Battle of the Breakdown: Why All Blacks' tactics were 'illegal'

The intense rivalry between the Springboks and All Blacks has always been marked by its uncompromising physicality.

However, the recent Rugby’s Greatest Rivalry series elevated this age-old contest to a new dimension of tactical and psychological warfare.

Over the course of four demanding Tests held in South Africa and the United States, the series’ outcome was determined not by expansive backline strategies but rather by the gritty and often intricate play within the tight phases.

As South Africa clinched a decisive three-one series victory, culminating in a 43-28 win in Baltimore, an analysis of the tour suggests that factors such as officiating guidelines, pre-match allegations, and significant structural issues at the set-piece played pivotal roles in shaping the results.

(Continue below ….)

At the heart of this strategic contest was New Zealand’s approach to managing the considerable pressure posed by the Springbok pack, raising questions about the legality of their tactics.

To grasp why the breakdown and maul emerged as particularly contested aspects during this international window, one must consider the training and expectations placed on elite referees.

Tappe Henning, Head of Match Officials for the United Rugby Championship, provided valuable insights into how modern referees assess these complex and fast-paced situations.

His expertise highlights specific technical indicators that officials monitor – elements that significantly influenced the international referees overseeing the series.

Compounding the tension, Springbok assistant coach Felix Jones ignited a pre-match controversy by questioning the legality of Dave Rennie’s team, backed by comprehensive feedback from South Africa’s provincial franchises, including the Stormers, Sharks, and Bulls.

This scrutiny primarily targeted the breakdown, with particular emphasis on the rucks.

Jones disclosed that South African management had undertaken thorough debriefs with their local franchises – namely, the Stormers, Sharks, and Bulls – who encountered Dave Rennie’s touring All Blacks squad during the initial stages of the tour.

The Bok assistant suggested the All Blacks were executing breakdowns improperly, employing tactics such as leading with tucked shoulders and a “reversed-arm” action, effectively bypassing the required wrapping technique.

This approach involves engaging in rucks from unauthorised angles, often referred to as side entry, utilising a blunt shoulder charge instead of adhering to the legal binding process.

Henning pointed out that the tackle and breakdown area remains the most densely populated phase on the field, necessitating officials to sift through as many as 220 individual tackles per match.

For players arriving to either clear out or contest the ball, the fundamental requirement is to enter through the “gate,” which is defined as alongside or behind the feet of the last player involved in the ruck.

The primary catalyst for a penalty occurs when players approach from the side of the contest, a manoeuvre that Henning identifies as a “U-turn angle.”

By arriving laterally rather than from their own gate, players can effectively remove defending players from an offside position, a violation that modern referees are specifically trained to penalise.

“The law stipulates that a player must join from his own goal line,” he explained to @rugby365com, adding, “He must square up.

“It typically involves a player overrunning the ball carrier, resulting in a tackle, while the non-ball-carrier turns and enters from the side to eliminate the threat.

“The initial contact must occur on the shoulder or body; contact on the hips is a telltale sign.”

(WATCH as Jan de Koning, in the third take of law reviews on contentious issues, speaks to URC Head of Match Officials Tappe Henning to get some clarity on rucks and the rolling mauls…..)

Defending against the Springboks’ rolling maul has led to accusations of cynical and illegal disruption practices.

Jones highlighted the frustration felt by South African teams, noting that the All Blacks often engaged in pulling, dragging, and dismantling the maul from the incorrect side rather than participating in a legal frontal contest.

This behaviour hindered teams from capitalising on their driving opportunities and converting them into points.

As a result of these allegations, match referees were compelled to carefully examine the All Blacks’ entry points at breakdowns and their positioning at the maul throughout the four-Test tour.

The rolling maul is one of the most challenging aspects of rugby to officiate, given the number of bodies entangled in the play.

Henning explained that while it is entirely permissible to stop forward momentum through a square, frontal shove, deliberately unbinding to target individual players and disrupt the maul is not allowed.

“A player who ends up past the ball, on the opposition side and facing back to his own line or sideways, is acting outside the law,” he stated in an interview with @rugby365com.

Referees are vigilant for specific indicators, such as defending players who grab jerseys or limbs from a lateral or trailing position and either pull or hold back opponents.

This can be seen as a cynical tactic to undermine the integrity of the drive or cause it to collapse altogether.

By pulling key anchoring players away from the ball carrier, defenders can effectively dismantle a maul from within, circumventing the legal requirement to contest the driving force head-on.

Although Dave Rennie’s squad began strongly, winning the opening Test 33-16 in Johannesburg, the relentless physicality and tactical observations from the Springboks ultimately began to undermine the All Blacks’ structural foundation.

Statistically, New Zealand’s overall performance at the breakdown was strong.

They won the turnover battle across the series, achieving 30 turnovers compared to South Africa’s 25, and demonstrated lethal skill during open transition phases.

However, whenever the Springboks managed to slow the game and press the All Blacks into tight, compressed set-piece situations, New Zealand’s technical shortcomings became apparent.

The most significant tactical breakdown stemmed from their inability to adequately defend the rolling maul.

Instead of preventing the initial ball transfer at the line-out, the All Blacks frequently found themselves on the defensive, ceding critical territory.

Unable to stop the drive within the rules, the All Blacks often found themselves conceding penalties under intense pressure.

The Springboks skillfully exploited these vulnerabilities, utilising their formidable forward pack to secure a penalty try and several yellow cards throughout the series.

@JanDKrugby
@rugby365com