The Up and Under (GE fixes rugby : Part Three)

The up and under is and it's connotations of random-luck rugby have been casting a pall over the game for some time now.

My suggestion to rid the game of this scourge is to alter the off-side rule such that the front most player from the side with possession must retire behind the point of the kick until any other player may advance. 

I think this is only fair and in line with the spirit of off-side laws. It will cut out all of the silly obstruction that goes on and prevent certain teams positioning their forward pack on the half way line for 80 minutes whilst the back three continually send the ball skyward, waiting for defensive blunders.

There has to be the option of kick, run, pass every time a player gets the ball. otherwise it is too easy to defend against.

Up and unders as practised by an in form Rob Kearney, for example, are a thing of beauty.

Im not anti-kick. I'm anti continuous up and under.

I also propose that in such circumstances we return to original rugby laws that allow a mark to be taken from anywhere.

Then you would go back to players getting a free drop at goal from anywhere on the pitch. Whitch is what used to happen then.

A try was worth zero points and a conversion/drop/penalty was worth 1.

With all this talk of 'fixes' and changes I cant help thinking GE must be Australian

Thanks Ghost. When is your fixing rugby going to include no more Wayne Barnes?

ghostie really doesn't like rugby, does he? I think he should choose another sport.

Hmm, I can think of a number of things in rugby that has a lot to do with luck.

Bounce of the ball, 50/50 decisions, a risky offload, scrum penalties, unforced errors etc.etc.

We should get rid of all of those as well.  

Biltong wrote:Hmm, I can think of a number of things in rugby that has a lot to do with luck.

Bounce of the ball, 50/50 decisions, a risky offload, scrum penalties, unforced errors etc.etc.

We should get rid of all of those as well.  

Yes, to avoid any form of chance or excitement entering the game we should just base results on world rankings. Rugby would be a lot easier and safer if it was just played on paper.

Hmmm, given his allegiance maybe that's what the OP is getting at

Here is the fundamental difference Biltong -

Risky offload is a constructive low percentage (unless you are SBW) play when the player executes using extreme skill, it offers a reward. It's about the skill of the attacking players.

Continually hoisting the ball and hoping the opposition fumble it is not about the skill of the attacking team, its about random luck and skill deficit in the opposition. 

Teams shouldn't be rewarded for continually executing an excruciatingly boring ploy and hoping for random luck to throw the match their way.  

Up and under rugby is not far from deciding the game by aggregate of 1000 coin tosses if you think about it.

I agree some referees are awful at adjudicating scrums and other areas of the game and this is the subject of a later GE Fixes Rugby thread. So let us park that one for now.

Maybe we should just cancel rugby union.

Besides the Boks are getting worse and worse, soon it would hurt too much to watch anyway.

GloriousEmpire wrote:Here is the fundamental difference Biltong -

Risk offload is a constructive low percentage (unless you are SBW) play when the player executes using extreme skill, it offers a reward. It's about the skill of the attacking players.

Continually hoisting the ball and hoping the opposition fumble it is not about the skill of the attacking team, its about random luck and skill deficit in the opposition. 

Teams shouldn't be rewarded for continually executing an excruciatingly boring ploy and hoping for random luck to throw the match their way.  

Up and under rugby is not far from deciding the game by aggregate of 1000 coin tosses if you think about it.

I agree some referees are awful at adjudicating scrums and other areas of the game and this is the subject of a later GE Fixes Rugby thread. So let us park that one for now.

GE, I am going to take you back a few years when Zane Kirchner could still actually play rugby.

It was a Currie Cup match some years ago. He kicked an up and under, chased, out jumped his opponent, caught the ball, as he went down he did a summersault got to his feet, and finished off with a try under the posts. What he had to do there was be accurate with his kick, chase hard to get there, time his jump to perfection and then to get up from the ground to score he had to show excellence in athleticism to finish off.

No matter whether you are looking at a grubber kick, box kick, up and under, offload, skip pass, receiving a restart kick, side stepping, tackling, pilfering a ball, etc. etc. Each and everyone of those facets must be executed to perfection.

Now some may not like the kicking game, even I don't like a kick without execution and a goal in mind. But Rugby Union will be poorer without it.

I love a good takle as much as a sidestep that brings a try, I like an offload in the tackle as much as any other type of facet of rugby.

It is all there to bring us the most complex and most beautiful game on the planet.

I was watching the first weekend of Currie Cup this weekend, and boy, was it fantastic to see how these guys play the game. Not one of these games were the same, the Cheetahs and Lions ran from everywhere, the Bulls kicked a lot and had the territory against the Western Province and the Griquas kicked their penalties v a Shark team who kept running the ball.

The scores in each of these games were:

Griquas 32 - Sharks 30 - 5 tries in the match.
Lions 29- Cheetahs 30 - 7 tries in the match.
Bulls 24 - Western Province 24 - 5 tries in the match.

There's no need to cancel it, it just needs a few tweaks. Honestly, the springboks have some great talent. They just need to start using it instead of pretending its still 2007.

An up and under is only as good as its chase.

Thanks Laurie...and this is my next point on this topic.

I believe (as do many notable pundits) that alleged kick chasers are actually operating as obstruction torpedoes and have no intention of catching the ball, but instead jumping into the potential defender to create a loose ball situation. I think they're getting away with it right now.

Secondly, from a safety perspective, nearly 80% of concussions are a result of these sorts of challenges, so the IRB have a responsibility towards player safety to reduce the incidence of these events.

All in all: up and under = overused, dangerous,  boring, skill-less scourge on the game and must be eliminated.

While you're at it with proposed rule changes you may want to consider how unfair it is when a team wants to run the ball but faces being turned over by being outcumbers by defenders. It's not skillful just poor dumb luck he's been isolated. Some sort of rule to keep hold of the ball is needed when tackled. Lets say you're allowed to keep the ball for 5 tackles then you give it back and let the other team have a go.

Now you're just being silly. Being isolated is poor attack strategy. You must always make sure your quarterback is well defended by your offensive linemen so that he can't be dogged, although I'd say its less of a problem if your wide receivers are isolated since they can just run into touch and set up a new line of scrimmage. 

But back to reality - no the problems are coin-toss rugby here and the up and under is the ultimate speculator. It would be like if tennis devolved into one player continually lobbing the ball to the back base line in the hope the returning player duffed the smash. The prevalence in rugby is entirely because the current law interpretations overly encourage speculation and luck over skill. This is why so many skill light teams manage to pull off victories with repetitive use of skill light tactics, killing the game as a spectacle. 

Furthermore, the up and under often comes hand in hand with an overall negative game plan (jake white rugby) about spoiling and slowing and faking injury and encroaching the offside line.

GloriousEmpire wrote:the problems are coin-toss rugby here and the up and under is the ultimate speculator.

Surely if you have the right combinators this shouldn't be a problem?

By skill light you mean teams who don't just run it back all the time. Again I'm wondering why you don't just watch league as it seems you dislike the variation which rugby union brings. I am expecting a couple more of these on why scrums and lineouts aren't fair.

GE why have you not switched to rugby league yet? All your gripes lead to this eventuality. Why have you not considered this as your solution as you seem hell bent in morphing union into a dull version of rugby league.

GloriousEmpire wrote:
Secondly, from a safety perspective, nearly 80% of concussions are a result of these sorts of challenges, so the IRB have a responsibility towards player safety to reduce the incidence of these events.
.

Where are you getting these figures from? No doubt from thin air. Its pretty obvious that most concussions come from tackling or being tackled. Should tackling be banned too? Rugby is becomming more and more focused on high impact colissions. I would consider this as an area of much more concern that Garryowens.

I don't know why people keep mentioning league. One of the prime attacking weapons of league is the up and under close to the line.

GunsGerms wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:
Secondly, from a safety perspective, nearly 80% of concussions are a result of these sorts of challenges, so the IRB have a responsibility towards player safety to reduce the incidence of these events.
.

Where are you getting these figures from? No doubt from thin air. Its pretty obvious that most concussions come from tackling or being tackled. Should tackling be banned too? Rugby is becomming more and more focused on high impact colissions. I would consider this as an area of much more concern that Garryowens.

 Stats come from a study published in the journal of athletic training: "concussion in rugby: the hidden epidemic". Its pay to download or I'd post the link but I wouldn't want to be seen to be advertising.

GE we both know that the majority of concussions come from tackling. I have also read studies on concussion and saw a recent documentary based on studies conducted by the RFU. All indications point towards the increase in empasis in the colission is to blame for the rise in concussion. This particular study found that the no arm tackle is particluarly dangerous as it allows for greater impact. Another area that has been highlighed is clean outs at the ruck where the cleaner enters at pace. I have not seen any study that links up and unders with an increase concussion.

I really dont see how concussion has any relevance to your agruement here.

How convenient that these 'stats' are behind a paywall...

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:I don't know why people keep mentioning league. One of the prime attacking weapons of league is the up and under close to the line.

No its not. In league an up and under will only ever come on the fifth tackle in the red zone as you say. In union it can be and is used all over the pitch at any time.

You don't have to be in the red zone in league to put an up and under up. You can be on the fifth tackle inside your own half and belt one up. With the 40 20 rule you can use a touch finder as an attacking weapon inside your own half but the up and under can be used anywhere. Sometimes getting a long kick in isn't an option.

Not often used ahead of running the ball given the option though is it? League offers the remedy to GE's perceived problem. People won't choose to kick if they are guaranteed posession.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:You don't have to be in the red zone in league to put an up and under up. You can be on the fifth tackle inside your own half and belt one up. With the 40 20 rule you can use a touch finder as an attacking weapon inside your own half but the up and under can be used anywhere. Sometimes getting a long kick in isn't an option.

Yes I know this but my point is in league it is used a lot less and in less situations which I think is the point of the article to regulate the use of up and unders with a view to reducting their use and controlling how they are used is it not?

Not often like the chip and gather or the grubber through but they are used. Possession is not always guaranteed in league either by running the ball. You can be stripped of the ball in a one on one tackle.

Anyone watching Ireland in various games or the Lions for much of those first two tests would lament over the overuse of the up and under. When used at the right time it can be a great attacking weapon or a means of gaining territory. The inaccuracy of JOC in the Lions tests was telling and Folau wasn't able to dominate in an area in which he obviously excels. Look for it during the RC with Cooper back in the frame.

However, I think back to the test in Dunedin last year against SA and was horrified at how many times Steyn put up the up and chunder only for Dagg to regather and SA to release all the pressure they were exerting on NZ. Their tactic threw the match away to NZ and we got out of jail because we were being hammered at the breakdown.

I'm not saying the up and under should be dealt away with. I do agree though that it's a trick pulled out too many times when there are other better options available. Just look at what happened in the third test when Halfpenny ran the ball back for example.

GloriousEmpire wrote:The up and under is and it's connotations of random-luck rugby have been casting a pall over the game for some time now.

My suggestion to rid the game of this scourge is to alter the off-side rule such that the front most player from the side with possession must retire behind the point of the kick until any other player may advance. 

I think this is only fair and in line with the spirit of off-side laws. It will cut out all of the silly obstruction that goes on and prevent certain teams positioning their forward pack on the half way line for 80 minutes whilst the back three continually send the ball skyward, waiting for defensive blunders.

How would you confine it to just up and unders? Would there be a new rule which defines at which height the ball must ascend to before it is deemed an up and under? Would all rugby balls be fitted with an up and under alarm which sounds at said height? If that is too complicated then perhaps you mean for your rule to apply to all kicks?
In which case what if an outhalf kicks for the corner from the scrum does that mean that nobody can chase the kick until a) the scrum breaks up, b) the last front row to rise from the scrum runs back up to 20 meters? You would have a line of backs standing still watching as the opposition ran back at them with no pressure at all.
This would in effect remove the kick chase from all facets of play except where the ball carrier is ahead of all of his team mates. Ultimately removing the kick from the game completely..

Ireland did over use it alright under Kidney. Its like Kidney was using SA in '07 as an exact template for rugby. It drove me mad. The days when Steyn and DuPreez sent everything up in the air. Argentina lets not forget also used it to great effect in the '07 RWC.

It can be a great thing but a balance is required. Its never good when any team becomes too predictable.

GunsGerms wrote:

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:I don't know why people keep mentioning league. One of the prime attacking weapons of league is the up and under close to the line.

No its not. In league an up and under will only ever come on the fifth tackle in the red zone as you say. In union it can be and is used all over the pitch at any time.

I have never checked, but am quite certain in a game of League there are more kicks than in a game of Rugby Union.

GunsGerms wrote:Ireland did over use it alright under Kidney. Its like Kidney was using SA in '07 as an exact template for rugby. It drove me mad. The days when Steyn and DuPreez sent everything up in the air. Argentina lets not forget also used it to great effect in the '07 RWC.

It can be a great thing but a balance is required. Its never good when any team becomes too predictable.

There you go. Now we're in agreement. It should be a string to your attacking bow. Not the only string to your only bow. Territory can be an effective gameplan but you can't consistently build victories with just that. You'll be found out by the teams who aren't afraid to counter attack.

In fact I just checked some match stats.

NRL.

Storm vs Rabbitohs

Total kicks in match 44
Total line breaks in match 6
total offloads in match 17

Eels vs West Tigers
total kicks in match 34
total line breaks in match 12

Looks pretty familiar to me.
total offloads in match 24

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:Ireland did over use it alright under Kidney. Its like Kidney was using SA in '07 as an exact template for rugby. It drove me mad. The days when Steyn and DuPreez sent everything up in the air. Argentina lets not forget also used it to great effect in the '07 RWC.

It can be a great thing but a balance is required. Its never good when any team becomes too predictable.

There you go. Now we're in agreement. It should be a string to your attacking bow. Not the only string to your only bow. Territory can be an effective gameplan but you can't consistently build victories with just that. You'll be found out by the teams who aren't afraid to counter attack.

Yeah indeed but that doesnt mean I think its use should be regulated and watered down just that teams should themselves be smarter how they use it for their own benefit.

I dont begruge Argentina for getting 3rd in the RWC by launching lots of bombs at the '07 RWC for example because they, Hernandez in particular executed it very well and it worked so good luck to them.

SA, in particular from memory Andre Joubert used deep kicks to great effect in the '95 RWC. His accuracy and length with the boot is one of the stand out memories of that RWC for me.

Of course not. Much like running the ball at all times is madness and what we foolishly used to counter SA's territory game in 2009. We got our butts kicked and rightly so because we were simply too adventurous. Only GE is advocating getting rid of it altogether and that is, as usual, tongue in cheek to make his point.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Only GE is advocating getting rid of it altogether and that is, as usual, tongue in cheek to make his point.

Yup, it's his third rant (of many, I'm sure) outlining why NZ play the best rugby ever and everyone else is just playing wrong (and should be penalised).

Cyril wrote:

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Only GE is advocating getting rid of it altogether and that is, as usual, tongue in cheek to make his point.

Yup, it's his third rant (of many, I'm sure) outlining why NZ play the best rugby ever and everyone else is just playing wrong (and should be penalised).

To be fair to him, there are parts of his argument to which I'm extremely sympathetic.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:

Cyril wrote:

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Only GE is advocating getting rid of it altogether and that is, as usual, tongue in cheek to make his point.

Yup, it's his third rant (of many, I'm sure) outlining why NZ play the best rugby ever and everyone else is just playing wrong (and should be penalised).

To be fair to him, there are parts of his argument to which I'm extremely sympathetic.

Ah, but you would be

For instance I wonder if Johnny Sexton is capable of running more than five paces, because all I've ever seen him so is run four and put up a mid field bomb.

GloriousEmpire wrote:For instance I wonder if Johnny Sexton is capable of running more than five paces, because all I've ever seen him so is run four and put up a mid field bomb.

You must have missed arguably the series winning try in the recent Lions series then, made by Sexton and finished by Sexton? For Ireland he put up lots of bombs but never plays like that for Leinster because Leinster play very differently to Ireland.

Once Carter goes on sabattical there will not be a more complete OH playing on the planet. Steyn and Hernandez come close but both launch more bombs than anyone. Cruden is too inexperienced. Ill judge him after the rugby championship. Cooper hasnt played international rugby for two years and is quite flaky anyway.

Is it just me, or is a 'real' up and under when the kicker puts the ball up and then runs under the flight of the ball, himself, in order to retrieve it? That is a rather skillful trick, as it requires you to asses your own pace, wind etc, any defensive players you will need to run around, and also where you would likethe ball to be in order to continue running once you've caught it.

From what I have read here, the convo seems more around the thump it up feild, hope to either retrieve it or force an error. Which IMO is not an up and under.

GunsGerms wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:For instance I wonder if Johnny Sexton is capable of running more than five paces, because all I've ever seen him so is run four and put up a mid field bomb.

You must have missed arguably the series winning try in the recent Lions series then, made by Sexton and finished by Sexton? For Ireland he put up lots of bombs but never plays like that for Leinster because Leinster play very differently to Ireland.

Once Carter goes on sabattical there will not be a more complete OH playing on the planet. Steyn and Hernandez come close but both launch more bombs than anyone. Cruden is too inexperienced. Ill judge him after the rugby championship. Cooper hasnt played international rugby for two years and is quite flaky anyway.

 So if sexton can run then why doesn't he?

I'd rate Cruden over Sexton anyway - far fewer up and unders. Plus he is a World Cup winner.

GloriousEmpire wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:For instance I wonder if Johnny Sexton is capable of running more than five paces, because all I've ever seen him so is run four and put up a mid field bomb.

You must have missed arguably the series winning try in the recent Lions series then, made by Sexton and finished by Sexton? For Ireland he put up lots of bombs but never plays like that for Leinster because Leinster play very differently to Ireland.

Once Carter goes on sabattical there will not be a more complete OH playing on the planet. Steyn and Hernandez come close but both launch more bombs than anyone. Cruden is too inexperienced. Ill judge him after the rugby championship. Cooper hasnt played international rugby for two years and is quite flaky anyway.

 So if sexton can run then why doesn't he?

I'd rate Cruden over Sexton anyway - far fewer up and unders. Plus he is a World Cup winner.

I just gave an example of how he does run. Did that not compute, system overload? He created and finished probably one of the most memorable International tries of 2013 so far. It involved a lot of running.

Stephen Donald and Colin Slade also have a WC medals but they are both fairly crap. Cruden probably just isnt able to execute up and unders. Its a difficult skill. Time will tell if he is any good.

I recall he passed to halfpenny who did a lot of work and thn sexton had four paces to a dot down. My guess is if he'd had to put in a pace more he would've opted for the kick.

GloriousEmpire wrote:I recall he passed to halfpenny who did a lot of work and thn sexton had four paces to a dot down. My guess is if he'd had to put in a pace more he would've opted for the kick.

Oh so you have actually have seen him running?

Did you happen to watch the '11 Heineken cup final in which he scored a brace of tries too?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyqfqW3L4wE‎Share

GloriousEmpire wrote:I recall he passed to halfpenny who did a lot of work and thn sexton had four paces to a dot down. My guess is if he'd had to put in a pace more he would've opted for the kick.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6ci3yl4330

I accept your humble appology. The drop goal from his own half from the 09 HC final is in there too just to pi$$ you off  

Playing well at provincial level is all well and good. But players who go into their shell and international level, get stage fright, and resort to kicking it away add to the problem of the low quality of international rugby and the failure culture with some teams, notably Ireland.

Who was that guy on the old 606 who loved league and pretended to hate union, would come on only to bash union and wind people up?

Then on the final day he admitted he loved both.