SH rule changes incoming - not all thank goodness

[MarleyWasp]

I've always thought that 'held up' should not be rewarded with an attacking scrum and another bite at the cherry. Failure i.e. not scoring should be a turnover and the defensive team should get the reward.

Agree with that, I find it very frustrating to have a great defensive set and despite 'winning' you have to go through it all over again.

On the one hand I agree, but I think the danger is it will encourage players diving into the side to obscure TV cameras from showing the ground (Biyi's try that wasn't given at Welford Road a couple of years ago being a prime example). There is also a danger that a referee will stop play to review a potential try too early and the attacking team will effectively be penalised due to the ref being too keen to intervene.

[wasps]

The rule of unintended consequences is what bothers me.

On the face of it, both sound like good ideas.

I'm mostly in favour of the held up try law.
I feel there's more that can go wrong with the 50:22 kick rule though.



We've seen before that something trialled at lower levels or in the SH doesn't always exactly correlate to how a Saracens type team will dissect every aspect of the new play phases to identify a way to exploit it.



My initial feeling is that a traditional wasps style of play could benefit from these rules, but more than that, I want them to benefit the game as a whole

[Beasties]

The held up and then scrum going is a good thing for me. But the kicking rule is a huge mistake I think. I can't see how it won't end up with more kicking. I also don't think the ability to simply leather it up the field (ok, so you've got to bounce into touch) should earn you that many yards and then get you a line out. I see endless ping pong until someone lands the touch finder. Meanwhile, those who seek to keep ball in hand to gain territory know that if they are turned over they could be defending a line out in their own 22 within 1 kick. Pretty brainless stuff for me.

Agreed on the kicking rule. Anything which could potentially lead to even more lineout pushover tries should be binned immediately. Lineout pushovers are the single dullest aspect of modern rugby. Apart from the ten minute scrum sets obvs. More complicated for the officials, why would that be a good idea? Also makes things more of a lottery. And I'm not sure why people are saying it could favour Wasps when we're hopeless at lineout mauling.

[RogerE]

Completely agree about the lineout pushover (so-called rolling maul) which is nothing more than obstruction.

[Shugs]

The held up and then scrum going is a good thing for me. But the kicking rule is a huge mistake I think. I can't see how it won't end up with more kicking. I also don't think the ability to simply leather it up the field (ok, so you've got to bounce into touch) should earn you that many yards and then get you a line out. I see endless ping pong until someone lands the touch finder. Meanwhile, those who seek to keep ball in hand to gain territory know that if they are turned over they could be defending a line out in their own 22 within 1 kick. Pretty brainless stuff for me.

Agreed on the kicking rule. Anything which could potentially lead to even more lineout pushover tries should be binned immediately. Lineout pushovers are the single dullest aspect of modern rugby. Apart from the ten minute scrum sets obvs. More complicated for the officials, why would that be a good idea? Also makes things more of a lottery. And I'm not sure why people are saying it could favour Wasps when we're hopeless at lineout mauling.

Absolutely. I just don't see the downside of trying to kick. If you come up short of the 22 you're just conceding a line out well into your opponents half. A tactic many employ anyway. If you get it into the 22 the line out is yours. As long as you don't go direct to touch you can't lose.

[Rossm]

The held up and then scrum going is a good thing for me. But the kicking rule is a huge mistake I think. I can't see how it won't end up with more kicking. I also don't think the ability to simply leather it up the field (ok, so you've got to bounce into touch) should earn you that many yards and then get you a line out. I see endless ping pong until someone lands the touch finder. Meanwhile, those who seek to keep ball in hand to gain territory know that if they are turned over they could be defending a line out in their own 22 within 1 kick. Pretty brainless stuff for me.

Agreed on the kicking rule. Anything which could potentially lead to even more lineout pushover tries should be binned immediately. Lineout pushovers are the single dullest aspect of modern rugby. Apart from the ten minute scrum sets obvs. More complicated for the officials, why would that be a good idea? Also makes things more of a lottery. And I'm not sure why people are saying it could favour Wasps when we're hopeless at lineout mauling.

Absolutely. I just don't see the downside of trying to kick. If you come up short of the 22 you're just conceding a line out well into your opponents half. A tactic many employ anyway. If you get it into the 22 the line out is yours. As long as you don't go direct to touch you can't lose.

Yes and the strange bounces of an oval ball, particularly on a plastic pitch. Imagine the heartache when, say, Jacob had a go and got the pill within inches of the touchline and the damn thing bounces back into the field of play

[baldpaul101]

The rule of unintended consequences is what bothers me.

that exactly.

[NellyWellyWaspy]

The rule of unintended consequences is what bothers me.

that exactly.

Or, in other words, what can Sarries and Chiefs come up with to negate the desired effect which was to create opportunities for attack, so that the games can remain a borefest?

[westwaleswasp]

The rule of unintended consequences is what bothers me.

that exactly.

Or, in other words, what can Sarries and Chiefs come up with to negate the desired effect which was to create opportunities for attack, so that the games can remain a borefest?

Chiefs will suffer hard for the held up part of the changes.
Their endless moving of the drinks cabinet one inch closer to Berlin will now yield a lot less, and not before time.
I grow tired of watching teams spurn potential  overlaps in favour of endless pick and drive, knowing the ref will eventually ping the defending team for offside or it will go back to the scrum for held up.

One thing the law changes might do is devalue the front row's wage packet whilst making the Wades of this world even more valuable, if they work as intended.

Sarries will beat the rule changes in the usual fashion- by bringing on Lions off the bench on the 50 minute mark and fiscally doping. Does not matter what the laws are if you are adept at ignoring the wage cap and getting away with it.

[Mellie]

The rule of unintended consequences is what bothers me.

A tactic that may work is when teams get close in a static position (where Exeter would keep battering away until they score) instead of trying to repell them just team up to help them over the try line without grounding the ball to gain a drop out.

Hopefully attacking teams will try to draw players in then spin the ball wide. Forwards seem to get white line fever all the time. In Wasps last game they ignored a huge overlap but fortunately Vailanu scored anyway. Not sure any of the forwards saw it. Only the commentators.

[Bloke in North Dorset]

The rule of unintended consequences is what bothers me.

A tactic that may work is when teams get close in a static position (where Exeter would keep battering away until they score) instead of trying to repell them just team up to help them over the try line without grounding the ball to gain a drop out.

Hopefully attacking teams will try to draw players in then spin the ball wide. Forwards seem to get white line fever all the time. In Wasps last game they ignored a huge overlap but fortunately Vailanu scored anyway. Not sure any of the forwards saw it. Only the commentators.

Isn’t identifying the overlap job of 9 & 10? Whether the forwards listen is another matter. 

[DGP Wasp]

A tactic that may work is when teams get close in a static position (where Exeter would keep battering away until they score) instead of trying to repell them just team up to help them over the try line without grounding the ball to gain a drop out.

A high risk strategy!  Would certainly set alarm bells ringing if Wasps adopted it, inept as they are at maul defence!

[NellyWellyWaspy]

It requires that someone sacrifice themselves and gets directly under the attacker with the ball, and latches on to the ball, while two more defenders bind on each side to stop rolling. It might actually be worth pulling them over the line! I would not want to do that.

[wasps]

One unintended consequence could well be more penalty trys.
Particularly if defending teams are trying to find ways of holding the ball up that are borderline illegal.

Refs may start awarding a penalty try sooner to ensure that a defending team is kept honest

[hookender]

Guess it would be whether ref has called maul  ?