Short drop out

[BrissieTiger67]

Whats everyones take on the shortdrop out that has become so popular this year. Not sure why all of a sudden it has been started to be used , id say probably 60-70% of them are short now. For the teams with a good boot and tall wingers , its proving reallly effective from what I've seen. Although as a spectator, its a bit crap when it maybe doesnt go 10 or over the sideline and yet again another stoppage and (except when its the tigers) if the defending team gets the ball back its such a deflating point after a repeat set has been won by attack.

Thoughts? any idea why this year?

 

[Tigerstigerstigers]

Whats everyones take on the shortdrop out that has become so popular this year. Not sure why all of a sudden it has been started to be used , id say probably 60-70% of them are short now. For the teams with a good boot and tall wingers , its proving reallly effective from what I've seen. Although as a spectator, its a bit crap when it maybe doesnt go 10 or over the sideline and yet again another stoppage and (except when its the tigers) if the defending team gets the ball back its such a deflating point after a repeat set has been won by attack.

Thoughts? any idea why this year?

Low percentage play and would like tigers to never do it again . Can’t see the upside . Maybe 1 in 5 you regather, 1 in 5 don’t go 10 meters, 1 in 5 go out on the full and 2 in 5 gives the ball back to the opposition on your try line .

 

[hank37w]

It's taken a few years for NRL coaches to work out that the Walker Brothers really are geniuses. 🤣

 

[earl]

It never seems to work for us so I'd prefer they boot it as far as they can.

 

[Mighty_Tiger]

It’s interesting because if a drop out made 50+ mtrs that was viewed a great outcome

now teams are willing to give a penalty or ball back 15mtrs out for a 20% chance of getting the ball. But if they kick it long often it goes 60-70mtrs on the bounce and they get tackled on halfway. I would smack it long everyday of the week unless chasing points.

 

[426Tlgerland]

Never understand them you 2ant to be at the other end of the field pin the opp down then get the ball back for a crack , not dump it in your own red zone

 

[king_sirro]

Someone on this forum came up with a great idea, apologies as I can't remember who it was. But they suggested a new rule where the team receiving the drop out don't have to wait for the ball to travel 10m. So Matt Burton's drop out last night that didn't go 10 would allow Canberra to run onto the ball and possibly score as the Bulldogs couldn't make a play until Canberra touched it due to it being within the 10m.

I think this would make teams think twice about doing it and provide more opportunities and reward for the team that was able to force a repeat set.

 

[Tiger-ferret]

Someone on this forum came up with a great idea, apologies as I can't remember who it was. But they suggested a new rule where the team receiving the drop out don't have to wait for the ball to travel 10m. So Matt Burton's drop out last night that didn't go 10 would allow Canberra to run onto the ball and possibly score as the Bulldogs couldn't make a play until Canberra touched it due to it being within the 10m.

I think this would make teams think twice about doing it and provide more opportunities and reward for the team that was able to force a repeat set.

Dunno if it would deter because the receiving team gets a penalty and a chance to attack, the kicking team is pretty much already set because they know it wasn’t going ten. Leave it as is and if the kicking team is good enough to get it back so be it.

 

[tig_prmz]

I'm happy with short drop outs because even if they go too long for eg, they get tackles at the 20 and are isolated in the corner. They kick 50m, they get tackled at the 40 in the centre of the field usually, or sometimes 30. A gamble of 20m with a chance of getting posession isn't bad and from what I understand teams like defending at the line more than from the 20 as it's a shorter 10 usually.

The issue I have is that line drop outs are very hard to force with the 7-tackle set, I still hope they change that rule and if you kick dead from opp 20, it shouldn't be 7 tackle set.

 

[Tiger-ferret]

It’s interesting because if a drop out made 50+ mtrs that was viewed a great outcome

now teams are willing to give a penalty or ball back 15mtrs out for a 20% chance of getting the ball. But if they kick it long often it goes 60-70mtrs on the bounce and they get tackled on halfway. I would smack it long everyday of the week unless chasing points.

I reckon it’s sometimes harder to attack starting from the ten with a set defence rather than the team getting a roll up field to set it up? Throw in a chance for a turn over and it adds some excitement.

Tigers just need to find someone who can execute the dropout and we would all love the rule.

 

[Tiger Woods]

Short dropouts are a risky gamble & are mostly used by losing sides racing against the clock
If you are leading why would you wanna go short 💁‍♂️
you would wanna kick it as far as possible & not put unnecessary pressure on your team unless you're desperate & hoping for a miracle
The odds for a short dropout are about a 90% fail so gamble responsibly 😂🤣

 

[Buttface]

Someone on this forum came up with a great idea, apologies as I can't remember who it was. But they suggested a new rule where the team receiving the drop out don't have to wait for the ball to travel 10m. So Matt Burton's drop out last night that didn't go 10 would allow Canberra to run onto the ball and possibly score as the Bulldogs couldn't make a play until Canberra touched it due to it being within the 10m.

I think this would make teams think twice about doing it and provide more opportunities and reward for the team that was able to force a repeat set.

Yeah I was discussing that last night, it’s a great idea.
I cannot take credit for it though.

 

[Buttface]

I wish we could defend against them better, we are terrible at it.

 

[LARDS]

They have obviously worked out the percentages of defending a set starting from say 30m out , the case of long drop out, or 10m out is not much different.
Sides are really good at defending close to the line these days.
So I think it's a good option but only if done right.
Some seem to aim too short. I think they should be aiming at 15 to 20m but with a higher kick.
Obviously not easy but the chance of giving away a penalty is greatly reduced.
If you aim for 10m , half the time you will be short.

 

[jirskyr]

They have obviously worked out the percentages of defending a set starting from say 30m out , the case of long drop out, or 10m out is not much different.
Sides are really good at defending close to the line these days.
So I think it's a good option but only if done right.
Some seem to aim too short. I think they should be aiming at 15 to 20m but with a higher kick.
Obviously not easy but the chance of giving away a penalty is greatly reduced.
If you aim for 10m , half the time you will be short.

This is the main answer for the change in tactics. For the risk of getting the ball back, many teams now back their goal-line defence and it limits the attacking structures that the opposition can employ from short range. Most teams like several set-up plays to disrupt the defence, before shifting wide, and you run out of space for that once you close to 20m.

Second reason is the winger skillset has trended towards tall and jump ability, for both attack and defence, so there are clear targets out wide. There's no way the older block-sized wingers would be as good competing for those kicks, guys from a decade ago like Tuiaki or Vatuvei.

Third reason is your 3 primary objectives are possession, position and pressure. Short kicks give you the risk/reward of #1 and #3 at the expense of #2. The most effective way to wrestle control of a game is to maintain possession and stop the opposition from building pressure. Repeat sets create the most pressure of any situation, so you want to disrupt this however possible.

Lastly, something people don't think much about, but even if you don't get the ball back, the attack usually burns 1 tackle defending the short kick, and now you've pinned them to the corner. They then need to waste another 1-2 tackles to get the ball back towards the centre or to try and strip the defence of numbers. It's basically like kicking to the corners when you are in possession.

 

[old_man_tiger]

They have obviously worked out the percentages of defending a set starting from say 30m out , the case of long drop out, or 10m out is not much different.
Sides are really good at defending close to the line these days.
So I think it's a good option but only if done right.
Some seem to aim too short. I think they should be aiming at 15 to 20m but with a higher kick.
Obviously not easy but the chance of giving away a penalty is greatly reduced.
If you aim for 10m , half the time you will be short.

That's right, attacking inside the 20 can be difficult, and especially inside the 10. It's a great tactic when playing against teams with weak attack (for the example....us)

 

[tiger_one]

This is the main answer for the change in tactics. For the risk of getting the ball back, many teams now back their goal-line defence and it limits the attacking structures that the opposition can employ from short range. Most teams like several set-up plays to disrupt the defence, before shifting wide, and you run out of space for that once you close to 20m.

Second reason is the winger skillset has trended towards tall and jump ability, for both attack and defence, so there are clear targets out wide. There's no way the older block-sized wingers would be as good competing for those kicks, guys from a decade ago like Tuiaki or Vatuvei.

Third reason is your 3 primary objectives are possession, position and pressure. Short kicks give you the risk/reward of #1 and #3 at the expense of #2. The most effective way to wrestle control of a game is to maintain possession and stop the opposition from building pressure. Repeat sets create the most pressure of any situation, so you want to disrupt this however possible.

Lastly, something people don't think much about, but even if you don't get the ball back, the attack usually burns 1 tackle defending the short kick, and now you've pinned them to the corner. They then need to waste another 1-2 tackles to get the ball back towards the centre or to try and strip the defence of numbers. It's basically like kicking to the corners when you are in possession.

Great understanding there.

 

[Tim Sheens]

Generally not fussed either way, except when time is short and needing possession.

 

[Siberian Kitten]

If you usually kick long the other team might leave more players back, giving the short kick more of a chance. Or, if they have players up for the short kick, they leave space to find the ground with a long kick.

Also, the forwards appreciate not having to drag their heavy butts up to halfway and back. As Tiger-Ferret said, sometimes it's easier to defend in the red zone than give the opposition room to break away at speed.

 

[TurnStyle]

Teams do it against the tigers because they know that inside their defensive 20m is the safest place on the field for them to defend from! 🤣

The previous references on here were from a thread where I questioned why teams were doing it and said I felt like I was watching the Ipswich Jets of 2015 (coached by Walker brothers) all over again. Can't remember which thread.