales v England).

Clearlier

irishbucsfan wrote: »

A mark has always existed. It was changed in the 70s from being anywhere on the field to just being inside the 22. You used to have to have both feet on the ground to call a mark, also changed in the 70s.

I think that the timing is a bit out there - I'm pretty sure that there was a period of time when only one foot had to be on the ground and that the rule about having a foot on the ground was only changed in the late 80's if not the early 90's. I certainly remember watching Ireland play in the late 80's and discussion around whether the fullback should stay on the ground or get into the air.

I also think that there was a period when a mark could be made only in your own half - before being changed to your own 22 although I'm slightly less confident about that.

irishbucsfan

irishbucsfan wrote: »

You can end up with possession and territory with up and unders and box kicks.

Also, territorial kick is not something totally different any more. They used to be very different, nowadays a lot of teams will keep the ball in field just ahead of their chasers when they're kicking for territory (see Wales v England).

Yup, I'm referring to the type of kicking in the article. i.e. The seemingly pointless midfield box kick which makes the average rugby watcher groan. I do realise there are plenty of effective ways of utilising kicks in a match.

irishbucsfan

Basil3 wrote: »

Yup, I'm referring to the type of kicking in the article. i.e. The seemingly pointless midfield box kick which makes the average rugby watcher groan. I do realise there are plenty of effective ways of utilising kicks in a match.

Then which are the poor kicks you're referring to?

irishbucsfan

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Then which are the poor kicks you're referring to?

Basically watch the match until Sexton goes off. That's a good starting point.

I'm beginning to wonder whether you've read the article, or are just trying to make a point that Ireland had a good kicking game.