All Black Mark Tele'a and Ireland's James Lowe contest a high kick. Photo / Photosport
All Black Mark Tele'a and Ireland's James Lowe contest a high kick. Photo / Photosport
THREE KEY FACTS
World Rugby have tweaked laws that govern how defending teams of high kicks can be penalised.
The old law said a defender would be penalised for changing their line to obstruct chasers.
The new law states that if defenders do not take evasive action from chasers they can be penalised.
Paul Lewis is a veteran sports journalist who has written four books and covered Rugby World Cups, America’s Cups, Olympic and Commonwealth Games and more.
OPINION
It’s not yet clear but it seems the new rugby law banning defenders protecting the recipient of a high kick– the so-called “escort” tactic – is what many rugby folk say it is: a change that won’t stay in its current form.
Why? Because it is a perfect example of both the law of unforeseen circumstances and an ex post facto law (one retrospectively changing the consequences of actions under the original law).
Unforeseen circumstances? You have to applaud World Rugby for trying to loosen the game up but many professional coaches and players, perhaps even most, say it will lead to more kicking as sides realise they have enhanced chances of reclaiming the ball.
Just what the game needs, right? More kicking and more penalties. Okay, things will likely settle down as the players get the hang of it but really this is a nonsense change; the status quo was better.
Under the old law, defenders straggling back while a fullback, for example, readies himself to take a high ball were only penalised if they changed their line to obstruct challengers chasing through. Now – and there were three examples in the All Blacks-Ireland clash alone – penalties accrue if the stragglers are in the way of the challengers and don’t take evasive action and/or get onside (behind the ball).
They must allow chasers a shot at the ball in the air. This weekend’s international action will be interesting to see how much effect this has on each match (including All Blacks v France, England v South Africa, Ireland v Argentina, Wales v Australia) and how many penalties arise.
Beauden Barrett of the All Blacks and other players may choose to kick more frequently in games after a law change by World Rugby. Photo / Photosport
In rugby, kicking is essentially defensive – to gain territory, to find field position and, yes, to attack with cross-field kicks and aerial bombs designed to give chasers a chance to regain possession. It is defensive because, in the very act of kicking, teams risk losing possession to the other guys. It is often an admission that attacking by hand either hasn’t worked or won’t work. That emphasis shouldn’t be changed to make kicking more attractive.
Surely, too, the law must lean towards those fielding the kick, not those chasing it, in these days of player safety. Former England wing Anthony Watson told a rugby podcast it is “an absolutely terrible” law: “It’s going to bring way too much kicking into it and I’m also fuming about the idea of catching a high ball and a bloke with a 50m run-up every time sprinting down on me and smoking me. I’ve no interest in that law change whatsoever.”
Back when I played rugby – in the time of the mastodons and the sabre-toothed tigers – the high kick was a legitimate weapon too. Only blatant obstruction was penalised and, it must be said, while the aerial skills of catchers and chasers were nowhere near as developed as they are now, there was little protection for the poor sod under the ball. We are going back to something near that. You can see what World Rugby are trying to do but it has a counter-productive feel.
Name the best in the world at kick and chase? South Africa. Name the No 1 side in the world (not talking about the rankings, just the best team at present). South Africa. Guess who will benefit most from this change. Uh-huh.
Not that laws should be made according to who is No 1; all teams have access to this tactic, after all. Rugby also does not pass ex post facto laws lightly. One that comes to mind is the kick into touch. In days of yore, you could kick directly into touch from anywhere. Nowadays it is only from the 22 or from a penalty. A good change to an existing law.
World Rugby has a rule book in which much could be changed to dilute the fact defences rule supreme these days. The northern hemisphere rugby bodies that control World Rugby are so frightened of what they see as flighty basketball scores dominating test rugby and causing it to lose its physical grunt factor, they are loath to change matters much.
Yet there are so many things that could be done – tighten the offside rules (and enforce them); build more space between backlines and breakdowns, scrums and lineouts so attacking sides have more space; change the substitutes rule so fewer giant, fresh, raw-boned player are available to tear into the opposition – bringing fatigue back as a factor and maybe smoothing the path for smaller players.
Things are complicated by the likes of the new Dupont rule (which states that a player who is offside when a teammate kicks the ball must retreat or take action to put himself onside). Offside chasers can’t move within a 10m circle of the catcher, so why not do the same the other way around? All defenders in front of a catcher must stay at least 10m in front of him if they cannot get onside. You can see a tweak like that coming.
It may not be all bad. Coaches may ask more players to get back to assist the fullbacks and first-fives who currently do most of the high kick retrievals. That could open a gap or two in defensive lines and focus coaches on counter-attack opportunities but … we’ll see.
