Content uploaded by Wilbur Kraak
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Wilbur Kraak on Apr 11, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rpan20
Download by: [41.114.208.217] Date: 07 April 2017, At: 10:57
International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport
ISSN: 2474-8668 (Print) 1474-8185 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rpan20
Investigation and comparison of lineouts during
the 2013 the rugby championship and six-nations
competition
Luan Franken, Hanno van Vuuren, Wilbur Kraak & Luis Vaz
To cite this article: Luan Franken, Hanno van Vuuren, Wilbur Kraak & Luis Vaz (2017)
Investigation and comparison of lineouts during the 2013 the rugby championship and six-nations
competition, International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport, 17:1-2, 65-76
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/24748668.2017.1303989
Published online: 29 Mar 2017.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 7
View related articles
View Crossmark data
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS IN SPORT, 2017
VOL. 17, NO S. 12, 6576
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/24748668.2017.1303989
Investigation and comparison of lineouts during the 2013 the
rugby championship and six-nations competition
Luan Frankena, Hanno van Vuurena, Wilbur Kraaka and Luis Vazb
aDepartment of Sport Science, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa; bResearch Center in Sports
Sciences, Health and Human Development (CIDESD), University Tras-os -Montes e Alto Douro, Vila Real,
Portugal
ABSTRACT
A successful lineout is a key component of team success in
international rugby and yet there is limited published research on
this topic. Lineouts are seen as a great attacking modality, which
occur to restart play after the ball exits the eld of play. The aim of
the study was to investigate and compare the lineouts during the
2013 The Rugby Championship and Six-Nations Competition. Twenty-
seven matches of the 2013 international season were analysed
using EncodePro video analysis software. Outcome measures were
presented as the mean±s. Cohen’s d eect sizes were calculated,
using the dierence in means over the pooled standard deviation, to
characterise the dierences between the two tournaments. Results
indicated the largest dierence in formation was the average 5- man
lineouts in TRC vs. SNC per match (9.58±3.90 vs. 6.93±3.01) and
7-man (10.42±4.36 vs. 11.60±3.31). The exiting from lineouts yielded
some dierences in TRC and SNC per match with regard to passing
(12.75±4.35 vs. 6.87±2.33) and mauls (5.33±5.53 vs. 6.80±2.81). The
study indicated that most lineouts occurred in Zone B with binding
formation followed by pass being the most utilised formats. Lineouts
should be adapted according to the area of eld in which it occurs to
ensure greater try-scoring opportunities.
1. Introduction
Rugby consistently changes over time due to either technological advances and/or law
changes (Sheridan, 2007). e prole of rugby rarely remains the same, as coaches, refer-
ees and players (Eaves et al., 2008) frequently push it to the limit. e lineout is a set-play;
it is the basis of attack, resulting in 50% of the tries in the 2012 e Rugby Championship
(TRC) (International Rugby Board, 2012). Deutsch et al. (2007) study has identied that
on average 85% of rugby matches are spent in low intensity activities, like lineouts; whereas
the other 15% is spent in higher intensity activities. Hughes and Bartlett (2002) proposed
the use of developing performance proles to describe rugby team patterns using combi-
nations of performance indicators (PIs). Team performance in rugby has typically been
assessed via the comparison of winning and losing teams (Jones et al., 2004; Vaz et al., 2010;
KEYWORDS
Lineouts; performance
indicators; performance
profiles; zonal locations
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 28 November 2016
Accepted2 March 2017
© 2017 Cardiff Metropolitan University
CONTACT Wilbur Kraak kjw@sun.ac.za
66 L. FRANKEN ET AL.
Vaz et al. 2011). According to Eaves and Hughes (2003) to be successful in rugby, it is impor-
tant that the traditional methods of training and preparation must be altered, especially
when changes occur in the demand of the sport.
Lineouts in rugby are crucial to restart play in a quick, safe and fair manner aer the
ball has gone into touch. To start a lineout, at least two players from each team must be
present in-line with where the ball exited the eld of play. e attacking teams as well as
the players from the defending team, stand in a separate line formation, one metre apart
and ve metres from the touchline. e attacking team determines the number of players
that partake in the lineout; however, the defending team can have less players. An attacking
team’s hooker stands in the middle of these rows of players, outside the eld of play and
throws the ball in, in an overhead manner (World Rugby, 2016). Another way of restarting
play aer the ball has gone into touch is by a quick throw in. is can only take place before
the lineout is formed and no one is allowed to touch the ball aer it has gone into touch
(World Rugby, 2016).
A study by Vaz et al. (2010) analysed 64 international matches and found that on aver-
age, winning teams only lost two lineouts per match, whereas losing teams lost three per
match however, this not statistically signicant. By having a higher lineout success rate,
attacking teams will have more point scoring opportunities, and the possibility of winning
the match will increase. Jones et al. (2004) found winning teams to have a higher percentage
success rate (14%) on opposition throw in and converting it into points. Due to the margin
for success in the above mentioned studies being smaller than 15 points, one can see the
importance of lineout success rate.
According to Sayers (2011), lineouts are an excellent try scoring modality, and although
there was a decrease in ve lineouts per match from 2008 to 2012, it became an even
bigger part of teams’ attacking game. In the SNC of 2008, only 24% of the total tries in a
match originated from lineouts. From 2008 to 2012, the number of lineouts decreased,
thus teams made their lineouts more complex in an attempt to ensure lineout possession
to create better try-scoring opportunities. Lineout complexity has increased in the sense
of movement by jumpers; to get in front of the opposition jumper by dynamic and coordi-
nated interception of the ball on its trajectory (Calverley, 2008).Tries that originated from
lineouts in 2012, increased from 24% in 2008 to 33% in the SNC (International Rugby
Board, 2008, 2012).
e International Rugby Board’s (since 2014 known as World Rugby), match analysis
reports of the SNC over the period of 2008 to 2012 showed an average decrease of 28 to
23 lineouts per match (International Rugby Board, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012). e
kicks also revealed a decline by a margin of 11 kicks per match from 2008 to 2012. ese
above mentioned changes are thought to be mainly due to amendments and law changes
(Quarrie, 2009). e decreasing amount of kicks per match also had an enormous eect
on the amount of lineouts per match. With regard to kicking, law 19 ̶ “if a team puts the
ball back into its own 22 and the ball is subsequently kicked directly into touch, there is no
gain in ground” (World Rugby, 2016) was implemented resulting in fewer kicks per match.
A phase (ruck or tackle) or set play (scrum or lineout) has to occur inside the 22-metre
area for the player to kick the ball out directly and gain ground. Based on the theoretical
background, the main objective of the current study was to investigate lineouts during the
2013 e Rugby Championship and Six-Nations Competition.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS IN SPORT 67
2. Methods
2.1. Sample
In this study, video footage of the 2013 e Rugby Championship (n= 12 matches) and
Six-Nations Competition (n=15 matches) were used. Fika, the ocial analyst company of
South-African Rugby Union, supplied all the video footage. ese two tournaments are
considered the major international tournaments in both the northern and southern hem-
isphere, and would therefore provide a good comparison between the two hemispheres.
2.2. Data collection procedure
27 matches were analysed using the EncodePro video analysis soware (v2.99 e). In this
analysis, specic PIs were looked at. Table 1 shows the PIs that were investigated based on
the laws and regulations of the match.
Table 1.Performance indicators and a description.
Performance Indicators Description
Successful lineouts Amount of lineouts won by the attacking team
Unsuccessful: Won by opposition Amount of lineouts won by the defending team
Unsuccessful: Error by attacking team Handling errors
Penalty kick conceded
Free kick conceded
Ball is not thrown straight
Zone location: In which zone on the field the lineout took
place (Figure 1)
Zone A: Attacking area between the 22m line and the
try line
Zone B: Attacking area between the 22m line and the
halfway line
Zone C: Defending area between the 22m line and the
halfway line
Zone D: Defending area between the 22m line and the
try line
Formation: Number of players involve in the lineout 3-man: Three attacking players in the lineout
4-man: Four attacking players in the lineout
5-man: Five attacking players in the lineout
6-man: Six attacking players in the lineout
7-man: Seven attacking players in the lineout
Intended target: Position in the lineout where the thrower
was aiming. Front, middle or back
Front: First third of the 15m area
Middle: Second third of the 15m area
Back: Final third of the 15m area
Action after the lineout: Play directly after the lineout Pass: When the ball carrier passes the ball to a teammate
Kick: When the ball carrier kicks away the possession
To deck: When only the ball or a player carrying the ball
goes directly to ground
To maul: When the ball carrier is held up by an opponent,
with at least one of his teammates binding on him
Pick up & go: When the ball carrier immediately breaks
away from the lineout
Play during lineout: Event in lineout (what the player who
caught the ball does with it)
Off the top: When the player who caught the ball in the
lineout throws the ball to the scrumhalf while still being
held in the air by teammates
Tap-back: When the ball is knocked back in a controlled or
uncontrolled fashion
Over throw: When the thrower throws the ball over the
intended target
Binding formation: When teammates of the player who
caught the ball in the lineout bind onto him
Direct to one: When the ball is thrown to the player who is
standing first in the lineout and has not been lifted
Score originated from lineouts Whether a try was scored as a result of lineout (from
phase play after the lineout or a maul)
68 L. FRANKEN ET AL.
2.3. Reliability
e reliability of the coding was tested by using a re-analysis method (test-retest relia-
bility) for intra-rater reliability (Hughes et al., 2001; James, Mellalieu, & Hollely, 2002).
is method entails that the analyser do a re-analysis of the video material one month
aer the original analysis. For the purpose of this study, the primary researchers re-coded
seven randomly selected matches within a 30-day period. e researchers made use of the
Intraclass Correlation Coecient (ICC) to determine the reliability between the two trials
(Gratton & Jones, 2004). Intra-rater agreement were interpreted as follows: poor (0–.20),
fair (.30–.40), moderate (.50–.60), strong (.70–.80) and almost perfect (>.80) (Liporace et
al., 2012). Analysis showed that the strength of the agreement between all variables was
almost perfect, and thus very agreeable (Table 2).
2.4. Statistical analysis
Microso Excel Data Processing package was used to process the data. Descriptive data was
reported as frequencies (number of observations), percentages, averages and 95% Condent
Intervals (CI) and a signicant level of 5% was applied. Some indicators are expressed as per-
centages, which according to Hughes and Bartlett (2002) provides a more accurate analysis
of team performance. Outcome measures were presented as the mean±s. Cohen’s d eect
sizes (omas, Lochbaum, Landers, & He, 1997) were calculated, using the dierence in
Table 2.Intra-class Correlation Coefficient (ICC) of the coding test-retest.
Lineouts Intended target Formation Actions during the lineout Actions after the lineout
1.00 .97 1.00 .99 .96
Figure 1.Zones for location of lineouts. Source: Adapted from Van Rooyen et al., 2010.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS IN SPORT 69
means over the pooled standard deviation, to characterise the dierences between the two
tournaments. e magnitude of Cohen’s d eect sizes evaluated according to the following
criteria (Hopkins, 2011) as trivial (<.2), small (≥.2 and<.6), moderate (≥.6 and<1.2), large
(≥1.2 and<2.0) and very large (≥2.0).
3. Results
3.1. Overall
Table 3 presents the descriptive statistics and Cohens eect sizes between the two tourna-
ments. During the TRC 296, lineouts were formed at an average of 25 lineouts per match.
e SNC revealed 360 with an average of 24 lineouts per match. e results revealed a
trivial practical signicant dierence (d=.16) when comparing the two competitions. e
study revealed a total of 20 and 10 quick throw-ins during the TRC and SNC, respectively.
e results revealed a moderate practical signicance dierence (d=.87) between the two
tournaments for the number of quick throw-ins.
Table 3.Descriptive statistics and effect sizes for the 2013 The Rugby Championship and Six-Nations
Competition.
Notes: PIs – Performance indicators; TRC – The Rugby Championship, SNC – Six Nations Competition, f – Frequency, SD –
Standard deviation, CI – Confidence Intervals.
PIs
TRC SNC
d-valueF Mean SD CI % f Mean SD CI %
Lineouts 296 24.67 4.98 292–296 360 24.00 3.59 356–360 .16
Zone A 59 4.92 2.11 47–74 20 68 4.53 1.73 55–84 19 .21
Zone B 136 11.33 4.74 119–153 46 165 11.00 3.38 147–184 46 .08
Zone C 65 5.42 2.07 52–80 22 93 6.20 2.93 78–110 26 .31
Zone D 36 3.00 1.71 26–48 12 34 2.27 .88 25–46 9 .58
Successful 245 20.42 3.96 231–256 83 296 19.73 3.59 68–100 82 .19
Unsuccessful:
Won by
opposition
31 2.58 2.27 231–256 10 38 2.53 2.17 5–18 11 .02
Unsuccessful:
Error
20 1.67 .98 13–30 7 26 1.73 1.33 18–37 7 .05
Quick throw-in 20 1.67 1.30 17–20 – 10 .67 1.11 7–10 – .87
3-man 1 .08 .29 0–6 1 2 .13 .35 1–7 1 .16
4-man 33 2.75 1.71 24–45 11 24 1.60 1.64 16–35 6 .72
5-man 115 9.58 3.90 99–132 38 104 6.93 3.01 88–122 29 .80
6-man 25 2.08 1.44 17–36 8 52 3.47 2.43 40–66 15 .70
7-man 125 10.42 4.36 109–142 42 174 11.60 3.31 156–193 49 .32
Front 117 9 .75 3.25 101–134 39 104 6.93 1.58 88–122 29 1.19
Middle 122 1.17 3.49 106–139 41 162 10.80 3.88 144–181 46 .18
Back 60 5.00 2.34 48–75 20 90 6.00 2.73 75–107 25 .41
Off the top 90 7.50 2 .58 75–106 33 89 5.93 2.40 74–106 27 .66
Binding 119 9.92 4.23 103–136 43 163 1.87 4.31 145–182 49 .23
Tap back 39 3.25 2.34 29–52 14 58 3.87 2.92 46–173 17 .24
Overthrow 15 1.25 1.36 9–24 5 20 1.33 1.05 13 – 30 6 .07
Direct to 1 13 1.08 1.16 8–22 5 3 .20 .41 1–9 1 1.10
Pass 153 12.75 4.35 136–170 55 103 6.87 2.33 87–121 31 1.81
To deck 32 2.67 1.87 23–44 12 64 4.27 2.49 51–79 19 .74
Kick 22 1.83 1.59 15–33 8 18 1.20 1.21 11–28 5 .47
To maul 64 5.33 3.52 51–79 23 102 6.80 2.81 86–120 31 .49
Pick up and go 5 .42 .79 2–12 2 46 3.07 1.94 35–60 14 1.78
70 L. FRANKEN ET AL.
3.2. Successful and unsuccessful
The TRC revealed a success rate of 83%, while 17% of the lineouts were unsuccessful.
The SNC, had a success rate of 82%, with 18% unsuccessful lineouts. The study revealed
no practical significant difference between the two tournaments for successful and
unsuccessful lineouts. The lineouts won by the defending team (unsuccessful: won
by the defending team) is presented in Table 3 and revealed no practical significant
difference between the two tournaments. Figure 2 presents the unsuccessful lineouts
due to errors by the attacking team. The knock-on (TRC: 12; SNC: 14) was the most
common error made by the attacking team in both tournaments. No practical signif-
icant difference was revealed for any of the errors made by the attacking team when
comparing the two tournaments.
3.3. Zonal locations
Forty-six per cent of the total lineouts in both competitions was formed in zone B with
no practical signicance dierence between the two tournaments. e study revealed a
small practical signicant dierence for zone A (d=.21), C (d=.31) and D (d=.58).
Zone B presented the largest number of lineouts (47%) in TRC and contributed to the
highest amount of turnovers (13%). In contrast, zone D had the least amount of lin-
eouts (12%) and an 8% turnover rate. Table 4 presents the percentage for each of the
performance indicators. Zone A in the TRC was predominantly a platform for binding
formations (70%) and 7-man (61%) lineout formats. In SNC a dominant occurrence was
7-man lineouts, and zone A contributing to 78% of these lineouts. SNC had the greatest
amount of lineouts in zone B (46%) but had the lower turnover rate (9%). e turnover
statistics revealed the highest turnover rate occurring in zone A (14%). Zone D, during
the SNC, showed the largest numbers of lineouts going to deck (38%) whereas TRC had
a high occurrence of passes in this zone.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Free kick Penalty Knock-on Not straight
3
1
12
4
5
2
14
5
Unsuccesful:Error by the attacking team
TRC
SNC
Number of obersvations (f)
Figure 2.Unsuccessful lineouts due to errors by the attacking team.
Note: TRC – The Rugby Championship, SNC – Six Nations Competition.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS IN SPORT 71
3.4. Formation
During the TRC, the most dominant lineout formation used was the 5- and 7-man. ese
formations were almost similar with regard to frequency 38 and 42%, respectively. When
viewing the amount of 5- and 7–man lineouts together, these two formations contributed
to 80% of all lineouts in TRC. e SNC showed a much larger preference towards 7-man
lineout. As seen in Table 3, the 7-man formation contributed to 49% of the lineouts, whereas
the 5-man (29%) was less called upon. Concerning the comparison, the analysis revealed
that TRC lineout formats were distributed between mainly 5-man and 7-man lineouts
whereas SNC relied more on 7-man formations only. Interestingly, when looking at the
third most opted lineout we see a dierence between TRC and SNC. TRC utilised 4-man
(11%) lineouts more whereas the SNC opted for 6-man (15%) formations depending on eld
position. e results have shown moderate practical signicant dierence for 4 (d=.72), 5
(d=.80), 6-man (d=.70) and a small practical signicant dierence for the 7-man (d=.32)
lineout formations when comparing the two tournaments.
Table 4.Comparison the performance indicators across the different zonal locations for the two com-
petitions.
Note: PI – Performance indicators; f – Frequency; % – percentage.
PI
The rugby championship Six nations championship
Zone A Zone B Zone C Zone D Zone A Zone B Zone C Zone D
f%f%f%f%f%f%f%f%
Success-
ful
52 86.7 111 76.6 54 79.4 28 82.4 56 73.7 137 82 76 80.9 27 77.1
Unsuc-
cessful:
Won by
opposi-
tion
4 6.7 17 37.9 7 10.3 3 29.4 10 13.2 15 9 9 9.6 4 11.4
Unsuc-
cessful:
Error
4 6.7 17 37.9 7 10.3 3 29.4 10 13.2 15 9 9 9.6 4 11.4
3-man 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 6.1
4-man 2 3.3 17 12.5 8 11.8 6 17.6 0 0 10 6.1 4 4.5 10 30.3
5-man 14 23 43 31.6 36 52.9 22 64.7 5 7.2 32 19.4 49 55.1 18 54.5
6-man 8 13.1 12 8.8 3 4.4 2 5.9 10 14.5 32 19.4 9 10.1 1 3
7-man 37 60.6 64 47.1 21 30.9 3 8.8 54 78.3 91 55.2 27 30.3 2 6.1
Front 24 39.3 42 30.9 32 47.1 19 55.9 16 23.2 43 26.1 34 38.2 11 33.3
Middle 23 37.7 60 44.1 27 39.7 12 35.3 31 44.9 78 47.3 39 43.8 14 42.4
Back 14 23 34 25 9 13.2 3 8.8 22 31.9 44 26.7 16 18 8 24.2
Off the
top
9 16.1 53 41.7 21 34.4 7 21.9 6 9.1 51 33.6 25 29.8 7 22.6
Binding 39 69.6 40 31.5 20 32.8 20 62.5 44 66.7 66 43.4 40 47.6 13 41.9
Tap back 2 3.6 23 18.1 10 16.4 4 12.5 11 16.7 26 17.1 16 19 5 16.1
Over-
throw
4 7.1 7 5.5 4 6.6 0 0 5 7.6 6 3.9 3 3.6 6 19.4
Direct
to 1
2 3.6 4 3.1 6 9.8 1 3.1 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 0
Pass 17 30.9 82 69.5 42 60 12 36.4 11 18 61 42.1 26 28.9 5 13.5
To deck 4 7.3 11 9.3 11 15.7 6 18.2 9 14.8 19 13.1 22 24.4 14 37.8
Kick 1 1.8 1 .8 11 15.7 9 27.3 0 0 3 2.1 10 11.1 5 13.5
Maul 30 54.5 23 19.5 6 8.6 5 15.2 32 52.5 43 29.7 22 24.4 5 13.5
Pick up
and go
3 5.5 1 .8 0 0 1 3 9 14.8 19 13.1 10 11.1 8 21.6
72 L. FRANKEN ET AL.
3.5. Intended target
e proposed targets of the lineouts are presented in Table 3, looking at the targets with
regard to TRC, it was apparent that the teams largely targeted the middle (41%) and the
front (39%). e SNC yielded the highest percentage of middle targets (46%) whereas the
back and front target were similar to one another, but had a lower occurrence on average
per match (6±2.73 vs. 6.93±1.58). When comparing these two competitions the results
revealed a moderate practical signicant dierence for the front (d=1.19) and small prac-
tical signicant dierence for the back (d=.41) target.
3.6. Actions during the lineout
On average, the largest number of lineouts in TRC were used as platform for the binding
formation (9.92±4.23). e second most utilised option per game was playing the ball
o the top (7.50±2.58). ese two options alone contributed to 76% of all actions dur-
ing lineout. e SNC opted for a binding formation in almost half of the lineouts (49%);
whereas the number of lineouts played o the top (27%) ranked second. In comparing these
two tournaments a moderate practical signicant dierence was revealed for the binding
formation (d=.66).
3.7. Actions after the lineout
e results of TRC revealed that passing (55%) was predominantly the method of exiting
from a lineout, and this average occurred (12.75±4.35) times per match. On average, the
maul was the second highest option utilised and occurred (5.33±3.52) times per match. SNC
had almost identical amounts of lineouts ending in passing or mauling with (6.87±2.33)
and (6.80±2.81), respectively. TRC predominantly opted for a pass (12.75±4.35) whereas
with SNC teams opted to maul (f=102) together with passes (f=103). With regard to the
actions following the lineout a large practical signicant dierence was revealed for pass
(d=1.81) and pick-up and go (d=1.78).
3.8. Tries from lineouts
A total of 66 tries were scored of which 34 originated from lineouts which contributed to
52% of the total tries scored during the TRC. During the SNC a total of 37 tries were scored
of which 13 originated from lineouts, which contributed, to 35% of the total tries scored
during the SNC.
4. Discussion
e aim of the study was to rstly investigate and compare lineouts in the 2013 e Rugby
Championship and Six-Nations Competition.
4.1. Overall
ese two competitions had similar average amounts of lineouts per match, which could give
teams a gauge of what to prepare for in matches. e teams in competition can select only
specic lineouts to focus on and executing these lineouts with precision during match-play.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS IN SPORT 73
e dierence in amount of quick throw-ins could be because of the dierence tactics used
by the teams in the two competitions.
4.2. Successful vs. unsuccessful
e result of the study has shown an 83% success rate in lineouts, when viewing these two
tournaments. TRC had a marginally higher incidence of lineouts per match compared to the
lower lineout count of the SNC, in spite of SNC kicking more per match. Successful execution
at lineout time led to half of the tries in TRC, thus emphasising the importance of lineout
success. Vaz et al. (2010) also capitalised the importance of lineout success in stating that
winning oppositions lineouts was one of the two factors able to distinguish winning from
losing teams in international rugby. e contrast between the higher amount of lineouts
and the lower try total in the SNC could be indicative of the style of play. is statement
is in agreement with Jones et al. (2004) in stating that there could be a dierence in style
of play between northern and southern hemisphere teams.. When looking at the success
rates of lineouts in each zone we observe TRC had a greater success rate in attacking zone
A which could explain the greater amount of tries.
TRC, thus fully utilised the platform of the lineouts to score tries resulting in a much
higher scoring rate compared to the northern hemisphere. An interesting statistic emerged
that the total number of kicks were not related to the total amount of lineouts. is could
be due to numerous amounts of factors for example, contestable kicks rather than kicks for
touch. Vaz et al. (2010) found that successful teams have a tendency to kick away possession
and successfully defend thereaer. Possible reasons for the changes in lineouts per match, as
well as the amount of tries from lineouts, could be due to the law 19. e law changes that
could have aected the amount of lineouts from 2008 to 2012 are as follows: the “sacking”
of lineouts law as well as “taken-back” into 22-metre area law. For example, the “sacking”
(pulling the player that caught the ball to the ground, before a clear and obvious maul has
formed) of mauls from lineouts became legal in 2009, which led to a decline in push-over
tries.
4.3. Zonal location
e statistics revealed that majority of lineouts were executed in zone B for both TRC and
SNC. In TRC, when looking at each zone individually, we see zone A was predominantly
reserved for 7-man, front and middle ball lineouts, regularly resulting in mauls. Zone B
however varied more between 5- and 7-man lineouts while playing mainly o the top of the
lineout and passing aer lineouts. As we view the defending zones (C and D), we see a trend
of using shorter lineouts with 5- and 4-man lineouts being dominant. In the SNC, we see an
identical trend of using fuller lineouts in the opponent’s half in contrast to shorter lineouts
in the defensive half. Jones et al. (2004) found that the amount of lineouts lost was not as
signicant, but what was rather noteworthy was the area of eld in which the lineout was
lost. e ndings of the study showed that the most lineouts being turned over in Zone B
for TRC and Zone A for the SNC. A possible reason for this could be that defending teams
apply substantial amount of pressure on the opposition lineout in their own half, to prevent
opposition from scoring.
74 L. FRANKEN ET AL.
4.4. Formations
In both tournaments, the results showed preferred lineout formation in the attacking half of
the eld (zone A and B) is the 6- and 7-man formations. A possible reason why teams prefer
these two options in the attacking half of the eld could be that they want as many players
as possible in the lineout, in order to set up an eective maul, and thus draw in as many
defenders as possible in order to create space on the outside. When teams are in their own
half of the eld (zones C and D), the preferred options was to have less players participating
in the lineout. e possible reason for this could be that the team wants players in the chase
lines to apply pressure on the opposition when clearance kicks are being made. e most
prominent formations in these two zones were 4- and 5-man formations. is could possibly
be due to teams wanting more players in the backline, in order to set up a phase of attack to
create a base to kick from, as well as to pull in defending teams’ players to create a mismatch.
4.5. Intended target
e middle was the most used target in both tournaments, with the back being the least uti-
lised target. According to Calverley (2008) the possible mechanism in going for the middle
ball could be due to the opposition focussing only on liing the front players when contesting
in the lineout. In TRC there was much more variety between front and middle balls compared
to the SNC. e back target was used notably less, due to it being the most dicult target
for the throwers as well as the high risk of overthrows. ere is a possibility that weather
conditions, like wind and rain also play a bigger role when throwing at the back target, and
thus teams opt to throw more to the front and middle target (Kraak, Venter, & Coetzee, 2016).
4.6. Actions during lineout
e results of TRC showed a large amount of lineouts being set into a binding formation
in zone A and D. e reasoning for this occurrence could possibly be the use of a driving
maul in an attempt to score points in zone A whereas in zone D, it is a method of relieving
pressure in the defending zone. e SNC used the binding formation more consistently
aer lineouts possibly to occupy the opposition forwards and then passing to backline. e
occurrence of binding could possibly be a safer option in terms of trying to keep possession
due to having less lineouts in SNC compared to TRC.
4.7. Actions after lineout
e results showed that during TRC, passing to exit the lineout was the modality used
during more than half of the all lineouts in the tournament. Passing could possibly be a
mechanism to shi the ball to areas where defence is less clustered. e SNC varied a bit
more by using pass and a maul set up as their favourable exits from a lineout. One of the
reasons why teams opt to exit the lineout with a pass, could be because they want to take the
ball wide immediately aer the lineout. In the SNC, the weather conditions could also play
a role in how teams opt to exit their lineout. In the northern hemisphere, where there are
usually wetter playing conditions, teams may have opted to set up a driving maul instead of
taking the ball wide immediately aer the lineout and taking the risk of knocking the ball
on. Southern hemisphere teams on the other hand could implement a more open-game
approach due to dryer weather and under foot conditions (Kraak et al., 2016).
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS IN SPORT 75
4.8. Tries from lineouts
e greater amount of tries in the TRC could be explained due to the bonus point system
used in the TRC, but not the SNC (Kraak et al., 2016). A bonus point can be obtained when
scoring more than four tries or losing within seven points, which could be a driving factor
behind TRC for scoring more tries as teams will chase an extra bonus point by possibly
kicking the ball out when receiving a penalty in order to set up an attacking lineout. A fur-
ther contribution to less tries from the SNC competitions could be due to better contesting
tactics used by the opposition in zone A.
4.9. Practical application
In modern rugby, teams are appointing specialist lineout coaches to assist with this area
of the game because it is used as a base for try scoring and attacking opportunities. ese
coaches’ in conjunction with performance analysts are tasked to create performance proles
of their own team as well as a preview of the opposition in order to nd out where they can
be exploited. Forwards and specically the players that are doing the line-out calling during
the match should also be allowed to self-analyse their own lineout performance and that of
their opposition lineouts, thus the teams know what to expect from the opposition during
the match. Factors such as opposition main jumpers (attacking and defending lineouts),
dummy jumpers, weather conditions and surface conditions should be taken in consider-
ation when developing performance proles of the opposition.
5. Conclusion
is is the rst study to date that specically focus on the pre-, during and post lineout
performance indicators. A successful lineout is a key component of success at international
rugby and yet there is limited published research on this topic. Lineouts are seen as a great
attacking modality and a base for scoring tries, which occur to restart play aer the ball
exits the eld of play in rugby. e study revealed that in both tournaments, the success rate
of lineouts was similar but the number of tries scored from lineouts varied. us, lineout
success is not directly linked to the amount of tries scored; the focus should be on actions
aer the ball is won. Further research is required in order to determine the contesting
strategies utilised by team during international rugby.
Disclosure statement
No potential conict of interest was reported by the authors.
References
Calverley, M. (2008). Space, the nal frontier - a lineout persepctive. Retrieved from http://www.
frederickrugby.org/safe/lineout.pdf
Deutsch, M. U., Kearney, G. A., & Rehrer, N. J. (2007). Time – Motion analysis of professional rugby
union players during match play. Journal of Sports Sciences, 25, 461–472.
Eaves, S., & Hughes, M. (2003). Patterns of play of international rugby union teams before and aer
the introduction of professional status. International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport, 3,
103–111.
76 L. FRANKEN ET AL.
Eaves, S. J., Lamb, K. L., & Hughes, M. D. (2008). e impact of rule and playing season changes
on time variables in professional rugby league in the United Kingdom. International Journal of
Performance Analysis in Sport, 8, 45–54.
Gratton, C., & Jones, I. (2004). Research methods for sport studies. London: Routledge.
Hopkins, W. G. (2011). A new view of statistics. Retrieved from http://www.sportsci.org/resource/stats
Hughes, M., Evans, S., & Wells, J. (2001). Establishing normative proles in performance analysis.
International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport, 1(1), 1–26.
Hughes, M., & Bartlett, R. (2002). e use of performance indicators in performance analysis. Journal
of Sports Sciences, 20, 739–754.
International Rugby Board (2008). Statistics review and match analysis: Six nations 2008 IRB game
analysis. Dublin: Huguenot House.
International Rugby Board. (2009). Statistics review and match analysis: Six nations 2009 IRB game
analysis. Dublin: Huguenot House.
International Rugby Board. (2010). Statistics review and match analysis: Six nations 2010 IRB game
analysis. Dublin: Huguenot House.
International Rugby Board. (2011). Statistics review and match analysis: Six nations 2011 IRB game
analysis. Dublin: Huguenot House.
International Rugby Board. (2012). Statistics review and match analysis: Six nations 2012 IRB game
analysis. Dublin: Huguenot House.
James, N., Mellalieu, S. D., & Hollely, C. (2002). Analysis of strategies in Soccer as a function of
European and domestic competition. International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport, 2,
85–103.
Jones, N., Mellalieu, S., & James, N. (2004). Team performance indicators as a function of winning
and losing in Rugby union. International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport, 4, 61–71.
Kraak, W. J., Venter, R., & Coetzee, F. (2016). Scoring and general match prole of super Rugby
between 2008 and 2013. International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport, 16, 786–805.
Liporace, F. A., Yoon, R. S., Kubiak, E. N., Parisi, D. M., Koval, K. J., Feldman, D. S., & Egol, K. A.
(2012). Does adding computed tomography change diagnosis and Treatment of tillaux and triplane
pediatric ankle fractures? Orthopedics, 35, 105.
Quarrie, K. L. (2009). An evaluation of the Experimental Law Variations in Air New Zealand Cup
Rugby. New Zealand Rugby Union. Retrieved March 6, 2016, from http://playerwelfare.worldrugby.
org/?documentid=28
Sayers, M. G. L. (2011). Kinematic analysis of lineout throwing in elite international rugby union.
Journal of Sports Science and Medicine, 10, 553–558.
Sheridan, H. (2007). Evaluating technical and technological innovations in sport: Why fair play isn’t
enough. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 31, 179–194.
omas, J. R., Lochbaum, M. R., Landers, D. M., & He, C. (1997). Planning signicant and meaningful
research in exercise science: Estimating sample size. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport,
68, 33–43.
Van Rooyen, M. K., Diedrick, E., & Noakes, T. D. (2010). Ruck frequency as a predictor of success
in the 2007 rugby world cup tournament. International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport,
10, 33–46.
Vaz, L. Van, Rooyen, M., & Sampaio, J. (2010). Rugby game-related statistics that discriminate between
winning and losing teams in IRB and Super twelve close games. Journal of Sport Science and
Medicine, 9, 51–55.
Vaz, L., Mouchet, A., Carreras, D., & Morente, H. (2011). e importance of rugby game-related
statistics to discriminate winners and losers at the elite level competitions in close and balanced
games. International Journal of Performance analysis in sport, 11, 130–141.
World Rugby. (2016). Laws of the game Rugby Union Incorporating the playing charter. Dublin: Ireland.
