New rule to prevent aimless kicking....

[JoshLyman]

From the Guardian.....


The best suggestions in life are often the simplest. Many of the finest brains in the world have wrestled with how to improve rugby union as a sport and, as often as not, have ended up making it worse. Fair play, therefore, to Mr Martin McNeill of Richmond, Surrey who penned a short, pithy letter to the Sunday Times last weekend. The last sentence read thus: "I suggest any kick that is cleanly caught by the opposition leads to....a scrum from where the ball was kicked."

Genius. Well, almost. Mr McNeill missed out six words. If you insert "outside the 22" after "kick" and "the option of" in place of the dots you suddenly have a potential remedy for the curse of excessive kicking, currently causing players and spectators alike major neckache. Think about it. All those speculative hoists and aimless punts outlawed. Scrum-halves and fly-halves forced to abandon the lazy hit-and-hope option. Heaven forbid, some teams might even opt to run first-phase ball out of their own half. Welcome to the new rugby: much like the old, only with the boring ping-pong taken out.

So what are the flaws? Well, the little lofted chips over the top beloved of modern sides would need to become grubber kicks. Every team would have to be more judicious in the use of "Hail Mary" cross kicks. Anything else? Half-backs will complain that box-kicks suddenly lose currency. Tough. Remember we are only talking about kicks outside the 22. Anyone who resorts to a box-kick on the halfway line as a first option deserves to have possession taken away from him or her.

At this stage it is also worth examining a couple of other sports. Take ice hockey, for example. If a player fires the puck aimlessly towards the other end and no one has a chance to touch it, an official stops play and a face-off ensues in the defending zone of the team who committed the infraction. They call it "Icing". Rugby league has its "40-20 rule" to reward accurate long-distance punts which bounce into touch within 20 metres of the opposing line. The attacking side, not the defending team, is awarded the scrum in such cases.

And rugby union? Increasingly, anarchy rules. The balls fly further and the people hoofing them get stronger. Fear of being penalised at the breakdown makes the aerial route even more attractive. In response, some are suggesting a cap on the number of kicks in open play. Fine in theory, a counting-house nightmare in practice. Banning kicking altogether would be more disastrous still. Certain punts are things of beauty: think Phil Bennett's spiralling torpedoes or a steepling Munster garryowen. Kicks are as much a part of the 15-a-side furniture as scrums, lineouts or H-shaped posts.

There will always be sceptics at times like this who argue that inventing new laws in the comfort of your own home is rather easier than putting them into practice at first-class level. For insurance purposes, therefore, I canvassed the views of Bath's head coach, Steve Meehan, this week. "I'm a bit of a fan of trying things and throwing out those that don't work," responded Meehan thoughtfully. "There are traditions in the game that I like to keep guarded but there are laws that maybe we could tinker with. It would be an interesting one and would open up all sorts of things. There's a real skill to putting the ball in the right spot. It would change strategies and change our approach to training and skill development. Other sides might need to change their attitude."

Hmm. Interesting. Maybe it would favour more attack-minded sides and make life harder on wet days. Frankly, neither are insurmountable obstacles. Let's hope Mr McNeill posts us his solutions to global warming and the Afghanistan conflict next weekend. In the meantime, the International Board should give his idea some thought. It is a question of balance and, as things stand, the boot is kicking the game where it hurts.

Some good points.

[fatterfullback]

Originally Posted by JoshLyman

From the Guardian.....


The best suggestions in life are often the simplest. Many of the finest brains in the world have wrestled with how to improve rugby union as a sport and, as often as not, have ended up making it worse. Fair play, therefore, to Mr Martin McNeill of Richmond, Surrey who penned a short, pithy letter to the Sunday Times last weekend. The last sentence read thus: "I suggest any kick that is cleanly caught by the opposition leads to....a scrum from where the ball was kicked."

Genius. Well, almost. Mr McNeill missed out six words. If you insert "outside the 22" after "kick" and "the option of" in place of the dots you suddenly have a potential remedy for the curse of excessive kicking, currently causing players and spectators alike major neckache. Think about it. All those speculative hoists and aimless punts outlawed. Scrum-halves and fly-halves forced to abandon the lazy hit-and-hope option. Heaven forbid, some teams might even opt to run first-phase ball out of their own half. Welcome to the new rugby: much like the old, only with the boring ping-pong taken out.

So what are the flaws? Well, the little lofted chips over the top beloved of modern sides would need to become grubber kicks. Every team would have to be more judicious in the use of "Hail Mary" cross kicks. Anything else? Half-backs will complain that box-kicks suddenly lose currency. Tough. Remember we are only talking about kicks outside the 22. Anyone who resorts to a box-kick on the halfway line as a first option deserves to have possession taken away from him or her.

At this stage it is also worth examining a couple of other sports. Take ice hockey, for example. If a player fires the puck aimlessly towards the other end and no one has a chance to touch it, an official stops play and a face-off ensues in the defending zone of the team who committed the infraction. They call it "Icing". Rugby league has its "40-20 rule" to reward accurate long-distance punts which bounce into touch within 20 metres of the opposing line. The attacking side, not the defending team, is awarded the scrum in such cases.

And rugby union? Increasingly, anarchy rules. The balls fly further and the people hoofing them get stronger. Fear of being penalised at the breakdown makes the aerial route even more attractive. In response, some are suggesting a cap on the number of kicks in open play. Fine in theory, a counting-house nightmare in practice. Banning kicking altogether would be more disastrous still. Certain punts are things of beauty: think Phil Bennett's spiralling torpedoes or a steepling Munster garryowen. Kicks are as much a part of the 15-a-side furniture as scrums, lineouts or H-shaped posts.

There will always be sceptics at times like this who argue that inventing new laws in the comfort of your own home is rather easier than putting them into practice at first-class level. For insurance purposes, therefore, I canvassed the views of Bath's head coach, Steve Meehan, this week. "I'm a bit of a fan of trying things and throwing out those that don't work," responded Meehan thoughtfully. "There are traditions in the game that I like to keep guarded but there are laws that maybe we could tinker with. It would be an interesting one and would open up all sorts of things. There's a real skill to putting the ball in the right spot. It would change strategies and change our approach to training and skill development. Other sides might need to change their attitude."

Hmm. Interesting. Maybe it would favour more attack-minded sides and make life harder on wet days. Frankly, neither are insurmountable obstacles. Let's hope Mr McNeill posts us his solutions to global warming and the Afghanistan conflict next weekend. In the meantime, the International Board should give his idea some thought. It is a question of balance and, as things stand, the boot is kicking the game where it hurts.

Some good points.

perhaps you could move the area where you could call a "mark" from? perhaps move it 10 metres further foward?

just an idea like.

[Bryn]

Originally Posted by JoshLyman

From the Guardian.....


The best suggestions in life are often the...


...kicking the game where it hurts.

Some good points.

The theory, is sound. Unfortunately we'd probably end up with an 80 minute rolling maul.

[BOB]

Would calling a mark anywhere on the pitch improve the game?

[TreharrisonFord]

Originally Posted by BOB1980

Would calling a mark anywhere on the pitch improve the game?

depends if you like aussie rules?

not sure i'm a fan of this. aerial pingpong would just be replaced by endless stop-start scrummaging/lineouts after marks are kicked.

The key is not to discourage kicking, but to encourage running. Maybe they need to enforce the offside line better? That is the most stifling to an attack.

[JoshLyman]

Originally Posted by jmeasdf

The key is not to discourage kicking, but to encourage running. Maybe they need to enforce the offside line better? That is the most stifling to an attack.

maybe move the offside line 10m behind the kicker instead of level - difficult to judge mind.

Originally Posted by JoshLyman

maybe move the offside line 10m behind the kicker instead of level - difficult to judge mind.

Too hard to judge... I say keep it as it is but enforce it more strictly.

[old-n-slo-2nd-row]

What has started/restarted this trend of questioning existing laws and trying to come up with alternative solutions?

Having just come through the nightmare that was the IRB attempt at mult-phase implementation of three different sets of law variations we have not even settled into a new season and more changes are being suggested - we have the old "reduce the value of drop goals" and now lets have yet another re-think on kicking.

What would the effect of the proposed changes bring? The ELVs have shown, if nothing else, that the intended result is often far from the actual. Is our game really that broken that any suggestion needs to be embraced to fix it? OK, I've seen some pretty dire games but I've also seen some brilliant ones - has this not always been the case or is there some "golden age" that I have forgotten where every game satisfied every stakeholder - spectators, players, officials, sponsors etc.. alike?

Can't we all just take a step back, let things settle and unless there is something that really does contribute to the reduction of some unneccesary personal risk or the closing of some exploited loop-hole leave things as is?

Just a thought...

[Beefeater]

Originally Posted by old-n-slo-2nd-row

What has started/restarted this trend of questioning existing laws and trying to come up with alternative solutions?

Aus and NZ getting knocked out of the most recent World Cup was the catalyst, defences being on top around '99-'01 sowed the original seed.

The ELVs (notably the no-pass back rule) have created a problem and have meant more kicking for now, whether this will still be the case in a year's time, for example, remains to be seen. One thing's for sure however, they should've left well alone.

This suggestion from the Guardian is ill-thought through and wouldn't work.

Having just come through the nightmare that was the IRB attempt at mult-phase implementation of three different sets of law variations we have not even settled into a new season and more changes are being suggested - we have the old "reduce the value of drop goals" and now lets have yet another re-think on kicking.

What would the effect of the proposed changes bring? The ELVs have shown, if nothing else, that the intended result is often far from the actual. Is our game really that broken that any suggestion needs to be embraced to fix it? OK, I've seen some pretty dire games but I've also seen some brilliant ones - has this not always been the case or is there some "golden age" that I have forgotten where every game satisfied every stakeholder - spectators, players, officials, sponsors etc.. alike?

Can't we all just take a step back, let things settle and unless there is something that really does contribute to the reduction of some unneccesary personal risk or the closing of some exploited loop-hole leave things as is?

Just a thought...

agree.