Meyer: ‘Openside fears unfounded’
Heyneke Meyer believes the new breakdown law interpretations won’t extinguish openside flankers and will encourage more open games.
The widely held concern related to the new law interpretations, which largely favour the attacking teams at a ruck, are that they will render specialist fetchers redundant.
These concerns are shared by one of the pre-eminent openside flanks in world rugby, Heinrich Brussow, who in a recent interview with keo.co.za, said he feared they would give referees too much control.
An accurate assessment of their influence can only be made after a couple of rounds of the Super 14. Meyer, the Bulls director of rugby, however, doesn’t share the fears of some of the southern hemisphere rugby fraternity, but explains that the law interpretations will have a patent effect on the role and requirements of an openside flank.
‘There’ll always be a place for an openside flank in a team, I think those fears are unfounded. It’s just that tactically now he will not be deployed in the same manner and he’ll have to add a couple of strings to his bow,’ Meyer told keo.co.za.
‘By this I mean that previously openside flankers were used largely in a defensive capacity – to slow ball or steal it – with particular emphasis on the latter given how difficult it has become to score from structured play.
‘Now, because the law virtually eliminates the possibility of the tackler contesting the ball, I predict the openside flank will be used almost exclusively at third and fourth rucks and out wide, when there is more of an opportunity to contest the ball. The best and most intelligent opensiders will pick their rucks, and they’ll still have a significant influence on matches.
‘But their role will have to change from a primarily defensive one to a more balanced one, with ball carrying and ruck cleaning becoming part of their job description. Players like Richie McCaw and Schalk Burger are ideal in this regard because they tick all the boxes.’
The primary motivation of the new law interpretations are to help promote continuity through phases and encourage teams to be less circumspect on attack, a worrying trend in the modern game.
In the 2009 Super 14 and Tri-Nations, an IRB research committee found that nearly 50% of penalties awarded for ruck infringements went to the defending team. It was therefore understandable that most teams involved in those tournaments adopted a pragmatic, kick-chase approach, refusing to play in their half for fear of conceding kickable penalties.
Meyer, however, believes that the new law interpretations will achieve their stated goals.
‘Teams will definitely get more quick ball, and I see teams like the Brumbies and Crusaders, who are skilled at playing through the phases, thriving under the new law interpretations,’ he explained.
‘The higher the speed of the recycle the more opportunities you have at finding space in the defensive line and therefore the more chances you have of scoring tries, which is what teams and the public want.’
By Ryan Vrede
February 8th, 2010 at 4:46 am
Quick ball at rucks will improve the game
Anyone who watches the English Premiership games and how slow the ruck ball comes out will understand why.
February 8th, 2010 at 7:05 am
Le’s hope for the best.
Just don’t wanna see sevens please.
February 8th, 2010 at 7:19 am
Journalistic statistics are for morons:
In the 2009 Super 14 and Tri-Nations, an IRB research committee found that nearly 50% of penalties awarded for ruck infringements went to the defending team.
So if nearly 50% go for defense, then more than 50% must go for attack. How does that make it better to defend?
February 8th, 2010 at 7:23 am
King Shark. I was thinking the exact same thing.
February 8th, 2010 at 7:26 am
I’m not so sure this will improve the game as a whole. It will mean that teams will be able to hold onto the ball for longer and those 20 phase rucks, camping on a tryline will be more common. Only thing is, it will be harder to steal the ball back.
Still a shambles IMO
February 8th, 2010 at 8:30 am
Cool analysis by Heyneke and agree fully.
@King Shark:
Main difference is that rucks are firstly a dynamic area of rugby, not static.
Secondly by default the team carrying the ball in rugby, or who has possession has the advantage for quite obvious reasons. When the team defending or not carrying the ball has as much advantage as the one carrying it, in a dynamic phase of rugby it sort of kills of the game and the point of advantage.
February 8th, 2010 at 8:40 am
Sorry, but I don’t agree. The ‘new interpretations’ means only two things:
1) Refs didn’t know their rules
2) Now they will blow against the defending team every time, with a safety net of ‘the new interpretations’.
If you go and read the laws on the IRB site, you’ll see the laws are straight forward. If they kept to that, there wouldn’t have been a problem from the start.
February 8th, 2010 at 8:43 am
Brumbies rugby formula in a nutshell:
Run enough phases until some backs are lined up against some opposition forwards. Pass the ball to the back who will then run around the opposing forward and score.
Now THAT is boring stuff, man. Metronomic in its repetitiveness. Yet the Aussies seem to love it.
February 8th, 2010 at 9:38 am
@Tacitus: I think as a Bulls supporter you shouldnt talk – at least the Brumbies tactics are aimed towards tries and bonus points not typical boring ten man rugby which has been the tactics of the Bulls for an eternity
February 8th, 2010 at 9:46 am
@stew:
Really? 92-3 must have required a heck of a lot of penalty kicks, then.
75-14 equally so.
And seeing as finals are the most tightly contested of affairs, a scoreline of 61-17 must surely be undreamed of for any but the most expansive of teams.
Don’t embarrass yourself, my friend. The Bulls merely make use of different tactics to break down opposing defenses. Instead of running through endless phases, we attack from turnovers, first phase and opponents mistakes. But the scorlines speak for themselves…
February 8th, 2010 at 9:55 am
@Tacitus: Got to disagree , these are very rare occasions for the Bulls , you cannot tell me that the Bulls are an expansive team – please
I love watching my Saders play against the Bulls because the game plan of the Bulls is very predictable and has been for years – match the Bulls upfront , dont kick the ball out , and spread it against them and the Bulls will have a bad day at the office – the Saders have proved this at Loftus more than once
Yes the final was great running rugby for the Bulls ( the Chiefs were pathetic , you must agree) but i dont expect them to be able to do this , this year against a full strength saders side or brumbies side , they will revert to ten man rugby
February 8th, 2010 at 9:57 am
@stew:
So how did that tactic go for you in the semifinal last year?
February 8th, 2010 at 10:02 am
@Tacitus: Hey we nearly had you with our Baby side ! It was certainly more of a game than the final aand how did the Bulls win – drop goal , drop goal , drop goal – sounds like ten man rugby to me ??? He he !
This year will be a new kettle of fish , i expect us to run you off the park – see you at Loftus
February 8th, 2010 at 10:04 am
@stew:
OK. But if it doesn’t work out quite the way you hope, you can always just get Paddie o Brien to change the laws again, to a version that’s more suitable to you…
February 8th, 2010 at 10:09 am
@Tacitus: LOL !!! I am sure we will be in negotations !
February 8th, 2010 at 10:16 am
G10
has Heyneke been kissing his cousin ?
February 8th, 2010 at 12:08 pm
@Tacitus: Mooi gese ou Tac, wys vir daai blerrie grootbek Saders ondersteuners
February 8th, 2010 at 1:12 pm
I’m not convinced these law changes will have the major impact on the game some are making out.
Tackler has to completely release the tackled player and get to his feet before contesting for the ball….thats it! That’s all there is to it from my knowledge!?
February 8th, 2010 at 1:43 pm
@Yetirat:
No ‘law change’, Yeti, its exactly the same. In fact, its reverted to being ‘interpreted’ the same as when it was introduced. The refs have been weak-kneed since then and fudged what before had been clear.
My only concerns are:-
1. attacking team being g’teed ball (the mutant child of R.League & late-90’s Brumbies ?)
2. defending teams not committing to rucks – props&locks in the backline ?
Lets wait and see.
(bring back rucking !)
February 8th, 2010 at 2:47 pm
I recorded the S14 Semi’s and Final and watched it in the week, and Sean Fitzpatrick said at half time that the Chiefs were not playing bad at all but the Bulls were just playing on a different level to any other team.
Then Michael Lynagh said that this is the best team he has ever seen, and he thinks without doubt they will beat any international side.
February 8th, 2010 at 3:29 pm
@Black Panther:
Yeah you’re right, it’s more of a reminder and “firming up” on the laws, than any changes.
I remember watching Gary Teichman make a tackle for the Boks and get back to his feet whilst holding his arms up to clearly show he had released the tackled player before contesting for the ball, and that was in ‘98!!! So there is definitely nothing new here.
Other thing I noticed was a “firming up” on the issue of the tackler lying on the ground. Apparently simply throwing up your arms is not good enough anymore and you have to show a concerted effort to move away.
Another thing to be mindful of is that this could close the gap between the quality of “fetchers” in the NH and SH as in theory the art of fetching could become less prominent and everyone knows which hemisphere is master of the art!
February 8th, 2010 at 3:35 pm
@Yetirat:
I almost remember Teich doing that, you scary mo fo.
I liked Teich, honourable gentleman. And under a Great coach, really like Mallett. What on EARTH he’s doing with that Italian team I dont know, their development seems to be in reverse, spoil spoil spoil.
Yep, they must roll away. How on Earth these guys can roll away with 10 x Bakkies lying all over them I dont know.
If they enforce that rule, the Bismarck better sharpen up that Fitzy-face of his. He’s the worst roll-away’er Ive seen since then.
February 8th, 2010 at 4:41 pm
@Black Panther:
Teich was a great player but had to bow out gracefully when Mallet dropped him unfortunately.
Mallet has done pretty much all he can with Italy now I think – must be so frustrating trying to create a team in a nation who eat, sleep and breath football. They just don’t have any real depth.
Yeah if anything it will swing more penalties to the attacking side simply because refs will be even stricter on blowing up tacklers not rolling away.
What I would like to see is refs allowed to use some of their own common sense in this area so that when some poor bugger has 5 guys on top of him and he’s half breaking a leg trying to roll away he doesn’t instantly get blown up for not rolling.
February 8th, 2010 at 5:54 pm
Yeti
nah, if NZ can qualify for their 2nd World Cup from a rugby obsessed country then Mallet should have no excuses
February 8th, 2010 at 9:00 pm
@Black Panther:
It’s one thing qualifying for a World Cup but if the All Whites continuously played Brazil, France, Spain, Germany, Italy etc, it would be hard to mark their progress really.
At the end of it, you need the players and Italy simply don’t have them.
February 8th, 2010 at 10:13 pm
@SAinNZ:
and youre saying NZ has the footballers ? even the Phoenix only have 2….
yep, more to select from than in ‘82, but still hardly loads of competition.
Im a huge fan of Mallet but I think he should be committing the Italians to more than just spoilers. He needs to encourage some flair, he needs to stop relying on foreigners so that Italians identify with their team and therefore create an identity. I work for an Italian company and thats what theyre saying; believe me, rugby is still a niche sport but one theyre more and more excited by. But wheeling scrums and offside play and kicking everything will lose them quickly. They would rather score 1-2 tries and lose by 30 than not try anything and lose by 20.
BTW- are you related to Carlos ?
February 9th, 2010 at 1:03 am
@Black Panther:
Carlos?
Interesting stats from planet-rugby;
“Italy lost seven line-outs and made not one single offload in a tackle as they laboured to get their game going under heavy Irish pressure. More encouraging will be that they only missed five tackles in 98″
Obviously they have the heart – but not the skills it would seem.
Agree about Mallets plan though, I can’t imagine you would psyche up many players by saying “We aren’t going to win, but we will not lose by more than 20″.
February 9th, 2010 at 1:09 am
@SAinNZ:
Too many foreigners too, Aussies, Safas, Kiwis, Argies. Its like watching England…….at any sport !
Truly, that Ire vs Italy match on the w/e was turgid. The Azzurri need to win the hearst and minds before they can learn to win and I truly thought Mallet was the man for the job. Italy need to target Scotland & Wales fr wins and build from there. But o score 1,2,3 tries vs the heavyweight Fr/Ire/Eng must be the stepping stone. We need MORE big teams in World rugby, not less.
just a joke fella. Carlos Sainz was a rally-driving great, multiple World Champ. I grew up in rural NZ, near where Possum Bourne (NZ Champ rally driver) came from. Sainz was da Man !
February 9th, 2010 at 2:18 am
@King Shark: Its fact.
If you run the ball into a tackle and a ruck situation, and you have a 50% chance of getting it back (possibly with disastrous results if you concede a quick turnover and counter attack by the defenders, with your men out of position defensively), then it makes more sense to hoof it upfield and play in their half. Or to bomb it up in the air with the same chance (50/50) of getting it back, but with better territirial gain.
This is why eveyone kicked last season.
get it?
So the IRB had to either :
a) make it a more guaranteed result in getting your own ball back from the ruck/tackle, or
b) make the consequences of kicking more perilous.
Obviously they went for a), and now we see if that makes any difference.