Metropolitan New York
Rugby Football Union Est. 1967
"Come Play the Game"

Latest Coaching News!

Once possession has been gained at the scrum or line-out the team winning possession is rewarded by the off-side lines that give space to attack. The space is created between the attack and defence down the field and across the field. Across the field this is created by the 15 metre line at line-out and the binding laws at scrum. As a result the team in possession is rewarded for superior skill and has time to mount the attack as well as being able to move the ball away from the city to the country where there are fewer defensive folk with greater amounts of space around them.

Not so at phase play. While it is a matter of time as to how “stacked” the defence line may have become, unlike set pieces, there is not the legal commitment of players to gather at the contest for possession so there is limited space across the field, nor is there space, and time, between teams because the depth of the formation does not approach the length of a scrum and is obviously well short of the 20 metres available at line-outs. So the skill of retaining or regaining possession at the post tackle receives less reward.

In response to this the attack, mindful of the need to have immediate support for the tackled player, attacks more frequently occur close to the source of possession. What follows can hardly be called a city as the population is never as great as scrum or lineout. The response of the defence is to contest the ball as part of the tackle, at the very least to slow down the speed of the recycle, if not to regain the ball. Should the opportunity to slow things down be over, because of the risk of being penalised, the post tackle now becomes a ruck and the defence abandons the contest and forms a defensive line. Because possession is “golden” the attack, more often than not, commits more players to keep the ball. As a result there are more defenders in the defensive line than attackers in the attacking line limiting attacking options.

The trigger in leading to the imbalance is the change from post tackle to the ruck as called by the referee. The difficulty is that, while the formation is called a ruck, it is a notional not one in Law.

The players in the ruck are infrequently bound to each other because at least some are contesting the ball. It tends to be, in the initial stages following the completion of the tackle, a lot of individual bodies colliding in close proximity to each other. Players do not engage with their heads and shoulders above their hips. Try doing this while at the same time being in a position to pick up the ball or drive an opponent off the ball.

As things progress more players end up on the ground and, presumably, out of play and the mass of players on the ground becomes so great that it is physically impossible for the other requirement of a ruck (i.e. players from both teams bound in contact with each other over the ball) to be met.

So what we have fallen into is a post tackle formation that doesn’t meet the definition of a ruck but is called so. Why? Because we used to have rucks, they are still in the Law Book and more important we need to assume that one exists to reward the team in possession following the post tackle, the reward for superior skill by either retaining or regaining.

Now if we stick to the strict definition and keep to the Law Book then the current notional ruck has no place in the game. The unbound situation with players littering the ground is general play.

This has huge implications as, being general play, the formation does not encompass an offside-line and players of the team not likely to win the ball can go off-side (there is no off-side) and enter the formation to get the ball from their opponents’ side of the ball. Indeed the defensive line can move up and stand next to their opponents, once again, because there is no off-side.

So much for the rewards of superior skill demonstrated by obtaining possession.

So we have a potential shambles on our hands and, in the short term, the answer is to go along with current practice i.e. the bundle of players that assemble and fall to ground at the post tackle and what follows must be regarded as a ruck for the game to retain it’s form and to provide time and space for the team winning possession to attack, their reward.

In the longer term we must address ourselves to this situation. We were tempted to jump in and take away “lifting” in the line-out in the days when possession was a foregone conclusion. Coaching has taken care of this. There seems to be a growing inclination for the defence to use the rucking option, in the jargon “counter rucking”, if only to slow down recycling and, even when they have won the ball but not delivered it, to drive through the ruck legally to disturb delivery, reducing option

So once again we have the coaches to thank for committing more and finding a solution. Realise that in both situations, the line-out and the post tackle, the team benefits of the strategy must outweigh the costs elsewhere at that point in time, if the team is to be committed to them. It is a tactical decision at the time.

If we were to be more severe on the tackled ball carrier who hasn’t anticipated an escape route for the ball, and on the tackler not allowing the immediate performance of the option then we will have more penalties and yellow cards, which could determine the result of the game. If the penalty was watered down to a free kick would we have a proliferation of “tap and goes” or, if the non-offending wants more space to attack, scrums. Do we want this?

If players are to remain standing throughout the duration of a ruck then we will always have difficulties if players bend to pick up the ball off the ground at the point of collision.  I know that they can’t pick it up any other way.

If these initial players go to ground they may not directly interfere with play but they litter the ground making it difficult for others to perform their options. If they do linger on the ground and, out of frustration, the players of the team winning the ball ruck the bodies of those on the ground, the actions of those on their feet become the greater crime. At the very least they trip them up making staying on the feet difficult.

So what should we be trying to achieve, what should be the aim and principles upon which phase play should be based.

As a first draft try this:

AIM:

To create a dynamic contest for possession, following the completion of the tackle, so that the team demonstrating superior skills in either ball retention or ball regaining, and in the delivery of the ball, are given time and space as a reward for that skill.

PRINCIPLE – What needs to be achieved to meet the Aim?

1.   The ball must be immediately available.

2.   The ball must remain on the ground until it leaves the proximity of the ruck.

3.   Entry to the formation by players not involved in the tackle must be from behind the position of the ball.

4.   Entry with the head and shoulders no lower that the hips.

5.   Entry by binding to a team-mate and driving past the ball.

6.   Players other than the ball carrier and the tackler must remain on their feet until the ball is delivered.

7.   Strict adherence to the hindmost feet of both teams as their respective off-side lines or a 5-10 metre offside line. While we are here we may as well do the same for the scrum so all are the same. The distance of the line can be between 5-10 metres but I feel it should be uniform for all. To assist refs we may put lines across the field at the prescribed distances apart and the re-start would move to the nearest line.

8.   Allow #8 play from the ruck so that all attacks don’t have to be mounted from behind the attacking team’s off-side line.

And finally, with thanks to Paul Dobson, and Planet Rugby.

Some history of wearing numbers

Teams number their players now but it was not always so. In fact, there was a time when numbering players was frowned upon as it smacked of tawdry professionalism.

Now nobody bothers about professionalism – nobody, that is, except those who have to pay the players and the coaches and the fitness trainers and the first aid people and the PR people and the media liaison officers and so on and on, as rugby becomes the gigantic employment opportunity it never was.

Numbers have taken the place of names in referee speak. “Off-side, Number 6.” “Get onside, 8.”

Numbers have replaced the jargon of position. “Who is the best 9 in the country?” “I’m not sure whether to play him at 6 or at 7.” (Note the origin of being at sixes and sevens!)

When England first wore numbers at Twickenham, on 18 March 1922, King George V, a keen rugby supporter, turned to the secretary of the Scottish Rugby Union, the conservative J Aikman Smith, and said, "I see England have numbers. What a good idea. When are Scotland going to get numbers?"

In indignation, Aikman Smith replied: "Sire, my players are men, not cattle." And the story has it that he refused to speak to His Majesty for the rest of the afternoon.

Numbers, it is believed, were first used in 1897 in Brisbane when the New Zealanders played Queensland. "As an experiment to assist spectators, a number will be placed on each player's back."

When they were brought to Sydney in 1904 players objected because it was too convenient a way for referees to identify miscreants.

On 21 January 1922 numbers were used in a Five Nations match for the first time - when England played Wales at Cardiff Arms Park. It rained. Wales won 28-6.

The Springboks wore numbers on the 1906-07 tour, though not against Scotland. Their opponents sometimes wore numbers, e.g. Yorkshire, Middlesex, Newport, East Midlands. The Springboks wore tour numbers. That means that the player always  played in the number given him for the tour. 29 could play next to 3. This was common practice till well after World War II.

It would seem that the 1905-06 All Blacks did not wear numbers.

The International Rugby Board first discussed the numbering of players in 1921 when Wales and England let it be known that they intended to number their players. "The Board expressed the view that this was a matter for the several unions to decide on, having regard to the wishes of their players."

Howard Marshall - of Haileybury, Oxford, Harlequins and the Barbarians and for years the rugby correspondent of the Daily Telegraph - wrote in 1936 in an article entitled What Rugger Means to Me: " Here I must make what is probably my last protest against the numbering of players. I remember how I resented this cattle-branding when I was playing myself, and my unholy delight when the numbered jerseys did not correspond with the programmes. Rugby football is not a game for such fripperies as numbering and programmes; it is not a game to be watched by any but those who have played it and understand it."

In 1933 soccer players were numbered at the FA Cup Final for the first time. Everton, who won, played Manchester City. Everton were numbered 1-11, Manchester City 12-22. Celtic still refuse to wear numbers on their backs.

Sometimes teams have worn letters - to confuse pirate programme sellers. The All Blacks did that in 1921. Confusing pirate programme sellers was not the only reason. There was also the belief that a single letter was less confusing than two numbers. The famous English clubs, Bristol and Leicester Tigers, used letters, from A to O, until the advent of professionalism and TV exposure. Bristol had 'A' at fullback, Leicester 'O' at fullback. When they played it looked as if a whole lot of scrabble tiles had been flung onto the field. In 1999 they changed from letters to numbers.

Some prefer not to use numbers in the pious belief that the game is a team game and no individual is so important that attention should be drawn to him. Schools especially like this as it suggests that rugby is valued as a part of education with value in teamwork and effort, not a means of marketing an individual.

There have been times when teams have not had used a number 13 but a 16 instead, out of superstition. Then you get players like Danie Gerber who insisted on using the number 13! Bath RFC does not have a No. 13, using 16 instead. West Hartlepool no longer have a No. 5 after a lock John Haw died of a heart attack during a match in 1994.

At one stage the fullback was Number 1. The front row wore Nos 8,9,10, the locks were 11 & 12, the loose forwards 13,14,15. Or, more frequently, the front-row went 13, 14, 15, the locks 11 & 12, and the loose forwards 10, 9, 8. The number 8 has, down the years, more frequently worn 8 than any other position has stayed with a number. The loose forwards are lumped together as they were the back row in the old 3-2-3 scrum formation, and are still called the back-row even though scrums seldom have a back-row in modern times. The loose-forwards are still 6,7,8 as if they formed a back-row but with the player at the back as the No.8. South Africa invented this scrum formation and developed that player’s modus operandi and call him the eighthman.

Just after World War II in the Five Nations, numbering was from 1 to 15, starting with the fullback at 1. From the beginning of the Sixties the numbering changed to what it is today. From 1966 on it became uniform in Test matches that the numbering be from 15 to 1 or, if you like, 1 to 15 where 15 was the fullback and 1 the loosehead.

The IRB, like most law making bodies, are often reactive. Something happens and then you make a law to cover it/govern it/get rid of it. They decided to order the numbering for matches under their jurisdiction.

The positions should be as follows, the numbers being for teams which wear numbers:

15 fullback

14 wing (right)

13 centre

12 centre, second five-eighth

11 wing (left)

10 flyhalf, first five-eighth

9 scrumhalf, halfback

8 eighthman, number 8, No.8

7 flank

6 flank

5 lock

4 lock

3 prop (tighthead)

2 hooker

1 prop (loosehead)

The names and numbers have been given for the positioning of a team at a scrum, for in olden days the scrum was the most important facet of play. Games in fact were almost one long scrum. Now they are important but far less so.

David Campese wore a Number 11 jersey though he played on the right wing.

In 1998 the All Blacks wore a 2 on their sleeves – a tribute to Sean Fitzpatrick who had just recently retired.

The use of replacements, first for injury and then as tactical substitutions, has led to a fairly orderly bench. There are as many as seven players on the bench, often – but not always – split 4-3 between forwards and backs.

The bench is numbered from 16 to 22 where, often but not always, 16 is a hooker, 17 a prop, and 20 a scrumhalf.

Many consider a team as now consisting of 22 players with a maximum of 15 on the field at any one time.

Home - Administration - News & Events - Referees
 Links -  Join Email List
Questions/Feedback on this site - Legal - Privacy

Metropolitan New York
Rugby Football Union, Inc.
P.O. Box 488
Bowling Green Station
New York, NY 10274-0488

Copyright © 2006 - Metropolitan New York Rugby Football Union, Inc.
All rights reserved.