New Rules for Rugby

[Grandpa]

Thought some of these rules were interesting ideas.... Ignore the guy who thought of them. I like the idea of a scrum if ball caught on the full.. back where kicker kicked it.

I guess it would devalue lineouts and set piece work if rewarded for tries scored from inside your own 22.... but still, could make things exciting?

More details in spoiler...

Spoiler

Show

Here’s my suggestion; a starting point. The value of a try should not be the same whether it is Mako Vunipola flopping over from one metre or Jonny May scything 90 metres.

The latter long-range score could be given a value of, let’s say, ten points. That suddenly makes the risk-reward ratio far more attractive than at present. Especially if the flavour of the month, the lineout catch and drive, is reduced to a paltry three points. Nothing more than the equivalent of a penalty for a score where the pack position themselves in front of the ball and make it well nigh impossible for defenders to “swim” through the wedge of organised muscle.

Immediately such a change in the points system lessens the attraction of the territorial kicking game. The rewards are not only less but the risk is switched to the kickers. Think how many times England and Wales booted ball deep into the opposing half, often their 22. With ten points for a thrilling counterattacking try the mindset of kicker and receiver is transferred. The head coach who doesn’t place huge importance on running from deep will not last long.

Let’s go further. When a ball is kicked out on the full, the game reverts to the spot from where the kicker made the error. Let’s change the rules so that the same applies if an opposing player catches the ball on the full. Defenders will drop extra men from their seemingly impregnable rush defence lines. Attacks will have space in which to throw the ball wide. Into areas where nothing but human walls reside right now. The laws as they are are loaded in favour of the kicking side. This change would balance them.

World Rugby is running out of time. The game has been hard hit by the pandemic. Money is in short supply. So too the patience of people. The game is grinding towards stagnation. Original thinking is in short supply, from coaches and administrators. Now is the time to act. I am not pleading for unworkable alterations. Just broad-minded thinking. This era of defensive dominance and the monster to which it has given birth — the endless boot — have to be taken on, not followed with the blind faith of the acolyte.

Coaches and players inhabit a micro world of small detail. It is a strength in some ways, a weakness in others. This column is a cry from the wilderness that is the press box. Sitting high in the stands, watching the ball fly back and forth, it is not too hard to envisage empty stands, even when stadiums are once more opened to the general public.

new rules

Here are the rule changes I would make to improve rugby, starting with the scoring system. The “distance” of each try is determined by its origin, either at set piece, turnover or knock-on.

Own tryline to 22 10pts
Own 22 to halfway 7pts
Halfway to opposing 22 5pts
Opposing 22 to 5m line 4pts
Opposing 5m to tryline 3pts
Penalty try (depending where it is awarded) 3-4pts

More changes:
No conversions, saving one minute per try.

Scrum to catching side when ball is caught on the full after a kick.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/spor ... -tjx2gwdlm

new rules

Here are the rule changes I would make to improve rugby, starting with the scoring system. The “distance” of each try is determined by its origin, either at set piece, turnover or knock-on.

Own tryline to 22 10pts
Own 22 to halfway 7pts
Halfway to opposing 22 5pts
Opposing 22 to 5m line 4pts
Opposing 5m to tryline 3pts
Penalty try (depending where it is awarded) 3-4pts

More changes:
No conversions, saving one minute per try.

Scrum to catching side when ball is caught on the full after a kick

[Slick]

I think it is very stupid. Make our game even more complicated.

Like all new ideas its the unintended consequences we have to look at. Initially I like the caught on the full idea, but surely this will just lead to even more endless rucks as the safest option.

[sockwithaticket]

From the article

Here’s my suggestion; a starting point. The value of a try should not be the same whether it is Mako Vunipola flopping over from one metre or Jonny May scything 90 metres.

Why? The whole point of rugby is different ways to play the game and for players of different body types and skillsets to have a place.

Hard no to every single one of those ludicrous proposals.

An interception often requires far less effort or skill than multiple players maintaining continuity over multiple phases in the face of an aggressive defensive line for one of them to ultimately find an angle that results in going over the line. Yet under these proposals it would be worth more than three times as much? Bullshit.

Why should a penalty try be worth so little? Why no conversions? Time taken is a nonsense excuse. I'd support a reduction in kicking time, but that's it.

[Grandpa]

I think it is very stupid. Make our game even more complicated.

Like all new ideas its the unintended consequences we have to look at. Initially I like the caught on the full idea, but surely this will just lead to even more endless rucks as the safest option.

Yeah true, teams would be scared to give the ball away... so endless rucks would occur...

I like the idea of a scrum if the defending side catches a kick on the full though... reduce the number of those aimless box kicks....

[Grandpa]

From the article

Here’s my suggestion; a starting point. The value of a try should not be the same whether it is Mako Vunipola flopping over from one metre or Jonny May scything 90 metres.

Why? The whole point of rugby is different ways to play the game and for players of different body types and skillsets to have a place.

Hard no to every single one of those ludicrous proposals.

An interception often requires far less effort or skill than multiple players maintaining continuity over multiple phases in the face of an aggressive defensive line for one of them to ultimately find an angle that results in going over the line. Yet under these proposals it would be worth more than three times as much? Bullshit.

Why should a penalty try be worth so little? Why no conversions? Time taken is a nonsense excuse. I'd support a reduction in kicking time, but that's it.

It would become a hybrid of rugby league thinking about it....

[GogLais]

I think it is very stupid. Make our game even more complicated.

Like all new ideas its the unintended consequences we have to look at. Initially I like the caught on the full idea, but surely this will just lead to even more endless rucks as the safest option.

Yeah true, teams would be scared to give the ball away... so endless rucks would occur...

I like the idea of a scrum if the defending side catches a kick on the full though... reduce the number of those aimless box kicks....

My answer to that would be limiting each team to say two kicks each per session of kicking tennis.

[Grandpa]

I think it is very stupid. Make our game even more complicated.

Like all new ideas its the unintended consequences we have to look at. Initially I like the caught on the full idea, but surely this will just lead to even more endless rucks as the safest option.

Yeah true, teams would be scared to give the ball away... so endless rucks would occur...

I like the idea of a scrum if the defending side catches a kick on the full though... reduce the number of those aimless box kicks....

My answer to that would be limiting each team to say two kicks each per session of kicking tennis.

How long is a session?

[GogLais]

Yeah true, teams would be scared to give the ball away... so endless rucks would occur...

I like the idea of a scrum if the defending side catches a kick on the full though... reduce the number of those aimless box kicks....

My answer to that would be limiting each team to say two kicks each per session of kicking tennis.

How long is a session?

Tbc. No more kicking until there's been a tackle?

[Sandstorm]

Back to staring out the window until 4pm Bingo for you, Grandpa.

[JM2K6]

The full article is fine right up until he starts talking about his mad ideas for changes. There IS a problem with how narrow the range of tactics is. There IS a problem with the game being about not wanting the ball most of the time. There IS a problem about the winners largely being those who hit hardest on the gainline.

So fix that, rather than fixing the result of that.

[Kawazaki]

Here's an easy way to change the game that would reward ball in hand attacking play and make it easier for the ref and fans to understand...

... make it illegal for any jackler to play the ball/tackled player on the ground unless he has stepped over the prone player (thru the 'gate' from an onside position) with at least one leg first. At a stroke it stops jacklers going off their feet and they will be supporting their own weight over the ball. It is also a clear signal to the ref who is legal to play the ball. It also makes the neck area of the jackler less vulnerable as they will be more side on over the ruck. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, it will make it harder for jacklers so they will have to choose more carefully when to jackal and when to leave it.

[Sandstorm]

Here's an easy way to change the game that would reward ball in hand attacking play and make it easier for the ref and fans to understand...

... make it illegal for any jackler to play the ball/tackled player on the ground unless he has stepped over the prone player (thru the 'gate' from an onside position) with at least one leg first. At a stroke it stops jacklers going off their feet and they will be supporting their own weight over the ball. It is also a clear signal to the ref who is legal to play the ball. It also makes the neck area of the jackler less vulnerable as they will be more side on over the ruck. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, it will make it harder for jacklers so they will have to choose more carefully when to jackal and when to leave it.

Much easier to clear the jackler off the ball too. Makes turnovers much less likely and we’re back to attacking teams never getting turned over.

[Kawazaki]

Here's an easy way to change the game that would reward ball in hand attacking play and make it easier for the ref and fans to understand...

... make it illegal for any jackler to play the ball/tackled player on the ground unless he has stepped over the prone player (thru the 'gate' from an onside position) with at least one leg first. At a stroke it stops jacklers going off their feet and they will be supporting their own weight over the ball. It is also a clear signal to the ref who is legal to play the ball. It also makes the neck area of the jackler less vulnerable as they will be more side on over the ruck. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, it will make it harder for jacklers so they will have to choose more carefully when to jackal and when to leave it.

Much easier to clear the jackler off the ball too. Makes turnovers much less likely and we’re back to attacking teams never getting turned over.

Good, teams might cherish possession instead of hoofing it away as soon as they get it.

[Sandstorm]

They won’t. They will win penalty after penalty at rucks and kick for poles or a lineout 5m out.

[A6D6E6]

MULTIBALL

[A6D6E6]

Here's an easy way to change the game that would reward ball in hand attacking play and make it easier for the ref and fans to understand...

... make it illegal for any jackler to play the ball/tackled player on the ground unless he has stepped over the prone player (thru the 'gate' from an onside position) with at least one leg first. At a stroke it stops jacklers going off their feet and they will be supporting their own weight over the ball. It is also a clear signal to the ref who is legal to play the ball. It also makes the neck area of the jackler less vulnerable as they will be more side on over the ruck. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, it will make it harder for jacklers so they will have to choose more carefully when to jackal and when to leave it.

Much easier to clear the jackler off the ball too. Makes turnovers much less likely and we’re back to attacking teams never getting turned over.

Good, teams might cherish possession instead of hoofing it away as soon as they get it.

Did you enjoy watching Munster in 2008?

[Kawazaki]

They won’t. They will win penalty after penalty at rucks and kick for poles or a lineout 5m out.

Why would they? Make a dominant tackle and you get still get the ball back. The current situation is farcical and offers little incentive to carry the ball up to the line.

[Niegs]

Here's an easy way to change the game that would reward ball in hand attacking play and make it easier for the ref and fans to understand...

... make it illegal for any jackler to play the ball/tackled player on the ground unless he has stepped over the prone player (thru the 'gate' from an onside position) with at least one leg first. At a stroke it stops jacklers going off their feet and they will be supporting their own weight over the ball. It is also a clear signal to the ref who is legal to play the ball. It also makes the neck area of the jackler less vulnerable as they will be more side on over the ruck. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, it will make it harder for jacklers so they will have to choose more carefully when to jackal and when to leave it.

Much easier to clear the jackler off the ball too. Makes turnovers much less likely and we’re back to attacking teams never getting turned over.

I like Kawazaki's suggestion because I feel refs make stealing WAY too easy (not supporting weight, hands in after ruck formed), but teams will still have most of the squad spread across the field. If they have to go further to get a steal, it could make them EVEN LESS likely to challenge the tackle area? There has to be an incentive to put two or three players into the breakdown on the defensive side, potentially showing the attacking side more space out wide.

There's a perfect cycle going on that contributes to the way things are:

* Defence can spread across the pitch because a) one player can slow down possession OR b) attacking players sealing off / anchoring / collapsing the ruck with croc rolls/smashing in mean it's not worth wasting time contesting

* Because defences are spread across the pitch, attacking teams keep it safe with one-out runners, pods (that often seal off), latching (questionable flying wedge) across the pitch, hoping to spring a back door move, catch the opposition on a slow fold around, or win a penalty to kick for points / to the corner

* Because attacking teams keep it safe, gaining only a couple of metres (at most, if not no gain / going backwards - which is often!), defences haven't been disrupted significantly, so they backpedal a couple of steps (at most) and are ready to come forward before the attacking team has their ducks in a row and pass to the static pod that's been told to play is safe

Teams COULD take more risks to play with less predictability, run onto the ball before it's passed (fellow former forwards, remember when we did that!?), and keep the ball moving to get behind the defence and disorganize them ... it happens, but rarely, because they don't have to.


Stop attacking teams from doing the things that make it easy for them to win possession and encourage defenders to contest. Might see more turnovers, but with all the 'transition' training, this could make for an exciting game with more counter-attacks. Attacking teams might take more risks, especially with offloads and support lines (pods are NEVER close enough to take advantage of a half-break), because simply 'taking it in' will mean a MUCH greater risk of losing the ball. Saw someone on twitter this morning saying players these days are the most skilled ever (and it's true, but he also said the current state of play is the most exciting ever ) ... I say make it MORE difficult for attacking teams to play it safe!

[Guy Smiley]

I’d support banning box kicks. Make a law that requires the player acting as halfback behind a ruck to pass, not kick.

Barring that, remove a foot every time the happy little cunt uses it to kick.

[Sandstorm]

Surely make a law that when joining a ruck, you can only bind on an opposition player. No sealing off, no wedges, no centipedes.

[Paddington Bear]

I seem to remember almost this exact debate around 2007. Someone will crack the code at some point.

[Niegs]

Surely make a law that when joining a ruck, you can only bind on an opposition player. No sealing off, no wedges, no centipedes.

You'd only ever get 1v1s at the breakdown.

[JM2K6]

Forcing players to go past the ball before getting hands on it is a good change - think I said something similar on the old board a long time ago.

I'm still not sure how we fix the problem of rugby teams copying each other so much. A healthy sport has multiple different viable strategies.

[Sandstorm]

Surely make a law that when joining a ruck, you can only bind on an opposition player. No sealing off, no wedges, no centipedes.

You'd only ever get 1v1s at the breakdown.

Not if you target the jackler instead of the space around your own player.

[Grandpa]

Here's an easy way to change the game that would reward ball in hand attacking play and make it easier for the ref and fans to understand...

... make it illegal for any jackler to play the ball/tackled player on the ground unless he has stepped over the prone player (thru the 'gate' from an onside position) with at least one leg first. At a stroke it stops jacklers going off their feet and they will be supporting their own weight over the ball. It is also a clear signal to the ref who is legal to play the ball. It also makes the neck area of the jackler less vulnerable as they will be more side on over the ruck. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, it will make it harder for jacklers so they will have to choose more carefully when to jackal and when to leave it.

Much easier to clear the jackler off the ball too. Makes turnovers much less likely and we’re back to attacking teams never getting turned over.

I like Kawazaki's suggestion because I feel refs make stealing WAY too easy (not supporting weight, hands in after ruck formed), but teams will still have most of the squad spread across the field. If they have to go further to get a steal, it could make them EVEN LESS likely to challenge the tackle area? There has to be an incentive to put two or three players into the breakdown on the defensive side, potentially showing the attacking side more space out wide.

There's a perfect cycle going on that contributes to the way things are:

* Defence can spread across the pitch because a) one player can slow down possession OR b) attacking players sealing off / anchoring / collapsing the ruck with croc rolls/smashing in mean it's not worth wasting time contesting

* Because defences are spread across the pitch, attacking teams keep it safe with one-out runners, pods (that often seal off), latching (questionable flying wedge) across the pitch, hoping to spring a back door move, catch the opposition on a slow fold around, or win a penalty to kick for points / to the corner

* Because attacking teams keep it safe, gaining only a couple of metres (at most, if not no gain / going backwards - which is often!), defences haven't been disrupted significantly, so they backpedal a couple of steps (at most) and are ready to come forward before the attacking team has their ducks in a row and pass to the static pod that's been told to play is safe

Teams COULD take more risks to play with less predictability, run onto the ball before it's passed (fellow former forwards, remember when we did that!?), and keep the ball moving to get behind the defence and disorganize them ... it happens, but rarely, because they don't have to.


Stop attacking teams from doing the things that make it easy for them to win possession and encourage defenders to contest. Might see more turnovers, but with all the 'transition' training, this could make for an exciting game with more counter-attacks. Attacking teams might take more risks, especially with offloads and support lines (pods are NEVER close enough to take advantage of a half-break), because simply 'taking it in' will mean a MUCH greater risk of losing the ball. Saw someone on twitter this morning saying players these days are the most skilled ever (and it's true, but he also said the current state of play is the most exciting ever ) ... I say make it MORE difficult for attacking teams to play it safe!

So is the key - making the attacking side take more risks, or is it making the defending side commit more players to rucks? Or both?

Rugby can be a wonderful fluid game at the top level... what happens when games get it right? What changes to take a game beyond the ordinary?

Somehow we want to make that happen more often.. so how do you do that? It all comes down to the breakdown... speeding it up... and at the same time making it less predictable... is it the step over... or something else?

[Enzedder]

Surely make a law that when joining a ruck, you can only bind on an opposition player. No sealing off, no wedges, no centipedes.

You'd only ever get 1v1s at the breakdown.

yay - no more rolling mauls (legal obstruction)

[Niegs]

So is the key - making the attacking side take more risks, or is it making the defending side commit more players to rucks? Or both?

Rugby can be a wonderful fluid game at the top level... what happens when games get it right? What changes to take a game beyond the ordinary?

Somehow we want to make that happen more often.. so how do you do that? It all comes down to the breakdown... speeding it up... and at the same time making it less predictable... is it the step over... or something else?

I think, for a few years, some people have been saying 'faster rugby' is more attractive but wins matter more so if you can grind it out, you're successful. There's nothing to stop any team from playing that way, so virtually every team does. Kick to the corner to catch and drive or get inside 10m and pick and go / latch until you flop over.

The only thing I can think of, while keeping the game looking like the game and not adding in arbitrary laws or changing the scoring system, is to allow the breakdown to be more of a contest. With the positions players get themselves into, it's often impossible to shift them. It's often not even legal, yet the priority is on keeping the game 'flowing' ... ironically, it's what's contributing to the game slowing down, with defenders cheating and slowing down the recycle and attackers flopping in preventing defenders from seeing the ball. If it's not one, it's the other. And so with the defence ready and waiting to pounce, attack chooses the safest thing to prevent a loss on the next phase, and the cycle continues.

Ref the game as it's written, allow more of a contest, and we might see a different game. ... will never happen, though. They'll tweak / add some stupid law like a 50-22 that will have next to no (or just plain ZERO) impact.

Like Nige touting that stupid reduce the subs idea... like there aren't already man-mountains who can get through 80 mins.

[Sinkers]

What were the conclusions from the ELVs trialled in the Aus & Kiwi super rugby comps just gone?

They were different between the two comps I think but those in NZ created lovely, speedy, clean contact area and a very nice brand of rugby to watch. Seemingly by only re-emphasising existing laws around the breakdown.

Surely any positive results of those ELVs get taken into the game before there’s thoughts of changing anything else?

[Grandpa]

So is the key - making the attacking side take more risks, or is it making the defending side commit more players to rucks? Or both?

Rugby can be a wonderful fluid game at the top level... what happens when games get it right? What changes to take a game beyond the ordinary?

Somehow we want to make that happen more often.. so how do you do that? It all comes down to the breakdown... speeding it up... and at the same time making it less predictable... is it the step over... or something else?

I think, for a few years, some people have been saying 'faster rugby' is more attractive but wins matter more so if you can grind it out, you're successful. There's nothing to stop any team from playing that way, so virtually every team does. Kick to the corner to catch and drive or get inside 10m and pick and go / latch until you flop over.

The only thing I can think of, while keeping the game looking like the game and not adding in arbitrary laws or changing the scoring system, is to allow the breakdown to be more of a contest. With the positions players get themselves into, it's often impossible to shift them. It's often not even legal, yet the priority is on keeping the game 'flowing' ... ironically, it's what's contributing to the game slowing down, with defenders cheating and slowing down the recycle and attackers flopping in preventing defenders from seeing the ball. If it's not one, it's the other. And so with the defence ready and waiting to pounce, attack chooses the safest thing to prevent a loss on the next phase, and the cycle continues.

Ref the game as it's written, allow more of a contest, and we might see a different game. ... will never happen, though. They'll tweak / add some stupid law like a 50-22 that will have next to no (or just plain ZERO) impact.

Like Nige touting that stupid reduce the subs idea... like there aren't already man-mountains who can get through 80 mins.

I agree with pretty much everything you said... and Nigel... we're getting to the stage where like Rugby League it will be interchanging subs throughout the game... and players will become even more powerful because they don't need endurance...

[Grandpa]

What were the conclusions from the ELVs trialled in the Aus & Kiwi super rugby comps just gone?

They were different between the two comps I think but those in NZ created lovely, speedy, clean contact area and a very nice brand of rugby to watch. Seemingly by only re-emphasising existing laws around the breakdown.

Surely any positive results of those ELVs get taken into the game before there’s thoughts of changing anything else?

Yes, reffing the ruck more strictly... more penalties initially but then players adapted and games sped up...I too would like to know what became of that....

[JM2K6]

What were the conclusions from the ELVs trialled in the Aus & Kiwi super rugby comps just gone?

They were different between the two comps I think but those in NZ created lovely, speedy, clean contact area and a very nice brand of rugby to watch. Seemingly by only re-emphasising existing laws around the breakdown.

Surely any positive results of those ELVs get taken into the game before there’s thoughts of changing anything else?

Yes, reffing the ruck more strictly... more penalties initially but then players adapted and games sped up...I too would like to know what became of that....

I don't think that's any different to the laws we've been using up here. It makes for a nice change but it just emphasised the role of the outright jackler, and there's a glut of those at the moment. So teams still play it safe.

[Grandpa]

What were the conclusions from the ELVs trialled in the Aus & Kiwi super rugby comps just gone?

They were different between the two comps I think but those in NZ created lovely, speedy, clean contact area and a very nice brand of rugby to watch. Seemingly by only re-emphasising existing laws around the breakdown.

Surely any positive results of those ELVs get taken into the game before there’s thoughts of changing anything else?

Yes, reffing the ruck more strictly... more penalties initially but then players adapted and games sped up...I too would like to know what became of that....

I don't think that's any different to the laws we've been using up here. It makes for a nice change but it just emphasised the role of the outright jackler, and there's a glut of those at the moment. So teams still play it safe.

Though in NZ teams didn't play safe.. just the opposite... is that because of no relegation more than the ruck laws?

[Yeeb]

Those rule change ideas are utter shit, how on earth would you accurately judge where the move for the try started ? Tries worth the same, end of - a 2m fatty pushover is as beautiful as a Jonny may 80m individualone.

If they really want to limit kicking itself, perhaps extend the ‘taking a mark’ up to half way line ?
Bringing back rucking and mauling would enable more competition for the ball at breakdown, I do agree that a sport where you don’t really want to be in possession just seems odd. Perhaps after ten phases of play in possession, a team gets a free kick or free ten metres up the pitch ? But again, to administer this would be horrible and would lead to phases just designed to get to the ten metres award.

Or the ‘be behind the back foot’ thing for the offside line, gets a metre or two added so that defenders have to retreat a bit between each phase.

[sockwithaticket]

Yes, reffing the ruck more strictly... more penalties initially but then players adapted and games sped up...I too would like to know what became of that....

I don't think that's any different to the laws we've been using up here. It makes for a nice change but it just emphasised the role of the outright jackler, and there's a glut of those at the moment. So teams still play it safe.

Though in NZ teams didn't play safe.. just the opposite... is that because of no relegation more than the ruck laws?

It's certainly going to be part of it. Although coaches are probably still going to be conservative in approach if their job's under threat after too many losses, it should lessen the pressure a bit.

[Niegs]

Yikes...



One could argue that if attacking players weren't given this kind leeway, there'd be turnovers all the time (Daly seems fine here). But teams could easily adapt and not simply take it in, roll, present and rely on teammates to fly in (not to mention the angle here) because refs allow them to go off their feet if the clearout is dominant. Pass before contact, offload, plan and react to attacking moves better ...

I think it was Ford at the weekend who went off on his own and, arguably, butchered a try scoring opportunity though support was just catching up. What you don't see much at all these days are players slowing up to wait for support (back in the day, clever backs could do this and find a man without getting tackled, forwards would set up a maul).

[sockwithaticket]

I think it was Ford at the weekend who went off on his own and, arguably, butchered a try scoring opportunity though support was just catching up. What you don't see much at all these days are players slowing up to wait for support (back in the day, clever backs could do this and find a man without getting tackled, forwards would set up a maul).

IIRC the big problem there was Youngs dithering over the ball while Joseph tried to hold off counter ruckers instead of either whipping it away asap or joining the ruck himself.. Replay also showed Mako standing back waiting for a pass and watching everything unfold rather than getting closer either to make pressured pass easier to actually go in and shore up the situation. Youngs opting to join the ruck might have bought the time for Mako to get there and help secure it.

[JM2K6]

I don't think that's any different to the laws we've been using up here. It makes for a nice change but it just emphasised the role of the outright jackler, and there's a glut of those at the moment. So teams still play it safe.

Though in NZ teams didn't play safe.. just the opposite... is that because of no relegation more than the ruck laws?

Teams up here are absolutely massive and geared towards gainline defence and forward superiority uber alles.

What you don't see much at all these days are players slowing up to wait for support (back in the day, clever backs could do this and find a man without getting tackled, forwards would set up a maul).

We see it regularly enough. No need for the "back in my day" old man routine!

[Niegs]

What you don't see much at all these days are players slowing up to wait for support (back in the day, clever backs could do this and find a man without getting tackled, forwards would set up a maul).

We see it regularly enough. No need for the "back in my day" old man routine!

I know, "back in the day", backs kicked away a lot more than now and the ball more often got tied up in massive pile ups.

Backs today holding up for support is debateable... see far more taking contact or maybe offloading/kicking, than an isolated player slowing his run to pass before contact.

However, mauls from open play are NOT 'regular' these days. The way defenders are scrutinized in mauls more than attackers, I'm surprised they're not used more.

[A6D6E6]

What you don't see much at all these days are players slowing up to wait for support (back in the day, clever backs could do this and find a man without getting tackled, forwards would set up a maul).

We see it regularly enough. No need for the "back in my day" old man routine!

I know, "back in the day", backs kicked away a lot more than now and the ball more often got tied up in massive pile ups.

Backs today holding up for support is debateable... see far more taking contact or maybe offloading/kicking, than an isolated player slowing his run to pass before contact.

However, mauls from open play are NOT 'regular' these days. The way defenders are scrutinized in mauls more than attackers, I'm surprised they're not used more.

You are Dan Hipkiss and I claim my free choke tackle.

[sockwithaticket]