Law Change - Quick Lineout

[Colombia]

We normally see a quick lineout when the attacking team has put a quality kick into the opponent's 22 resulting in a good attacking position and heightened anticipation for the fans.

However, teams are able to take quick lineout and kick the ball straight out again into the non-threatening areas of the field around the halfway line, resulting in a stoppage in play.

I propose that you can no longer kick it out on the full from a quick lineout but be forced to kick in-field to prevent this stoppage of play and keep the game alive allowing for the possibility of counter-attacks both from the team taking the quick lineout and the team they may (or may not) kick to.

Nothing irks me more than to see a great kick into the opponents 22 setting up a great attacking position getting everyone excited, only for them to take a quick lineout and kick it straight back out on halfway.

The defending team should either be forced to run the ball, kick in-field, or concede the lineout in a dangerous area, not kick it straight out again in a non-dangerous part of the field. This would be better for fans to watch.

What do you think?

 

[Shaggy]

We normally see a quick lineout when the attacking team has put a quality kick into the opponent's 22 resulting in a good attacking position and heightened anticipation for the fans.

However, teams are able to take quick lineout and kick the ball straight out again into the non-threatening areas of the field around the halfway line, resulting in a stoppage in play.

I propose that you can no longer kick it out on the full from a quick lineout but be forced to kick in-field to prevent this stoppage of play and keep the game alive allowing for the possibility of counter-attacks both from the team taking the quick lineout and the team they may (or may not) kick to.

Nothing irks me more than to see a great kick into the opponents 22 setting up a great attacking position getting everyone excited, only for them to take a quick lineout and kick it straight back out on halfway.

The defending team should either be forced to run the ball, kick in-field, or concede the lineout in a dangerous area, not kick it straight out again in a non-dangerous part of the field. This would be better for fans to watch.

What do you think?

I think that if your players don't chase the kick (the original kick), and prevent a quick line out, then it's not a great kick, regardless of whether it's found touch or not. I don't see that a rule change to cut down the options of a team that wants to play the game at speed through the use of quick lineouts, is warranted TBH

 

[Colombia]

I think that if your players don't chase the kick (the original kick), and prevent a quick line out, then it's not a great kick regardless of whether it's found touch or not. I don't see that a rule change to cut down the options of a team that wants to play the game at speed through the use of quick lineouts, is warranted TBH

Kicking the ball straight back out of play from a quick lineout isn't playing the game at speed, from a quick lineout playing the game at speed would be to kick in-field or keep the ball in hand.

It's likely the players would still take the quick lineout, they just wouldn't be allowed to kick it straight out again in a neutral part of the pitch, they'd have to run or give their opponents a run.

 

[ncurd]

Agree with shaggy if you kick into the opponents 22 and nobody is there to back it up your just kicking for territory regardless of it finds touch or not. In which case you fully deserve to have it pinged back at you.

If it was a good kick you kick it to just before the 22 so they have to bring it in and therefore can't kick it on the full.

 

[YoungScud]

Why, when the attacking side chooses not to play at speed, but instead kick for territory (one of the most boring aspects of the game) should the defending side be forced to play prescriptive tactics? It's hard enough to defend as it is, what with most law variations being slanted toward the attacking side. By the way, once you kick to touch, your opposition is no longer the defending side. They're now the attacking side.

 

[Colombia]

Agree with shaggy if you kick into the opponents 22 and nobody is there to back it up your just kicking for territory regardless of it finds touch or not. In which case you fully deserve to have it pinged back at you.

If it was a good kick you kick it to just before the 22 so they have to bring it in and therefore can't kick it on the full.

Put the kicking issue to one side.

From a quick lineout, what is better to watch from a quick lineout (a) a player kick it straight back out (b) have a run or (c) kick it in-field for the to the opposition to have a run

 

[ncurd]

Depends on the situation but you'll likely gain more from kicking it straight out. How often does running or and up and under actually equate to a better attacking position?

The game tends to break up as well in those situations making with players running back and forth to get on side.

 

[Colombia]

Why, when the attacking side chooses not to play at speed, but instead kick for territory (one of the most boring aspects of the game) should the defending side be forced to play prescriptive tactics?

It comes down this, what result would you rather see from a quick lineout?

(a) the ball kicked straight back out on halfway
(b) the ball kept in hand
(c) the ball kept alive by a kick in-field

I think (b) & (c) are infinitely preferable to watch, (a) and I've seen it numerous times already in this World Cup just takes the excitement out of the game.

- - - Updated - - -

Depends on the situation but you'll likely gain more from kicking it straight out. How often does running or and up and under actually equate to a better attacking position?

Doesn't have to be an up and under, although that's a possibility, it can also be a return kick in-field which while not ideal is still better than kicking it out and having the game stopped and restarted on neutral halfway.

The game tends to break up as well in those situations making with players running back and forth to get on side.

which makes counter-attacks with ball in hand more appealing.

 

[Shaggy]

Kicking the ball straight back out of play from a quick lineout isn't playing the game at speed, from a quick lineout playing the game at speed would be to kick in-field or keep the ball in hand.

It's likely the players would still take the quick lineout, they just wouldn't be allowed to kick it straight out again in a neutral part of the pitch, they'd have to run or give their opponents a run.

Well, what's to prevent the team that's got the throw in from the kick that's been put out as a result of the quick lineout, having a quick lineout themselves, and doing exactly the same back to the opposition. In most cases, the only thing that prevents this is either the side that has put the ball out is either kicked it into the stands (which is a great tactic if you want to prevent quick lineouts), or the kick chasers have done their job, and put pressure on the opposition, and prevented a quick throw.

Put the kicking issue to one side.

From a quick lineout, what is better to watch from a quick lineout (a) a player kick it straight back out (b) have a run or (c) kick it in-field for the to the opposition to have a run

The option that results in your team scoring some points; that could be running it back at the opposition, kicking for touch (territory), or putting pressure on the opposition through a well executed in field kick. Taking away one of these options, only makes it easier to defend the other two.

 

[YoungScud]

Colombia, what you're really saying is that it's OK for the original team to avoid quick running rugby by kicking to touch, but you want to legislate how the other team (now the attacking team) reacts to that. Personally I'd rather see no kicking at all, but that's not about to happen.