Good shout.
Although, that's sort of an inadvertent pass to the floor (or opposing player!)



(Yes I know, deperate!)

But you'd never see a player running forwards at full speed and passing the ball to his side then, which is why the game would be slower. The passing moves would be almost static.


Not really. The ref should be looking at the direction of the ball in relation to the player in order to determine whether it is forward or not, so will be able to see any obvious changes in velocity that would/wouldn't affect the forward propulsion of the ball.


I know, I was just trying to see if anyone would make a smart-allick comment on that one!

Alternatively, it would encourage a deep attack, just as he said.

Which I'm kinda partial to, to be honest!

But still slower, as players would have to stop or slow down in order to turn around.

And with the speed of the game as it is at the moment, these players would be wiped out by the defence before they could even pass the ball, resulting in no passing anyway!

... and the person moving onto the ball may well be moving faster, having run from deep as opposed to having to constantly check the run to prevent overrunning the guy with the ball.

Drives me nuts when wingers do that; why not just hang back another metre or two and make a full blooded run in support when the centre (or whoever) gets the ball? I know there's situations where you can't always do this, but I'd like to see more of it than we get at the mo.

So it's not quite as clear cut as you may think at first glance; you frequently have a guy passing having stopped or checked his speed anyway, it's not always passed at full tilt.



Not sure I follow you here; if the defence is advancing, running full tilt into them gives you [iless[/i time to pass than you would have if you were running more slowly with the ball.

Because by dropping back 3-4m more than before, you have to make up 3-4m more on the run, and that 3-4m gives the defence time to come and get you.
Elite sport is all about reducing things to the absolute minimum in order to get even the smallest advantages. This is one of them.

So it's not quite as clear cut as you may think at first glance; you frequently have a guy passing having stopped or checked his speed anyway, it's not always passed at full tilt.



No. Stopping or slowing your momentum to turn and pass the ball gives the defence more time to pick up on where they are passing the ball and who to, as well as more time to cover the ground.

The slower you advance forward, the more time the defence has to come and get you. The attack my have more time to make decisions as well, but they won't be making any ground.

And that couple of extra metres can be made up by the fact that you're running almost full tilt when you receive the ball, as opposed to having to accelerate due to hanging level to the guy with the ball, and trying not to overrun him.

Not to mention that you have additional momentum to help carry you further in (or even through) tackles.

You're running the risk of interceptions, of course, and it takes better timing in some cases, but I think it's a very valuable tactic that seems to be quite often neglected.



But there are situations where it doesn't give you an advantage, as I've hopefully outlined.



That's not what you said. You were talking about the passer:

[ithese players would be wiped out by the defence before they could even pass the ball[/i



And the more time you have to put in a better pass, and time it better.

It's swings and roundabouts.

A better pass can do you much more good than making an extra 1m in a tackle. It's all about whether you want to play percentages, and whether you have the right players for a certain approach.

Like I've said, I think a deep attack can be very handy but it seems to be a little neglected., Probably for good reason in many cases, but certainly not in all.

Why can't a player run full tilt (or near enough full tilt) alongside the player with the ball? They'd be further up the field, the player with the ball would know they are there, and the player of the ball wouldn't have to slow down and turn around to pass the ball? Why hang back 3-4m where you would no doubt give the defence every single bit of feedback they need to know you are going to get the ball?

It's neglected for a reason.


The only advantage hanging deeper gives is it allows the player with the ball more decision making time. In a sport where speed is very important, we should be training our players to think quicker, which is probably what is and has been happening and why your said tactic has found its way out of the game in favour of closer flatter lines.


That is in relation to if both players are running at full speed with the ball, not (as you put it) one was running full tilt and the other more slowly.

If a player was running full tilt up the field, in your situation they would have to stop or slow down in order to turn when they wanted to make a pass (which takes time) in order to pass the ball. Before, they just had to turn their head and pass.
Which one takes less time? Which one gives the defence more time to make a decision on who to tackle and where to run? And this is all assuming that the player knows that there is another player behind him.


And the more time the defence has to make a decision.
In elite sport, every second counts. Coaches know this. This is their philosophy. Every second extra you spend making a decision is a second extra the defence has. Do you really need that much more time and space to pass a ball? Most, if not all, modern day coaches think not. And I agree.


A better pass in what way though? You are talking about a player being deeper so he has more time to catch the ball and run with more momentum. If a player is closer to the passer, he already has momentum and also has already made the yards. He has less time to catch the ball, but pro rugby players shouldn't need so much time to catch a ball. This is why they are where they are. At kids age groups, maybe this would be a good tactic, but not at elite level.


It has probably being neglected because players can now probably do what deep players could do then but without needing the extra time from being so deep. It's just not necessary anymore.

That'd be Leeds well and truly fugged

:1ci11g2m

Because the player with the ball may check his run or try to step/change direction etc before passing - in that case, you're running the risk of being in front of him when he wants to pass.

That extra 1 or 2 m can certainly help in such situations, as you can keep running full tilt without having to worry about overrunning him as much.

:1ci11g2m

That's twice you've done this - I said a metre or two, and you've somehow doubled it to suit your argument. Will the next post be talking about 6-8m?

:1ci11g2m

No, it also means the person receiving the ball can carry more momentum into the tackle as he's running at close to full tilt.

I pointed this out.

People who know how to run are up to basically full speed after 5m in a 100m race, [url=http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/92/5/1781:1ci11g2mfor example[/url:1ci11g2m. The derivative of the speed curve is much larger at small distances. The defensive line are already at or near to full speed by the time the ball comes out to the wing, so that extra metre or so doesn't really affect their momentum - but it makes a significant difference to the momentum of the winger, and that momentum can carry the winger further through tackles, and hence counter the slight loss of position.

:1ci11g2m

Which is largely due to playing percentages, as I said. I never said it was a universal panacea, and you need players who are comfortable with the timing, but there's a time and a place for everything.

:1ci11g2m

I don't follow you here, sorry. You said that you have less time to pass in a given situation, and it wasn't true.

:1ci11g2m

They can play exactly the same pass - almost directly flat, if they wish. The difference is that the winger comes onto it at a greater pace, having timed his run. Which is not easy, just as I pointed out.

:1ci11g2m

Where, exactly, should the winger be apart from behind his centre, running a support line? If the centre doesn't know his winger is running behind him in support, you have greater problems than whether he's an extra 1m back.

:1ci11g2m

The passer can play exactly the same pass - like I said, flat if they so wish. But the wing comes onto it with more momentum.



Well, if they can do what used to be done from deep now, imagine what they could do if they actually just ran from deep occasionally, instead?

I can't be bothered to go through the entire post because we're just going round in circles with the argument, so I'll just save both of our times. I will maintain that I disagree with the majority of what your saying though for the reasons I've already said.

The whole argument for not dropping back the metre or two is based on giving the defence as little processing time as possible. It may give the attack less processing time, but that's what training and set moves are for.

There is very little extra you can do in attack with an extra metre or two space, but there is a lot more thought time you can have in defence.

I certainly disagree with the extra momentum you get over a metre or two being anywhere near significant enough to make up the extra yards lost. I would say the best way to break down a defence is to catch them off guard, which doing things quickly does (mis-timed tackles, etc.). Professional players, given time, should be able to tackle anyone.