Law Trials

[Which Tyler]

https://www.thetimes.com/article/b20cb233-79d6-4795-be91-d5e1818fe1d6

https://archive.ph/HXw1r

Rugby’s new laws are turning kicking from ugly tactic to art form
End of ‘Dupont’s Law’ will not revive all-action running style of old, but it does encourage quality of kicking over quantity after years of crass strategy

[Puja]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union ... x-kicking/
https://archive.ph/YtOJl

IRB are looking to curb the phalanxes that form around catches by going with an interpretation that blocking doesn't have to include deliberately changing line, but also "obstructing the chaser by slowing down in front of the catcher".

I am of two minds about this. On the one hand, I hate the formation of phalanxes and preventing competition for the ball - it's against what this sport is to remove competition, it's against the spirit of the law on blocking, and it's also dangerous to make a catcher wend their way through a field of defensive bodies that just happened to stop and look at the catcher in a neat wall 2m away from him.

On the other hand, as the article points out, removing the protection for catchers makes high balls and box-kicks a much, much more profitable strategy, almost to the extent of it being foolish to do anything else but spam the box-kick option. It could finally be Ben Spencer's time to shine, although I can't imagine it would do great things for viewing interest.

I would like to take a moment to once again moot my pet solution of banning kicking within 5 (or 10?) metres of the back foot of a breakdown - make them pass the ball at least once and force the kicker and all chasers back 5m behind the gainline, rather than 1m ahead as it usually is with offside chasers right now. Don't know if it would work, but I do know I would like to see it trialled. The caterpillar and box-kick has become a 4th set-piece, with the game stopping entirely until the 9 is ready to restart the game, and it's a lazy, default option.


Either way, this is a much bigger change than the IRB seem to think it is by introducing it as "an interpretation" the week before the first internationals start.

Puja

[Puja]

https://www.thetimes.com/article/b20cb233-79d6-4795-be91-d5e1818fe1d6

https://archive.ph/HXw1r

Rugby’s new laws are turning kicking from ugly tactic to art form
End of ‘Dupont’s Law’ will not revive all-action running style of old, but it does encourage quality of kicking over quantity after years of crass strategy

I had thought I'd replied to this at the time, but clearly not.

I'm alarmed to find that I agree with Stuart Barnes (wonder who he plagiarised this opinion from?) - Dupont's Law has definitely been a net positive for the game in the Premiership and has increased the number of players looking for options other than an aimless kick, as well as opening up more opportunities for counter-attackers. It does need to continue to be refereed harshly in order to keep its efficacy though - I haven't seen as many calls of late and there are definitely still some lazy people loping about in midfield.

I was slightly alarmed by it coming down to the Counties 3 Tribute Dorset and Wilts Central level though. After the first Prem game of the season, when Northampton got pinged off the park for not retreating with enough gusto, we had a referee who threatened pre-match to enforce the law with the same zeal. After the first time we were given a verbal warning about not retreating fast enough, us larger gentlemen in the forwards had to have a quiet word with the fly-half to inform him of the consequences to him personally if he kept kicking the ball away while we were all 30m in front of him.

Puja

[FKAS]

Puja, squad alignment on kicking strategy is important.

Personally I'd like two changes to the laws. The first is that no additional players can enter the ruck after sir calls use it. Refs are then instructed to do this as soon as the ball is available. This should stop the construction of the caterpillar at the back of the ruck.

Secondly, no player must be in front of a landing kicked ball unless they are making an active attempt to reclaim it. So you can still effectively block but you've got to be seen to make some attempt to catch the ball. Will stop the wall of forwards trotting back making no effort to claim the ball.

[Puja]

Secondly, no player must be in front of a landing kicked ball unless they are making an active attempt to reclaim it. So you can still effectively block but you've got to be seen to make some attempt to catch the ball. Will stop the wall of forwards trotting back making no effort to claim the ball.

I agree with you in general, but how would you stop box-kicking from just becoming the most viable tactic and the game going back to 2007 in that case?

Puja

[FKAS]

Secondly, no player must be in front of a landing kicked ball unless they are making an active attempt to reclaim it. So you can still effectively block but you've got to be seen to make some attempt to catch the ball. Will stop the wall of forwards trotting back making no effort to claim the ball.

I agree with you in general, but how would you stop box-kicking from just becoming the most viable tactic and the game going back to 2007 in that case?

Puja

Via the first law adjustment. No one can enter the breakdown after sir calls use it. Effectively creates no caterpillar at the breakdown. Suddenly the scrum halfs have got to be quick to kick before the defence is set or be kicking under a lot of pressure. Makes the box kick a quicker and more interesting spectacle both in terms of the kick and the catch then.

[Puja]

This weekend was the first test of the 20 minutes red card and I have to say I liked it a lot more than I expected to. It would've felt very unfair for Fiji and Scotland to play out the majority of their games with 14 men after an early red card and it would've likely ruined both matches. I don't know that the team impact for a dangerous play red card is acting as a deterrent to change player behaviour, whereas it is a proven turn-off for viewers, which rugby can't afford to lose. Better to throw the book at offenders after the game as a deterrent.

This goes doubly true, because the Scott Cummings red card was an absolute nonsense:



What the shit is that? How is that a red card? I get that the law is designed to protect players' lower limbs and I am fully in favour of penalising players targetting knees or doing proper croc rolls, but that looked like a normal clearout, where he just happened to end up landing on Mostert's legs (and, even if you're claiming it's illegal play, surely mitigated by the number 9 getting up underneath him and knocking his feet out as he drives through, or by Darge clearing out from the other side?). I couldn't see any twisting or sideways movement there - just a player going north to south through the ruck and unluckily landing on the rucked player's leg.

That's one where I'm thrilled that it was a 20 minute red card rather than a 70 minute one, cause that would've been a massive miscarriage of justice had it been otherwise. And yet another case of the bunker failing to make a just decision, despite having 10 minutes to sit and do so. I was in favour of the bunker when it was launched, but right now it's failing miserably to improve refereeing standards.

Puja

[Oakboy]

I could not see foul play in the Cummings incident, no matter how often it was replayed. That aside, I agree with the 20 minute red in principle. It needs time to settle before coming to long-term conclusions, I suppose.

[Puja]

New Law Trials announced! Will be used in any competitions/leagues starting after 1 January 2025 (so presumably in the 6N, even while not in the Prem, which is confusing...)

Full text is here: https://passport.world.rugby/laws-of-th ... uary-2025/ and IRB's summary is here: https://www.world.rugby/news/971990/law ... l-go-ahead

I am unbothered about the timers for lineouts - I don't see it being enforced properly for scrums, so I've got little faith, but the reduction in conversion time from 90s to 60s is sensible, especially with the recent change saying you don't have to use the same ball that was used to score the try. Ambivalent about the not straight only counting at contested lineout - I like it encouraging teams to jump, instead of just staying down and defending, but it feels like devaluing a core skill. Mind, my throwing's not always the straightest, so it might benefit me at my level.

The bit that I am excited about is "Cleaner play away from the ruck/maul/scrum". Now, if you are part of a ruck or a maul, you cannot play an opponent who is attempting to play the ball away, and at scrums, the defending 9 cannot advance beyond the centre line of the tunnel. It is removing the skill of being a niggly little shit and snagging the 9's arm as he goes to pass away, which is sad because it is fun when it's your team that does it, but removing it is a massive encouragement to attacking and faster play. This is especially true off scrums - how many more back row moves and passes away from the scrum will we see when the defending 9 isn't grinding against the backside of the attacking 9 trying to interfere?

All things told - good work, IRB! For what little it's worth, I approve.

Puja