Laws chat - blockers.

[twitchy]

Austin was saying on the commentary yesterday that the complete clamp down on blockers has inadvertently made the kick chase more dangerous because players are coming in at full speed every time.

What do you reckon?

[Which Tyler]

It should be relatively easy for a researcher to gather the data - but I'd want that data before going into any real detail.
Instinctively, it feels right - competition in the air ought to lead to a more unstable landing, than no competition.

But then, competition for the ball (and not interfering whilst offside) are such a vital part of the game, I think it's one of those that we need to accept. It's not like hitting people in the head, which is not, and never has been a particularly legal part of the game, with relatively new information on the risks involved.
IMO, it's about informed consent - head injuries are a big one, because the information has changed (and they were never legal) - but the risk of jumping in the air and colliding with someone else legally there... haven't changed.
What we do need out of the game is the likes of Sua'ali'i's challenge where he was never in a position to challenge for the ball, and went for it anyway (and was then confused, and asking for coaching when penalised).

[Oakboy]

I thought the change was good when they banned the blockers. But he has a point about the danger of two wingers going flat-out at the ball bringing about automatic head-on collisions. Maybe, it needs a re-think before there is a really serious injury. The snag is that blocking just seems wrong.

Lots of questions - few answers.

[Puja]

It should be relatively easy for a researcher to gather the data - but I'd want that data before going into any real detail.
Instinctively, it feels right - competition in the air ought to lead to a more unstable landing, than no competition.

But then, competition for the ball (and not interfering whilst offside) are such a vital part of the game, I think it's one of those that we need to accept.

You've summed up my feelings exactly. I was worried about the effect of removing blockers, given that it would incentivise the tactic of just booting the ball up in the air, but the situation as it was before was utterly untenable. If we want to reduce the risk, then we need to find some method of disincentivising booting it up in the air as a tactic.

I'm still very much in favour of implementing a ban on kicking within Xm of a ruck or maul (5m feels right, but open to suggestions) - that way any up and under needs to start with a pass, meaning that a) it's less beneficial to the kicking team because the kick starts further back as do the chasers, b) the ball is actually in play. The latter is very important to me, as a box-kick now is basically a set-piece - the ruck collapses, people halfheartedly pretend to bind on (often taking a knee as they do so) and the scrum-half gets to be untouchable, several metres away from any opposition, and get plenty of time to get themselves together, pick their spot, and then restart the game again with an aerial contest. At least if we make people pass before kicking it, there's a chance for something to happen, rather than just being dead ball.

If we're not willing to do that, then there is the option of actually officiating caterpillar rucks. I've seen far too many examples of someone just grabbing a pair of shorts at arm's length and calling that bound on, as well as people going obviously and blatantly to their knees and still being counted as part of the ruck.

Puja

[Captainhaircut]

It 100% suits the players England have so I think it was a brilliant decision to change that law.

[Cameo]

It should be relatively easy for a researcher to gather the data - but I'd want that data before going into any real detail.
Instinctively, it feels right - competition in the air ought to lead to a more unstable landing, than no competition.

But then, competition for the ball (and not interfering whilst offside) are such a vital part of the game, I think it's one of those that we need to accept.

You've summed up my feelings exactly. I was worried about the effect of removing blockers, given that it would incentivise the tactic of just booting the ball up in the air, but the situation as it was before was utterly untenable. If we want to reduce the risk, then we need to find some method of disincentivising booting it up in the air as a tactic.

I'm still very much in favour of implementing a ban on kicking within Xm of a ruck or maul (5m feels right, but open to suggestions) - that way any up and under needs to start with a pass, meaning that a) it's less beneficial to the kicking team because the kick starts further back as do the chasers, b) the ball is actually in play. The latter is very important to me, as a box-kick now is basically a set-piece - the ruck collapses, people halfheartedly pretend to bind on (often taking a knee as they do so) and the scrum-half gets to be untouchable, several metres away from any opposition, and get plenty of time to get themselves together, pick their spot, and then restart the game again with an aerial contest. At least if we make people pass before kicking it, there's a chance for something to happen, rather than just being dead ball.

If we're not willing to do that, then there is the option of actually officiating caterpillar rucks. I've seen far too many examples of someone just grabbing a pair of shorts at arm's length and calling that bound on, as well as people going obviously and blatantly to their knees and still being counted as part of the ruck.

Puja

This.

While at the same time refs:

- tell defenders "that's enough" for trying to disrupt the "ruck"
- penalise defenders if they manage to drive through the ruck if they so much as touch the ground or go near the nine.