This study used notational analysis to examine the effects that different types of defensive pressure have on the breakdown. More specifically, the objectives of the study were to determine: 1.What type of pressure was most successful in producing a turnover. 2.What type of pressure was most likely to result in a penalty. 3.The effect of the advantage line on ruck outcomes. 4.Whether top ranked teams implemented different defensive strategies than lower ranked teams.

1. REFERENCES
1. Melrose, B. Attack ‘without the ball’ – A look at defence.
ARU level III coaching course. 2003.
2. Sasaki, K., et. al. Int. J. Performance Analysis in Sport. 7:
46-53, 2007.
3. Westgate, P. The principles and techniques of defence in
rugby union, 2007. Available at: www.rfu.com
CONCLUSION
Much success in modern Rugby Union can be attributed to
defensive strategies, and regaining possession of the ball. This
study found that there was a trade-off effect between achieving
a positive defensive outcome at the ruck, and giving away a
penalty to the attacking team.
The results show that a jackal player was the most effective
way of achieving a turnover or penalty for the defence at the
breakdown. However, this was a high risk option and was
more likely to give away a penalty than result in a positive
outcome.
In contrast, a cleanout occurring before the ball was won by
the attack at the ruck contest was the only type of pressure that
produced a higher likelihood of achieving a turnover than
conceding a penalty.
Application of the findings suggests that a team can become
more successful when exerting pressure at the breakdown. For
the most effective results, the defence should attempt to shut
down the attack behind the advantage line whenever possible.
This will give them the ability to apply pressure more
frequently, and increase the likelihood of gaining a turnover.
Additionally, it will slow down the opposition’s ball clearance
from the ruck, allowing more time to reset their defensive line
in case the ball is retained by the attacking team. Once this has
been accomplished, a cleanout before the ball is won by the
attack at the ruck contest should be applied as first preference
of pressure. This combination will maximise the likelihood of
a positive outcome whilst minimising the risk of conceding a
penalty.
RESULTSINTRODUCTION
Top Rugby Union coaches attribute much success in the
modern game to defensive strategies, and regaining possession
of the ball (1). Literature shows the importance of turnover
ball at the breakdown as a try scoring platform (2). However,
teams must be careful when exerting pressure at the ruck as
this is where the most penalties are given away (3). Beyond
this, there is little research surrounding the ruck contest in
Rugby Union. In particular, there is a lack of research that
takes a defensive perspective to investigate the effects of
pressure at the breakdown on ruck outcomes.
This study used notational analysis to examine the effects that
different types of defensive pressure have on the breakdown.
More specifically, the objectives of the study were to
determine:
1. What type of pressure was most successful in producing a
turnover.
2. What type of pressure was most likely to result in a penalty.
3. The effect of the advantage line on ruck outcomes.
4. Whether top ranked teams implemented different defensive
strategies than lower ranked teams.
METHODS
Performance analysis was conducted on 13 Super 14 Rugby
Union games involving all teams. Only phases of play and
ruck contests where an advantage line had been established by
a previous breakdown were examined (N=1234). The primary
variables consisted of:
1. Team Rank (final 2010 Super 14 standings)
2. Ruck Outcome (ball retained, turnover, penalty attack,
penalty defence)
3. Advantage Line (equal to, over, behind)
4. Defensive Pressure (none, counter ruck before ball won,
counter ruck after ball won, jackal player)
5. Ruck Clearance Time
Kappa statistics (k =.757) and correlations (r =.909) indicated
a high intra-tester reliability for the coding. Chi Square (χ2)
analysis determined the relationship between defensive
pressure and ruck outcome. ANOVA investigated the effect of
the advantage line on ruck clearance times.
Dave MILLS
DEFENSIVE PRESSURE & THE BREAKDOWN
email: u3018001@uni.canberra.edu.au
Figure 1: Defensive Pressure vs. Ruck Outcome
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
StandardResidual
Defensive Pressure at Ruck
Ball Retained Turnover
Penalty Attack Penalty Defence
Counter Ruck
Before Ball Won
Counter Ruck
After Ball Won
Jackal Player(s)
Chi square analysis indicated a significant relationship between
defensive pressure and ruck outcome. This relationship was only
significant when there was no pressure, or the pressure was applied
before the ball was won by the attack at the ruck contest (χ2 (9) =
2.108, p < .001). Figure 1 shows the changes in ball retention,
turnovers and penalties that occurred for each type of pressure
exerted at the breakdown by the defence.een
Advantage Line
ANOVA determined that the advantage line had a significant impact
on ruck clearance times. (F (3, 1113) = 27.078, p < .001, partial η2 =
.046).
• Ruck clearance times were faster when a phase of play gained
territory over the advantage line (M = 2.5s, SD = 1.9s) in
comparison to equalling (M = 3.3s, SD = 2.4s) or being shut down
behind (M = 3.9s, SD = 2.7s) the advantage line.
• The effect size was small to moderate, with the advantage line
accounting for approximately 5% of the variance in ruck clearance
times.
• Post Hoc analysis indicated that all differences were significant.
A significant relationship was also found between the
advantage line and the frequency of pressure applied at the
breakdown. (χ2 (2) = 37.258, p < 0.001).
• Defending teams exerted pressure at the ruck 56% (SR= 3.6)
of the time when they shut down the attack behind the
advantage line.
• Defending teams were only able to exert pressure 30%
(SR= -3) of the time when the attack made it over the
advantage line.
A significant relationship was observed between the advantage
line and ruck outcome. (χ2 (6) = 20.866, p = .002).
• A turnover was six times more likely to occur (SR= 3.2)
when the defence shut down the attack behind the advantage
line in comparison to over the advantage line.
• A turnover was three times less likely to occur (SR= -2.5)
when the attack made it over the advantage line in comparison
to equalling the advantage line.
Team Rank
No significant differences were discovered between higher
and lower ranked teams in relation to the advantage line,
turnovers, penalties, the frequency of pressure exerted, or in
the choice of pressure exerted.
No Pressure