the new proposed 50:22 rule

[MylesNaGapoleen]

One proposal that has gained traction has been borrowed from Rugby League and rewards kicking to touch.

If a player kicks from their own half and the ball bounces into touch inside the opposition 22 the team of the kicker is awarded the lineout throw and potentially a dangerous attacking platform. Currently the rules award the throw to the defending team.

The theory is that sides will have to drop wingers into the backfield to cover the kicks to touch with the scrumhalf also having to fill in the midfield area behind the defence to cover balls kicked over the defensive line. The idea is to take players out of the defensive line to provide more space for attacking rugby and possibly reduce the number of collisions.

https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/ ... -1.3834446

Not so sure about this....

Won't it lead to more ping pong...and lineouts followed by rolling mauls as a result?

[FLIP]

If they want more exciting attacking rugby, they need to do the following which involves no rule changes

1 - Actually police offside, swimming up the side of mauls, and rolling away from the tackle. Equally.
2 - Actually penalise repeat offences with yellow cards. If an offence warrants a red, don't palm off the decision onto the citing commission. How often do we see foul play which takes a player out of the game be cited after the fact, but for the duration of the game at hand they don't suffer any more disadvantage than a yellow?
3 - Employ referees who actually understand scrums to prevent the messing around seen there.
4 - Go back to refereeing based on equality of application of the laws, not based on impressions, reputations, and the occasion at hand. Especially don't give teams favourable outcomes in refereeing based on past "injustices" - how long have Wales had favour due to Warbutons red card, or New Zealand for the Michalak forward pass?

[fourthirtythree]

Yes. I can't see why it wouldn't. Three kick strategies to get wingers out of position to get your maul try.

[LeRouxIsPHat]

I don't think it'll work but I do think it's worth trialing it, although there are plenty of other things they should be doing first IMO. I think it'll lead to a lot of kicks being booted straight down the pitch towards the posts because the two guys hanging back will need to stay close to the side. So they'll just kick it out and you'll get a lineout well inside the opposition half anyway.

I find the timing of it strange too. I'd have thought that the amount of kicking we saw from England against ourselves and France would make people want to reduce the amount of kicking, in fact I think those games could be a big problem going forward, especially the French one. I know the idea is that there'll be more space for people to play ball but in reality they're giving an incentive to kick as much as an incentive to move the ball.

I'm honestly not sure if they've factored in a little thing called weather. If it's lashing rain then there'll be a massive incentive to kick for position. Also if you build a small lead against a good team then wouldn't you just control it by booting the ball away?

[The Doc]

2 - Actually penalise repeat offences with yellow cards. If an offence warrants a red, don't palm off the decision onto the citing commission. How often do we see foul play which takes a player out of the game be cited after the fact, but for the duration of the game at hand they don't suffer any more disadvantage than a yellow?

One of the other things being discussed is that when a player is sin-binned, the citing commissioner can review the tape and upgrade to a red during the 10 mins

[The Doc]

One proposal that has gained traction has been borrowed from Rugby League and rewards kicking to touch.

If a player kicks from their own half and the ball bounces into touch inside the opposition 22 the team of the kicker is awarded the lineout throw and potentially a dangerous attacking platform. Currently the rules award the throw to the defending team.

The theory is that sides will have to drop wingers into the backfield to cover the kicks to touch with the scrumhalf also having to fill in the midfield area behind the defence to cover balls kicked over the defensive line. The idea is to take players out of the defensive line to provide more space for attacking rugby and possibly reduce the number of collisions.

https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/ ... -1.3834446

Not so sure about this....

Won't it lead to more ping pong...and lineouts followed by rolling mauls as a result?

You'd have to defend it by having 2 back covering both sides rather than 1 - remember, it isn't for balls kicked straight into touch. So the defending team should reasonably be able to reach the ball before it goes into touch in most cases. But will leave them exposed in the main defensive line.

It would certainly make it more tactical as teams try to bluff whether they are running or kicking - or what defensive shape they are taking

[dropkick]

I think its a good idea. The theory looks sound.


I don't think there'll be too many more kicks. Its hard to make that kick usually. If there are more kicks teams will adjust. They'll put another man back and one less in the defensive line will result in more counter attacking opportunities.


If it doesn't result in taking extra defenders from the defensive line then it should result in more space to kick into so an extra attacking option.


Its worth trying and would be interesting to see from a tactical point of view.

[The Doc]

I think its a good idea. The theory looks sound.


I don't think there'll be too many more kicks. Its hard to make that kick usually. If there are more kicks teams will adjust. They'll put another man back and one less in the defensive line will result in more counter attacking opportunities.


If it doesn't result in taking extra defenders from the defensive line then it should result in more space to kick into so an extra attacking option.


Its worth trying and would be interesting to see from a tactical point of view.

I'd say ROG is half thinking of making a comeback though ... he's probably one of the few players who would have the level of accuracy, range and deception on his kicks that could make full use of it

[LeRouxIsPHat]

I really don't think that's how it would operate, very little ground to find near the touchline if there are two players back.

It could change how a back three works/is selected. You could have the ten dropping back every time you don't have the ball, and wingers like Nadolo might be redundant.

[MylesNaGapoleen]

I think its a good idea. The theory looks sound.


I don't think there'll be too many more kicks. Its hard to make that kick usually. If there are more kicks teams will adjust. They'll put another man back and one less in the defensive line will result in more counter attacking opportunities.


If it doesn't result in taking extra defenders from the defensive line then it should result in more space to kick into so an extra attacking option.


Its worth trying and would be interesting to see from a tactical point of view.

Worth trying I suppose but...here is my reasons not to run with it.

1. Why attack from your own half if you can simply kick it into the opposition 22 and get a lineout if ROG type guys are on your team? Attacks from deep are one of the most entertaining sides of rugby....for me, anyway.
2. Rugby is (usually) a wet weather sport played in winter (often windy) which lends it self for teams kicking the leather off the ball in the hope of getting a lineout and gain yards quickly. That will increase, not decrease kicks imo.
3. Can you imagine the amount of TMOs needed to see if a ball touched a line or bounce out on the full? It is a huge yardage gain or lost based on small margins. For internationals with lots of cameras, that could work but In most rugby clubs, you can barely see the touchline in a lot of cases. And the touch judges at smaller clubs are usually fat forty year old farts like me who have been dragged out of the club bar to man the line.

I can see the logic that kicking downfield for a 50:22 carries the risk of gifting the opposition lots of time and space to respond with same and I see your points about extra space, but, am just not convinced.

[Peg Leg]

I think its a good idea. The theory looks sound.


I don't think there'll be too many more kicks. Its hard to make that kick usually. If there are more kicks teams will adjust. They'll put another man back and one less in the defensive line will result in more counter attacking opportunities.


If it doesn't result in taking extra defenders from the defensive line then it should result in more space to kick into so an extra attacking option.


Its worth trying and would be interesting to see from a tactical point of view.

Munster man supports rule change that rewards kicking to the corners? Im in shock.
What's that I hear you say... you always rated Ross Byrne as a better talent than Joey Carbury?

We'll have to barricade the M7 if we're to have any chance of keeping Ross Byrne when this passes.

[Peg Leg]

2 - Actually penalise repeat offences with yellow cards. If an offence warrants a red, don't palm off the decision onto the citing commission. How often do we see foul play which takes a player out of the game be cited after the fact, but for the duration of the game at hand they don't suffer any more disadvantage than a yellow?

One of the other things being discussed is that when a player is sin-binned, the citing commissioner can review the tape and upgrade to a red during the 10 mins

I believe this is being trialled in mega-city 1 at the moment.

[dropkick]

I think its a good idea. The theory looks sound.


I don't think there'll be too many more kicks. Its hard to make that kick usually. If there are more kicks teams will adjust. They'll put another man back and one less in the defensive line will result in more counter attacking opportunities.


If it doesn't result in taking extra defenders from the defensive line then it should result in more space to kick into so an extra attacking option.


Its worth trying and would be interesting to see from a tactical point of view.

I'd say ROG is half thinking of making a comeback though ... he's probably one of the few players who would have the level of accuracy, range and deception on his kicks that could make full use of it

Indeed. I don't think many players will be able to take advantage of it.

[dropkick]

I think its a good idea. The theory looks sound.


I don't think there'll be too many more kicks. Its hard to make that kick usually. If there are more kicks teams will adjust. They'll put another man back and one less in the defensive line will result in more counter attacking opportunities.


If it doesn't result in taking extra defenders from the defensive line then it should result in more space to kick into so an extra attacking option.


Its worth trying and would be interesting to see from a tactical point of view.

Munster man supports rule change that rewards kicking to the corners? Im in shock.
What's that I hear you say... you always rated Ross Byrne as a better talent than Joey Carbury?

We'll have to barricade the M7 if we're to have any chance of keeping Ross Byrne when this passes.

We're all for innovation down in Munster.

[dropkick]

I think its a good idea. The theory looks sound.


I don't think there'll be too many more kicks. Its hard to make that kick usually. If there are more kicks teams will adjust. They'll put another man back and one less in the defensive line will result in more counter attacking opportunities.


If it doesn't result in taking extra defenders from the defensive line then it should result in more space to kick into so an extra attacking option.


Its worth trying and would be interesting to see from a tactical point of view.

Worth trying I suppose but...here is my reasons not to run with it.

1. Why attack from your own half if you can simply kick it into the opposition 22 and get a lineout if ROG type guys are on your team? Attacks from deep are one of the most entertaining sides of rugby....for me, anyway.
2. Rugby is (usually) a wet weather sport played in winter (often windy) which lends it self for teams kicking the leather off the ball in the hope of getting a lineout and gain yards quickly. That will increase, not decrease kicks imo.
3. Can you imagine the amount of TMOs needed to see if a ball touched a line or bounce out on the full? It is a huge yardage gain or lost based on small margins. For internationals with lots of cameras, that could work but In most rugby clubs, you can barely see the touchline in a lot of cases. And the touch judges at smaller clubs are usually fat forty year old farts like me who have been dragged out of the club bar to man the line.

I can see the logic that kicking downfield for a 50:22 carries the risk of gifting the opposition lots of time and space to respond with same and I see your points about extra space, but, am just not convinced.

I don't think too many players would be able to take advantage of it. I just see it as an extra attacking option and it makes things a bit harder for the defence.


If a team picks a kicking 10 to go for it then they're depriving themselves of attacking (the fewer numbers in the defensive line) out wide and if they mess up the kick they're will be more numbers waiting to counter attack.

[kermischocolate]

If they want more exciting attacking rugby, they need to do the following which involves no rule changes

1 - Actually police offside, swimming up the side of mauls, and rolling away from the tackle. Equally.
2 - Actually penalise repeat offences with yellow cards. If an offence warrants a red, don't palm off the decision onto the citing commission. How often do we see foul play which takes a player out of the game be cited after the fact, but for the duration of the game at hand they don't suffer any more disadvantage than a yellow?
3 - Employ referees who actually understand scrums to prevent the messing around seen there.
4 - Go back to refereeing based on equality of application of the laws, not based on impressions, reputations, and the occasion at hand. Especially don't give teams favourable outcomes in refereeing based on past "injustices" - how long have Wales had favour due to Warbutons red card, or New Zealand for the Michalak forward pass?

A thousand times this.