I haven’t seen much of the Warriors number 7 but in Round 1 he impressed me with a range of well executed no-look passes.

Check out the following clips (best watched at half speed) and see how he sets up his runners by maintaining eye contact as he accelerates towards the defensive line. Several times Warriors run the same shape (inside and outside support) until they finally bust the line – even when they don’t they usually get a one on one tackle and a quick play the ball.

Haven’t seen a young half play this direct for a while – hopefully it’s good signs for the Warriors.

Introduced last year centre field scrums resulted in a number of tries where teams failed to defend 4 v 4 (article – defending centre field scrums). With a whole off-season to plan I was interested to see what coaches would deliver in round 1.

Scrum Attack – The Trap and Wrap

I noticed a new attacking variation in round 1 which I’m calling the trap and wrap.

In the next clip the Storm line up 3 attackers and Souths mirror this in defence. To gain a 4 v 3 overlap the Storm ‘trap’ the ball in the second row and have their scrum half sprint around to the non-feed side ‘the wrap’ – defending scrum half Reynolds does not react and the Storm nearly score.

Later on in the same game Storm try a variation on this play – initially lining up with a 4/2 split then late switching Papenhauzen across as a fake. The ball is not trapped at all so the play breaks down but I liked the mis-direction.

The Sharks unveiled a very similar play:

Early on in the above clip they line up with Moylan left and Kennedy directly behind the scrum. On the ‘trap’ both Moylan and Kennedy sweep right. Fortunately for the Dragons Clune and Bird defend passively.

Later in the game though the Sharks run the same play with success when Lomax bites in.

The Sweep

The Titans unveiled another scrum attack variation – initially lining up 4 on the feed side before sweeping 2 players back to the non-feed side for a large metre gain (note Egan does a poor job assisting Chanel Harris-Tavita).

NFL Style ‘Pre-Snap’ movement

I also observed a lot movement by attackers from side to side just before the ball is fed in an attempt to confuse the defence. I’m excited to see how this type of NFL ‘pre-snap’ movement evolves.

I wouldn’t be surprised that in the future we see all attackers ‘in motion’ just as the ball is being fed.

Scrum Defence

Sharks continue to defend 3 v 4 on the non feed side. They put Brailey at 2RF on that side and he breaks hard from the scrum whilst the 3 defenders wait passively for him to get across (ie by passive I mean don’t move up aggressively and have each successive defender standing deeper as you move out to the wing).

This defensive scheme works well – the key points are that Brailey does not hang around but immediately breaks hard to help the 3 defender, the prop on that side must also work hard to protect Brailey’s inside shoulder.

In the above clip the inside defenders aren’t stressed as McCullough’s pass isn’t out in front. The below clip from their trial with the Bulldogs shows a good out ball will stress them – especially if the ball is trapped first preventing Brailey from breaking early.

In this case the play breaks down as Hopoate has to wait for Flanagan’s pass and they don’t run a block shape. I’ll be watching with interest how this defensive pattern goes against better attack.

Here’s the risk when the play is executed correctly:

Scrum pushes a defensive option?

A lot of attacking plays rely on quick movement from the base of the scrum – a big shove can mess that up. Keary and Tedesco were looking to put on a scrum half wrap in the clip below but a push in the scrum ruined that plan.

I’d like to see more defensive shoves – even if it’s only the 3 in the front row pushing. It’s a small effort with a high chance of ruining a good attacking play.

No Defending Scrum Half?

I thought I was seeing things when I saw 7 defenders back for Wests but given the Raiders loaded up with a 5/1 split Wests decided to not play a defending scrum half – not a bad idea in this situation.

Defence Overall

I didn’t see anything to suggest that defending 4 v 4 on the non scrum feed side is a bad one. I don’t have the statistics but I’m pretty sure the majority of tries from scrums have been scored on the non feed side. If teams persist with defending 3 v 4 on this side then I think the Sharks defence is a good one to copy.

As the trap and wrap is a new play which quickly creates a 4 on 3 it’s worth considering placing an extra defender on the non feed side when facing 3 attackers – just in case this play is executed. This would leave you short on the feed side but it’s much harder to generate attacking speed on this side (as the scrum half needs to do a 180 after feeding the ball) and the defending scrum half is already up. Look how easy the Tigers defend this attack short one defender:

Summary

I really like the ‘Trap and Wrap’ innovation – teams are going to have to quickly work out how they are going to defend this. The late sweep play by the Titans was a good metre gainer for scrums set in your own half.

I’m all about more ‘pre-feed’ players in motion and look forward to more innovations on this front.

I’ll start keeping stats on tries scored from scrums – which side they were scored on, the defender/attacker numbers and the plays executed as well.

I really wanted Penrith to win the GF (prefer underdogs/new winners) but they met a committed Melbourne defence which held them to zero points at half time.

For me at this point the GF was over – no favourite up 22 points at half time had ever been run down in the last 10 years (sample of 112 events) – and this was Melbourne we were talking about.

Errors killed Penrith but for me the errors that hurt them the most were made when line breaks or tries were on:

• Koroisau scoots from dummy half and drops ball (great deliberate slap out by Hughes) -> next set Melbourne score
• Crichton obstructs Lee -> Mansour try overturned
• Kikau half busts through line and knocks on -> next set penalty goal Melbourne
• Cleary pass intercepted -> try Vunivalu
• Half chance down the right and May throws pass forward -> Smith scores on ensuing possession chain

That’s 32 points wasted (counting Vunivalu intercept as a 12pt swing).

You often hear “you need to take your chances when they come” and “you need to defend your errors” and this rang true for the Panthers. Contrast this to Melbourne’s efforts:

• knock on from kick off -> hold Panthers out
• 1st attacking chance -> try Olam
• 2nd attacking chance Kenny Bromwich knock on -> scramble defence holds out 4 great attacking chances by Panthers
• 3rd attacking chance -> earn penalty goal
• Concede penalty for slowing the ruck -> Vunivalu intercept try
• 5th attacking chance -> Smith try

The videos below capture desperation defence by Melbourne and blown chances by Penrith in the 15th to 17th minute of the game.

When you are down 22-0 everything has to go your way to win. After early yardage exchanges in the second half Melbourne make an error to give Penrith an opportunity.

Unfortunately Leota drops the ball on the second tackle (groan) and from the ensuing scrum Papenhauzen scores.

From the kick-off set Melbourne make another error and once again Penrith make another attacking error through Kikau (head bangs against wall). Fortunately for Penrith Vunivalu knocks on the Hughes grubber which would have seen them go down 30-0.

The rest of the second half is like that for the Panthers with errors consistently undermining their chances.

So in summary – failed to take their chances, failed to defend their errors – my theme for the 2020 runners up Panthers.

For Melbourne I thought it was a great team effort – especially in defence. They compressed heavily and dared the Panthers to go around them.

There were opportunities for the Panthers to go around them early in the count (as I’ve mentioned in a prior post “Corner Trap – The Great Escape“). Several times Melbourne were so compressed they were only covering half the field.

I’m slightly critical of the Panthers for not adjusting their attack on early yardage options to go around Melbourne but to be fair Mansour/To’o/Edwards had been great for months punching through the middle – I wonder if this was a case of being too predictable?

Blow my Trumpet

I need to mention that my signature article “What Dane Gagai can teach us about Risk Management” and my post on “Defending Centre Field Scrums” played key roles in the outcome.

No cover for the Vunivalu intercept and defending 3 on 4 from a centre-field scrum for the Papenhauzen try.

Ryan Papenhauzen Clive Churchill winner?

This game was over at half time and Papenhauzen had barely contributed. I think he got the CC due to recency bias – he made two great plays in the second half scoring the last try and tapping back Cleary’s kick for touch.

For me I think either Nelson Asofo-Solomona or Suliasi Vunivalu deserved the CC for their first half performance which was where the game was won.

NAS ran hard all game, had some critical runs in the lead up to tries and some dominant defence (score with NAS on the field 22-6).

Vunivalu scored the intercept but also had some great yardage carries and bomb defusals. I think either would have been worthy winners.

Also the favourite Smith may have also suffered from recency bias. He finished with a kick dead, a holding down penalty and a forward pass error in the last 15 minutes and of course Melbourne’s only try of the second half was an individual effort.

Play of the Week

I liked this variation on the block play by the West Tigers

Lots of players crossing lines hold the defence in tight followed by some nice ball play by Eisenhuth – the elaborate first dummy brings Munster in and he can’t release (great line by Garner as well who somehow manages to not impede any defenders). The fact that Wests utilise 2 sweepers holds the Melbourne centre wide.

Long-Short Plays

Isaac John on his Instagram page calls the following play long-short. Set up 2 runners either side of the targeted defender – they guess wrong you score.

In this play the ball player runs across the first defender. The defender reacts by holding ground (stops sliding) allowing the ‘short’ player to hit the hole on their outside shoulder. The next defender feels compelled to come in on the short line opening the gap for the ‘long line’.

Very hard to defend when executed at pace and close to the defensive line.

Defending attacking turnovers

My headline article is “What Dane Gagai can teach us about Risk Management“. After a quiet few rounds there were a number of tries scored in R19 from attacking turnovers.

The 2 against the Warriors really show how important this risk is to manage as they were up 14-6. The 2 events back to back had them down 20-14 and were a big reason for them missing the 2 competition points.

As stated in my article – the cost of having a non-attacking side player rotate behind the play is very cheap considering the outcome.

Last night I was pleased to see Souths lining up 4 v 4 on the non-feed side of centre field scrums. Then this happened:

I was concerned with this try given my push for this defensive setup. So was this a strategic fail or execution fail?

I’m going to argue for the latter (self-interest anyone?) so if you disagree please leave comments below.

The image below shows Cody shifting across nicely to protect Marsters inside shoulder – but what it also shows is Sironen, Allan & Burgess all meandering across (where is the urgency?)

In my view I put this try down to a distinct lack of enthusiasm of defenders to get across and help their team mate – guys you are 10m out and defending your line!

The commentators criticised Marsters at the time but I expected more from Sironen – at no time does he change his slow jog across the field.

If the 2 v 2 defence is to work on the feed side then the defence needs to be switched on.

Favourite play of the week – Scissors play cuts Dragons

This next try came after a long delay from a bunker referral so the Raiders had plenty of time to set this up.

After a long shift the magic happens. Whitehead and Wighton execute a ‘scissors’ change in direction which has them slice straight through. Initially Whitehead runs the straight line with Wighton fading behind in the standard block play formation.

Nek minute they both reverse lines – Whitehead fades for the overs line with Wighton straightening.

I’m going to support some of my earlier posts with evidence from the last 2 rounds that these ideas have merit.

Corner Trap & Early Attacking Shifts

I mentioned I saw attacking opportunities for early shifts after being trapped in the corner (my thoughts here). The Titans below reap the rewards.

You could rightly argue that the Bulldogs and Broncos aren’t exactly leading the way in defence at the moment but these opportunities do exist against the top sides. Below are some early tackle photos of the top sides showing as few as 2 defenders covering half the field.

Defending Centre Field Scrums

I’m still perplexed at sides choosing to defend 3 against 4 on the non-feed side of scrums (my thoughts here). In my opinion you are gifting your opponent a great attacking opportunity.

Compare the outcomes above to the West Tigers who opt for 4 on 4 defence against the lethal Souths left edge. The extra defender forces Souths to take them on 2 v 2 – but as it is on the feed side of the scrum Brooks shifts over to help making it an easy tackle for the centre.

Bomb Defusal

When a bomb lands on the goal line there is not much upside for the defending team to try to catch the ball (my thoughts here). The attacking team has all the momentum into the leap – much better in my opinion to punch the ball dead (called ‘spoiling’ in AFL).

In the first video Gutherson stays down – what would have happened if he leaped in and tried to punch it? There’s a good chance even if he fails he makes Martin drop it.

Teams seem happy to concede a line drop out from a good grubber – it should only be a matter of time before we see good bombs given the same respect.

Dane Gagai intercept

I couldn’t let this one go given it is my headline article.

Everyone knows by now for the dummy half to take advantage of 1 marker situations but are there opportunities if this is not the case?

Late in the tackle count middle forwards get tired and forget to close gaps coming from the inside in defence – especially the ‘A’ gap on the other side of the ruck and the gap between markers. See below for the gaps I mean (marked with blue arrows).

In the image above Liu is the ‘A’ defender on the far side of the ruck and needs to trail Friend who needs to trail Butcher across the field in case the ball is switched back. A failure by any one of these players opens up good attacking opportunities.

Even if they do defend correctly there is a strong chance for a fast play the ball due to the shoulder positioning of defenders.

You can clearly see Butcher (second marker), Friend and Liu all have their shoulders pointed to the sideline which makes it difficult to affect a strong tackle. In the video below the gap I’m talking about is not exploited (as a further pass is required) but it does show how hard it is to make a dominant tackle.

When the switch from first receiver (or even from second receiver as in the Sharks example) is followed up with a pass these ‘lazy’ gaps can be exploited.

I’d love to see some further attacking variations to take advantage of these ruck holes – a second man play following the switch could be particularly effective.

Do the unexpected

Manly’s Jake Trbojevic kick for the winger went unrewarded even though it was a great tactic. Even Josh Addo-Carr with his speed was burnt.

Over-chasing from marker will get you into trouble eventually

Justin Olam is an enthusiastic player who looks like he leaves everything out there. I’ve noticed he loves to chase hard from marker – it won’t be long before he gets his pants pulled down on a switch back to the short side.

Play eyes up footy

What is ‘eyes up footy’? We hear this phrase often and usually because a team has gone through with a pre-meditated play when the defence a) has already read the play or b) there are better opportunities to exploit vs set play.

In this clip it’s clear the call is to shift wide to Benji Marshall for a pre-meditated grubber kick. When Brooks receives it he doesn’t even look up – freeze it when he catches it and look at the defensive gaps in front of him! and why kick it when the shift was so slow, Mansour is clearly back waiting and you are 20m out?

Scan quickly then execute or deviate.

Load both halves one side of the ruck and then go the other way

This one is my favourite play of the round. Panthers load Cleary/Luai to the left and dummy half Mitchell fakes to them hitting Leniu with a short ball. This causes Leilua to crash in for the tackle and with no time for the Tigers defence to adjust it ends up 5 on 3. Doueihi panics and crashes in which made it easier but even if he holds position I think they score.

Introduced this season the option for a Centre Field scrum position has opened up exciting attacking options. With a standard field width of 68 metres this gives the attacking side the chance to setup flank attacking plays covering 34 metres.

What I’m struggling to understand is why teams are choosing a 3/3 split in defence in some circumstances when the attacking team goes for a 4/2 split in attack. Check out the below video and images:

Defending 4 vs 3 over 34m width within your own 20 is asking for trouble – especially the non-scrum feed side. It is quite easy with a good out-ball from the base of the scrum to have the 1st attacker engaging the 3 defender (ie third defender in from the wing) with the second rower/lock scrambling to get across after breaking from the scrum.

Melbourne are taking advantage of this by turning strong runners Asofa-Solomona and Fa’asuamaleaui under from Papenhauzen – best case they score – worst case a fast play the ball due to difficult 1 on 1 tackle from the scrum based covering defender.

But even the standard block play run by Parra below is damaging – in this case Lee/Earl are forced to guess where Brown plays – is it short to Jennings, to sweeper Gutherson or straight to Sivo?

Defensive Options

So what could be done instead? I’d suggest always manning up 4 vs 4 on the scrum non-feed side thus negating the scramble and overlaps created. This does leave you 2 vs 2 on the feed side with a lot of space – however your ace is that you have the defending scrum half who can immediately slide to assist the 2 defender from getting beaten on the inside. This option does expose the defence to an attacking scrum half run but at least your lock/second rower are very close by to cover this. I much prefer the risk profile of this defensive setup compared to 4 on 3.

If the attacking team goes with 4 attackers on the feed side I’d experiment with either sticking with a 3/3 defence utilising the defending scrum half to make the ground across (it’s important they immediately slide leaving the lock/second-rower to cover the scrum half) or man up 4/2 with defending lock/second-rower breaking immediately to assist 2 side.

Of course – why not just break from the scrum early? it’s only a differential and allows you to reset your defence. So far no one has been sin-binned for this offence and there has been plenty of blatant abuse of this rule.

A strongly applauded strategy is to kick deep into the corner to trap the attacker inside their 10 close to the sideline. From here attacking options are extremely limited (eg passing open side with few attacking players back on-side) allowing defences to compress and target 1 runner.

The first carry from this position is one of the toughest in rugby league – usually 3 on 1 with a good chance of being forced into own in-goal. Defensively the goal should be for the first defender to get under the attacker’s armpits to hold him up (rather than just putting a hit on as Olam did above) with 2nd, 3rd defenders driving him back.

Teams regularly take up to 3 tackles to make 10 metres from the corner position and end up kicking from within their 30. With a decent kick return the reward for kicking to the corner is usually a set starting near the half-way line with side benefits of an easy defensive set plus low chance of conceding a try (due to poor offensive options).

Offensive Options

Once trapped in the corner sides attempt to get to a centre field position to split the defence. They should ensure that first carry is a strong runner (eg not Matt Dufty) and other attackers should assist the first runner from being driven back in-goal (I have not observed this as an active strategy – it’s more like good luck with that).

The ball should also be an ‘out-ball’ to allow you to make the most ground towards centre field. A two pass or a long pass is extremely risky if the defence is set as first contact will be much closer to the goal line.

When trying to prevent a ‘push-back’ you will often see a team mate pushing from directly behind the ball runner – this is an okay option but you are directly opposing the force of multiple defenders. Much better to either pull the ball carrier sideways (pivoting the force) or tackling your own player around the legs.

Are there any other options to get out of the corner trap?

If the defence is set I’d say no unfortunately not – just take your medicine and pat the player who takes this run on the back.

Post this first difficult hit up however I’ve observed many opportunities for expansive play instead of just another hit up towards centre field. Check out the images below (note some of the images below are from a 6th tackle turnover not a kick – so the tackle count reads 1st in those instances):

In many of the photos above you can see the defensive centre and winger covering up to half of the field as a result of the compressed defence on tackle 1! Imagine if you had that setup on the goal line – you would attack that edge for sure!

There’s a good argument for organising your attack quickly for a long shift post tackle 2. Remember the standard ruck pattern will most likely have you defending your line again on the next set anyway (I would love for the NRL to release detailed statistics on play by play X-Y field co-ordinates so I could quantify this) and a best case shift could result in a long range try.

Yes the shift might result in a dropped ball and a turnover but so does rucking it one out versus a compressed defence.

In the video below you will notice Wests try to shift with two long passes with no success.

Just shifting with no block plays or straightening up allows the defence to slide comfortably. This does not mean shifting is a poor strategy just that it requires organisation and ‘shape’.

Notice the difference when Wests are organised with shape and shift on the very next play.

Summary

There are opportunities to counter a good attacking kick (or change of possession) in the corner if a team is organised and willing to shift post tackle 2. In my opinion the extra work to get into a decent attacking shape post tackle 2 is worth it.

The upside is more metres gained (maybe even a try), defences responding with less compression (can revert back to a one out carry), greater attacking options on subsequent tackles and more work for the opposition. Compare this to the usual outcome of a defensive set starting around 60 metres from your own line (my estimate based on 40m kick from 30 returned 10m – not supported with actual data).

Tackle 1 offensive options are limited but I have not observed much development in the way of strategies to prevent a ‘push-back’ into the in-goal (such as a trailing close-by attacker to assist) which I believe is a real risk worth mitigating.

I do understand possession transitions are a key ‘rest’ period for forwards but I think the upside from tackle 2 shifts is worth investigating – perhaps even just utilising the backs and 1-2 forward(s).

Note I have some ideas for tackle 1 attack as well as non-standard tackle 2 attacking shapes which I will write about in following posts.