50/22 law change

[JB1973]

Just wondered what the general feeling is about this new law change?

Are we in favour or against it?

Will it have any major impact on the game or will there be little difference?

[wixfjord]

I'm not sure how much of an impact it'll have because it will likely only happen 1-2 times a game.

But I think it can only be a positive if it forces wingers to hang back and gives kicking 10s something to aim for.

The one problem I do have with it is that the range of what constitutes 50:22 kick is huge.
For example a kick along the ground from just inside the half way line involves a certain skill, but much less skill than a kick over a winger's head from deeper in your half that bounces!

Ross Byrne should definitely benefit from it though.
If it means wingers have to step back he'll have more time to get the ball wide with a kick, or if the winger steps up he can kick in behind.

It'll probably suit Irish sides a bit more than other sides, since we tend to have more positionally aware wingers (generally!).

[Morf]

I'm not sure how much of an impact it'll have because it will likely only happen 1-2 times a game.

But I think it can only be a positive if it forces wingers to hang back and gives kicking 10s something to aim for.

The one problem I do have with it is that the range of what constitutes 50:22 kick is huge.
For example a kick along the ground from just inside the half way line involves a certain skill, but much less skill than a kick over a winger's head from deeper in your half that bounces!

Ross Byrne should definitely benefit from it though.
If it means wingers have to step back he'll have more time to get the ball wide with a kick, or if the winger steps up he can kick in behind.

It'll probably suit Irish sides a bit more than other sides, since we tend to have more positionally aware wingers (generally!).

Leaves SA sides with 7s players as wings Spekman for Bulls for example with an even weaker argument to play them.

[Logorrhea]

A side will win the throw into a lineout if they bounce the ball into touch beyond the opposition 22 from behind halfway or beyond halfway from behind their own 22

Just wanted to put this here as I keep forgetting what the rule is.

[FLIP]

I'd rather referees actually implement the current rule set in a consistent and equitable way instead of fiddling on the deck of the Titanic like this.

[hugonaut]

I'm not sure how much of an impact it'll have because it will likely only happen 1-2 times a game.

But I think it can only be a positive if it forces wingers to hang back and gives kicking 10s something to aim for.

The one problem I do have with it is that the range of what constitutes 50:22 kick is huge.
For example a kick along the ground from just inside the half way line involves a certain skill, but much less skill than a kick over a winger's head from deeper in your half that bounces!

Ross Byrne should definitely benefit from it though.
If it means wingers have to step back he'll have more time to get the ball wide with a kick, or if the winger steps up he can kick in behind.

It'll probably suit Irish sides a bit more than other sides, since we tend to have more positionally aware wingers (generally!).

There was a report on the trial in Australia by Gerry Thornley late last month in the Irish Times [source: https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/ ... -1.4216057 ]

"Meanwhile, in Australia’s abbreviated 2020 NRC, there were 14 cases of 50-22 kicks which found touch in the opposition 22 from inside halfway and three of them led to a try as a result of the subsequent attacking throw-in. While there was less evidence to go on, not surprisingly the trial in rewarding the 50-22 kick actually led to a slight reduction in kicks out of hand, but then in punishing defending teams for keeping 14 in a line, it rewards the attacking team for keeping the ball in hand. There was less data regarding the goal-line drop out."

[The Doc]

I'd rather referees actually implement the current rule set in a consistent and equitable way instead of fiddling on the deck of the Titanic like this.

I actually think it is a significant change - because of the implications. It means a defending team (especially when the attacking team is in their own half) can't flood the defensive line with one person covering the back. It should create space. I don't think it is just tinkering at the edge

[FLIP]

I'd rather referees actually implement the current rule set in a consistent and equitable way instead of fiddling on the deck of the Titanic like this.

I actually think it is a significant change - because of the implications. It means a defending team (especially when the attacking team is in their own half) can't flood the defensive line with one person covering the back. It should create space. I don't think it is just tinkering at the edge

What other top tier sport changes the in play rules so often? It's a barrier to public acceptance and adoption.

[The Doc]

I'd rather referees actually implement the current rule set in a consistent and equitable way instead of fiddling on the deck of the Titanic like this.

I actually think it is a significant change - because of the implications. It means a defending team (especially when the attacking team is in their own half) can't flood the defensive line with one person covering the back. It should create space. I don't think it is just tinkering at the edge

What other top tier sport changes the in play rules so often? It's a barrier to public acceptance and adoption.

NFL tweak and adjust every off season - sometimes interpretation but sometimes rule changes. But I know what you mean about moving the goalposts. But rugby has always tweaked and changed. And some of them significant.

[wixfjord]

What other top tier sport changes the in play rules so often? It's a barrier to public acceptance and adoption.

I actually think this is a huge positive of rugby. The authorities are happy to change laws if they feel the game is getting stale or to try reward/prompt more attacking play.

Have heard commentators from other sports compliment this and bemoan their own sports inertia to law changes too (GAA & soccer).

This particular rule could have a really positive effect by opening up more attacking options and potentially creating more space by taking men out of the defensive line.

If you're a side that likes to get the ball wide quickly from inside your half AND you have a 10 who is an accurate kicker from hand (I'd argue we do both of these things well) then it could really benefit.

[dropkick]

It looks promising. If it results in 1 less player in the defensive line then it will be a success.


Having 8 subs should be the next thing they tackle. If only 5 subs were allowed it would mean subs mainly being there in case of injury and every player needing to last 80 min which means fitter, smaller players.

[wixfjord]

I think by faaaaaarrrrr the biggest change could come by just policing the offside line properly.

But things like this are good additions overall imo.

[FLIP]

Joe Bloggs who watches the six nations when it's on every year but doesn't follow much rugby otherwise isn't going to be converted into a more serious fan if he's thinking "for fecks sake they've changed the game again".

If you want to speed up the game, get referees who understand all aspects of the game (refereeing standards on scrums are awful) and who are fully professional in their approach to refereeing. Apply the current laws correctly instead of adding yet another thing they'll get wrong.

[Logorrhea]

Apply the current laws correctly instead of adding yet another thing they'll get wrong.

I agree with you in general but this one is pretty cut and dry. No interpretation to it. These are the kind of rules that are easier to ref.

[Oldschoolsocks]

Apply the current laws correctly instead of adding yet another thing they'll get wrong.

I agree with you in general but this one is pretty cut and dry. No interpretation to it. These are the kind of rules that are easier to ref.

The offside line is piss easy to ref - there's 4 referees all it needs is the what we would have called touch judges in my day to call offside when somebody is offside, and if they miss it there's a ref watching it on d'telly to call offside. That's the biggest bane on the current game.

Simples

[Morf]

It looks promising. If it results in 1 less player in the defensive line then it will be a success.


Having 8 subs should be the next thing they tackle. If only 5 subs were allowed it would mean subs mainly being there in case of injury and every player needing to last 80 min which means fitter, smaller players.

Could lead to fewer players and smaller squads.

How many players go from pro to semi-pro or semi-pro to amateur?

Not that I'm necessarily disagreeing but doubt the players' associations would be fans of it.

[FLIP]

Apply the current laws correctly instead of adding yet another thing they'll get wrong.

I agree with you in general but this one is pretty cut and dry. No interpretation to it. These are the kind of rules that are easier to ref.

No quick lineouts from a touched ball or new ball is another and we all know how that turned out against Wales.

[wixfjord]

Joe Bloggs who watches the six nations when it's on every year but doesn't follow much rugby otherwise isn't going to be converted into a more serious fan if he's thinking "for fecks sake they've changed the game again".

If you want to speed up the game, get referees who understand all aspects of the game (refereeing standards on scrums are awful) and who are fully professional in their approach to refereeing. Apply the current laws correctly instead of adding yet another thing they'll get wrong.

It's not zero sum.

You can both apply current laws (they're laws btw) better AND improve the game by tweaking what's there.

Irregular rugby watchers want faster games with more excitement.

This law change should give that.

[hugonaut]

What other top tier sport changes the in play rules so often? It's a barrier to public acceptance and adoption.

I actually think this is a huge positive of rugby. The authorities are happy to change laws if they feel the game is getting stale or to try reward/prompt more attacking play.

Have heard commentators from other sports compliment this and bemoan their own sports inertia to law changes too (GAA & soccer).

This particular rule could have a really positive effect by opening up more attacking options and potentially creating more space by taking men out of the defensive line.

If you're a side that likes to get the ball wide quickly from inside your half AND you have a 10 who is an accurate kicker from hand (I'd argue we do both of these things well) then it could really benefit.

Rugby's laws are unwieldy because the sport is very complex and from its inception has tried to include very diverse aspects of physical competition.

It seems like a paradox but it is because the sport is so liberal and free-ranging that its lawbook is so complicated. If you're allowed to do something in the game, then there has to be a set of regulations governing how you do it.

For example, there doesn't have to be a set of laws in basketball governing kicking, because you're not allowed to kick the ball. There doesn't have to be referee conferences on the physics of a forward pass in soccer because you can't pick up the ball in your hands.

Going back to the first principles of starting a sport with competitors, a ball and a blank sheet of paper, think of how many things you can do in rugby that you can't do in [for example] tennis or baseball or cricket. Those sports are great sports in their own right, but they do not offer anything like as wide a range of challenges as rugby does to both the athlete and the referee. Sure, there are rallies in tennis and double-plays in baseball [and the equivalent in cricket, I suppose], but then the action stops after a few seconds and everybody goes back to their positions to start the next point.

[Logorrhea]

Apply the current laws correctly instead of adding yet another thing they'll get wrong.

I agree with you in general but this one is pretty cut and dry. No interpretation to it. These are the kind of rules that are easier to ref.

The offside line is piss easy to ref - there's 4 referees all it needs is the what we would have called touch judges in my day to call offside when somebody is offside, and if they miss it there's a ref watching it on d'telly to call offside. That's the biggest bane on the current game.
Simples

Fair point but all they have to do with this one is identify if the ball has been kicked, where its been kicked from, and where it went.