The New Breakdown Interpretations and All That Kicking

I am not sure where to put a thread about how we feel about the new breakdown interpretations and whether we all think it is contributing to all that kicking. The kicking, of course, has other causes as well including the rush defenses, teams not always committing to defensive rucks, and so on. But the fear of losing possession to a penalty at a ruck seems to add to it significantly.

I like to see the ball get away from the breakdown quickly. That's how I always liked to play. But with the current interpretations it seems that attacking teams with support players only a second or two away appear to get pinged. It makes it easy to see why teams are concerned about having a player make a good break and would rather kick away and play the territory game. So, my question is do you like the current laws interpretations, want to see them modified a bit (this is where I fall, by the way), or revert to the previous ones?

It's funny after being involved with Rugby for so long, I can never remember watching a match on television, in this case the last England match, and literally saying out loud (because the players and Eddie Jones can obviously hear me through the broadcast!!!) to stop the freakin' kicking. I'm not getting into the stats of whether other teams have kicked more, but this is the first time it aggravated me so much.

Why do you think?

I seem to remember that the stats showed that France kicked more (and badly).

It is frustrating as kicking seems to be 'the' strategy rather than just one. Having the variety of options as to how to play is what makes RU such a good game, but balance between options is very hard to achieve and harder still to keep hold of.

Do you think the kicking is directly attributable to the new breakdown interpretations? I know they were put in place to increase ball in play time, but if all that ball in play is kicking, is it worth it?

Listening to the full contact podcast earlier. Moore notes Jones said 3 years ago the team who kicks most wins. As moore and Jones said though gainst France as with some of the other games we kicked pretty poorly. On average this autumn we kicked twice per game more than against new Zealand in the wc. Dont think the players (england) showed much form outside of the pack and May. Dont think the tactics changed too much though.

OK, given that we are kicking about the same, then has our kicking (and chasing) game become so poor? I still don't understand why, if England has the ball at midfield, the ball has to be kicked after three bangs ahead by the forwards.......

I think the kicks themselves have been consistently too long. Dont think joseph being played there has necessarily helped challenging for the ball rather than the chase and tackle either. When the ball has been played to the backs it's been butchered a few times too!

There was a time, not that long ago, when the best teams wouldn't kick to the opposition for fear of a) losing possession & b) counter attack.
On the other hand, limited teams would try and play territory in the hope of a mistake or penalty by the defending team. The game has scope for both.

If it is a choice between giving defences a chance at the breakdown or loading it in favour of the attacking team at the ruck, then the latter results in thirty phase possession stats by sealing off rucks with impunity - RL without the sixth tackle. I will take the first option.

The set piece has to impose its importance to avoid identical size players in the forwards with the same strength/endurance ability - this is the fundamental issue.

When the kick chase has worked well May usually arrives at the same time as the ball. And because May is who he is that ball can go deep.

So the question is what is going wrong? May has still shown moments of brilliance in what has generally not been a great Autumn for the backs, so I guess we are pointing fingers at the kickers, either over bad kicks or bad communication.

At least half the kicking these days are box kicks, and the caterpillar setup with halfbacks orchestrating sufficient “blockers” to protect them means box kicks take too long to set up, and is impossible to chargedown, so it is a safe play, if the ball is secured the referee must not allow caterpillar setups, he must immediatelt call ball secured, and start his count down, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 and then award a scrum to the opposition if the ball is not played.

That will speed up play and force the team in possession to quicken their option

I think kicking is grand and different kicks make games more interesting but we see to many deep kicks and box kicks that generally are slow expected and give little tension.  Chips and grubbers should be used more by teams but aren't, they are better as they can cause mayhem for both sides and you don't know what will happen and can be a bit of a pinball sometimes.

The part I hate is the inevitability of kicks coming, a quick box kick would be fine but as Old Man says the 10 seconds of the forming the elongated ruck is the boring part.

I don't think though that many players these days have the skills to do spur of the moment kicks. Every kick seems to be preplaned and I think players kick by numbers.

The problem I have with the new breakdown interpretations is that players caught in possession won't release and there are way too many penalties. Players need to get sent to the bin for a 2nd holding on offense and a team card should be given on the 3rd offense.
This would reward teams who attack the breakdown and creates counter attacking opportunities.

asoreleftshoulder wrote:The problem I have with the new breakdown interpretations is that players caught in possession won't release and there are way too many penalties. Players need to get sent to the bin for a 2nd holding on offense and a team card should be given on the 3rd offense.
This would reward teams who attack the breakdown and creates counter attacking opportunities.

The problem is that you are saying that you need to be tougher on players caught in possession. Easiest way to not get caught in possession is to make sure the other team has the ball and hence more kicking.

An important thing for me is to not rush to change any laws but to let them bed in.

I'm really not adverse to world rugby bringing in some tougher stances on timings though. From box kicks more ruthlessly enforced as Biltong says to setting up lineouts and scrums. There was the 03 world cup shown on itv over lockdown and the quickness of scrums being called to the ball being out was crazy compared to day. Bring that back.

lostinwales wrote:

asoreleftshoulder wrote:The problem I have with the new breakdown interpretations is that players caught in possession won't release and there are way too many penalties. Players need to get sent to the bin for a 2nd holding on offense and a team card should be given on the 3rd offense.
This would reward teams who attack the breakdown and creates counter attacking opportunities.

The problem is that you are saying that you need to be tougher on players caught in possession. Easiest way to not get caught in possession is to make sure the other team has the ball and hence more kicking.

Yeah it's a tough balance to get right,to be honest I'm beginning to feel that to truly create enough space on the pitch then maybe we need to go the same route as League and go to 13 a side.
I'd like to keep the scrum as is do I'd remove 2 backs instead of flankers.It would keep the set piece relevant and let the backs have room to work.