Union's slow conversion to League on course

[Niegs]

50:22 and Goal Line Drop Out officially adopted into law. What's next? Play the balls instead of the rarely-legal mess called a 'ruck'?

https://www.world.rugby/news/714829/wor ... riven-laws

[JM2K6]

Fucking rubbish. Goal line dropout needs a tweak at the very least, it's made booting it long far more popular. 50:22 I fucking hate - it's a ridiculous momentum swing and most of the time it comes from turnover ball or situations where there was no way the defence could stop it, you shouldn't be getting 50m of territory AND possession just because you had the ball in your own half and were able to not fuck up the kick. And god forbid a lucky bounce should give you an absurd benefit.

Yes, I know the 50:22 can be exciting, but so would a pride of lions chasing after Johnny Sexton and despite my repeated emails that's not going to be trialled any time soon

[Biffer]

Yes, I know the 50:22 can be exciting, but so would a pride of lions chasing after Johnny Sexton and despite my repeated emails that's not going to be trialled any time soon

Where is your petition

I will sign it and so will my friends.

[PornDog]

The 50:22 has helped reduce the sheer amount of boring ass stupid fucking shite "contestable" box kicks that are in the game - and so for that reason alone gets a from me

[sockwithaticket]

I think we should go back to a 22 drop out for grounding a ball that passes over the try line. Fairly aimless kicks can end up pinning a team back far too much.

Perfectly happy to keep it for ball being held up over the tryline. A solid reward for good defence and should encourage attacks to do something other than endlessly pick and go on the line.

Yes, I know the 50:22 can be exciting, but so would a pride of lions chasing after Johnny Sexton and despite my repeated emails that's not going to be trialled any time soon

Where is your petition

I will sign it and so will my friends.

+1

[Kawazaki]

The goal line drop out should have all the defending/recieving team stood behind the 22 so the tap and go option is always available.

[Tichtheid]

The 50:22 has helped reduce the sheer amount of boring ass stupid fucking shite "contestable" box kicks that are in the game - and so for that reason alone gets a from me

I'm really not a fan of the 50/22, nor of box kicks but defences are so strong I can see why hoofing the pill into the clear blue/night sky is used as an attacking tactic, it's the rugby equivalent of the football "get it in the facking mixer" high ball into the penalty area.

Any attempt to legislate against the Garryowen would make our arcane laws even more obscure - perhaps the kicking team can't attempt to catch the ball? Maybe that would work but it would mean more bashing it up by ever bigger orcs carrying hard.

[Stranger]

I think we should go back to a 22 drop out for grounding a ball that passes over the try line. Fairly aimless kicks can end up pinning a team back far too much.

Perfectly happy to keep it for ball being held up over the tryline. A solid reward for good defence and should encourage attacks to do something other than endlessly pick and go on the line.

Yes, I know the 50:22 can be exciting, but so would a pride of lions chasing after Johnny Sexton and despite my repeated emails that's not going to be trialled any time soon

Where is your petition

I will sign it and so will my friends.

+1

+2

[PornDog]

I think we should go back to a 22 drop out for grounding a ball that passes over the try line. Fairly aimless kicks can end up pinning a team back far too much.

Perfectly happy to keep it for ball being held up over the tryline. A solid reward for good defence and should encourage attacks to do something other than endlessly pick and go on the line.

Agreed

The 50:22 has helped reduce the sheer amount of boring ass stupid fucking shite "contestable" box kicks that are in the game - and so for that reason alone gets a from me

I'm really not a fan of the 50/22, nor of box kicks but defences are so strong I can see why hoofing the pill into the clear blue/night sky is used as an attacking tactic, it's the rugby equivalent of the football "get it in the facking mixer" high ball into the penalty area.

Any attempt to legislate against the Garryowen would make our arcane laws even more obscure - perhaps the kicking team can't attempt to catch the ball? Maybe that would work but it would mean more bashing it up by ever bigger orcs carrying hard.

I don't want a good old school Garryowen removed from the game at all, they can be very entertaining - especially when you've 40,000 people doing the old "ooooooooooooohhhhhh" - will he/wont he catch it shenanigans. However, it has just been used far far (far) too fucking much in recent years - largely as a result of defensive lines being largely impenetrable. Forcing another player to drop back is no bad thing.

[Niegs]

Agree with the above about having a normal 22m drop out for balls touched down in-goal by non-kicking team. Are those only for ball kicked dead now?


Does the 50:22 really force a defender to drop back / lead to more open attack?

... side note, in TWO highlights reels this past week (not at the highest of levels, top flight commentary teams, tbf), I've heard people refer to the 22:50.

[Tichtheid]

Agree with the above about having a normal 22m drop out for balls touched down in-goal by non-kicking team. Are those only for ball kicked dead now?


Does the 50:22 really force a defender to drop back / lead to more open attack?

... side note, in TWO highlights reels this past week (not at the highest of levels, top flight commentary teams, tbf), I've heard people refer to the 22:50.

Balls kicked dead are taken back for the scrum where the kick happened, there used to be another option but I can't remember what it was now, didn't you used to be able to opt to receive the kick from the 22?


I'm losing track, is there actually any point in having the 22m line on a rugby pitch save for this new 50/22 law?

[Dan54]

Agree with the above about having a normal 22m drop out for balls touched down in-goal by non-kicking team. Are those only for ball kicked dead now?


Does the 50:22 really force a defender to drop back / lead to more open attack?

I wonder if they keep introducing these f***en laws because they think it easier to force defenders' back than suggesting that teams use skill to beat them? You know like creating space and passing to players that get into said space etc??
It's driving me up the wall, so called law changes etc to make game more attractive to new viewers and don't worry about the fact they ruining the game for those of us that have been around for years.

[Guy Smiley]

Agree with the above about having a normal 22m drop out for balls touched down in-goal by non-kicking team. Are those only for ball kicked dead now?


Does the 50:22 really force a defender to drop back / lead to more open attack?

... side note, in TWO highlights reels this past week (not at the highest of levels, top flight commentary teams, tbf), I've heard people refer to the 22:50.

Balls kicked dead are taken back for the scrum where the kick happened, there used to be another option but I can't remember what it was now, didn't you used to be able to opt to receive the kick from the 22?


I'm losing track, is there actually any point in having the 22m line on a rugby pitch save for this new 50/22 law?

The Laws page should have been updated to cover these new variations and it doesn't specify what happens after a defender grounds the ball in goal, apart from calling that a touchdown. I hate that word. The example they give shows a defender passing the ball back into the in goal and a subsequent tackle results in a grounding and 5 m scrum.

If a defender manages to 'touchdown' on the in goal touch line, that results in a 22m dropout.



I disagree with Neigs about turning into League. I don't think we're anywhere near doing that, although the increased focus on oprotecting the head is going to see further changes and that will get interesting.

Likewise... we don't see the 50:22 played for much here in the SH much. In the Crusaders v Brumbies game last night one of the Brumbies wingers ran a ball back from in goal after retrieving a kick there. I expected to see him ground it and a 22 taken as he was under pressure. Both teams were intent on running the ball.

I like the premise the 50:22 presents... opening the field up with the need to drop back and defend the kick. Perhaps we are lacking for accurate field kicker who can take advantage of this down here. The upcoming mid year tests could be a clash of tactics around that.

[lemonhead]

Agree with the above about having a normal 22m drop out for balls touched down in-goal by non-kicking team. Are those only for ball kicked dead now?


Does the 50:22 really force a defender to drop back / lead to more open attack?

I wonder if they keep introducing these f***en laws because they think it easier to force defenders' back than suggesting that teams use skill to beat them? You know like creating space and passing to players that get into said space etc??
It's driving me up the wall, so called law changes etc to make game more attractive to new viewers and don't worry about the fact they ruining the game for those of us that have been around for years.

That used be the game. Then we had 13 and now sometimes 14 in the defensive line along with some very lenient policing of offside.

Fine with it.

[Guy Smiley]

Agree with the above about having a normal 22m drop out for balls touched down in-goal by non-kicking team. Are those only for ball kicked dead now?


Does the 50:22 really force a defender to drop back / lead to more open attack?

I wonder if they keep introducing these f***en laws because they think it easier to force defenders' back than suggesting that teams use skill to beat them? You know like creating space and passing to players that get into said space etc??
It's driving me up the wall, so called law changes etc to make game more attractive to new viewers and don't worry about the fact they ruining the game for those of us that have been around for years.

That used be the game. Then we had 13 and now sometimes 14 in the defensive line along with some very lenient policing of offside.

Fine with it.

This.

[Niegs]

Guy, Union will never go too far toward League as it still has a chip on its shoulder from 1895.

We sure do like to nick their innovations though… sin bin, TMO, decoy runners, second man plays, blitz defence, goal line drop out, 50:22, I hear more and more announcers and players talking about ‘the right/left edge’.

This idea of limited phases will likely piss most people off: https://www.foxsports.com.au/rugby/borr ... 31ec0a0ee5
.

[Big D]

The 50/22 is fine. There hasn't been too many games where teams have endlessly went for it and plenty games where teams haven't really consciously tried for it.

The goal line drop out is bollocks though. Especially if allowing drop goals off them.

[sockwithaticket]

The 50/22 is fine. There hasn't been too many games where teams have endlessly went for it and plenty games where teams haven't really consciously tried for it.

The goal line drop out is bollocks though. Especially if allowing drop goals off them.

Kick directly to touch or make sure it's contestable then. The handful of drop goals (I'm only aware of two) have come from the team in possession just belting the ball straight up field beyond the ability of any chasers to get there and apply pressure, leaving the player who scores a drop goal an absolute age to line up their shot.

[JM2K6]

The 50:22 has helped reduce the sheer amount of boring ass stupid fucking shite "contestable" box kicks that are in the game - and so for that reason alone gets a from me

I don't think it's had a material impact on the number of box kicks. It's definitely made teams more likely to kick away turnover ball instead of keeping ball in hand, though.

[TheFrog]

The 50:22 has helped reduce the sheer amount of boring ass stupid fucking shite "contestable" box kicks that are in the game - and so for that reason alone gets a from me

Fair point.