Offside after a kick Bath vs Gloucester

[BikingBud]

As a fly half, am I the only person that enjoys this kick tennis and appreciates the strategy going on within the kicking duel?

For those of us that are semi-literate piano shifters, please could you explain the strategy as I feel I am not alone in missing any point to it, never mind a tactical benefit.

That said some of Ford's kicking at the weekend was sublime as was Bielle-Biarrey's chip down the wind that left all of Scotland floundering.

 

[Locke]

The article has no links or references (that I can find) to anything concrete, but Stuff (a NZ media outlet) is reporting that Super Rugby has been given approval from World Rugby to run a law trial where all players are forced to actively retreat when they are offside in open play.

Stuff

www.stuff.co.nz

 

[crossref]

Super rugby quick off the mark to put a stop to all that unfamiliar stuff

Stuff

www.stuff.co.nz

 

[crossref]

For those of us that are semi-literate piano shifters, please could you explain the strategy as I feel I am not alone in missing any point to it, never mind a tactical benefit.

I wonder if eventually you might contrive a clever 50:22 (say a diagonal grubber kick from the half way to the 22) complete with a teammate placed forward, motionless until the ball goes into touch , but then well placed to dart forward and take a QTI

(Step forward coach didds to tell me I am overthinking it and something that complex would never work in real life and it would be a waste of time to practice it)

 

[Jz558]

I'm sort of with CR on this, whilst not a brilliant look for the game, left alone, I suspect it would be a short term thing. I notice from the article posted above that Super Rugby has decided that the kicker/onside chasers must put their players onside rather than requiring those in front to retire although that may just be poor reporting. In general, and country wide law trials apart, I'm not in favour of individual competitions around the world having different laws as I dont think it helps the game.

As an aside, I'd much rather World Rugby did something about caterpillar rucks than this issue.

 

[Harry]

A well executed 50:22 is a thing of beauty and as far away from interminable kick tennis as it could be.
The only similarity is boot meeting ball.

 

[Dixpat]

From Super Rugby website

Rugby’s current offside laws include two clauses (under Law 10.7) that state players in front of the kicker can be put onside as soon as the kick receiver has either passed the ball or run five metres with the ball. Super Rugby Pacific’s Law Innovation will throw out those two clauses, meaning defenders will remain offside until they have been put onside by a teammate who has come from behind the kicker, or the kicker themself. The Law Innovation has been sanctioned by World Rugby as a trial during the 2024 Super Rugby Pacific season.

 

[didds]

The article has no links or references (that I can find) to anything concrete, but Stuff (a NZ media outlet) is reporting that Super Rugby has been given approval from World Rugby to run a law trial where all players are forced to actively retreat when they are offside in open play.

Stuff

www.stuff.co.nz

sadly there are no specifics in that article as to how they intend to reach this nirvana.

In fact that article doesnt even mention "forced to actively retreat" - the word "retreat" isnt even in it in any context

 

[didds]

I wonder if eventually you might contrive a clever 50:22 (say a diagonal grubber kick from the half way to the 22) complete with a teammate placed forward, motionless until the ball goes into touch , but then well placed to dart forward and take a QTI

(Step forward coach didds to tell me I am overthinking it and something that complex would never work in real life and it would be a waste of time to practice it)

I think we've been here before
but indeed the laws would seem to provide for that as it stands - notwithstanding the inconclusive debates held here about "offisde" players effectively closing down QTIs because of their presence.

 

[didds]

although that may just be poor reporting.

I cyncically suggest that has at least some validity

 

[Dickie E]

Super Rugby Pacific Law Innovation

super.rugby

Retiring appears to not be part of the trial

 

[BikingBud]

Super Rugby Pacific Law Innovation

super.rugby

Retiring appears to not be part of the trial

Don't retire then you're offside and out of the game:

Rugby’s current offside laws include two clauses (under Law 10.7) that state players in front of the kicker can be put onside as soon as the kick receiver has either passed the ball or run five metres with the ball. Super Rugby Pacific’s Law Innovation will throw out those two clauses, meaning defenders will remain offside until they have been put onside by a teammate who has come from behind the kicker, or the kicker themself.

So we end up here: #76 and interference.

As the law includes an OR, any of the conditions will lead to a transgression.

4. An offside player may be penalised, if that player:
a. Interferes with play; or

Catch the ball run at the offside player(s) standing still, exploit the space where they are loitering. Unless played onside they cannot interfere whereas at the moment once the catcher has travelled 5m they can.

If the kicker or another onside player has to travel >20m then that gives the receiving team time to exploit. Encouraging heads up running rugby.

Also as the kicker or other onside player now needs to run there will be space behind and a well selected, well executed and accurate tactical kick to grass might now put the defence under pressure, rather than just waiting for someone to make a mistake.

 

[BikingBud]

I wonder if eventually you might contrive a clever 50:22 (say a diagonal grubber kick from the half way to the 22) complete with a teammate placed forward, motionless until the ball goes into touch , but then well placed to dart forward and take a QTI

(Step forward coach didds to tell me I am overthinking it and something that complex would never work in real life and it would be a waste of time to practice it)

But that's just not (kick) tennis is it!

But to consider your ever changing scenarios:

If the thrower is ahead of the kicker they are offside, even if motionless, even if injured or feigning injury or even playing dead, perhaps not if dead. But you'd likely stop play if there was any concern about a motionless player so QTI would revert to TI after stoppage.

Can a QTI be taken by an offside player, I would offer no.

Does the ball going into touch play them onside doesn't seem to comment but as the ball is dead then offside lines would be reset based upon the restart. However advancing in front of the kicker, or another onside player, before the ball goes dead is considered offside. Assuming the ball will go into touch is false as the wind, the tree, the dog, sleeping or otherwise, may all affect the outcome and the ball remains on the field of play and live. So the only option really is to call the offside player to stop, if they do, any thought about advantage and QTI would not arise and if they don't you have grounds to sanction.

If they leave the field of play to sneak up the touchline did they ask and can you ping them for not asking to rejoin?

So the exemplary skill of being able to execute the kick does not necessarily lead to any tactical advantage, perceived or otherwise.

Anyway back to kick tennis can anyone explain the tactical advantage that they perceive is achieved by participating and prolonging this tedium? @Stu10 ?

 

[crossref]

.

Anyway back to kick tennis can anyone explain the tactical advantage that they perceive is achieved by participating and prolonging this tedium? @Stu10 ?

I think the plan generally is to use the kick tennis to by placing pin point kicks to shepherd the oppo into places you want them, while meanwhile your team move up the field to a place where you want to be .... And then when all is set execute a cunning plan !

(maybe a 50.22 plan, or maybe some other plan, more cunning than that )

 

[Stu10]

There is the straight up skill of being able to consistently drive long kicks up the 15m channel that the pros make to look very easy, but it's not... not to mention putting spin and curve on kicks to make life difficult for the catcher. As others have said above, the 50:22 rule adds the extra layer of tactics, however, this rarely comes from the first salvo... the first couple of kicks are intended to move defenders across the pitch, ideally forcing a return kick from close to the touchline so it is angled in-field, then you aim for the 50-22 on the opposite side of the pitch. While this is going on, you are also looking for the opposition dropping too many players back, thus opening the opportunity to run the ball back, however, international teams are typically organised well enough that clear gaps are not left.

However, I will concede some of the duels we've seen have been simply booting the ball up the middle of pitch rather than varying the depth and trajectory with a clear plan in mind.

 

[crossref]

That's the post I would have written.. had I a better understanding of the tactics and strategy!

 

[Volun-selected]

For those of us that are semi-literate piano shifters, please could you explain the strategy as I feel I am not alone in missing any point to it, never mind a tactical benefit.

That said some of Ford's kicking at the weekend was sublime as was Bielle-Biarrey's chip down the wind that left all of Scotland floundering.

I find Squidge rugby‘s analysis very good in general (I appreciate the irreverent style) and I think this is a pretty clear breakdown as to why: So why do teams kick so much in modern rugby?

TLDR: Trying to gain ground by running through semi-literate piano shifters is bloody hard work. Instead, work them back to gain a decent clip of ground … and then let the semi-literate piano shifters get to work.

 

[BikingBud]

There is the straight up skill of being able to consistently drive long kicks up the 15m channel that the pros make to look very easy, but it's not... not to mention putting spin and curve on kicks to make life difficult for the catcher. As others have said above, the 50:22 rule adds the extra layer of tactics, however, this rarely comes from the first salvo... the first couple of kicks are intended to move defenders across the pitch, ideally forcing a return kick from close to the touchline so it is angled in-field, then you aim for the 50-22 on the opposite side of the pitch. While this is going on, you are also looking for the opposition dropping too many players back, thus opening the opportunity to run the ball back, however, international teams are typically organised well enough that clear gaps are not left.

However, I will concede some of the duels we've seen have been simply booting the ball up the middle of pitch rather than varying the depth and trajectory with a clear plan in mind.

You are actually doing something that you recognise is difficult to achieve skilfully and then expecting us forwards to chase when we know that the likelihood of you being able to achieve what you intend is extremely low. So we all just loiter until something comes off. Very tactical and astute.

International teams are typically organised well enough!

Apart from when England kicked the ball to Italy and Italy said cheers and took the semi-opposed run out to run one in.

I wonder what Baldrick would make of the cunning plan?

As cunning as a fox who’s just been appointed Professor of Cunning at Oxford University?

And perhaps in line with Melchett's words to Blackadder:

Field Marshal Haig has formulated a brilliant new tactical plan to ensure final victory in the field.

BTW piano shifters might be semi-literate but they are not stupid! And when we say put it down town, we mean down town, the terminus, not on the next express train coming back.

 

[didds]

And perhaps in line with Melchett's words to Blackadder:
Field Marshal Haig has formulated a brilliant new tactical plan to ensure final victory in the field.

is that the scene where Blackadder responds with
"our battles are PLANNED?"

?

 

[Volun-selected]

is that the scene where Blackadder responds with
"our battles are PLANNED?"

?

General Melchett: Field Marshal Haig has formulated a brilliant new tactical plan to ensure final victory in the field.
Captain Blackadder: Ah. Would this brilliant plan involve us climbing out of our trenches and walking very slowly towards the enemy?
Captain Darling: How could you possibly know that, Blackadder? It's classified information!
Captain Blackadder: It's the same plan that we used last time and the seventeen times before that.

Hmm - “It's the same plan that we used last time and the seventeen times before that.” really does some up the tactics of a number of teams I’ve reffed.