ELVs 2021-22

[Which Tyler]

https://www.the42.ie/5022-breakdown-law ... 3-Jul2021/

50:22 - expanding from the trial in Aus
goal-line drop-out
Pre-latching in pods - which, of course, was always illegal, it's just that no-one in authority cared
Tightened the law around one-player latches
Sanction any breakdown clearouts that target the lower limbs of defenders - if only they could do the same for clearouts that target the head (it's better,but still a long way from "good")


Exeter and Bath (especially) will need to find a tactic from 5m out

[Raggs]

Interested in how some of these turn out.

The goaline dropout sounds awful. The 50/22 sounds like any turnover in your own half is now going to become a big kick bouncing into touch.

Interested in how the breakdown clearouts thing works.

[Puja]

Interested in how some of these turn out.

The goaline dropout sounds awful. The 50/22 sounds like any turnover in your own half is now going to become a big kick bouncing into touch.

Interested in how the breakdown clearouts thing works.

I really like the goalline drop-out idea. For a start, it's always struck me as stunningly unfair how grounding a ball behind your own tryline gets you 22 metres up the pitch with a long kick to clear while the opposition spooning the ball forward over the line results in you having a pressurised scrum on your own line. Look at the Steward example from last week - Canada would much have preferred the ball going dead and getting a 22, but because Steward knocked it on, they had to reset 5m out and have their props get abused by Genge and Heyes.

I like the idea of all non-try restarts being treated the same. And the fact that it'll hopefully stop teams just settling in for the 1m grind to the line when there's a risk they could be turned over if they get held up is a nice bonus to me.

On the 50:22, if someone can accurately bounce the odd-shaped ball into touch over a distance of 40-odd metres, they deserve the reward. Might see a renaissance of spiral punts to reduce the randomness of the bounce.

Puja

[Digby]

In advance I'm quite content to see all of them. Whether they work in practice, and whether some existing laws actually being applied would be better are different things.

How much the 50/22 limits sides putting resources into attack we'll have to wait and see, that seems the one that could have the most unintended consequences

[Gloskarlos]

I'm meh about the kicking and the drop outs. I read some statistic that the Aus trial for the 50:22 made little difference to how the game was played. Drop outs are just too rugby league for me, fewer scrums I get, but harsh on those tries where there is no sighted 'grounding' that could go either way. Will we see defending teams try to physically take the ball carrier over their own line in a smother to alleviate the Exeter and Sarries continued pressure? interesting tactic.

Targeting the lower limbs - that will be very tricky to police. I'd like to see more of the framework there of what constitutes 'targeting'. A player diving shoulder first into the side of a knee is obvious. A roll where the knee 'could' become trapped? less obvious - I would rather see the roll eliminated. There is going to have to be some incredibly accurate clearing out if the jackal position is strong. Head and shoulders are out of bounds, so are the legs. Can't really target the torso without coming in from the side (I appreciate this also applies to legs) Only option really is to go over the top of the body, but very poor leverage to be gained there. Could be a comeback for the traditional 7 skillset.

[Raggs]

Interested in how some of these turn out.

The goaline dropout sounds awful. The 50/22 sounds like any turnover in your own half is now going to become a big kick bouncing into touch.

Interested in how the breakdown clearouts thing works.

I really like the goalline drop-out idea. For a start, it's always struck me as stunningly unfair how grounding a ball behind your own tryline gets you 22 metres up the pitch with a long kick to clear while the opposition spooning the ball forward over the line results in you having a pressurised scrum on your own line. Look at the Steward example from last week - Canada would much have preferred the ball going dead and getting a 22, but because Steward knocked it on, they had to reset 5m out and have their props get abused by Genge and Heyes.

I like the idea of all non-try restarts being treated the same. And the fact that it'll hopefully stop teams just settling in for the 1m grind to the line when there's a risk they could be turned over if they get held up is a nice bonus to me.

On the 50:22, if someone can accurately bounce the odd-shaped ball into touch over a distance of 40-odd metres, they deserve the reward. Might see a renaissance of spiral punts to reduce the randomness of the bounce.

Puja

In phase play I agree about the 50/22, especially as it will likely lead to at least 2 players being in the backfield at all times. However, if you get a turnover in your half, when the opponents fullback etc are going to be well out of position, it doesn't even need to be that accurate a hoof, since you're not trying to avoid a players positioning.

[Puja]

I'm meh about the kicking and the drop outs. I read some statistic that the Aus trial for the 50:22 made little difference to how the game was played. Drop outs are just too rugby league for me, fewer scrums I get, but harsh on those tries where there is no sighted 'grounding' that could go either way. Will we see defending teams try to physically take the ball carrier over their own line in a smother to alleviate the Exeter and Sarries continued pressure? interesting tactic.

Targeting the lower limbs - that will be very tricky to police. I'd like to see more of the framework there of what constitutes 'targeting'. A player diving shoulder first into the side of a knee is obvious. A roll where the knee 'could' become trapped? less obvious - I would rather see the roll eliminated. There is going to have to be some incredibly accurate clearing out if the jackal position is strong. Head and shoulders are out of bounds, so are the legs. Can't really target the torso without coming in from the side (I appreciate this also applies to legs) Only option really is to go over the top of the body, but very poor leverage to be gained there. Could be a comeback for the traditional 7 skillset.

I think the thing with trialling things in a lower level competition is that you don't necessarily get the full range of effects and consequences. Playing with Australia's 10th choice fly-half sometimes hitting it and sometimes not doesn't require much change, but if you've got someone like George Ford continually pinging you back and getting lineouts in your 22 (and you'd better believe that Leicester will be spamming that tactic like it's the low kick on Street Fighter 2 - an expert tactical kicker, avoiding attacking, rolling maul opportunities? Borthwick says yes), then you're going to have to adapt how you're playing. I'm really intrigued to see how it turns out given a full go.

I don't get the lower limbs ones either. Is there a spate of shoulders into knees? I thought the majority of lower limb injuries in rucks were people getting their foot caught when they're rolled/cleared? You can't remove the roll though - there'd be no ability to stop the jackal whatsoever and it'd lead to further head injuries from clearouts and a return to the 2007 kicking where everyone was scared to have the ball.

I'm surprised that the one from Super Rugby and MLR hasn't been adopted, where a red card is 20 minutes down a man and then you can bring a sub on. I like the idea of that one. Plus, I wish we were getting a trial of the defending scrum-half having to go to the back foot at scrums rather than harrassing the attacking 9 - the idea of that encouraging playing the ball away from scrums is one I'd want to see trialled at the higher level.

Interested in how some of these turn out.

The goaline dropout sounds awful. The 50/22 sounds like any turnover in your own half is now going to become a big kick bouncing into touch.

Interested in how the breakdown clearouts thing works.

On the 50:22, if someone can accurately bounce the odd-shaped ball into touch over a distance of 40-odd metres, they deserve the reward. Might see a renaissance of spiral punts to reduce the randomness of the bounce.

Puja

In phase play I agree about the 50/22, especially as it will likely lead to at least 2 players being in the backfield at all times. However, if you get a turnover in your half, when the opponents fullback etc are going to be well out of position, it doesn't even need to be that accurate a hoof, since you're not trying to avoid a players positioning.

Fair point, although boring teams do tend to kick away turnovers anyway as things stand, to bank territory while the opposition defenders are out of position. I guess it is increasing the incentive for teams to be boring though.

Puja

[Mellsblue]

will be spamming that tactic like it's the low kick on Street Fighter 2
Puja

Enjoyed this.

[Doorzetbornandbred]

Does anyone know if this is coming in across all levels of the game or just the elite end? Hearing different stories tbh.

[Puja]

Does anyone know if this is coming in across all levels of the game or just the elite end? Hearing different stories tbh.

Interesting question. I would assume just the elite end, but I genuinely don't know.

Not that any fly-halves at my level can kick the ball 40m, let alone do it acccurately, but it's a good answer to know. Will ask a couple of people.

ETA - a referee at my club has just said that it's all levels, as it's a world-wide trial.

Puja

[Puja]

will be spamming that tactic like it's the low kick on Street Fighter 2
Puja

Enjoyed this.

I'm glad there was one person who got the reference!

Just imagine if O'Gara was still playing. He was infuriating enough to watch play against your team anyway, cause as soon as Munster/Ireland got ahead, he'd just start pinging kicks over your head and into touch, making you go from deep every time. He'd've been unplayable with a 50:22 rule in place.

Puja

[Timbo]

Does anyone know if this is coming in across all levels of the game or just the elite end? Hearing different stories tbh.

Interesting question. I would assume just the elite end, but I genuinely don't know.

Not that any fly-halves at my level can kick the ball 40m, let alone do it acccurately, but it's a good answer to know. Will ask a couple of people.

ETA - a referee at my club has just said that it's all levels, as it's a world-wide trial.

Puja

I’ve played on pitches at lower levels where the halfway line and the 22 are no more than 15 metres or so apart.

[Magic_sponge]

Interested in how some of these turn out.

The goaline dropout sounds awful. The 50/22 sounds like any turnover in your own half is now going to become a big kick bouncing into touch.

Interested in how the breakdown clearouts thing works.

I really like the goalline drop-out idea. For a start, it's always struck me as stunningly unfair how grounding a ball behind your own tryline gets you 22 metres up the pitch with a long kick to clear while the opposition spooning the ball forward over the line results in you having a pressurised scrum on your own line. Look at the Steward example from last week - Canada would much have preferred the ball going dead and getting a 22, but because Steward knocked it on, they had to reset 5m out and have their props get abused by Genge and Heyes.

I like the idea of all non-try restarts being treated the same. And the fact that it'll hopefully stop teams just settling in for the 1m grind to the line when there's a risk they could be turned over if they get held up is a nice bonus to me.

On the 50:22, if someone can accurately bounce the odd-shaped ball into touch over a distance of 40-odd metres, they deserve the reward. Might see a renaissance of spiral punts to reduce the randomness of the bounce.

Puja

Genuine question out of interest as I'm not sure, as I agree Canada would prefer the drop out in that situation. If the player (Steward) knocks on and then the ball goes dead, should the ref not have 'played advantage' essentially and then given the option? You see that all the time with knock ons into touch where the team choose between lineout or scrum for example.

I like the theory behind the 50/22, just depends whether that theory plays out. It's like the sometimes spoken about idea in cricket to reward more boundary runs in certain areas, e.g. behind the bowler, to incentive the fielding team to put fielders there, thereby opening up the rest of the field. Theoretically higher risk/reward for the batsman and more boundaries overall elsewhere. The 50/22 might put a few checks on the rush defence, if I'm understanding the law correctly.

[Puja]

Interested in how some of these turn out.

The goaline dropout sounds awful. The 50/22 sounds like any turnover in your own half is now going to become a big kick bouncing into touch.

Interested in how the breakdown clearouts thing works.

I really like the goalline drop-out idea. For a start, it's always struck me as stunningly unfair how grounding a ball behind your own tryline gets you 22 metres up the pitch with a long kick to clear while the opposition spooning the ball forward over the line results in you having a pressurised scrum on your own line. Look at the Steward example from last week - Canada would much have preferred the ball going dead and getting a 22, but because Steward knocked it on, they had to reset 5m out and have their props get abused by Genge and Heyes.

I like the idea of all non-try restarts being treated the same. And the fact that it'll hopefully stop teams just settling in for the 1m grind to the line when there's a risk they could be turned over if they get held up is a nice bonus to me.

On the 50:22, if someone can accurately bounce the odd-shaped ball into touch over a distance of 40-odd metres, they deserve the reward. Might see a renaissance of spiral punts to reduce the randomness of the bounce.

Puja

Genuine question out of interest as I'm not sure, as I agree Canada would prefer the drop out in that situation. If the player (Steward) knocks on and then the ball goes dead, should the ref not have 'played advantage' essentially and then given the option? You see that all the time with knock ons into touch where the team choose between lineout or scrum for example.

I like the theory behind the 50/22, just depends whether that theory plays out. It's like the sometimes spoken about idea in cricket to reward more boundary runs in certain areas, e.g. behind the bowler, to incentive the fielding team to put fielders there, thereby opening up the rest of the field. Theoretically higher risk/reward for the batsman and more boundaries overall elsewhere. The 50/22 might put a few checks on the rush defence, if I'm understanding the law correctly.

I've always thought that should be the case, but it doesn't appear that's the case. I've seen a game before where a side was getting absolutely pumped at the scrums and were down to 7 players already and the captain asked the ref, "Can we have the 22 instead?" and the ref told him that no, that wasn't allowed as the knock on came first. Shockingly enough, they then got penalised when the next scrum rolled over the top of them.

Puja

[Digby]

If the ball goes dead there is no concept of advantage

[Cameo]

I really like the goalline drop-out idea. For a start, it's always struck me as stunningly unfair how grounding a ball behind your own tryline gets you 22 metres up the pitch with a long kick to clear while the opposition spooning the ball forward over the line results in you having a pressurised scrum on your own line. Look at the Steward example from last week - Canada would much have preferred the ball going dead and getting a 22, but because Steward knocked it on, they had to reset 5m out and have their props get abused by Genge and Heyes.

I like the idea of all non-try restarts being treated the same. And the fact that it'll hopefully stop teams just settling in for the 1m grind to the line when there's a risk they could be turned over if they get held up is a nice bonus to me.

On the 50:22, if someone can accurately bounce the odd-shaped ball into touch over a distance of 40-odd metres, they deserve the reward. Might see a renaissance of spiral punts to reduce the randomness of the bounce.

Puja

Genuine question out of interest as I'm not sure, as I agree Canada would prefer the drop out in that situation. If the player (Steward) knocks on and then the ball goes dead, should the ref not have 'played advantage' essentially and then given the option? You see that all the time with knock ons into touch where the team choose between lineout or scrum for example.

I like the theory behind the 50/22, just depends whether that theory plays out. It's like the sometimes spoken about idea in cricket to reward more boundary runs in certain areas, e.g. behind the bowler, to incentive the fielding team to put fielders there, thereby opening up the rest of the field. Theoretically higher risk/reward for the batsman and more boundaries overall elsewhere. The 50/22 might put a few checks on the rush defence, if I'm understanding the law correctly.

I've always thought that should be the case, but it doesn't appear that's the case. I've seen a game before where a side was getting absolutely pumped at the scrums and were down to 7 players already and the captain asked the ref, "Can we have the 22 instead?" and the ref told him that no, that wasn't allowed as the knock on came first. Shockingly enough, they then got penalised when the next scrum rolled over the top of them.

Puja

I think I've heard Nigel Owens give it as the rule he'd most like to be changed. Just seems a stupid rule to me - it's the perfect situation where the team who didn't knock on or play it dead should be allowed to pick.

I saw a bit of the Aus trial. There weren't many 50/22s and the two I saw happened in quite random circumstances where I'm not sure they were even going for it. However, it did seem to open up space a bit.

[Cameo]

Torn on the goal line drop outs for held up. I think it's good for genuine held ups but, as someone said, a bit unfair when the ref just isn't sure there is a grounding.

I like the 20 min reds then a replacement too. I get that it reduces the punishment and therefore disencentive, but I think that is outweighed by the fact that it means refs aren't desperately looking for a way not to give a red and ruin the game. That reduces inconsistency too.

[Big D]

The goal line drop out is a horrible rule for held up over the line. It is too big a penalty for attempting to score a try.

Make it a scrum on the 22 or something instead I would be on board but this rule will only benefit the bigger and stronger teams.

[Puja]

The goal line drop out is a horrible rule for held up over the line. It is too big a penalty for attempting to score a try.

Make it a scrum on the 22 or something instead I would be on board but this rule will only benefit the bigger and stronger teams.

I don't know it does benefit the bigger and stronger teams - it disincentivises trying to run through someone to get over the line and incentivises running around. It does feel like too big a penalty for attempting to score a try, but the size of that penalty means that sides are going to avoid the slow setup and rumble around the corner straight into a defender. That then benefits those willing to play the ball quickly and chance their arm, those with skills of footwork, passing, or picking a line, rather than those who can physically outmatch the defenders on the line.

Frankly, I'm interested to see how it plays out. There'll no doubt be an unintended consequence or two that we haven't thought of yet. The timing's interesting, as it's not giving a lot of time for teams to adapt for the new Prem season and I think it'll screw over a good few teams who build their patterns on being slow and efficient near the tryline - Newcastle and Exeter springing immediately to mind.

Puja

[Digby]

Genuine question out of interest as I'm not sure, as I agree Canada would prefer the drop out in that situation. If the player (Steward) knocks on and then the ball goes dead, should the ref not have 'played advantage' essentially and then given the option? You see that all the time with knock ons into touch where the team choose between lineout or scrum for example.

I like the theory behind the 50/22, just depends whether that theory plays out. It's like the sometimes spoken about idea in cricket to reward more boundary runs in certain areas, e.g. behind the bowler, to incentive the fielding team to put fielders there, thereby opening up the rest of the field. Theoretically higher risk/reward for the batsman and more boundaries overall elsewhere. The 50/22 might put a few checks on the rush defence, if I'm understanding the law correctly.

I've always thought that should be the case, but it doesn't appear that's the case. I've seen a game before where a side was getting absolutely pumped at the scrums and were down to 7 players already and the captain asked the ref, "Can we have the 22 instead?" and the ref told him that no, that wasn't allowed as the knock on came first. Shockingly enough, they then got penalised when the next scrum rolled over the top of them.

Puja

I think I've heard Nigel Owens give it as the rule he'd most like to be changed. Just seems a stupid rule to me - it's the perfect situation where the team who didn't knock on or play it dead should be allowed to pick.

I saw a bit of the Aus trial. There weren't many 50/22s and the two I saw happened in quite random circumstances where I'm not sure they were even going for it. However, it did seem to open up space a bit.

Not sure they should get the option of the 22, it's not like they played to the 22 and then there was a technical error. They've got the scrum, and the game allows for contested scrums as a restart (sort of). What might be looked at here is allowing teams to have a free kick on the 5m mark which they can have as a scrum or just tap and go, but getting to advance to the edge of the 22 when you've not played to there is a tad fortunate, I suppose they could look at a drop out from the goal line rather than the 22 and as an alternative to the scrum.

[Digby]

on the held up ruling, I'm not sure it will be a big disincentive to trying to ram the ball home from 5m or less out. but we shall see. there'd be a much bigger deterrent if players going off their feet was pinged, but that's sunlit uplands territory

[Puja]

on the held up ruling, I'm not sure it will be a big disincentive to trying to ram the ball home from 5m or less out. but we shall see. there'd be a much bigger deterrent if players going off their feet was pinged, but that's sunlit uplands territory

Let's not ask for miracles.

Exeter might not have a change of approach, because they're incredibly efficient and don't get held up that often, but if you look at someone like Newcastle, their tries often get held up about 3-4 times and they go again from the scrum. These rules, the attack ends on the first held up. They'd surely have to change their approach?

Puja

[Doorzetbornandbred]

on the held up ruling, I'm not sure it will be a big disincentive to trying to ram the ball home from 5m or less out. but we shall see. there'd be a much bigger deterrent if players going off their feet was pinged, but that's sunlit uplands territory

Let's not ask for miracles.

Exeter might not have a change of approach, because they're incredibly efficient and don't get held up that often, but if you look at someone like Newcastle, their tries often get held up about 3-4 times and they go again from the scrum. These rules, the attack ends on the first held up. They'd surely have to change their approach?

Puja

Not so sure about that Puja re Exeter, you look how they perform it, pretty much nearly always a 2 player pre bound latch to carrier which will be illegal.

[Puja]

on the held up ruling, I'm not sure it will be a big disincentive to trying to ram the ball home from 5m or less out. but we shall see. there'd be a much bigger deterrent if players going off their feet was pinged, but that's sunlit uplands territory

Let's not ask for miracles.

Exeter might not have a change of approach, because they're incredibly efficient and don't get held up that often, but if you look at someone like Newcastle, their tries often get held up about 3-4 times and they go again from the scrum. These rules, the attack ends on the first held up. They'd surely have to change their approach?

Puja

Not so sure about that Puja re Exeter, you look how they perform it, pretty much nearly always a 2 player pre bound latch to carrier which will be illegal.

Will it be consistently enforced though?

Puja

[Digby]

I see you're new to rugby