Off-side law key to NZ v Aus clash

Marshall and Spencer seek protection

Despite having the most potent backline in world rugby, New Zealand have managed only two tries in two Tests - less than either of the teams below them in the Tri-Nations table. Why?

According to their half-backs, it is because defences are coming at them from off-side positions.

"Against South Africa, [their backs] were off-side. It was blatantly obvious for everyone to see," moaned No.9 Justin Marshall on arrival in Sydney on Tuesday.

"Good luck to them, they got away with it - the officials didn't see it."

Both Marshall and fly-half Carlos Spencer hinted that they have new tricks up their sleeve that will allow them to deal with the problem should they find themselves under the cosh against the Wallabies on Saturday night.

But the questions posed by Marshall's statement remain unanswered. Is he right? Were the Springboks off-side? Will Australia be able to use the same tactics? And have the officials actually being missing something major?

The key to deciding whether the Bok defence was off-side lies in the thin line that separates a tackle and any ensuing ruck.

Frequently on Saturday, the only defending Bok actually committed to the 'ruck' was the tackler himself. Except for that man, the SA defence preferred to stand off and string across the pitch, while a couple of token All Black forwards stepped over the tackled player and his tackler.

In that moment, neither a ruck nor a maul was formed, as the tackler had no supporting player joining him, and so therefore the defence was free to be wherever it chose because it was still open play. The moment a second defender joined at the point of the tackle, a ruck was formed, and the defence had to retreat.

So to prevent Spencer getting the space that he needs to show off his considerable talents, it would seem that all the opposition needs to do is to get streetwise and stand off at the tackle.

"It's a risky game to defend like this - but it's perfectly legal," former Test referee André Watson told this website.

"This is how the Crusaders won the Super 12 final against the Brumbies in 2000.

"They had only 30 percent of the possession, but they asked before the game if this tactic of standing off at the tackle was legal. They kept on hitting the Brumbies back, and were rarely off-side.

"Another thing people forget is that the defence can advance as soon as the No.9 puts his hands on the ball.

"The referee might give him a couple of seconds leeway if he has to physically dig the ball out from under bodies, but a sharp defence will start sprinting as soon as he touches it to play." 

So yes, Australia can, and may well, use the same defensive tactics - but the danger is that the All Black forwards could also get streetwise.

Instead of two or three supporting forwards stepping over the ball, the New Zealand supporting players could simply pick and drive until the defence has no choice but to form a ruck or maul in order to halt the forward momentum. Then Marshall can spin it to Spencer moving forward into acres of space - and the defence must then be behind the back foot.

So will the Australians hold back? And if so, will the All Blacks wise up and get their forward to take it on further up front? Whichever way the result goes, the off-side 'trap' is sure to play a crucial part in Saturday night's proceedings.

By Danny Stephens