Points disappear down the Bath plughole

By PerryGo
January 1 2003

Harlequins maintained their consistent away form at Bath last Saturday, to the disappointment of the travelling faithful. We didn’t learn much from the on-field performance, but in the stands we discovered the secret of drowning out away supporters’ feeble chants: plastic hunting horn-type thingies…

The advantages and disadvantages of these devices can be summed up in the same word - they are, irrefutably, indisputably, irritating! Like our team, at times. But equally, they are effective. Unlike our team, at times. Every time a gentle rendition of “Come on you Quinsaaaaah!” or “Har-le-quins - la-la-la” started up from the cheap seats in the open stand, it was soon obliterated by the bawl of these horns.

the view from the cheap seats (pic: Binky)

Now, once upon a time (up until last season, to be precise) when opposition supporters often outnumbered home supporters at the Stoop - and for all the world a casual observer would think he or she was at an away match - it would have taken the massed bands of the Guards Regiments to impose themselves, let alone plastic horns tooted by the Few.

But those were the old days. When supporting Quins was like religion and politics - something one kept as an essentially private, personal matter, not to be raised in polite company and certainly not something one ought to inflict upon others.

Once Quins’ supporters started to come out of the closet, as it were, and once it became clear that the club didn’t actually mind having supporters (in fact, under Mark Evans’ regime, it appeared they actually rather quite liked it) and - wait for it - if people wanted to make a bit of noise here and there, that was OK too, within reason, suddenly things began to change.

People started wearing funny trousers. And hats. And other things. Not in the right colours of course, but at least there were signs of life. And they started singing. Not in the right key of course, but at least there were signs of trying to sing the same words. And roughly at the same time.

So what about a sustained entrepreneurial effort by the DGs to source and distribute lots of those plastic hunting horn-type thingies for use at the Stoop? If someone can find them in Quins’ new corporate colours - Mulberry or Blue - who knows, even the Quins Shop might stock the line..?

And, with a bit of luck, my admiration for the debilitating effect on the opposition’s supporters (and hopefully the contemporaneously rousing effect upon Our Team) will be perfectly aligned with my personal dislike for having them blown anywhere near me, by no-one in my section of the East Stand acquiring one…

Wot About the Rugby then..?

Meanwhile, on the field of play, the consistent problem of our inconsistent performances continues.

Were there any positives, do I hear you cry? Or is that just crying I can hear?

I really enjoyed the performance of Ollie Barkley. I thought he was just tremendous at outside half. Really provided an object lesson to any youngster watching, as TV commentators and old-f*rt Committee Members are prone to say. I would have given Barkley Man of the Match. His skills and creativity, matched with the Bath threequarters’ pace and power, made them look far more dangerous than we did in the backline.

Now, one or two observations should accompany that compliment.

Firstly, I believe he has been given time to learn the ropes of top-flight rugby mostly at centre or wing, even though number 10 is his position. That reduced the pressure a bit, and gave him time (immensely talented youngster as he was reputed to be) to find his feet.

Secondly, whether by design or necessity and - remembering how they have been flirting with relegation the last two seasons - foolishly or wisely, Bath persevered with Barkley, even when he was young and inexperienced and making some mistakes, recognizing that real talent must be given confidence and time to adjust to the environment.

Thirdly, direct comparisons with our number 10 - at least in terms of their respective performances on Saturday - are invidious. The quality of ball that the Quins’ backs were getting was often poor. Bath were succeeding in turning over a lot of possession and slowing the ball. And the Bath backs were up in our faces very quickly, it seemed, pressing that ‘offside line’ - of which more later. Also Duncombe was, once again, not at his best.

pressing the offside line? (Pic: simon Jones)

As I posted in the week, I can see no basis in Saturday’s match for any criticism of Dan Luger. He is world class and just needs the opportunities to show what he can do.

A rugby player can only be as good in possession as the player on whom he depends to get the ball to him lets him be. Think about it. Scrum half to fly half. Fly half to inside centre. Even ‘pack’ to scrum half. It’s very difficult to do much, except on an occasional and exceptional basis, that does not substantially depend upon the player next to you doing his bit effectively.

Unfortunately, the forwards were unable to win the game for us in Bath by dominating their opposite numbers, as we have come to hope for (if not expect) and struggled to produce quick, controlled ball. ‘Momentum’ I think ME calls it. Why is this, do you think?

Technical Errors or Tactical Errors?

I lost count of the number of turnovers (and/or penalties for ‘not releasing’) and the perpetrators thereof, although I was trying to keep a mental note for a while. I think I notched up three or four to Rob Jewell for one. It’s sometimes difficult to tell without the aid of the video to go back over it, how much these situations are due to technical shortcomings by the player concerned - such as poor body positioning going into contact or running away from the support - and how much due to failure of his team mates to get to the breakdown, clear out the opposition and generate quick attacking ball.

I felt a bit sorry for Tani Fuga, though, whose excellent early form seems to have deserted him of late. He tried his best to recover from the psychological blow of delivering that disastrous pass directly to touch, that cost us a certain try in the first half, but it didn’t really happen for him.

What do people think? Are our forwards excelling at mauling but falling behind on speed to the breakdown? Is the forwards’ coaching emphasis on upper body strength and defence rather than speed, ball handling and attack? I’m not for a moment suggesting these are straight alternatives, but we rarely seem to manage several phases of fast ‘pick up and drive’ recycling without a knock on or a turnover.

And are we so concerned with the mantra of committing the minimum number of players to the breakdown that we sometimes fail to commit enough?

Protecting possession by stationing players at the edges of the ruck sometimes seems lacking too - making the scrum half an easier target, especially if the opposition forwards are not all tied into the ruck properly.

These points have worried me for a while now.

I’m also worried that the forwards have so little faith in the backs’ ability to break their opposition’s defence that they are insufficiently inclined to give them the ball in attacking situations in tight games, even when the playing position would normally dictate that’s the thing to do. I hope I’m wrong on that.

Let’s hope for a change in fortunes next weekend, anyway. Sometime soon it will all come together on the day.

Spot the ball (Pic: Binky)

PerryGo’s Law Change Resolutions

So we’re at that time of year again when people start making New Year Resolutions. Next week, we’ll be at that time of year when 99% of people start breaking them, of course, but let’s go with the festive flow for a moment and ask ourselves what the New Year Resolutions of the IRB ought to be. Since time and space are limited, I suggest limiting the scope of the question.

There are lots of areas that we could go into - like funding and encouraging the development of the game in places like the South Seas, parts of Europe and South America (it’s disgraceful the way the big rugby nations have treated the lesser developed nations) - but let’s just speculate in relation to the Laws of the Game (remember, Soccer has Rules - although you could be forgiven for not having noticed that - but Rugby has Laws).

I am instinctively wary of tinkering with any of the Laws of the Game. After all, Rugby Union isn’t ‘ours’ - it’s the possession of future generations and past generations as well, to all of whom we owe a duty to preserve the Game, not harm it. But don’t forget the Laws and practices have changed over the years. For example, lifting in the lineout. And the value of a try; less than fifty years ago it was only worth three points, same as a penalty. Once upon a time, you didn’t get any points for it at all, only the chance to ‘try’ to kick a goal!

When the Lions played New Zealand in Dunedin in 1959, they scored four tries to nil, and still lost 18-17, thanks to six penalties by All Black full back Don Clarke, who sadly died earlier this week.

Which brings me to my first Resolution - increase the value of a try to six points. One try should be valued as the equal of two penalties in this day and age of better kickers and more kickable balls. The conversion should stay at two, since it is a bonus attempt, not a score in its own right. Run some examples and you’ll see the logic works. Two converted tries, for example, deserves to win over five penalties, in my book.

The second Resolution is to do with that perennial problem of offside. Hard to police, hard to continuously penalize (referees are accused enough of making it a stop-start game by blowing too often) and, especially in junior games, hard to have eyes in the back of your head!

I suggest a trial period with an experimental Law whereby the offside line is set at 5 metres from scrums (just like it’s 10 metres at lineouts) and maintained until the referee deems the scrum over and so signals (as with lineouts).

Similarly, I propose that at rucks and mauls and the like, the offside line for any non-involved participant (meaning one not bound to another player) would be set at one metre behind the back foot.

Resolution three is a Law change to address players deliberately conceding penalties, such as slowing up release of the ball illegally. The just penalty for this is banishment of a player, such that his offence has the opposite effect to that intended - it increases the likelihood of the opposition getting quick ball thereafter.

However, referees are presently disinclined to use the yellow card, probably because of its severe effect on the game, so I propose the first yellow a team gets for all punishable offences in each half is for five minutes only, the second and subsequent being for ten minutes.

This should enable fresh guidelines to be issued to referees as to how yellows are expected to be used in relation to frequency and nature of penalty conceding by teams, and, that referees will be monitored on this relationship. It will also mean referees will be less disinclined to award yellows. I stress the intent behind my idea is NOT to reduce the punishment effect - quite the opposite, to make the system used more and therefore more effective. It will encourage quicker, sharper warnings to an offending team to sort their act out.

Resolution four is a change in relation to passing the ball. A ‘momentum rule’, whereby a pass is not ‘forward’ if the momentum of the passing player takes him to a point which is in line with or in front of the receiving player at the moment he catches the ball.

And finally, Resolution five relates to players returning onside from an offside position once a ruck or maul situation has been created. I propose that they are required to return on the ‘blind side’ only, so as to reduce the risk (or opportunity, depending on how you look at it) of impeding the team in possession from implementing their next attacking phase. In so doing, they must go around and away from any opposition players who are in the position of first receiver from the ruck or maul (i.e. the ‘scrum half position’). If the attacking team choose to go blind, which is of course always their option, the returning player is only penalized if he has not made all reasonable attempts to avoid interfering with their play.

What do you all think?

In the meantime, whilst you’re musing on this, a win on Saturday would not go amiss!

Hope to see you there, ‘root-toot-tooting’ for Quins.