We haven't had a new rule in a while ...

[Adam84]

Almost all creativity has been stripped from the game. It's now all about taking advantage of turnover ball because it's literally the only period during the game where you have any room to play.

Otherwise it's just kick to the corners to put them under pressure in possession, and try and force a turnover in the danger zone. Rinse and repeat.

I think something probably needs to change. I'd prefer the 5m offside line over the 40/20 imitation, though. Hell, even enforcing the existing offside line would make things a lot better.

As a coach, I would look at that and identify the easiest/lowest percentage play for gaining meters and retaining the ball is via pick and drives. With defence back 5m you’re now almost guaranteed to make 2-3m each pick and drive. Teams already go for this tactic now when defence is flush with the ruck, give them an extra few meters and every team will be doing it.

40-20 forces the wings to drop back, which at least opens up space out wide for teams to spread the call.

 

[Dan54]

As a coach, I would look at that and identify the easiest/lowest percentage play for gaining meters and retaining the ball is via pick and drives. With defence back 5m you’re now almost guaranteed to make 2-3m each pick and drive. Teams already go for this tactic now when defence is flush with the ruck, give them an extra few meters and every team will be doing it.

40-20 forces the wings to drop back, which at least opens up space out wide for teams to spread the call.

Yep, but my concern is will teams be going for 50-20 or 40-20 whatever to just set up driving mauls, and not sure I need too many more of them in game!!

 

[Dan54]

cause scrums are at a fixed point. Rucks / mauls move and even their very commencement is up to interpretation.

Under your rule you have to be 5m back from a ruck or maul? Just think about that for a second. There are so many negative and unreasonable outcomes from that

Yep and if someone wants to join ruck/maul are they offside as soon as they inside 5m line?

 

[Adam84]

Yep, but my concern is will teams be going for 50-20 or 40-20 whatever to just set up driving mauls, and not sure I need too many more of them in game!!

Perhaps, but if they do then that will force the defending wingers to drop back, which inevitably opens up space out wide.

By virtue of chasing driving mauls, we may see less of them.

 

[Dan54]

Perhaps, but if they do then that will force the defending wingers to drop back, which inevitably opens up space out wide.

By virtue of chasing driving mauls, we may see less of them.

Yep Adam, I do actually see both sides of that, I hope it does lead to creating a bit of space, though the back of my mind keeps saying tweeks like these do sometimes backfire, and the extra rolling mauls and also selecting wings as well as full backs on their ability to gather the ball back in and try to kick back out in other 22 are the only 2 that really worry me on this one. I will keep open mind, but I always thought the best way to open up the backlines was to somehow relax the ruck laws, encourage teams to have to put more players in, so as to stop so many players from cluttering up midfield. Though I not sure how to do that, but if you look back 10 years or so ago we actually had gaps that good players could exploit.
Just thoughts mate, that is all.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

WR (World Rugby) to trial limiting tackles to waist-high & below (see the "Concussion & Protecting Our Players" thread.

Also being trialled are:

50:22 kick: If the team in possession kicks the ball from inside their own half indirectly into touch inside their opponents' 22, or from inside their own 22 into their opponents' half, they will throw in to the resultant lineout. Approved for closed trial in the National Rugby Championship (NRC) in Australia.


The High Tackle Technique Warning: This has been successfully trialled at the World Rugby U20 Championship for the last two years, reducing the incidence of concussion by more than 50 per cent
Ability to review a yellow card when a player is in the sin-bin for dangerous foul play. Approved for closed trials.


The introduction of an infringement (penalty and free-kick) limit for teams. Once a team has reached the limit, a mandatory yellow card is given to the last offending player as a team sanction. Approved for closed trial in the National Rugby Championship in Australia.


The awarding of a goal-line drop-out to the defending team when an attacking player, who brings the ball into in-goal, is held up. Approved for closed trial in the National Rugby Championship in Australia.

https://i.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/1...ves-trial-to-limit-tackle-height-to-the-waist

NRC may have to be re-branded World Rugby Trial Law Lab

 

[Dismal Pillock]

WR (World Rugby) to trial limiting tackles to waist-high & below

Welcome to offload city baby!

How rugby will look at 2023 RWC:

DMac in training with the
new Gilbert's while sporting
the new super hi-tech AB uniform.

Further Rule Addendum: No touching the cape. ​

​

Further Further Rule Addendum: Only the All Blacks can wear capes.​

 

[Derpus]

Arent most concussions from low tackles on the wrong side?

 

[elementfreak]

Arent most concussions from low tackles on the wrong side?

From all of the ones I have seen this year in games it's been because the tackler's head is in the wrong spot and either a hip or a knee makes contact with their head.

 

[Tex]

From all of the ones I have seen this year in games it's been because the tackler's head is in the wrong spot and either a hip or a knee makes contact with their head.

I posted the same thought in the concussion thread. Can't see this solving the problem without creating a drastically different game flow.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

Apparently the research shows that head-on-head contact is the leading cause followed by head-on-upper-body which I presume means chest and/ or shoulder. It's been posted a few times on the "Concussion" thread so although it seems counter-intuitive I'm going to assume it's correct.