The huddle is employed by the kicking out team. It forces the opposition to play man on man as otherwise there will be uneven numbers at the fall of the ball should the kicking out team go straight up the guts.

I don't think this is 100% correct. My recollection is that Robert Walls "invented" the huddle with the idea that players would break left or right - but with a designated player to be the target. Other players in the huddle would try to block the opposition to give the designated player a break sufficient enough for him to run into space to be an easy and clear target.

It was successful for a while until coaches worked out a tactic to overcome it...which is that players stand in fixed positions (the zone) rather than trying to play man on man. Because of the zone defence, there is no space for the designated runner to run into. And therein becomes the death of the huddle. Which will happen to us if we keep using it.

Moral of the story: Have more than one set play for kicking out (kicking in?) but make sure the players know which one they are using each time.

Thanks"La Deveena". Unfortunately this is exactly what I thought. So we won't be able to repeatedly use this tactic, unless sides make the fundamental error of "manning up " to try to defend our kickins.

As suggested above, we must employ multiple different tactics ,according to our opponents' response.

Huddles or "clusters" of players can still be employed effectively against zones, not just man-on-man. If you bring a cluster of say 6 players into one back pocket, hit a short target, work the ball through that part of the zone with run and carry, then hopefully break over the top of the zone with the next kick.

Huddles or "clusters" of players can still be employed effectively against zones, not just man-on-man. If you bring a cluster of say 6 players into one back pocket, hit a short target, work the ball through that part of the zone with run and carry, then hopefully break over the top of the zone with the next kick.

And that's the million dollar question. I have no doubts that someone will come up with a game plan to defeat the zone/forward press, I mean, if it (the zone) is the be all and end all, why hasn't it been played since day dot? I have absolutely no doubt the Bailey had the confidence in his ability to be the man that developed the next "thing", but sadly for him, he fell on his sword.

I find it amazing that there are 2 different theories with people's opinions about the huddle. I was always taught to use the huddle when my team were kicking out (which in todays terms would mean we were trying to beat the zone/forward press). It gave you numbers at the ball, and you had to have confidence in your crumbers to make sure they cleared it out of defence. But then, I can see why people think it is done by the opposite team.