RugbyRebels

For me as a former 9 I'm taken with just how much more difficult box kicking is down the left touchline for a right footed kicker. It was always the case it's a more comfortable kick when it's your kicking foot being closer to the touchline, but now it's only getting harder. The plant foot used to be at right angles to the touchline, but just about all the good kickers are now angling away anything up to a further 45 degrees from the defence so good are teams getting at trying to charge down the exit kick from the 9. Consequently it's a much more explosive action connecting with a higher ball (higher off the ground that is) and more of a hook kick than once was the case, and that only makes the timing and thus control of the kick harder.

Obviously the same would hold for a left footed kicker down the right touchline. I'd like to see how this is changing, if it is, the patterns of where kickoffs are going, I'm strongly assuming kickoffs will all things being equal head more toward the touchline which gives the 9 the greater difficulty in getting a good kick clear.

And good luck to those 9s whose groins must be taking a battering with all the practice to execute on one of the hardest skills in isolation now going in rugby. It's a shame it's usually such a bloody awful piece of play to watch as the skill levels in this area have improved hugely in the last few seasons, it'd probably draw more admiration if there weren't so many groans watching yet another box kick.

Out of interest, would anyone here object to the concept of a (post RWC) ELV stating that the ball must be passed at least once before being kicked from the base of a ruck?

Puja

No objection from me on that.

Another thing I’ve noticed more and more is the defending team aggressively hitting the ruck as the scrum half is about to pick the ball up, hoping that they will knock one of the oppo into him and force a knock on.

It’s not illegal, but it is dangerous and only a matter of time before it results in a 20 stone forward landing on an unsuspecting scum half’s knee in the wrong position IMO.

Scrumhead wrote:No objection from me on that.

Another thing I’ve noticed more and more is the defending team aggressively hitting the ruck as the scrum half is about to pick the ball up, hoping that they will knock one of the oppo into him and force a knock on.

It’s not illegal, but it is dangerous and only a matter of time before it results in a 20 stone forward landing on an unsuspecting scum half’s knee in the wrong position IMO.

Didn't exactly that happen to Ben Youngs last year?

Puja

Puja wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:No objection from me on that.

Another thing I’ve noticed more and more is the defending team aggressively hitting the ruck as the scrum half is about to pick the ball up, hoping that they will knock one of the oppo into him and force a knock on.

It’s not illegal, but it is dangerous and only a matter of time before it results in a 20 stone forward landing on an unsuspecting scum half’s knee in the wrong position IMO.

Didn't exactly that happen to Ben Youngs last year?

Puja

I assume he had spent his usual 15mins deciding who to pass to. If so, he only has himself to blame.

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:No objection from me on that.

Another thing I’ve noticed more and more is the defending team aggressively hitting the ruck as the scrum half is about to pick the ball up, hoping that they will knock one of the oppo into him and force a knock on.

It’s not illegal, but it is dangerous and only a matter of time before it results in a 20 stone forward landing on an unsuspecting scum half’s knee in the wrong position IMO.

Didn't exactly that happen to Ben Youngs last year?

Puja

I assume he had spent his usual 15mins deciding who to pass to. If so, he only has himself to blame.

He has Dylan Hartley to blame, Dylan being as useful as a chocolate teapot in protecting our ball (and 9) is my recollection

Maybe? I don’t recall the specific incident with Ben Youngs but I’ve seen it more and more over the past couple of seasons.

As much as the ball/scrum half needs to be protected, no-one can accurately control how a player falls, and in this scenario when we’re dealing with a heavy player or two landing on a smaller player, it’s surely qualifies as reckless.

True, but most often it seems to occur when the forward is taking a breather, resting a hand on the ruck, looking somewhere else, and not in a strong position. Basically ripe for a good counter ruck. It's rare that a properly set forward is going to get flung back onto his SH.

Scrumhead wrote:Maybe? I don’t recall the specific incident with Ben Youngs but I’ve seen it more and more over the past couple of seasons.

As much as the ball/scrum half needs to be protected, no-one can accurately control how a player falls, and in this scenario when we’re dealing with a heavy player or two landing on a smaller player, it’s surely qualifies as reckless.

Think it was the second game of the 2018 6N. Sticks in my mind because you could hear him scream via the ref's mic.

Scrumhead wrote:Maybe? I don’t recall the specific incident with Ben Youngs but I’ve seen it more and more over the past couple of seasons.

As much as the ball/scrum half needs to be protected, no-one can accurately control how a player falls, and in this scenario when we’re dealing with a heavy player or two landing on a smaller player, it’s surely qualifies as reckless.

you could address such concerns if only there was a law requiring players to bind before playing at the ruck, we can but dream

Centres and Wings flying into red zone attacking driving mauls to overload the defence is getting almost the norm.

I think the TV premership hi lights packages indicate there are more genuine attacking backs strike moves ran from 1st phase ball than a few years ago - been happening for a while but seems to be growing more and more - gotta be easier to run against a classic 3/4ers defence than a full team.

I often get scoffed at for this....but Sinkler and Genge.....social backgrounds....its a minefield of appropriateness but I think its a very good thing.

Puja wrote:Out of interest, would anyone here object to the concept of a (post RWC) ELV stating that the ball must be passed at least once before being kicked from the base of a ruck?

Puja

I was thinking that when reading Digby's post. The pessimist in me says it will result in even more faffing but it's still worth a shot.

That removes an entire skillset from scrum halves.

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

Place kick restarts used to be a thing - removing those took an entire skillset from fly-halves. Would the box kick really be mourned?

Puja

Puja wrote:

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

Place kick restarts used to be a thing - removing those took an entire skillset from fly-halves. Would the box kick really be mourned?

Puja

I wouldn't mourn the box kick as a default nothings on so....tactic.

Puja wrote:Out of interest, would anyone here object to the concept of a (post RWC) ELV stating that the ball must be passed at least once before being kicked from the base of a ruck?

Puja

Image a scenario where it's a one score game and your team is facing an attacking lineout on the 5 meter line. Your lock gets the call right and steals the ball, resulting in ruck ball less than a meter out. From the ruck your scrummie puts in a really good box kick, relieving the pressure out beyond the 22. But it's called back because it wasn't passed once....

Then he should know the new rules.

Coffin corner however becomes even harder to get out of. Equally, kick chase becomes less enticing.

Box kicks only within the 22?

switchskier wrote:

Puja wrote:Out of interest, would anyone here object to the concept of a (post RWC) ELV stating that the ball must be passed at least once before being kicked from the base of a ruck?

Puja

Image a scenario where it's a one score game and your team is facing an attacking lineout on the 5 meter line. Your lock gets the call right and steals the ball, resulting in ruck ball less than a meter out. From the ruck your scrummie puts in a really good box kick, relieving the pressure out beyond the 22. But it's called back because it wasn't passed once....

As Raggs says, he should know the laws.

In the days of more fluid rucks, that kind of box kick didn't happen - there was too high a risk of the scrum-half getting trampled mid-kick. The fly-half would stand on the dead ball line and it was a skillset of a scrum-half (one that has now been removed) to get the ball fast to him to snap a kick away before the chase got to him. Even if you look as recently as 2003 - Dawson and Bracken didn't box kick the ball in defence; they passed back to Wilkinson who cleared it away.

It wasn't until 2005ish that box kicks really started become en vogue and teams started placing players dubiously onside and dubiously attached to the ruck to protect their scrum-halves.

The game changes, a lot. Not always for the better.

Puja

So you’d rather the fh kicks it dead, leading to less ball time in play, than the SH kicking a contestable box kick?
The reason there has been such a rise in box kicking is because, done correctly, it’s a good way of gaining tens of yards with a decent chance of regaining the ball or at least having 100% control over where the next breakdown will be. For teams who use it a lot, I reckon all you’d find is that the fh would just put in the kick instead.
Now, banning a kick off the first phase of turnover ball is something I could get behind.......for England.

Mellsblue wrote:So you’d rather the fh kicks it dead, leading to less ball time in play, than the SH kicking a contestable box kick?
The reason there has been such a rise in box kicking is because, done correctly, it’s a good way of gaining tens of yards with a decent chance of regaining the ball or at least having 100% control over where the next breakdown will be. For teams who use it a lot, I reckon all you’d find is that the fh would just put in the kick instead.
Now, banning a kick off the first phase of turnover ball is something I could get behind.......for England.

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

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:So you’d rather the fh kicks it dead, leading to less ball time in play, than the SH kicking a contestable box kick?
The reason there has been such a rise in box kicking is because, done correctly, it’s a good way of gaining tens of yards with a decent chance of regaining the ball or at least having 100% control over where the next breakdown will be. For teams who use it a lot, I reckon all you’d find is that the fh would just put in the kick instead.
Now, banning a kick off the first phase of turnover ball is something I could get behind.......for England.

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



Puja

don't think that's true.

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:So you’d rather the fh kicks it dead, leading to less ball time in play, than the SH kicking a contestable box kick?
The reason there has been such a rise in box kicking is because, done correctly, it’s a good way of gaining tens of yards with a decent chance of regaining the ball or at least having 100% control over where the next breakdown will be. For teams who use it a lot, I reckon all you’d find is that the fh would just put in the kick instead.
Now, banning a kick off the first phase of turnover ball is something I could get behind.......for England.

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



Puja

don't think that's true.

Me neither.

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:So you’d rather the fh kicks it dead, leading to less ball time in play, than the SH kicking a contestable box kick?
The reason there has been such a rise in box kicking is because, done correctly, it’s a good way of gaining tens of yards with a decent chance of regaining the ball or at least having 100% control over where the next breakdown will be. For teams who use it a lot, I reckon all you’d find is that the fh would just put in the kick instead.
Now, banning a kick off the first phase of turnover ball is something I could get behind.......for England.

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.

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo 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.



Puja

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

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:So you’d rather the fh kicks it dead, leading to less ball time in play, than the SH kicking a contestable box kick?
The reason there has been such a rise in box kicking is because, done correctly, it’s a good way of gaining tens of yards with a decent chance of regaining the ball or at least having 100% control over where the next breakdown will be. For teams who use it a lot, I reckon all you’d find is that the fh would just put in the kick instead.
Now, banning a kick off the first phase of turnover ball is something I could get behind.......for England.

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