The end of the Jackal?

[Leinster Fan]

I think a better move is to actually police the offside line. Especially in this years Six Nations everyone got away with murder rushing up and killing any attacking momentum. Actually giving more than the odd token penalty would to a lot more for attacking than this.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Can we introduce it for the world cup? It'd suit Ireland tremendously!

After that though no, the jackal is probably the defensive aspect of the game that I - and I presume I'm nowhere near alone in this - enjoy the most by a distance even more than a big hit.

 

[Which Tyler]

They're suggesting this because England have finally given up on playing 2 blindsides aren't they?

 

[stus768]

Wouldn't it be better to make people have their shoulders above their hips (as suggested by Ben Ryan and as per original laws) but also enforce no flying into contact? Bit harder to jackal but also harder to clear, unless proper technique used.

 

[profitius]

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/

What we have now are fresh 21st hulks coming on en mass for their 20 minutes of bosh. That's a bigger danger of injury imo.


The increase in subs allowed looked ok at the time but it's only resulted in teams being able to pick bigger and bigger players. Less subs would force teams to downsize again. The coaching staff would then need to find the right balance between size and fitness.


Eventually teams would meet an equilibrium again and there would be less chance of injuries because the players would be lighter. You would get a virtuous circle where players can lose that extra half stone now because the size gap isn't as big and that half stone would prevent injury as the following article from Keith Earls shows.

The 28-year-old had a delightfully injury-free run last season after a torrid time in recent years and puts it down to that deeper appreciation of how he functions best physically.

"It took me up to last year," says Earls. "I've been in and around here since I was 19, but it took me up to last year to find my ideal weight, find what food agrees with me.

"[I was] constantly trying to be 95kg, but my natural weight now is 86 to 88kg. I think that's why I kept breaking down, trying to put on weight. I was too heavy and my body wasn't able to carry it."

The new kicking proposal is a good idea and will prove to be a success. Only question is how much of a success.

 

[stus768]

Wouldn't it be better to make people have their shoulders above their hips (as suggested by Ben Ryan and as per original laws) but also enforce no flying into contact? Bit harder to jackal but also harder to clear, unless proper technique used.

 

[Derpus]

How, exactly, could you remove jackalling? Are you simply not allowed to compete for the ball?

That's not Rugby, its League. No thanks Jeff.

Nipple line lol. Just ******* lol.

And to cap off the absurdity, they propose less subs which means more fatigue and greater risk of injury.

Agree with the assertion above. Stop the 'rush defence' (also known as the 'be offside so often the ref just cant be bothered' tactic) by policing the offside line.

 

[Derpus]

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.

Death of Super Rugby has nothing to do with the quantity of tries. What an absurd proposition.

It's the ridiculous format which completely ignores fan engagement in search of more TV revenue, among a thousand other more relevant problems.

Too many tries. Jesus.

 

[bushytop]

Death of Super Rugby has nothing to do with the quantity of tries. What an absurd proposition.

It's the ridiculous format which completely ignores fan engagement in search of more TV revenue, among a thousand other more relevant problems.

Too many tries. Jesus.

Well it doesn't seem to be helping