50/22 no good

[SimonSmith]

Bledisloe 1 yesterday. Possibly the worst 40 minutes of international rugby I’ve seen.

But a moment that highlights just how garbage this law is.
Australia break, and have a 3 on 2, their right hand side, on about the NZ 10m line.
Ball carrier runs out of ideas and shoes into NZ in goal - with the resulting GLDK.

All that advantage because your winger is an idiot…

 

[Ian_Cook]

Bledisloe 1 yesterday. Possibly the worst 40 minutes of international rugby I’ve seen.

But a moment that highlights just how garbage this law is.
Australia break, and have a 3 on 2, their right hand side, on about the NZ 10m line.
Ball carrier runs out of ideas and shoes into NZ in goal - with the resulting GLDK.

All that advantage because your winger is an idiot…

To be fair, that had nothing to do with the 50/22 law. It would be the same result even without 50/22, and without GLDK, would have been a 22.

You're wrongly blaming a new law just because one player was an idiot. That is hardly a fair test!

FWIW: I think the law should have been 10/22 not 50/22 - just to require a little extra kicking skill, and dissuading poor kickers from attempt it.

 

[Dickie E]

FWIW: I think the law should have been 10/22 not 50/22 - just to require a little extra kicking skill, and dissuading poor kickers from attempt it.

Remember though (AFAIK) this whole 50/22 thing is solely to try to push the winger back out of the defensive line to protect touch. Which is, in theory, achieved whether or not the ball carrier actually kicks the ball.

 

[Rich_NL]

I don't understand why poor decion making or execution reflect badly on a law. I missed the match, though, and I'm interested to see what effects the law trials have.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Remember though (AFAIK) this whole 50/22 thing is solely to try to push the winger back out of the defensive line to protect touch. Which is, in theory, achieved whether or not the ball carrier actually kicks the ball.

True, but from the perspective of a defending team team in possession, its an opportunity to gain territory and retain possession through kicking skill. I think it just needs to be a little harder than bouncing a 28m kick into touch.

 

[SimonSmith]

Yeah, I meant GLDK - I had just escaped a different argument about 50/22.

A law is only as good as how it plays out - we just found, to my mind, a serious flaw. A 22 would be fairer to the defense in that situation. Getting pinned on your goal line because the opposition winger is a bit shit doesn’t feel right to me.

 

[crossref]

it's a weird logic
- make kicking more attractive, so that defenders will drop back to prevent kicking. Outcome = more running, less kicking


It's not intuitive!

But it was trialled last season right? so presumably there are stats that show that it worked.

 

[OB..]

Yesterday I saw Gloucester (38) v Ealing Trailfinders (36).Much rusty early season stuff with some bright flashes.

I was keen to see how the new laws affected play, but without having the referee's feed, all I could note were a mere two obvious attempts at a 50-22 (only one successful), and a big difference near the goal line due to the new latching laws. An improvement IMHO - not just thud and blunder as before, but an effort at skilled play.

Maxwell-Keys was the ref.

 

[chbg]

None in my (testy) Colts match today, but their focus wasn't really on expansive rugby, unfortunately.

But reported that their 1st XV had used it with great effectiveness on Saturday early in the match - completely changing the run of play at the time. Reported that it forced opposition wings to drop back to cover touch. Opposition never tried it (perhaps being overwhelmed, as it was a one-way score), so eventually their own wings advanced back into the defensive line.

 

[Jz558]

Ive watched a couple of pre-season friendlies at Nat 1/2 level and I reckon there were 8-10 50/22s in the two games. What struck me though was that they seemed to be predominantly used from first or second phase ball following a ruck between the half-way line and the 10m. In most instances the kicker had limited other options and prior to this season would probably have made a similar kick in order to gain ground, albeit giving up possession. I didnt really see any instances where I thought the defending side were dropping players out of the defensive line to specifically defend the kick anymore than they would have done in previous seasons. I'm sure the tactic will develop but so far not much to write about except the added benefit of the throw in as well as a gain in ground.

 

[Phil E]

I watched Tigers v Dragons on Saturday.

I think there were one or two GLDs which were regathered by the other team and run back towards the goal line, providing exactly the change of attack emphasise that I think it was designed for?

Quite a few 50/22s which gave good attacking platforms. I noticed Tigers kept two wingers back in line with the FB to counter this (not always successfully).