RugbyRebels

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/ ... ugby-union

But, hand on heart, how many people watched the first 40 minutes of the kick-heavy Exeter v Leicester game and felt their spirits soaring. For all the vital tactical importance of kicking and territorial gains, protracted “kick tennis” over the heads of two sets of cricked-necked forwards on the halfway line is not going to woo many floating voters.

Only if rugby union has a commercial death wish can it simply shrug and carry on regardless.

This is the reality, isnt it? If we want the game to grow then the product has to be accessible and attractive.

It is, sadly. You’ve got to hope Leicester evolve - not that the signing of Pollard screams expansive rugby - and the likes of Quins, LI, Northampton and Bristol have good seasons. Ford given free reign and moving Sale up the table would also help.
There are also some law changes that would help.

Has the try bonus point been a success? If so, might it be extended to a point every two tries scored after the initial set?

Beyond that, how do you legislate for kicking reduction? A point for running a penalty?

Martin Bayfield suggests that dropping the legal tackle line to the waist would help by making off-loading easier.

Judging the effect of change is a big issue. Rugby always seems to have a traditionalist majority.

Oakboy wrote:Has the try bonus point been a success? If so, might it be extended to a point every two tries scored after the initial set?

Beyond that, how do you legislate for kicking reduction? A point for running a penalty?

Martin Bayfield suggests that dropping the legal tackle line to the waist would help by making off-loading easier.

Judging the effect of change is a big issue. Rugby always seems to have a traditionalist majority.

The other issue with rule changes is that practically every one introduced in the past two years, no matter the intention, has somehow lead to even more kicking. Team strategists and defence coaches are so much quicker to react to them it seems, but the answers always tend to end up at not committing to rucks and hoofing the ball away.

Depends how radical you want to be.
Outlaw the jackal? Mark a kick anywhere in your own half? Denude the rolling maul? No choke tackle, ie scrum to the attacking team?
Thankfully, it isn’t my decision.

Oakboy wrote:Has the try bonus point been a success? If so, might it be extended to a point every two tries scored after the initial set?

Beyond that, how do you legislate for kicking reduction? A point for running a penalty?

Martin Bayfield suggests that dropping the legal tackle line to the waist would help by making off-loading easier.

Judging the effect of change is a big issue. Rugby always seems to have a traditionalist majority.

I am still in favour of banning the box-kick by saying that a ball cannot be kicked within 5m of a ruck, maul, or scrum. The box kick is the easiest kick - the caterpillar and blockers mean that it's rarely very pressured, it's on the gain line and it's a set position and time, so wingers can time their run and be flying at the point they pass the offside line (and frankly, be ahead of the kicker half the time).

Banning the box means that sides can still kick, but they have to a) pass it backwards and lose some ground, b) do it in open, dynamic play, where blockers can't shield the kicker, defenders stand half a chance, and wingers have to react instead of playing it like a static set piece. Sides can and will still kick, but it's higher risk and lower reward, so there'll be less incentive to do so. Plus, it'll kill the interminable build of the caterpillar and the 5-8 seconds after "Okay, use it scrum-half!" that slows everything down.

Plus, if the ball gets into the fly-half's hands, he might have a moment of vision, see something's on, and actually pass it. It's open play - anything might happen. Whereas a box kick is a decision that's already made and cannot change and you could just skip the video ahead 10 seconds without missing anything of import.

Puja

That seems like a very good idea puja.

Puja wrote:I am still in favour of banning the box-kick by saying that a ball cannot be kicked within 5m of a ruck, maul, or scrum. The box kick is the easiest kick - the caterpillar and blockers mean that it's rarely very pressured, it's on the gain line and it's a set position and time, so wingers can time their run and be flying at the point they pass the offside line (and frankly, be ahead of the kicker half the time).

Banning the box means that sides can still kick, but they have to a) pass it backwards and lose some ground, b) do it in open, dynamic play, where blockers can't shield the kicker, defenders stand half a chance, and wingers have to react instead of playing it like a static set piece. Sides can and will still kick, but it's higher risk and lower reward, so there'll be less incentive to do so. Plus, it'll kill the interminable build of the caterpillar and the 5-8 seconds after "Okay, use it scrum-half!" that slows everything down.

Plus, if the ball gets into the fly-half's hands, he might have a moment of vision, see something's on, and actually pass it. It's open play - anything might happen. Whereas a box kick is a decision that's already made and cannot change and you could just skip the video ahead 10 seconds without missing anything of import.

5m, or "ball must be passed (or carried) away from the ruck", even a little pop pass to the SH would steal all his time to prepare himself and for runners to time themselves.

Thing is, box kicks are usually competitive, and shortish. They don't tend to lead to kick tennis, which is where the boredom kicks in for me.

Raggs wrote:Thing is, box kicks are usually competitive, and shortish. They don't tend to lead to kick tennis, which is where the boredom kicks in for me.

Heartily disagree - box-kicks are usually what starts up the kick tennis to my mind. One side decides they've had enough of playing and basically stops the game so they can kick it - this either leads to a contested catch which then turns into a returned box-kick, or a kick not to compete which usually starts up the kick tennis game as the catcher has a run-up but faces an organised defensive line.

I can't recall kick tennis often starting just from open play and it's certainly prolonged by any contested kick being easily reset into another caterpillar and box.

Puja

I have always hated the box kick. It labels the coach and SH as scared to attack with the ball in hand. It labels the FH as unworthy of his true function. It labels forwards as traffic cones.

I’d love to reduce the caterpillar rucks, or those that take so long, but hard to picture box kicks being ruled out. Would also be bizarre for all the scrumhalves that seemingly spend 80% of their time practicing it.

I don’t think the extra bonus thing quite hits the mark either. I like 4 try bonus points but I don’t think a strong kicking game is opposed to scoring tries - the opposite really, it’s the best way to gain good field position.

It’s not like that period where people only kicked penalties. There seemingly just isn’t enough to gain from running the ball most of the time. Doing something about the offside line might help.

I enjoy the skill of a well executed box kick and the ensuing contested catch. I’d ban the caterpillar and the addition of guards once the ruck contest is over thereby making it a more difficult skill to execute and therefore less likely to be the default action.
I just don’t like the idea of dictating when a team can and can’t kick the ball… but if you could, it would be off turnover ball and, to take it further, first phase possession (bar a restart). Nothing pisses me off more than Ben Youngs kicking the ball away after a turnover. Surely there’s rarely a better time to attack with ball in hand.

I could get behind a mark being called anywhere in the catcher’s half, which would also reduce box kicks, but I’m sure there would be myriad unintended consequences. I’d also like the choke tackle to be an attacking scrum regardless of whether it produces more attacking play, but I am inclined to think it would.

While I’m on a role… rolling mauls (no pun intended): one stop only, side ways crabbing is classed as a stop and max 10m gain before “use it”. No doubt, again, there are myriad unintended consequences behind that one.

On this game specifically I think it’s worth pointing out that the amount of kicking was very much an outlier. Over 100 kicks and a prem record. The next highest last weekend was 40 odd.

I think a possible solution worth trying might be to allow the team receiving a kick to be able to call a mark anywhere on the pitch. Gonna think twice about putting up contestable box kicks in your own half if the opposition can call a mark, get everyone behind the ball and start an attack.

Don’t think it’s laws, it’s attitude, and especially attitude to risk and the imperative of winning.

Banquo wrote:Don’t think it’s laws, it’s attitude, and especially attitude to risk and the imperative of winning.

Yep. A tweak here and there would help but if a team has the right mindset the laws allow the game to be played with enterprise, imagination, pace and ambition.

fivepointer wrote:

Banquo wrote:Don’t think it’s laws, it’s attitude, and especially attitude to risk and the imperative of winning.

Yep. A tweak here and there would help but if a team has the right mindset the laws allow the game to be played with enterprise, imagination, pace and ambition.

I’d add ability as well in fairness. Many sides do have to cut their cloth etc. But for me, the great attraction of RU is the myriad of tactics and styles- but that intrinsically creates a bit of barrier to getting to this ‘untapped fan base’

I agree that attitude is fundamental.

But worth pondering on why a team like Chiefs, who kick less than nearly every other team in Europe, decided that their best chance of success last weekend was to kick the leather off it. That’s not how they want to play or have played for the best part of 7 or 8 years now.

Timbo wrote:I agree that attitude is fundamental.

But worth pondering on why a team like Chiefs, who kick less than nearly every other team in Europe, decided that their best chance of success last weekend was to kick the leather off it. That’s not how they want to play or have played for the best part of 7 or 8 years now.

Because they were missing a bunch of key players, had a poor season last time by their standards, had a new head coach, and spotted the success Tigers had in kicking last year? Any or all of these, mebbe; they played mostly keep ball second half tho I thought.

Chiefs are also a good example that not kicking does not automatically equal expansive rugby.

Mellsblue wrote:Chiefs are also a good example that not kicking does not automatically equal expansive rugby.

Yus. Another way of playing.

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Chiefs are also a good example that not kicking does not automatically equal expansive rugby.

Yus. Another way of playing.

At least it is playing the game, as opposed to what Leicester did, which was opt out of playing.

Puja

Bristol tried the pretty stuff. At the start of last season, most pundits predicted they would win the league. Attitude alone might produce some fun games but, unfortunately, it rarely wins competitions as things stand, although Harlequins (arguably) contested that claim once. Big and ugly still stifles most of the time.

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Chiefs are also a good example that not kicking does not automatically equal expansive rugby.

Yus. Another way of playing.

At least it is playing the game, as opposed to what Leicester did, which was opt out of playing.

Puja

Bit reductive. They defended superbly which is still a good part of playing. This reminds me of the nonsense of the critique of Munster playing ‘anti rugby’ when they brought a load of passion and heart and sheer fight, winning games on that alone- over achieving relative to other sides with maybe more individual brilliance. They also had a lot of nous and technique to be fair.

That said, Tigers were dull as shyte.

Oakboy wrote:I have always hated the box kick. It labels the coach and SH as scared to attack with the ball in hand. It labels the FH as unworthy of his true function. It labels forwards as traffic cones.

I think box kicking has a place in the game when it's done well and used as an attacking variation. But I am tired of watching endless box kicks as the only tactical ploy used by some teams, especially when the kicks are poorly done. Even worse is the spectacle of kick tennis when teams just aimlessly hoof the ball up and down the pitch, hoping that the other lot will make a mistake. For me the essence of rugby is running with the ball in hand and attempting to score tries by the use of passing skills, speed, footwork, rugby intelligence etc. (others will see this differently and will be happy just to see their team win by whatever means). This does not negate the use of intelligent kicking, a conservative game plan, strong defence etc. But overall, at the moment, the first inclination of many half backs is to kick the ball (and it's coached) instead of trying to use it creatively in hand. I suppose we will only see a change in this approach when teams playing creative rugby start dominating competitions and winning titles, but unfortunately, that may not happen.