RugbyRebels

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:
A boxkick in the 22 will almost always be aimed for touch anyway, so it wouldn't affect ball in play time at all.

The difference with the boxkick is that, done correctly, it's almost a zero risk play. Blockers and long rucks remove any chance of a charge down and the scrum-half is completely cushioned and protected. Talk about ball in play time - it's effectively dead from the moment the ruck settles and the scrum-half starts organising his chess pieces. It's basically a restart.

The difference with making them pass the ball back to the 10 is that the ball is live. Yes, some teams will just put up a bomb in place of a box, but there's still the pass, the chance for a motivated chance to put pressure on, the chance it could be a fake and pass out, the chance that the fly-half could lift their head and play what's in front of them (okay, not for England) - the ball is in play and contestable. And the extra risk involved might reduce the number of aimless kicks, as it's no longer quite so safe a play (again, not for England).

Puja

Then police the ruck. Enforce the “use it” rule or/and (preferably) ban the caterpillar.

Ban the caterpillar would be tricky. What law change would you have to do that. Enforcing the use it would be nice, but it's still a break in play of at least 8 seconds (3 seconds for the ref to decide to call use it and then 5 seconds of faffing).

Do you actually have a like for the box kick as an action or are you just anti-knee-jerk changes to the laws?

Puja

I’ve no great like for it - even if I find the contest in the air entertaining - but it’s a legitimate tactic, and if you ban it teams will just work out how to create the same or similar situation off the 10. If time wasting and/or an uncontested situation is the bugbear, and I agree that they are, then just remove the time to organise blockers and chasers. For me, one of the beauties of the game is the myriad of styles, tactics etc in which the game can be played (other than sticking a wannabe 6 at 10). I’m all for speeding the game up but I wouldn’t want to remove ways in which a team can act.

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Then police the ruck. Enforce the “use it” rule or/and (preferably) ban the caterpillar.

Ban the caterpillar would be tricky. What law change would you have to do that. Enforcing the use it would be nice, but it's still a break in play of at least 8 seconds (3 seconds for the ref to decide to call use it and then 5 seconds of faffing).

Do you actually have a like for the box kick as an action or are you just anti-knee-jerk changes to the laws?

Puja

I’ve no great like for it - even if I find the contest in the air entertaining - but it’s a legitimate tactic, and if you ban it teams will just work out how to create the same or similar situation off the 10. If time wasting and/or an uncontested situation is the bugbear, and I agree that they are, then just remove the time to organise blockers and chasers. For me, one of the beauties of the game is the myriad of styles, tactics etc in which the game can be played (other than sticking a wannabe 6 at 10). I’m all for speeding the game up but I wouldn’t want to remove ways in which a team can act.

I can see your point of view and your nod about them looking to create the same situation off 10 is fair, as rugby is such a complex game that changes don't always have the effect you expect.

I'd like to see it as an ELV in a competition for a season to see how it would affect the game. It's entirely possible that you're right and there would be the same amount and type of kicking, just 10m further back, but I'd be interested to see if the additional risk and having to drop back would change the game and reduce ping-pong (or whether it might even increase it!).

In the immediate future, I'd like the IRB to issue a referee's directive immediately to strictly enforce the "Use it" call and award scrums if the 9 doesn't play within 5, rather than the current method of giving them encouragement with their christian name and waiting another 5 seconds. Also getting them to enforce that "blockers" must be fully bound would be good as well. Needs to be in place before the RWC.

Puja

Puja wrote:
In the immediate future, I'd like the IRB to issue a referee's directive immediately to strictly enforce the "Use it" call and award scrums if the 9 doesn't play within 5, rather than the current method of giving them encouragement with their christian name and waiting another 5 seconds. Also getting them to enforce that "blockers" must be fully bound would be good as well. Needs to be in place before the RWC.

Puja

Puja

I can’t see anybody, other than the scrum half union, disagreeing with this.

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote: don't think that's true.

Me neither.

Sorry, let me correct - a box kick near the line will almost always be aimed for touch anyway, which was the scenario under discussion.

Puja

I accept your change of statement, but also would argue that the box kick from near your own line is the one exception to the 'its very boring and unimaginative' rule.

Puja wrote:
A boxkick in the 22 will almost always be aimed for touch anyway, so it wouldn't affect ball in play time at all.

The difference with the boxkick is that, done correctly, it's almost a zero risk play. Blockers and long rucks remove any chance of a charge down and the scrum-half is completely cushioned and protected. Talk about ball in play time - it's effectively dead from the moment the ruck settles and the scrum-half starts organising his chess pieces. It's basically a restart.

The opening post in this thread sets out that box kicking is harder than ever when it comes to kicking down the touchline the kicking foot is not adjacent to, thus the placement of the non kicking foot has angled back away from the blockers to give more time for the kick, but that makes it a still more difficult skill to execute on as you have to connect higher with the ball in what's much more of a hook kick. So it's not a zero risk play, and actually with the improved block/charge down attempts (Sarries are brilliant at applying pressure with Itoje, Kruis and Skelton) it's harder to box kick generally but that perhaps wasn't set out in the opening post.

I'm actually wondering when we're going to start seeing 9s box kick of both feet as that will fundamentally change the resourcing of trying to get a chargedown of the exit play, so much so I wonder if sides would still attempt the charge down. I tried to have that conversation recently and would you know the other person thought it was too boring to try and map out how how and whether you'd contest the kick in every instance

Though I'm not averse to teams getting less time to play than they're currently afforded, even as boring as I am watching the box kick is ubiquitous, even if watching someone like Murray at the top of his game is in isolation damned impressive

Given a lot of 9s haven’t mastered decent box kicking with their preferred foot, I find it hard to imagine them doing so off their weaker foot.

Had you told me before Ronnie people would be making century breaks with the wrong hand I'd have found it hard to imagine. And there's a real advantage to having the option to go off either foot, Jonny showed that with the drop goal technique, so I'm sure somebody is going to be able to execute given skill levels in this area are already hugely increased

Raggs wrote:That removes an entire skillset from scrum halves.

They have a lot of skillsets to execute and I suspect the game would be more fun to watch if they concentrated more on their current ones.

Tbh, that'd be the one big advantage I can see off of a box kick ban. Force picking scrum-halves to be about who does best for the players around them, not who kicks best.

I should also note that if you ban kicks without a pass away from the ruck you ban this try and that's just wrong

Peat wrote:

Raggs wrote:That removes an entire skillset from scrum halves.

They have a lot of skillsets to execute and I suspect the game would be more fun to watch if they concentrated more on their current ones.

Tbh, that'd be the one big advantage I can see off of a box kick ban. Force picking scrum-halves to be about who does best for the players around them, not who kicks best.

I should also note that if you ban kicks without a pass away from the ruck you ban this try and that's just wrong

Firstly, I would like to note that every time I think I remember how good JSD was, I watch a video of him in his pomp and realise I've underestimated him.

Secondly, Wilkinson clearly gets passed that ball from the ruck there. Although I'll accept any excuse to watch that try again.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Peat wrote:

Raggs wrote:That removes an entire skillset from scrum halves.

They have a lot of skillsets to execute and I suspect the game would be more fun to watch if they concentrated more on their current ones.

Tbh, that'd be the one big advantage I can see off of a box kick ban. Force picking scrum-halves to be about who does best for the players around them, not who kicks best.

I should also note that if you ban kicks without a pass away from the ruck you ban this try and that's just wrong

Firstly, I would like to note that every time I think I remember how good JSD was, I watch a video of him in his pomp and realise I've underestimated him.

Secondly, Wilkinson clearly gets passed that ball from the ruck there. Although I'll accept any excuse to watch that try again.

Puja

JSD was fantastic. Sad he never really had the stellar international career that was possible.