Rugby: Boring ping-pong duels need kicking into touch

A too-familiar sight in test rugby - kicking. Photo / Getty Images

Detractors of rugby, primarily rugby league fans, used to call it 'kick and clap'. That was before the modern kicking duel - which could now be described as 'kick and ...' another word which also begins with C and ends in "ap" but which makes much more use of the letter R.

It's not just league fans who are deriding rugby's kicking duels. So are rugby fans. So what's the problem? Why are we spectators - not to mention the players - subjected to these boring bouts of aerial ping-pong which look so aimless?

Broadly speaking, it's two things - the game has fiddled too much with its own laws; and it's a lack of strategy.

In years long gone by, when kicking into touch on the full was permitted, the lineout was much more of a lottery than it is today. A kick to touch - and surrendered possession - was applauded as a legitimate tactic (hence the 'kick and clap'). Fans knew the kickers were playing for territory and that the lineout jumpers would be muscling up to burgle the opposition's ball and thus be in a good position to score points.

Now, however, a team cannot kick into touch on the full (if the kicker is outside the 22) and some decide to keep the ball alive even if they are inside the 22 when they kick.

Here are the 'official' reasons: In international rugby, most teams (possibly except the All Blacks at the moment) recover 75-80 per cent of the ball they throw into the lineout.So kicking the ball out is like gifting possession to the opposition.If, on the other hand, you kick high and long, you increase the likelihood of the opposition making mistakes in their own end-zone; where the points are scored.The potential for mistakes from a kicking duel is higher than that in a lineout - varying from a knock-on when fielding the kick ; a kick out on the full; a mis-kicked return; a turnover after trying to run the ball; a spilled pass; a forward pass and so on.

But that's not really it.

According to former All Black selector and long-time analyst of the game Peter Thorburn, the tedious kicking duel has grown up in recent times because of the ELVs, their aftermath and the way "their ripple effect" has changed the game.

He says players, referees and coaches are all at fault.

PROBABLY NO ONE watches more rugby in New Zealand than Thorburn. He watches the lot - including Northern Hemisphere rugby - and is a passionate advocate for a game which allows players to be entertaining and for crowds to be entertained. He has worked a lot over the years with referees and lawmakers and has been an influential and persistent voice.

His main gripes are that the lineout has been largely lost as a "starting platform", leaving only the scrum. The rolling maul - as usefully deployed by the Springboks against the All Blacks last weekend - is again dragging to game into tedium.

The ELVs stopped players from passing back into their 22 and putting a defensive kick into touch. Now they can do so only if they field the ball within the 22 and can't pass nor run back into its safety.

That, says Thorburn has re-shaped the game and helped the boring, ping-pong, kicking duel develop. A kick out of defence was justifiable - even if it did give the opposition the ball - because it gained territory and prevented disastrous efforts like trying a counter-attack when it wasn't on and maybe surrendering a try.

But, with the sanctity of the 22 largely removed, the players are far more prone to kick.

Having said that, Thorburn believes players, coaches and referees need to be taken out of what he calls a "new mindset".

"A kick," he says, "is the first thing they think of now.

"It's been proven many times," says Thorburn, "that the best time to counter-attack is the first time you receive a kick."

But if the player who fields that kick is isolated or unsure, and kicks back, Thorburn says the game's offside rules come into effect.

"You immediately have a group of about 20-25 players in the middle of the two kickers who are liable to be in breach of the 10-metre rule."

Most spectator attention stays with the players close to the ball. There is supposed to be an imaginary 10m line, from where the ball lands, which is to stay clear. That is usually observed close to the ball, but players out in the midfield are often blatantly offside.

That makes it harder for anyone thinking of counter-attack to do so - as the defence is stacked against the runners.

Referees, Thorburn insists, are not policing that 10m offside line enough and are helping to create the environment for the kicking duel.

Faced with all of the above, many players take the safe option of returning the kick and trying to gain field position.

"Most people kick the ball because they do not have a better option," says Thorburn. "So the ball goes backwards and forwards, up and down, with this group of 20-25 players in the middle and out of the game and thinking: 'Well, bugger this, I'll stay here rather than run back and support the kicker [and thus be in shape for a counter-attack] because the ball's only going to come back over my head again'.

"The players in front of the ball get lazy. It becomes a vicious circle - a self-fulfilling prophecy. It makes the game messy and unattractive.

"These changes were made to the game to speed it up and try and keep the ball in play more but all it has really done is alter the structure of the game."

Thorburn also doesn't let the coaches off. Instead of insisting that their players retreat to a position where they can counter-attack, many just "follow", he says.

"We have a lot of followers who are content to follow when it comes to things like this," he says. "We used to be an innovative nation but it's that mindset thing again - it takes over."

He exempts the current All Black coaching panel from this because he says he can see the All Blacks are trying to counter-attack and are dropping players back.

The other problem is the rolling maul. Sides will kick a penalty deep into the other team's defensive zone. They then get the lineout put-in with a 75-80 per cent chance of winning it - and set up a rolling maul.

That maul, says Thorburn, is often illegally executed and, as a maul is now not allowed to be dropped, is virtually unstoppable.

That also adds to the pressure for a kicking duel and for territory, as no one wants to give away a penalty (as often happens when trying to counter-attack against a stacked defence which is not being policed adequately) which can then be easily converted into points via the rolling maul.

The maul can generate plenty of penalties if it does not lead to a try or a penalty try.

SO, WHAT to do? Change the law, says Thorburn, back to the old pre-ELV laws which say a player can pass or run back into use the 22 to kick the ball out; thus bringing lineouts into play more.

"We have essentially taken a major re-start platform of the game out of the game," he says.

He also advocates a change to the penalty law on rolling mauls. If a side kicks the ball out from a penalty and within the opposing team's 22, the defending side would have the throw-in - thus reducing the ability of the attacking side to set up a rolling maul which is boring in its very predictability.

"It's all about entertaining to play and good to watch. That's what I believe the players want and what the fans want," says Thorburn.

"But, to do that, we have to help take players out of that mindset, the refs have to ref the 10m line and we have to build a game where counter-attack is the first option, not the kick."

There's one other thing that might come out of reducing the propensity for kicking duels - we might again be able to select a back three whose attacking ability is paramount rather than their "aerial" game.