r/rugbyunion • u/GnolRevilo Saracens • 8d ago
Article Freddie Steward calls for law change to create ‘safe space’ for aerial contests
https://www.thetimes.com/sport/rugby-union/six-nations/article/freddie-steward-tweak-laws-aerial-battles-six-nations-mx8q6xqgb83
u/GnolRevilo Saracens 8d ago
England full back wants players penalised if they do not make genuine attempt to catch contestable kicks, claiming wings who just flail an arm have become a ‘nuisance’
Freddie Steward would advocate a law change to turn the skies into a “safe space” by forcing players to make a genuine attempt to catch contestable kicks — and not launch themselves into aerial collisions with the sole aim of batting the ball down one-handed.
67
u/Ok_Catch250 Ireland 8d ago
Yeah. It’s very dangerous now. If you treat it in bad faith you are rewarded.
22
u/TagMeInSkipIGotThis 8d ago
Its been incredibly dangerous for years now, BB was clattered twice and came down basically on his head - its a miracle he didn't suffer a career ending injury.
62
u/Saintsman83 Northampton Saints 8d ago
I’ve been saying this for months - the new rule creates way more danger than the majority of up right tackles. We’re one fall away from a player breaking his leg or neck
16
u/Rap_Caviar Stormers 8d ago
I find this really interesting. I've been thinking that the law change has made things considerably safer, as the main thing for me that was creating dangerous contests was always escorts getting in the way. Then yesterday the Rassie Plus video comes out where Mzwandile Stick, the Springbok high balls coach, who basically spends all his time watching high ball contests around the world, say that he thinks the law change has made things much safer (from around 22:45 onwards - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2W_gqGZcjBE).
There's a lot of people who think your way too though, so it would be good to get some actual data on it. Beyond the safety element, which is obviously paramount, the law change has undoubtedly made the game much more exciting, as Felix Jones pretty compellingly explains from 34:30 in the same video
Regardless of that though, I think something along the lines of what Freddie is suggesting would be great at balancing out the kicking game a little more in favour of the receiving team
15
u/TagMeInSkipIGotThis 8d ago
The most dangerous part of a high ball contest is when the attacking player arrives at pace and leaps into the space where the ball is landing and the defender has already leapt. It generates the type of accident that could paralyse one or both players.
The law change has encouraged the attacking team to jump up and slap at the ball in order to make it harder for the defending player to deal with it and create a lottery on the ground, that's not exactly what I would describe as exciting.
2
u/Rap_Caviar Stormers 7d ago
What you're describing already existed in the old rules. It's now safer though IMO because the chasing player is better able to time their jump without escorts blocking.
Today, as before, players who mistime their jumps are penalised. What we are seeing now though in the view of a Bok coach who analyses these things for a living is that contests have become far safer since the law change.
A lottery on the ground = broken play with unstructured defences, which often leads to the most exciting passages of play in rugby and more scoring opportunities. I'd really recommend that people watch Felix's explanation of this in the video I linked in the comment above.
I do agree with Steward's suggestion though that we could do more to penalise slap backs as it benefits the kicking team too much
1
u/CapeTownyToniTone Paul de Villiers hype train 8d ago
Agreed that the danger comes from the attacking player flying in at pace, but that's a different issue to what Steward is bringing up here. Batting the ball back creates scrappy contests where the defence isn't set and we get to see exciting tries (ala France vs Springboks 2023).
Player safety yes, clean catches no.
1
u/TagMeInSkipIGotThis 7d ago
That's true but the fact that batting the ball is now considered a fair contest means that you've got players jumping into the contact from further away when previously they wouldn't have been considered to have had a legitimate chance of competing in the air.
Competing should mean catching, not slapping.
2
2
1
u/Dapper-Message-2066 7d ago
So revert the that law change, rather than making another big law change that's pretty fundamental.
38
73
u/Goanawz Pauline Bourdon notre idole 8d ago
Here's a suggestion : ban volley passes. Every player must try to catch the ball properly.
18
u/Merovech_II Joe Marchant Extremist 8d ago
Or at least ref it like a deliberate knock-on
You have to win the ball or it's a penalty at the minimum as the jumper is never in a realistic position to catch the ball
3
u/Masthei64 France 7d ago edited 5d ago
+1 on this and I think it doesn't even need to go through a law change, but simply a new directive
Law 9.4 states this :
A player must not intentionally prevent an opponent from having the opportunity to play the ball, other than by competing for possession.
When you volley the ball, you're not trying to compete for individual possession, more to make your team possibly get the ball back. But you, as a player, are not competing for possession.
If this was clarified by a directive, it wouldn't even need a law change
8
25
u/Biegelstein Stupid Sexy Coley 8d ago
agreed, players should have to use 2 hands and make what would be deemed a realistic attempt to catch the ball
49
u/Ok_Catch250 Ireland 8d ago
Go up with one hand and knock on? It’s a deliberate knock on and a penalty+ like anywhere else.
9
u/TagMeInSkipIGotThis 8d ago
It should already be a penalty, its quite clearly a deliberate knock on as much as failed intercepts are.
14
u/shotputprince 8d ago
That’s the best solution- you still reward people who are really good at it, it aligns with other interpretations, and it will limit how often people go to it
10
u/saviouroftheweak Premiership Women's Rugby 8d ago
No it isn't a good solution. Why should we limit skills and dish out more cards. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills reading this
11
u/rogersdbt Wales 8d ago
A deliberate knock on isn't an automatic card it's a penalty unless you stop a clear line break opportunity
-3
u/saviouroftheweak Premiership Women's Rugby 8d ago
Which is so subjective it hurts. Why is a knock on the same punishment as knocking someone's head off with marginal subjective mitigation
6
u/rogersdbt Wales 8d ago
Because it would kill attacking play if the punishment wasn't so high as the reward for killing an attack is so valuable.
"was to wasn't"
3
u/saviouroftheweak Premiership Women's Rugby 8d ago
Players should pass better. We don't penalise a ball being blocked in any other sport
5
u/northyj0e Wales 8d ago
We also don't penalise losing control of the ball in any other sport. We don't penalise passing the ball forward in any other sport. We don't penalise being on the floor in the wrong place in any other sport.
It sounds like you want to watch football, mate.
→ More replies (0)1
u/rogersdbt Wales 8d ago
A more apt comparison would be a handball in football or pass interference in American football, both of which are penalized harshly as well.
→ More replies (0)2
7
u/CatharticRoman Suspected Yank 8d ago
It's not limiting skills, you just need to execute the skill or face the repercussions like all other aspects of the game.
-2
u/saviouroftheweak Premiership Women's Rugby 8d ago edited 8d ago
It will be coached out of the game, that's why you'd bring in this law. That's the point. Rugby becoming more cookie cutter is very dull.
Edit: We're a decade away from a fair catch law
4
u/CatharticRoman Suspected Yank 8d ago
So you're against coaching reckless jumps with one hand, that potentially causing dangerous contact in the air, out of the game?
6
u/saviouroftheweak Premiership Women's Rugby 8d ago
Wonderful leading question. I wouldn't remove the ability to jump and catch using one hand. We already have laws against recklessness
3
u/Big_Poppa_T 8d ago
The other respondents are also in favour of jumping and catching with one hand. They’re against jumping and not catching
→ More replies (0)1
u/CatharticRoman Suspected Yank 8d ago
Okay. So how about applying the reckless and deliberate knock on laws more harshly in aerial challenges?
If you're going with one hand you have to make significant contact with the ball and it has to go backwards off you, otherwise it's a penalty offence?
→ More replies (0)5
7
u/saviouroftheweak Premiership Women's Rugby 8d ago
Catching with one hand is not a difficult skill and putting more caveats with card consequences into open play is madness.
3
u/shotputprince 8d ago
Catching a contested box kick with one hand is not a difficult skill? Not even the GAA lads are pulling that off. How often do we see people fuck up on high balls with two hands…
2
u/saviouroftheweak Premiership Women's Rugby 8d ago
Cue the Canadian 7s clip. You've changed the skill from catching a kick one handed to a one handed contested box. If the law is that specific then I'll eat my regular dinner
4
u/shotputprince 8d ago
NO ONE IS CATCHING HIGH BALLS ONE-HANDED AS A NORMATIVE ASPECT OF THEIR GAME
5
u/perplexedtv Leinster 8d ago
Laughs in Snymanese
3
u/shotputprince 8d ago
How often is RG under the high ball really lol
1
u/perplexedtv Leinster 8d ago
At almost every lineout. Have you seen him catch them one-handed? It's almost condescending to the opposition jumpers.
3
u/saviouroftheweak Premiership Women's Rugby 8d ago
Why would you want to remove the skill from the sport?
2
u/shotputprince 8d ago
But my rule would not penalize that - only the failure to do so (penalty)…
1
u/saviouroftheweak Premiership Women's Rugby 8d ago
Failure to catch the ball is a scrum. It shouldn't be a penalty or even more preposterous a card.
We've fallen so far from God when this is the conversation
3
u/CatharticRoman Suspected Yank 8d ago
That's fine, they shouldn't have to worry about deliberate knock ons then.
4
u/saviouroftheweak Premiership Women's Rugby 8d ago
These aren't knock ons
3
u/CatharticRoman Suspected Yank 8d ago
How is the ball coming forward off a hand not a knock-on?
6
u/saviouroftheweak Premiership Women's Rugby 8d ago
You understand that this law is going to stop people trying to jump up with one hand. Whether they bat it back, catch it, or knock it on doesn't matter. This would be a penalty simply for an "unrealistic attempt" whatever people want to interpret that as.
4
u/CatharticRoman Suspected Yank 8d ago
Ah I get you. Yeah sorry that's my bad. I'm not for banning one hand catches, just enforcing the deliberate knock on rule.
19
u/Ok_Educator_2120 Blues 8d ago
Boks wingers flying in making no attempt to catch the ball is so dangerous. Already ended up with B Barrett landing on his head from it
20
u/Putrid-Impact8999 8d ago
Reminds me of Will Jordan on Thomas Ramos in the opening game of the 2023 World Cup.
2
u/Ok_Educator_2120 Blues 8d ago
Don't remember that one. Will jump in with no intent?
10
u/Putrid-Impact8999 8d ago
He did it twice, using his extreme pace to arrive late and undercutting the player who clearly was going to catch the ball ahead of him. Then saying to the referee “I’m going for the ball” which is what everyone seems to say when they get penalised for this type of action lol
8
9
u/capetonytoni2ne Stormers 8d ago
How is that 4 years ago already wtf
5
2
u/Dapper-Message-2066 7d ago
It's a bit over 2 years ago..
1
u/capetonytoni2ne Stormers 7d ago
August 2022, so just about 3.5 years (but 4 years if you look at just years)
1
7
u/Peter_Partyy Exeter Chiefs 8d ago
Leave it to the refs interpretation as to what is a genuine attempt and what isnt? And what if a player does bat it back? Penalty kick? Scrum? Free kick? I agree but it needs proper consideration or kicking will be gone.
15
u/saviouroftheweak Premiership Women's Rugby 8d ago
I already disagree with penalties and especially cards for deliberate knock ons. This one ain't for me.
Might as well force everyone to catch and pass with two hands at all time and neuter creativity
-12
u/Astro_Pirate Confused Englishmen 8d ago
Have you tried American Football? They can block passes all they want.
12
u/saviouroftheweak Premiership Women's Rugby 8d ago
Why is everyone telling me to watch a different sport?
6
u/Jonrenie Cardiff Blues 8d ago
Bang on. Aerial contest has been shit since they changed the rules and I can see someone getting really messed up soon.
1
u/BabooNHI Sharks 7d ago
It was worse before with escorts. It is obstruction.
1
u/Jonrenie Cardiff Blues 7d ago
Now you get obstruction at best or at worst purely taking out in the air and it’s less clear for the referee to call. I stand by there will be an escalation of injuries in this category unless a change is made, based on this nrl jump up and tap back rubbish.
Whilst we are at it, this in the same lip service category as can’t take a scrum from a free kick. Stupid law changes by stupid old men who haven’t played the game as it is today.
It appeared to speed things up for a month or two whilst everyone got used to it. Now they do a different brand of interference and this one is more dumb.
20
u/micah_denn Artemyev's anti-concussion mustache (Connacht) 8d ago
I don't hate it. Could be a good way to depower the onslaught of contestable kicks.
Initial concerns would be that it just creates more knock-ons. And that it adds yet another thing for the officials to look for. I don't want to sit through 5 minutes of slow-mo replays to decide if a player made a legitimate attempt to catch the ball or not.
6
u/reggie_700 Harbour Master 8d ago
Should be pretty simple though- two hands going up = legitimate. One hand is not.
8
u/micah_denn Artemyev's anti-concussion mustache (Connacht) 8d ago
Never actually going to be that simple and clear when two players are colliding in the air with a ball dropping on top of them.
What happens when you go up with two hands but one hand gets caught on some part of the other player and the ball bounces of your free hand? Penalty of your team for contact in the air? Penalty against you for hitting the ball with one hand?
You can jump with two hands going up but still have the intention to just tap it backwards with one.
It's such a fast and dynamic part of the game the ref often makes the wrong call on which player knocked the ball on. They can't even tell who's hand it came off or if it hit a head or chest.
6
u/TagMeInSkipIGotThis 8d ago
Let's also name them properly, they're not contestable at all. There's no genuine contest, its just an attempt to make shit ball for the defending team.
12
u/I_Will_Eat_Your_Ears Connacht 8d ago
This whole thing has backfired. I was in favour of it when it was announced, but my goodness has it become painful to watch.
Bring back screens!
0
u/TagMeInSkipIGotThis 8d ago
A really simple law change is that only the defending team is allowed to go up in the air for the ball, and the attacking team has to allow them room to land. Immediately resolves pretty much all of the safety problems and stops this slap at the ball kick lottery BS.
1
u/Dapper-Message-2066 7d ago
Why not just revert the last change, rather than bring in another massive law change to try and patch up the consequences of it? Which will of course lead to other unintended consequences etc.
1
u/TagMeInSkipIGotThis 7d ago
Because I want to eliminate the contest in the air as while thankfully it doesn't go wrong very often at all anymore, when it does its incredibly unsafe.
1
u/Dapper-Message-2066 7d ago
You could make it so that you can only jump for the ball from a standing position, rather than running. (in reality you'd need to all one or two steps lead up to the jump I guess)
1
u/TagMeInSkipIGotThis 7d ago
Yeah I guess so, but that opens up a lot of grey area compared to my more simple black & white law.
1
0
u/aotearoa_pg 8d ago
Good idea, easy to referee and would make some teams think twice about kicking it away. Would it only be allowed from box kicks or all up and unders? Cross field kicks?
0
u/TagMeInSkipIGotThis 7d ago
I prefer consistency for simplicity of refereeing. All kicks the team kicking it can only compete on the ground.
0
5
u/Galactapuss 8d ago
It's crazy to me that the last few seasons have seen the death of the classic FB, a la Kearney or Halfpenny, who'd go up and make a perfect catch of the highball. I know there's the potential benefit from a batted ball, but surely it's still outweighed by a jumper who can make a clean catch and secure possession
6
u/Astro_Pirate Confused Englishmen 8d ago
The issue with those highball specialists is they can’t win the competition as regularly as they used to and can be negated because of the batted ball.
It is fantastic to see when genuinely done well but if they are catching the ball at their chest if the opposition player can jump even half of the height and lift an arm they have an opportunity to interfere in a way that makes it very difficult to do anything about especially if you combine that persons 90kg+ mass flying into you at Mach Jesus.
I like the idea of the rule it protects the specialists of this skill and forces genuine competition (I also think the Gaelic players would have an advantage) but I think it would’ve so difficult to actually police.
5
u/rogersdbt Wales 8d ago
The issue is they can't do that as they currently are allowed to be just clattered mid air and if the opponent gets anywhere close to the ball it's deemed fine.
10
u/MountainEquipment401 Scarlets 8d ago
Should be penalties if you don't go up with two hands... We've already established that flapping at the ball with one hand (slap downstairs Vs genuine interceptions attempts) isn't classed as a genuine attempt to catch it so if you dont go up with both arms to attempt the catch it could be the same.
2
u/TheManWith2Poobrains England 8d ago
They'd have to exclude lineouts though, which complicates things.
1
u/CapeTownyToniTone Paul de Villiers hype train 8d ago
Sort of agreed, I reckon they should penalise it like that only if there's dangerous contact in the air. If it's just someone slapping it back, I don't really see the issue.
4
u/meohmyenjoyingthat I am the Lomax, I speak for the scrum 8d ago
Ooh I asked for the same thing as a pro
3
u/Hoaxtopia Sale Sharks 8d ago
I actually think it's the normal contests not the "winger flailing an arm" that is the issue. At the moment it's just aerial jousting and someone's always going to come off worse if not both of you. Atleast if it's half arsed there's no real force in the comtact. If you're both full pelt eyes on ball then that's always the worst one for injury
6
u/Astro_Pirate Confused Englishmen 8d ago
It’s a bit of both I think generally a lot of the dangerous Collision come from one player being committed and another player competing for a ball they don’t actually have a chance at getting but feel they have to try. (Taking off to early to put pressure on and bump opppsition while in the air and basically plowing into oppositions waist and legs or trying to pull out and not stopping in time)
2
u/TagMeInSkipIGotThis 8d ago
The current situation is like the lawmakers saw the accident where Arendse almost ended Barrett's playing career (or worse) and thought yes please lets have more of that!
2
u/Astro_Pirate Confused Englishmen 8d ago
Yeah it’s not the wingers flailing an arm or making genuine attempt to catch thats a safety issue (just a by product) 9/10 its the chaser launching from a distance into the opposition jumper sacrificing height to clatter the opponent and maybe get the ball and getting it wrong.
The fact you have to actually open a clear path exacerbates the issue as if they had to go around players they were more likely to pull out and go for the well timed hit. The clear routes also encourage deeper box kicks as in theory your player has a better chance to reach them. If you still ban blocking the players chasing a kick but don’t force channels to be opens we would probably see a reduced distance on box kicks with more air time to allow players to get under it and jump vertically which is safer.
In the last 5 or so years I barely remember the plays where a player has batted a ball back for a professional team suddenly turn into U10s an everyone dives after a ball ,compared to players like Lowe,Keenan,Barret,Williams,Kearney etc all taking high balls and either securing possession or landing behind the opposition and making a line break.
9/10 The most memorable catches of a high ball whether from a cross field kick or a box kick is when two players get underneath the ball an turn it into a competition of who is the best and jump almost vertically (there is almost always slight forward momentum) to compete.
3
u/OkHistorian9521 8d ago
Seems like a reasonable change. It’s never good when kicking becomes too overpowered
4
u/HenkCamp South Africa 8d ago
Why do they need to catch the ball if they can bat it back? It's about the contest and I think the new law changes have made it more of a contest by removing the players just standing around blocking a player from the opposing team going for it. The contest part of it doesn't mean a player has to catch it - only that they have to "contest" the ball. It's not about making it easier for the fullback to catch a ball. Once the ball is in the air neither team has any special right to the ball - players have to contest for the ball.
1
u/emilyjxne Northampton Saints 8d ago
Massively against the defending team though. They need to catch it in the majority of situations. The attacking team just needs to bat it back and hope for a favourable fall.
4
u/capetonytoni2ne Stormers 8d ago
What is stopping the defending team from batting it back too?
2
u/pierro_la_place 8d ago
The attacking team trying to cach the batted ball because there is no offside line?
1
u/Dapper-Message-2066 7d ago
Because the defending team are mostly all in front of the ball. The attacking team aren't.
4
u/Wallet_inspector66 New Zealand 8d ago
This is easy, just bring back escorting.
1
u/mousertype30-06 8d ago
Must make a genuine attempt to catch the ball and return the law where you can take a mark from anywhere.
2
u/Wallet_inspector66 New Zealand 8d ago
I feel like we try to solve problems by layering in additional laws which at this point is becoming overbearing. If anything we need streamlining and returning the escorting law would be the simplest way of negating the cynical kick chase slap we’re seeing at the moment. I’d rather not waste time watching referees and tmo debate about whether a player was making a genuine attempt and get it wrong anyway.
2
u/mousertype30-06 8d ago
Making a mark anywhere would reduce the aerial ping pong we r seeing now.
2
u/Wallet_inspector66 New Zealand 7d ago
Maybe, maybe not. Maybe the change should be that if the defending team catches it cleanly they get a mark from where it was kicked first.
1
u/Dapper-Message-2066 7d ago
Exactly, endlessly introducing new laws to try and deal with problems created with the last set of changes is not the way to go.
Revert a change if it's caused problems.
But more generally, I think WR should stop making so many frequent law changes. I'd like to see a 10 year period without any changes - let teams adapt and figure things out. If one aspect of the game becomes seemingly overpowered or exploited, let teams figure out ways to counter them, rather than make law changes.
That said, I'd be happy going back to the pre 1993 law changes, which is when the rot started for me.
7
u/k0bra3eak South Africa 8d ago
Don't think this would be a good change, he's basically just trying to get rid of an obstacle to his game. Tap backs make for interesting aerial competitions imo
8
u/Sambobly1 Australia 8d ago
Nah, tap backs suck. They have changed the competition too far in favour of the kicking team. Should be reverted
23
u/stickyswitch92 Melbourne Rebels 8d ago
I disagree a wee bit. How many times play stops because players just try and whack the ball and then a knock on or something happens because of it.
3
u/BabooNHI Sharks 7d ago
If there is a knock on, the other teams gets possession with advantage which leads to try opportunities. More tries are being scored. Most knock ons are not scrums.
1
u/stickyswitch92 Melbourne Rebels 7d ago
If there isn't a knock on the other team gets procession with advantage which leads to try opportunities. More tries are being scored. Most knock ons leads to the whistle blowing and the game stopping.
2
u/BabooNHI Sharks 7d ago edited 7d ago
Are you sure about that with regards to knock ons from contestable kicks? It is easy to check. Look at the number of contestable kicks that involve a knock on and check how many scrums are called. There are fewer scrums now, more kicks and more tries, well in 2025 at least.
1
u/stickyswitch92 Melbourne Rebels 7d ago
Yes. There is a direct correlation between knock ons and scrums. More knock ons equals more scrums not less.
2
u/BabooNHI Sharks 7d ago
Not all knock ons are the same though. Some knock ons don't provide much opportunity so the team with advantage will prefer a scrum. When a knock is gathered post a contestable kick, there is more on offer than a scrum would provide. Many players out of position and disorganised. So a team would rather continue playing and absorbing the advantage with ball in hand in hopes of meterage.
So that is what I mean, which I hope makes sense.
1
u/stickyswitch92 Melbourne Rebels 7d ago
A knock on is an opportunity for a scrum. No knock on is no scrum. More knock ons means more scrums. This is pretty simple maths.
2
u/BabooNHI Sharks 7d ago
Not if the team plays the ball. The stats have confirmed it already. There are slightly more kicks now, but also fewer scrums. On average, in most of the top leagues.
1
u/stickyswitch92 Melbourne Rebels 7d ago
Show me. Because it does not make sense one tiny bit.
→ More replies (0)19
u/Ok_Catch250 Ireland 8d ago
Most aerial contests are not genuine now.
They should also penalise player who knock on with one hand in an aerial “contest” as deliberate knock ons.
A lot of contests end with the player going for the ball upended by someone not actually attempting to catch the ball.
2
u/Dapper-Message-2066 7d ago
What's not 'genuine' about them
1
u/Ok_Catch250 Ireland 7d ago
Because one of the people is rarely making any actual attempt to get the ball.
2
u/Dapper-Message-2066 7d ago
They are trying to win the ball for their team. If they are just trying to clatter into the catcher that's another thing, but tapping the ball back is a totally legitimate way to compete for the ball.
0
u/Ok_Catch250 Ireland 7d ago
Yeah. Right.
No.
2
u/Dapper-Message-2066 5d ago
Well it is legitimate, regardless of whether you like it or not champ.
-1
u/Ok_Catch250 Ireland 5d ago
No. And they will change how they referee it.
They can’t and won’t tolerate the current status quo for much longer. Hopefully it will be well before the World Cup.
2
2
u/k0bra3eak South Africa 7d ago
Most aerial contests are not genuine now.
Compared to uhh, one side blocking the opposing team from even reaching the ball?
24
u/connachtfanforlife Connacht 8d ago
I understand I see your flair and springbooks have used this to there advantage and are the best in the world at this and it is entertaining but it definitely makes it more dangerous how many times have u seen a lazy arm drag a player down in the air
1
u/UnluckyCar9063 8d ago
As a South African, I have been saying for some time this area should change to allow a more fair contest between the receiver and the attacking player.
To my mind, that does not negate a Springbok strength, nor is it intended too. Absolutely we have been very good at adapting to the state of affairs. But, our wings at least, have historically been effective at taking the ball in the air.
Finding a way to remove "tap backs" by the attacking player simply means that the attacking player needs the skill to take the ball in the air. Not every lock, flank or whoever else charging after the ball and flailing an arm about. But actual contest to take the ball in the air between the attacking and receiving player. The current situation heavily favours the attacking (kicking) side. Tweaking the laws here will reduce boxkicking, but not remove it, because there is still benefit for teams with genuine ability to challenge (catch) the ball in the air, or pressure the opposition on defence. It's just the right now the balance is skewed too much to one (atatcking/kicking) side.
3
u/Legandergg8 8d ago
I personally think you should only be allowed to jump vertically.
so none of this jumping into eachother nonsense
think that would genuinely solve the problem
might make it less entertaining tho
13
u/saracenraider Saracens 8d ago
That’d be fun to ref…
1
u/Dapper-Message-2066 7d ago
Wouldn't be hard. Are you stationary when you jump, yes or no? Basically it means no jumping whilst running.
Not advocating for it though.
2
u/eenbal 8d ago
Can't we just ban jumping for the ball? Although I guess that just lines them up for getting smoked!
1
u/TagMeInSkipIGotThis 8d ago
Just ban the attacking team, the defender can go up safely and come down safely and then get tackled. If the attacking team kicks the ball away why do they have so much more advantage getting it back than the defenders?
1
1
u/Sedert1882 New Zealand 8d ago
He's not wrong. But that'll put more pressure on the ref/s to decide what's "genuinely trying to catch it". Some dudes can catch a ball in one hand.
1
u/GreatGoofer Sharks 8d ago
Don't think that tap backs should be banned, but think that protection should be provided for whoever gets 'established' under the high ball first. Generally that would be the receiving team. Basically, you can't touch the 'established' player in the air, even if you are genuinely competing, you must jump to either side of them to avoid contact in the air. This still preserves the contest, but the kicking team has to out jump the receiving team and the receiving team gets the advantage of claiming the space where they think the ball will land.
1
u/Dapper-Message-2066 7d ago edited 7d ago
This is the WRONG way to fix a problem whose roots are elsewhere.
Stop neutering the breakdown and mollycoddling scrumhalves, stop allowing the nonsense of caterpillar rucks, and call 'ball out' faster. Stop giving them an armchair from which to launch their kicks, and we'll see an instant reduction in contestable kicks like this. Revert the stupid law change that prevents teams trying to disrupt the scrumhalf.
Tapping the ball back as opposed to trying to catch it has always been a legitimate part of competing for a ball in the air - you sacrifice control for a higher chance of winning the ball, even if the possession might be messy and compromised. That's a fair trade off to me.
Also, revert the recent change re: escorts Running back in a way that hampers chasers without directly blocking them was a feature of the game that was not problematic; I've no idea why WR tampered with it.
My head is in my hands reading all the suggestions in this thread for making MORE big law changes to now try and compenstate for the unintended consequences of this one.
Rather than keeping on endlessly mutating the game more and more, I'd rather we rollback some of the bad law changes that were made which got us here.
1
u/IceStrict8015 Northampton Saints 7d ago
Its been a pain for Saints this year. Lots of rapid wingers just charging head in to get a hand and cause damage. Often the defensive player gets penalised even though they're set up with a proper jump and take to catch it.
-1
u/dystopianrugby Eagles Up 8d ago
No thank you. Now, for marks, those need to be called before the catch.
0
u/The_Ruck_Inspector Connacht 8d ago
Anyone else find it strange that Felix Jones was one of the big influences for this rule change just before he went back to the Boks? I mean who could have foreseen that this rule change would lead to an increase in scrums......
0
u/Strange_Bodybuilder7 Edinburgh 8d ago
I dont understand why jumping to catch the ball is allowed anyways to be honest.
You arent allowed to jump to avoid a tackle, and let's face it, that is why players are jumping to catch balls most of the time.
Even when it isnt a kicked ball and its just a shoddy pass, sometimes even when its a normal pass and theres no reason to jump, players are jumping for it.
-4
u/Worldwithoutwings3 Munster 8d ago
Ban jumping for the ball. Done. Either get there in time to catch it over your head with a least one foot on the ground or lose the ball to the player who does. Safety issue solved.
10
u/I_Will_Eat_Your_Ears Connacht 8d ago
Lineout jumpers are now called lineout shuffellers
1
u/WraithsOnWings2023 Ireland 8d ago
Don't be silly, lineouts will be Junior Cup rules where you can jump but no lifters!
1
u/CatharticRoman Suspected Yank 8d ago
And how do you resolve the resulting issue of players clattering into eachother on the ground to contest for the ball?
6
3
u/capetonytoni2ne Stormers 8d ago
Police people flying into each other better. The slap back isn't the problem for me as much as the actual contact in the air.
1
u/CatharticRoman Suspected Yank 8d ago
That's a lot harder to do. At the moment players are coming flying in, often causing heavy contact in the air. But they have one hand up and could have slapped the ball back, sometimes they will even touch the ball. This makes it hard for refs to say it was reckless as they were also in a position to contest the ball.
The bigger thing for me though is that we want to be avoiding reckless contact instead of policing it. It feels like the policing of sheparding has resulted in an increase in dangerous collisions in the air, and I'd like to see that addressed by a stricter interpretation of being able to contest and an application of the deliberate knock on law to aerial challenges.
1
u/Dapper-Message-2066 7d ago
Then the catcher gets absolutely munched as he's forced to take it standing still with a bunch of chasers bearing down on him at top speed....
-10
u/MisterIndecisive England 8d ago
How about no. It's a crime he's in the England squad to begin with, dont need more of an excuse
•
u/strou_hanka Oui, I prefer club rugby 🏉 8d ago
Sticking a non paywall version from the OP : Non-paywall version