The end of the Jackal?

[Bada-Bing!]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/sport/rugby-set-to-make-jackal-an-endangered-species-7lx9lvg7k

Report in the Sunday Times reporting that WR looking to end turnovers by jackalling, so players now have to drive over the ball, so committing more players to the tackle area, for it as well as other changes to the laws like lowering the tackle height to below the nipple area and reducing the number of substations to as low as 5 (something I am in favour of).

I will upload the article shortly as the above link is behind a paywall unless you have a times subscription.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

I will upload the article shortly as the above link is behind a paywall unless you have a times subscription.

No option to upload files, so posted a thread to mods site and news section, for help.

 

[Scotty]

This would be terrible, if you dont get jacklers then you could end up with even bugger bacj rowers as they dont need to jackle they need power to drive off the ball. Its a great part of the game, a tactic of some teams to compeat and some not too. Take that away and you just have players flying in to drive off the ball and bound to be some injuries from that.

I like the 8 subs, they make a real difference and change the game plus less subs means more minutes played. I do get the other argument on this but i think this should stay

 

[Bada-Bing!]

This would be terrible, if you dont get jacklers then you could end up with even bugger bacj rowers as they dont need to jackle they need power to drive off the ball. Its a great part of the game, a tactic of some teams to compeat and some not too. Take that away and you just have players flying in to drive off the ball and bound to be some injuries from that.

I like the 8 subs, they make a real difference and change the game plus less subs means more minutes played. I do get the other argument on this but i think this should stay

No perfect answer to this. But defences are just fanning across the field and not committing numbers to the ruck, which means the game has turned into a hybrid version of rugby league but with no limit to the number of phases. It would be sad to end the jackal and slowing the ball by getting over it and will change the nature of the game as we know it. Cue endless trials to get this right.

I would be in favour of keeping 8 players on the bench, but the coach only being able to select 5 or 6 to go on the field. Invariably this would mean them choosing 3 front rowers, but then being more selective in terms of his remaining 2/3 subs.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

**** this,
Why they so intent on ruining the sport

 

[Scotty]

**** this,
Why they so intent on ruining the sport

It to make the sport safer, touch rugby is the future but no sideseteps as you could twist your ankle.

 

[bushytop]

Singing 'What would Richie McCaw do?' to the tune of 'What would Brian Boitano do?' From South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut' in my head right now.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

Much as I like a good jackal, I dislike incessant 2 man "rucks" where there's no competition for the ball and RL style defences. Anything that encourages teams to commit more to the breakdown, creating space elsewhere has to be good. With any form of drive early momentum's key and if anything I think that would encourage quicker back rows.

Blindside's nailed it on the subs.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

I support all of that. If "old fashioned rucking" is coming back will players be allowed to use their feet to play the ball or delicately encourage an opponent to get out of the way?

I can hear Brian Moore's heart singing from here.

 

[smartcooky]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/sport/rugby-set-to-make-jackal-an-endangered-species-7lx9lvg7k

Report in the Sunday Times reporting that WR looking to end turnovers by jackalling, so players now have to drive over the ball, so committing more players to the tackle area, for it as well as other changes to the laws like lowering the tackle height to below the nipple area and reducing the number of substations to as low as 5 (something I am in favour of).

I will upload the article shortly as the above link is behind a paywall unless you have a times subscription.

The primary reasons for the extra subs was the level of injuries. With the modern game being played with its current levels of pace and physical impact, there are many positions which really cannot play the whole 80 minutes (scrum half, hooker and openside flanker being three of them). No matter how fit the players are, there are limits to human endurance and fitness; players will tire toward the end... that might good for the fans but it is bad for the player... tired players are far more susceptible to injury.

If they go ahead with reducing the bench to only five, with three having to be props (that is compulsory) then that really leaves two to cover 13 positions. One will have to be a hooker, so that is one player to cover all the back positions, the loose forwards and the locks. You can be 100% certain that player injury rates will skyrocket, especially in the grass roots game.

What I would rather at the top levels is the following

1. a bench of 10 players, with only five tactical substitutions allowed (plus two substitutions reserved for props only)
2. unlimited replacement of genuinely injured players (within those 10 named players on the bench) but the injury must be certified by the match doctor (not the team doctor)
3. a player failing an HIA can always be replaced, but the replaced player is stood down for four weeks (stops teams gaming the system)
4. Blood replacement rules remain as they are

As for the 50/22 law they proposed, well that comes straight, from RLs 40/20. I proposed this idea about 9 years ago, but as a 10/22 (own 10m to opponents 22) and was scoffed at.

https://www.therugbyforum.com/threads/the-kicking-problem.15821/

"THIRD: Adopt something similar to Rugby League's "40-20" rule
A kick from inside a team's own 10m line that bounces or rolls into touch inside the opponent's 22 gives the line-out throw to the attacking team. Perhaps we could call it the "10-22" kick. Not only would it encourage tactical kicking in the midfield, it would encourage the defending players to pick the ball up rather than allow it to roll into touch."

 

[mdaclarke]

It to make the sport safer, touch rugby is the future but no sideseteps as you could twist your ankle.

Or running as you may pull a muscle

 

[Bada-Bing!]

The primary reasons for the extra subs was the level of injuries. With the modern game being played with its current levels of pace and physical impact, there are many positions which really cannot play the whole 80 minutes (scrum half, hooker and openside flanker being three of them). No matter how fit the players are, there are limits to human endurance and fitness; players will tire toward the end... that might good for the fans but it is bad for the player... tired players are far more susceptible to injury.

If they go ahead with reducing the bench to only five, with three having to be props (that is compulsory) then that really leaves two to cover 13 positions. One will have to be a hooker, so that is one player to cover all the back positions, the loose forwards and the locks. You can be 100% certain that player injury rates will skyrocket, especially in the grass roots game.

What I would rather at the top levels is the following

1. a bench of 10 players, with only five tactical substitutions allowed (plus two substitutions reserved for props only)
2. unlimited replacement of genuinely injured players (within those 10 named players on the bench) but the injury must be certified by the match doctor (not the team doctor)
3. a player failing an HIA can always be replaced, but the replaced player is stood down for four weeks (stops teams gaming the system)
4. Blood replacement rules remain as they are

As for the 50/22 law they proposed, well that comes straight, from RLs 40/20. I proposed this idea about 9 years ago, but as a 10/22 (own 10m to opponents 22) and was scoffed at.

https://www.therugbyforum.com/threads/the-kicking-problem.15821/

At the moment it's 2 props on the bench (shirts 17 and 18) and 16 shirt is generally the hooker. So if it shifted to 6 selected, it should remain the same from 8 then 3 "tactical" subs for the coach to cover lock/back row and backs.

I wouldn't be against your points 1-4 (increase to 10 to be selected from) and replacements if genuinely injured. Personally, as a fan, I just want to see it more open rugby in the final quarter and more tries, rather than mass subs and fresh players to coming on to keep the same level, rather than more space on the field.

 

[Leinster Fan]

Am I the only person who doesn't actually want to see loads more tries?

Give me 20-19 instead of 35-29 any week.

 

[bushytop]

Am I the only person who doesn't actually want to see loads more tries?

Give me 20-19 instead of 35-29 any week.

No your not, the thing about rugby at the moment (at least in the NH) is that tries are very difficult to achieve and therefore extremely satisfying. Super rugby is choc-full of tries... and dying a slow drawn out death.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Am I the only person who doesn't actually want to see loads more tries?

Give me 20-19 instead of 35-29 any week.

I would just settle for a win currently

 

[stus768]

Surely teams will just never compete and you'll just be waiting for a kick or knock on?

I assume they will have to properly enforce the attacking team not being allowed to seal off to allow proper competition?

 

[Leinster Fan]

This is just going to make us more like league, not less. Terrible idea.

World Rugby has a ridiculous fascination with solving nonexistent problems, these constant rule changes are terrible for fans (especially casual fans), players and refs. They come in for a lot of criticism but what do you expect when the idiots in charge change the rules every 12 months.

 

[Amiga500]

Instead of the subs - have a squad weight limit. You cannot field a 23 that doesn't weigh more than 2300 kgs (open to tweaking - average of 100kgs a man OK?).

 

[snoopy snoopy dog dog]

The theory in getting more people involved at the ruck thus leaving more room to attack out wide is sound. How it would work in practice remains to be seen but I'm cautiously optimistic. However if there's no contest for possession, it'll lead to an endless cycle of pick and go and Rugby Union will have a problem Rugby League faced (they solved it with first the 4 tackle and then 6 tackle rule).

Using 10 years old stats, defending teams are committing just 1.2 players to each breakdown. Attacking teams are committing 3.3 players. Thus defenders will almost always outnumber attackers and clog up the pitch. If combining new rules at the breakdown and the 50:22 rule (which like @smartcooky I've been advocating a version of here for years) frees up space, that'll be a massive positive for the sport.

I'd like to see these trialed in high level but meaningless contests like Barbarians games and Lions tours.