Add Rugby laterals to spread?
I have been playing rugby for last two months with Nevada Reno team. I played in last game of season, on B side and experienced why a 150lb guy must try to tackle a 220lb guy coming in fast very low (ha, splat). Since then we have been playing touch rugby with local semipro team Reno Zephyrs.
There seems to be two modes of offensive in rugby: 1) power running on scrum side of field behind the big forwards, or 2) get ball out to backs (fast guys) in space and try to defeat the one defender in front of them. This initial penenetration is done by either jukieness, extreme acceleration, or drawing in defender and at last instant passing (back) to a support runner who then finds a hole.
The passing doesn't end there. It seems very common to continue to lateral L and R down the field to goalline to whoever has the least pressure on them. There are amazingly few fumbles.
Question to the football experts out there... In spread the idea is often to get ball to agile fast guy in space and have them defeat a single defender (seems so far like rugby). So... why not have a support runner or two on either side run up behind for a lateral and really blow by them? i.e. I wonder if this common rugby offense (proven effective ...)would have any application to football... more lateralling... ?
Easier said than done.
Sounds like exactly the kind of high-variance strategy that could be really successful if executed correctly (particularly against teams lacking top-20 defenses) but that low-variance-loving coaches everywhere are likely to shun. I suspect that in rugby, where serial lateraling is a major component of the offense, you spend a lot of time in practice working on executing those tosses. For a football team, where there's already a bunch of other formations, blocking schemes, and routes to practice, there probably isn't enough time to also practice a lot of lateral-based plays.
I'd put this in the same bin as the two-quarterbacks-on-the-field-at-once offense: it might be spectacular, but we'll probably never see an offense based on it.
I doubt it. Good in theory but probably not in practice, look at B ush's faux pas in the Rose Bowl v. Texas.
Well the pitch was heavily utilized in Nebraska's old option offense, so it does work. But if you're suggesting that a team run a hook and ladder on every play then this wouldn't succeed b/c half of your players would just be running routes that shadow other routes.
There is a huge difference between a pitch in the backfield and a pitch 20 yards downfield with defenders flying everywhere. You're right though, our 9 WR, 1 Center, 1 QB offense would require a lot of shadowing but it just might work.
Turnovers. Coaches turn over in their sleep thinking about having 5-6 players touching the ball on a single play. It comes down to it being a high risk, low reward chance. With so many players in one area of the field, your leaving urself open to tipped balls.
While good in theory, with athletes 200-275 running 4.5 40s, most teams can cover the field sideline to sideline and leave little space.
Rugby fields are (I believ) considerably bigger and there is (I believe) not so much a negative reaction to a turnover.
A rugby pitch is 100 meters (100 m = 109.4 yards). Since a football field is 100 yd, we'll just round it up and it would pretty much be like adding another 5 yard line to either side of the 50 yard line. It is wider, however. A college football field is 53.3 yd, a rugby pitch is 68 m (68 m = 74.4 yd).
You are right about turnovers, though. It's not much of a deal to turn the ball over in rugby. Still sucks, but it's not as big of an event, unless it happens at a critical time or close to the goal-line or something like that. It's closer to having a turnover in basketball.
What a strange word...Anyhoo, the more times the football is passed from one player to another the probablility of something really bad happening increases exponentially. Michigan already has an exciting modern offense that takes advantage of speed in space. No need to re-invent the wheel when your coach is the creator of the best new offense in quite some time. As some other posters have mentioned, turnovers kill in football. Last year's ND game was a good example of why holding on to the ball is a good idea. Maybe the highschools in Cali who run that A-11 offense could use this? It might make sense for a small team that has no other viable option for winning.
I thought of a rule change to football that wouldn't work...sorry about taking up space.
It seems like ever since the installment of the spread option at Michigan, we have seen some really neat ideas posted on this site. Pay no attention to the luddites on this board. It seems like every time someone has an interesting idea, they must find some reason why it wont work. They are the offspring from critics to the forward pass.
There is little to no chance of this being used liberally but this would not work because it is extremely lucky to complete, high risk no reward.
Why then is the QB/HB option play so successful? Does it not involve a lateral exchange between a QB and a faster RB? Jackass.
In a typical option play, the pitch is done behind or near the line of scrimmage, there is only one pitch, and it's done at a very predictable time for the halfback.
Pitches down field are much much different than an option pitch. When you are down field, there are more defenders, and they can be anywhere. When you pitch at the beginning of the play, you know where the defenders will be.
When there is only one pitch, and it's done at approx the same time, the HB knows when the ball will be coming his way and he can prepare for it. When teams pitch the ball downfield, there is a much higher chance the intended receiver isn't ready. Also, the QB practices the pitches often. Not all players will be competent pitchers, it makes a difference.
Lastly, the Jackass was completely unnecessary. He didn't attack you in any way.
Yes thank you, I meant that in the respect that an option QB really only has to read the DE (if there is more he is screwed) but it is far easier to read one guy as opposed to eleven. I also agree with the last point - there is a practised maneuver between the QB and HB (or FB if you're into that) that is repeated frequently the same way as opposed to an on the fly play sandlot-style.
As for calling me a jackass, that was entirely unwarranted and ignorant. I am going to cry. Thank you for defending me WolvinLA.
Another thing the QB doesn't have to worry about is a defender chasing down the play as it is taking place behind the line of scrimmage.
Having players shadow others for a lateral is only going to create congestion and increase the chance of a turnover not to mention a skilled offensive player getting his head taken off.
Jackass comment was unnecessary. I apologize.
I accept.
And with all this, don't triple-option offenses still tend to have more fumbles due to the laterals? I was looking for something to back me up on this, but my web search came up empty. I thought for sure Smart Football would have something.
A nice idea, but as others have mentioned, each successive lateral raises the possibility of a turnover. Now, if both sides are utilizing the same playing style, and thus the same relatively probability of turning the ball over (such as when two rugby teams play), the same cannot be said for football. So while UM might be trotting out a very turnover-prone offense, the opposition would likely just run a more conventional, less turnover-prone offense and have a distinct advantage. Sure, you could minimize this difference by employing players with great hands, have shorter routes, perhaps a "sweeper" who follows the play and dives on a loose ball, etc., but I think a rugby-style offense would prove far less productive over the length of a game than other offenses.
That said, I think that teams could employ it in certain situations (they kind of already do with the hook-and-ladder), kind of as a gimmick offensive set similar to those goofy formations teams use during punts or lining up some ineligible receivers on one sideline.
Pitches downfield are dropped a lot. A dropped pitch in Rugby isn't a huge deal, it's like a turnover in soccer, they happen all the time. However, if you have a solid run going in football and you turn the ball over with a dropped pitch, it can have a huge impact on the game.
Although both balls are oval, I think the shape of the ball impacts how reliably you can lateral in football versus rugby. The rugby ball is bigger and more rounded at the edges making them easier to throw and to catch. This is why you almost never see single handed option style pitches that you do in rugby. And plus I don't know since I've never played it, does the offense in rugby move a lot slower than in football?
The shape of the ball is a good point. Also, you're right in that rugby moves more slowly than in football. Football is a game of bursts, there are many breaks, and each play is relatively short. This allows the players to go full speed during the play, as they have a break after it's done.
Rugby players are generally slower than football players too, at least the backs. The fastest player on M's rugby team might be able to keep up with M's linebackers, but not most of them. The backs and receivers would blow him out of the water.
Rugby is played a lot faster than football and, therefore, needs faster players.
Bryan Habana (Wing for recent World Cup winners South Africa and 2007 IRB Player of the Year) had a confirmed 100 m time of 10.2 seconds (the same as Denard). Many of Habana's teammates on South Africa's national team have been clocked in at 10.7 or 10.8. Jonah Lomu (Wing for New Zealand from 1994-2005) is bigger than many backs and has a confirmed 10.8 second 100 m (not Denard fast, but still, fast).
If you compared Michigan's football team to it's rugby team, you would probably find a huge speed differential (it's a club sport, anyone can join), but compare the football team to any southern hemisphere or some northern hemisphere's national U-21 squad, the national squad would probably win out in speed most of the time.
p.s. Something that's always bugged me, people always want to compare forwards in rugby to linemen in football. That's not the case. Forwards are physically and athletically comparable to linebackers, except for Locks (they're more like basketball players). But yes, everyone on the rugby pitch has to be fast because everyone gets the ball.
OK, now you're comparing pro athletes to college, that's not hardly a fair comparison either. So if you used pro football players, almost all of the receivers, RBs, DBs and most LBs can run the times you listed. For example, Kevin Grady is 230 and was running a 10.8 in HS. You don't think the NFL guys are running better than that?
I'm not hating on rugby, or trying to knock it in any way. I'm not saying rugby players are any less athletic than football players. But because of the nature of the game, rugby is played more slowly. Take 2 athletes who are identical in speed. One of them gets a 20 second break every 10 seconds, and gets to rest half the game. The other gets far fewer breaks and needs to run continuously for a long period. Who will be running faster?
not only affects the pitching and the catching... If a lateral is dropped, the more-round shape of the rugby ball is easier to recover because it is less likely to take a weird bounce. A football, if it lands wrong, could go just about anywhere on the bounce, giving the intended receiver less of an advantage in recovering the fumble.
I think the tongan Zephyr with dyed blonde hair (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjNWIXMyTMo) would disagree (he is often in front of me...). re. speed of rugby players (the wingers, 2, are the fastest players, same speed as best WR's). I've play flag against ex-D1 players (at corner) and many of these rugby guys are screaming fast.
But, what made me thought this might work, even in a lower variance setting, is the experience of trying to tackle a guy in space NOT KNOWING IF HE IS GOING TO KEEP THE BALL! At least in flag I know if my guy catches the ball, I gotta stop him, not someone else. In rugby if my guy gets the ball and I run up to get him, quite likely he will pop it L or R to someone running in at speed who will evade his assigned defender by running behind me...beat the fullback (our version of safety) and it's goalline..
I have bigger, slower guys getting around me because I can't commit to rushing in anytime they get the ball. It is maddening... rush in to tackle but perhaps get burned by support runner, or stay back giving my guy more room to juke?
I only posted this because I am jonesing for football like everyone else. Something needs to kill the time. However, I think in some situations 1 or 2 support runners could come in handy, even downfield. Thanks for your posts. I'll probably post later on how to tackle big monsters at speed without getting squashed.
Shoulder pads make it harder to catch pitches. The ball is more likely to take a weird bounce off of padding than when the player is only wearing muscle and a polo.