By Elgar
#11825
Would be interested to see it trialled.

More attacking than defensive lineouts could make the game more interesting.

But wouldn't be surprised if it leads to more kicking and less variation.
User avatar
By MikeGC
#11826
dinogyro wrote:
Tue Mar 31, 2020 11:39 am
Anyone got any thoughts on this one?
.
I might be being a bit daft but I can’t find the detail behind this suggestion.
Do you have a link, please ?
.
By chris1850
#11833
Bound to lead to a big increase in rolling mauls from the lineout. With these being so difficult to defend (legally) these days, I am not sure I would be in favour
User avatar
By poyntonshark
#11834
It was apparently trialled in Australian National Rugby Championship. I haven't seen any results from that trial. What I have heard from League is that the kick is relatively difficult to get right so not overly used. Whilst I share Chris1850's fear that this could result in an overuse of the rolling maul, equally, the extra space afforded by defenders dropping back to prevent attempted kicks going to touch could see more running rugby attempted.
The reasoning behind the move is to lessen massive blokes smashing into other massive blokes, which should be a good thing from both a player welfare viewpoint and an entertainment viewpoint. Whether this move actually achieves that is as yet unknown. Worth looking at I think though.
By Litzy Cole
#11855
I think it is worth a try. If less players are in the defensive line, we should see more line breaks. It's not the actual kick, more the threat of the kick that should create space.

I wonder if the RFU could set up a couple of Premiership clubs in 'friendlies' at some point to try it at top level?
By Van Cannonball
#11861
A completely pointless change for me. Players already have the option to kick in behind a defensive line to keep it honest, something I don’t think is done enough as it stands with chips or cross kicks.
By DaveAitch
#11886
It strikes me that too many law changes are brought in solely to combat the effects that a previous law change has had. I doubt the 50:22 proposal will make much difference. That said, if we see fewer box kicks it will be a good move.

Of all the laws, the simplest to administer is the not-straight at the scrum. That, however, is studiously ignored by the powers-that-be. It does make one wonder why they bother having the law in the first place. If the scrum were properly policed (i.e. ball in straight, hookers to hook) there would be less need for the huge front rows and more for those with a skill set to win the ball in a proper contest.
By ageinghoody
#11894
In terms of reducing the impact of collisions I'd think reducing the number of substitutions would be significant. Maybe even only allowing them for injuries, apart from temporary replacements such as blood or HIA.

If the norm was that all players should expect to play 80 minutes, wouldn't the emphasis turn away from the bulk for bulk's sake that's prevailed over the last few years?
wrinklieshark, poyntonshark, SimonG and 1 others liked this
User avatar
By Yareet
#11896
ageinghoody wrote:
Sat Apr 04, 2020 5:52 pm
In terms of reducing the impact of collisions I'd think reducing the number of substitutions would be significant. Maybe even only allowing them for injuries, apart from temporary replacements such as blood or HIA.

If the norm was that all players should expect to play 80 minutes, wouldn't the emphasis turn away from the bulk for bulk's sake that's prevailed over the last few years?
To be controversial for a second, whilst it’s obvious that players have got bigger since professionalism, can anybody give me any evidence that this is “for bulk’s sake”?

For me that would mean that the skill levels have dropped which I can’t say I’ve seen.

Given that professional players have more time to train, it is natural that some will become bigger but there is still plenty of opportunity for the smaller player.

Two of South Africa’s standout players on their way to winning the World Cup were Faf (5’ 7.5”, 88kg) and Kolbe (5’ 7”, 77kg).
By ageinghoody
#11904
I suppose I was thinking more in terms of bulking up having been prioritised over durability, in the sense of being able to carry that weight for a full match.
User avatar
By Yareet
#11905
ageinghoody wrote:
Sun Apr 05, 2020 7:13 pm
I suppose I was thinking more in terms of bulking up having been prioritised over durability, in the sense of being able to carry that weight for a full match.
I firmly believe that most players can last 80 - they need to in case of injuries. Harrison is a great example.

However the changes have been tactical; if you can change players as their performance drops off (even if only by a little), you will.

To equate that to the lowly level I play at, when there are rolling subs, the front rows are switched often. When it’s straight substitutions, the same players will play a full game if needed.
Covid Repayments

I’m pretty sure I read from an interview s[…]

LC-D health scare

https://www.rugbypass.com/plus/luke-cowan-dickie-i[…]

Mr Critchard Keeps Us Informed

Good, solid prop. Never let us down, especially in[…]

That's a shame, Wonder where he'll go? I know hi[…]