Premiership Suspended

[Timbo]

I definitely agree with banning the caterpillar.

But honestly it’s the ruck officiating that’s making the game harder to watch currently. It’s too loaded in favour of defending teams and jackals. Not enough attacking continuity and way too many holding on penalties.

Ironically the current ruck officiating is exactly what Ryan has been campaigning for.

[Mellsblue]

What WT says. A few nudges in the right direction and a change of emphasis from coaches would suffice, I think. To condense two threads in to one, possibly my biggest big bear with Youngs is his kick first instinct on turnover ball which is symptomatic of a risk averse, kick first approach. The box kick is a legitimate and, if executed well, an effective weapon but, if you want entertaining, it should be close to a last resort.

[Mellsblue]

I definitely agree with banning the caterpillar.

But honestly it’s the ruck officiating that’s making the game harder to watch currently. It’s too loaded in favour of defending teams and jackals. Not enough attacking continuity and way too many holding on penalties.

Ironically the current ruck officiating is exactly what Ryan has been campaigning for.

Agree on the caterpillar. I’d like the ref to be able to call ‘ruck over’ but also speed up ‘use it’.

Rugby Aotearoa showed that the new rules can lead to expansive rugby.

[Puja]

I'mm still much more in favour of banning the caterpillar and reducing the SH's time on the ball.
5 seconds from when the ruck competition is over should do it.
Not 5-10 seconds to put a caterpillar together, then 5 seconds to get the ball to the back of it, 5 seconds for the ref to get impatient, and 5 seconds to do something.

Nothing wrong with a box kick, so long as it doesn't take an unreasonable amount of time - much like scrums, the problem isn't that it exists, but that it takes too long.

The problem I have with the high box-kick as a concept is that it incentivises not having the ball.

If you have possession anywhere from 20m out to halfway, there are few options that are better than putting the ball up in the air. Actually using your back line risks a turnover (especially with the current breakdown interpretation), whereas putting the ball up takes you 20-30m further up the pitch and gives you maybe a 1/4 chance of getting the ball back (whereupon usually the scrum half does another box-kick to take advantage of there being no full-back/wing in place). Those are pretty good odds! And most of the time the worst case scenario when you don't regain the ball is that you now have the opposition out of range for a penalty and you get to meet them with an organised defence and try to drive them back. That, of course, assumes that they aren't just going to set a ruck and box-kick back to you.

If you make it so that any kicks have to come from a pass back, then you are a) significantly increasing the risk of aimless kicking as there is a realistic chance of a charge-down, b) significantly reducing the reward of aimless kicking, because you get less distance and your chasers have to start behind the kicker, and most importantly c) increase the chance of something else happening - a fly-half who is passed the ball may have the intention of kicking a bomb, but has the option to step, to pass, to go for the chip or the cross-field dink. When a scrum-half starts setting for a box-kick, that's it, that's what's happening for the next 15 seconds - the caterpillar will be formed, the scrum half will get his 5 seconds, the ball will be launched, it'll go up in the air and then we wait for it to land before something actually starts happening again. It's dead ball.

I appreciate your idea would also increase the risk of it a bit, but I hate the entire concept. It's anti-rugby to me - it's giving up the ball because it's currently always a better option than keeping hold of it.

Puja

[fivepointer]

Box kicks in themselves are fine. They can get you out of trouble in your own 22, and can be a useful attacking weapon.
Problem is the time it takes sometimes from when a ball is won at a breakdown till its played. 2 remedies. Once ball is clearly won, refs call "ball won, use", then allows max of 5 seconds for someone to move it away. Once that call goes out no other players may join the ruck, so that should eliminate the dreaded caterpillar.
At scrums coaches and players need to recognise that a faster engagement is required. Its perfectly possible to form up far quicker than sides do now. Once there is an understanding that the scrum needs to be set far quicker, refs can enforce it with a brisk engagement sequence.

[Timbo]

I definitely agree with banning the caterpillar.

But honestly it’s the ruck officiating that’s making the game harder to watch currently. It’s too loaded in favour of defending teams and jackals. Not enough attacking continuity and way too many holding on penalties.

Ironically the current ruck officiating is exactly what Ryan has been campaigning for.

Agree on the caterpillar. I’d like the ref to be able to call ‘ruck over’ but also speed up ‘use it’.

Rugby Aotearoa showed that the new rules can lead to expansive rugby.

Aotearoa was great and the skills on show were fantastic. But I don’t believe there is the same level of contest on the defensive line or set piece down there, which leads to a lot crisper ball to work with. Line speed in defence not as big a focus for their teams either, and we’ve seen the AB’s can struggle against ultra physical teams with organised super fast line speed- England, SA, the Lions, Ireland etc.

I have considered that some of the new ‘interpretations’ look suspiciously like an attempt to de-power some of the ways other teams had developed to nullify the All Blacks...

[Mellsblue]

I think the new interpretations just suit their better basics and quicker decision making in NZ. Present the ball better, move it quicker and identify space and under resourced sections of the field better leads to slower line speeds and Aotearoa rugby.

[Mikey Brown]

Didn’t they start doing this and give up almost immediately though?

[Mellsblue]

Who?

[Digby]

What would the teams do in response to banning the box kick? Would they look to move the ball more especially if allied to giving greater impetus to attack? Or would they position kickers at 10 and 13 and then kick as soon as they accept the pressure on the kick?

[Puja]

What would the teams do in response to banning the box kick? Would they look to move the ball more especially if allied to giving greater impetus to attack? Or would they position kickers at 10 and 13 and then kick as soon as they accept the pressure on the kick?

See, I wouldn't mind teams just putting kickers at 10 and 13 and still belting it in the air - it at least would be a kick in open play with a chance for someone to pressure them. At the moment, a properly set-up box-kick is more akin to a tennis serve - a repeated skill that the opposition has little effect on. Plus, as mentioned, a 10 with the ball in hands has options to make other choices, even if his first thought is to kick.

Puja

[Scrumhead]

I'mm still much more in favour of banning the caterpillar and reducing the SH's time on the ball.
5 seconds from when the ruck competition is over should do it.
Not 5-10 seconds to put a caterpillar together, then 5 seconds to get the ball to the back of it, 5 seconds for the ref to get impatient, and 5 seconds to do something.

Nothing wrong with a box kick, so long as it doesn't take an unreasonable amount of time - much like scrums, the problem isn't that it exists, but that it takes too long.

The problem I have with the high box-kick as a concept is that it incentivises not having the ball.

If you have possession anywhere from 20m out to halfway, there are few options that are better than putting the ball up in the air. Actually using your back line risks a turnover (especially with the current breakdown interpretation), whereas putting the ball up takes you 20-30m further up the pitch and gives you maybe a 1/4 chance of getting the ball back (whereupon usually the scrum half does another box-kick to take advantage of there being no full-back/wing in place). Those are pretty good odds! And most of the time the worst case scenario when you don't regain the ball is that you now have the opposition out of range for a penalty and you get to meet them with an organised defence and try to drive them back. That, of course, assumes that they aren't just going to set a ruck and box-kick back to you.

If you make it so that any kicks have to come from a pass back, then you are a) significantly increasing the risk of aimless kicking as there is a realistic chance of a charge-down, b) significantly reducing the reward of aimless kicking, because you get less distance and your chasers have to start behind the kicker, and most importantly c) increase the chance of something else happening - a fly-half who is passed the ball may have the intention of kicking a bomb, but has the option to step, to pass, to go for the chip or the cross-field dink. When a scrum-half starts setting for a box-kick, that's it, that's what's happening for the next 15 seconds - the caterpillar will be formed, the scrum half will get his 5 seconds, the ball will be launched, it'll go up in the air and then we wait for it to land before something actually starts happening again. It's dead ball.

I appreciate your idea would also increase the risk of it a bit, but I hate the entire concept. It's anti-rugby to me - it's giving up the ball because it's currently always a better option than keeping hold of it.

Puja

I like these ideas.

I’m pretty much in favour of anything that encourages more ball in hand rugby and less anti-rugby as Puja describes.

While caterpillar rucks still exist, one thing I’m slightly surprised by is that no teams seem to have developed any inventive ruses for a ‘fake caterpillar’. I’ll often see a caterpillar set up with a massive blindside and the winger dropped right back to expect the kick. I haven’t seen anyone try to exploit that yet.

In that scenario a wily scrum half and a couple of quick, alert players could potentially gain as much ground from faking for a caterpillar and then launching a blindside move.

[Raggs]

The caterpillar also means you have a lot of men handy. Definitely an opportunity for a decent size blindside attack with some quick inter passing

[Scrumhead]

Exactly! There’s so many times I’ve seen defending players literally zone out while it’s being set-up because they’re as bored as we are and assume they know what’s coming. I’m genuinely amazed no-one seems to have tried any fakery. It would be great to see.

[Raggs]

Exactly! There’s so many times I’ve seen defending players literally zone out while it’s being set-up because they’re as bored as we are and assume they know what’s coming. I’m genuinely amazed no-one seems to have tried any fakery. It would be great to see.

You could also have the rear man of the ruck take the ball at first, to engage the chargedown forward, swift pop further out for the 9, before out to the wing.

[Mikey Brown]

Who?

Oh. Thought WT’s post on the previous page was the last post.

It seemed they were calling out caterpillar rucks and asking 9s to use it quicker for a very brief period when we restarted. Did I imagine that?

[Digby]

What would the teams do in response to banning the box kick? Would they look to move the ball more especially if allied to giving greater impetus to attack? Or would they position kickers at 10 and 13 and then kick as soon as they accept the pressure on the kick?

See, I wouldn't mind teams just putting kickers at 10 and 13 and still belting it in the air - it at least would be a kick in open play with a chance for someone to pressure them. At the moment, a properly set-up box-kick is more akin to a tennis serve - a repeated skill that the opposition has little effect on. Plus, as mentioned, a 10 with the ball in hands has options to make other choices, even if his first thought is to kick.

Puja

The opposition has a huge influence on box kicks, it's why they structure them so carefully.

I'm happy to go with we should see a decrease in the time allowed to play the ball, but given we're already looking at a change with the 40/20 kick I'm content to see what that does to backfield coverage and intent to play the ball wide rather than kick.

Where I think rugby needs to push is the decision on receiving a bad box kick, far too many bad kicks are going unpunished

[Cameo]

I think the new interpretations just suit their better basics and quicker decision making in NZ. Present the ball better, move it quicker and identify space and under resourced sections of the field better leads to slower line speeds and Aotearoa rugby.

Another difference is that the refs also became harsher on offsides and rolling away whereas from what I have seen of the prem, the focus has much more been on the attacking team.

Their tournament set up was also designed so that every match was a big match with first choice teams - th opposite of yours.

[Mellsblue]

I think the new interpretations just suit their better basics and quicker decision making in NZ. Present the ball better, move it quicker and identify space and under resourced sections of the field better leads to slower line speeds and Aotearoa rugby.

Another difference is that the refs also became harsher on offsides and rolling away whereas from what I have seen of the prem, the focus has much more been on the attacking team.

Their tournament set up was also designed so that every match was a big match with first choice teams - th opposite of yours.

Agreed.

[Mr Mwenda]

Their tournament set up was also designed so that every match was a big match with first choice teams - th opposite of yours.

Once again, too many dicks (teams) on the dance floor (premiership).

Presumably this format was the only way to give all the teams (bar Sarries) a reason to exist?

[Banquo]

I definitely agree with banning the caterpillar.

But honestly it’s the ruck officiating that’s making the game harder to watch currently. It’s too loaded in favour of defending teams and jackals. Not enough attacking continuity and way too many holding on penalties.

Ironically the current ruck officiating is exactly what Ryan has been campaigning for.

Agree on the caterpillar. I’d like the ref to be able to call ‘ruck over’ but also speed up ‘use it’.

Rugby Aotearoa showed that the new rules can lead to expansive rugby.

Only if you have the skills.