World Rugby must recognize unintended consequences in court – Irish Times

Antoine Dupont is 27 years old, about half the age at which rugby's open play offside law applies. These are probably what have served him well in the game for over 50 years, but they are now known as DuPont's Law, as scrum-halves have found the devil in the details and put the cart before the horse. Super Rugby Pacific (SRP) will test an antidote to combat the resulting horrific kick tennis that the law allows with impunity.

First, let's be clear about the current situation and that this will continue throughout the Six Nations. There is no indication that similar tests will be introduced midway through the championship. He said there are two important parts of the current law, and this is how this law will be reviewed when, for example, Scotland visits. Rather than quoting written words, you may be able to visualize things a little more clearly by using the following actual match situation as an example. But still, please read carefully.

part 1

For example, an Irish player waiting to catch the ball within 10 meters of Finn Russell must back up until he is onside. It happens when their teammate, presumably James Rowe, who kicked the ball, passes them. Or an onside Irish player who was either with or behind Rowe passed them.

part 2

Conversely, all Irish players outside the 10 meter zone do not have to retreat, but cannot move forward until Lowe (or the onside Irish player) runs through and is onside. They are also placed onside when Russell runs five meters or when Russell passes the ball.

By running and passing, Russell's own actions have the effect of getting Irish players onside and getting them back into the game. This is the crux of the issue. If Russell doesn't want to risk running away in case he gets tackled and loses the ball, he will slam the ball downfield and back into the Irish half, and that kick will also be returned. Rinse and repeat.

With approval from World Rugby, the new trial will dispel any notion that Russell's actions favored Irish players. Instead, all Irish players, including those outside the 10-metre zone, are required to be unable to take part in play until they are placed onside under the First Division conditions.

Trials always have unintended consequences, but here are some that would be common if this were carried out in the Six Nations. Imagine Lowe being isolated in defence, sending his trademark 50 meter howitzer kick deep into Scottish territory. If that happens, you'll have to run as hard as you can to get all your teammates on your side. In fact, they may run back towards Lowe to reduce the long distance he has to travel.

Russell, on the other hand, knows that no matter what he does he cannot get the Irish players onside, so with his free hand he has a huge amount of available space to break through the incapacitated defense. right. The key question to be answered at trial is whether this gives Russell too much of an advantage and too much time for him to exploit.

Defensive abilities are key to the game and must be carefully balanced with offensive abilities. Super Rugby trials definitely weaken defense, but they encourage attack, which is fair enough. But what if Lowe gets tackled or injured while kicking? There appears to be no mechanism for Irish players to be included in the trial if he is taken out of the match, and Russell now has the freedom to do what he wants.

Finally, there is this issue outside the 10 meter zone. The law currently provides that if Russell makes a mistake such as knocking the ball on or kicking it (which always includes a miscue), then these Irish players are onside. So I'll have to go back to work. This is a very important factor and I hope you have no intention of changing it.

This is a worthwhile and interesting experiment, and will probably become law in due course, but it probably won't be an exact match to the version currently written. However, if there are unforeseen negative consequences, they will be resolved.

Meanwhile, another area that lawmakers need to address is the slow balls that are too often intentionally created at breakdowns. What Ireland want is a very fast ball and they want to get the ball out within three seconds, which is an essential part of their aggressive attacking game plan.

Frustratingly, some people have plans that are very different from Ireland's plans. These teams, content to prolong the breakdown, form an elongated caterpillar rack and the ball takes a long time to come out – 20 seconds anyone? The next option is inevitably a further kick, allowing another match of Rugby's version of Wimbledon to begin.

Referees have an important role in this area by preventing teams from illegally protecting the ball after a tackle. Caterpillar racks are promoted when players thwart all kinds of contests. If cheating is ignored, the defending team will not involve anyone in that phase, naturally preferring to establish a defensive system. The claim that referees are promoting continuity by effectively allowing players to finish matches is completely unfounded. All they advertise is improved kicking power.

Lastly, I would like to ask the ruck time referee to call “use” sooner. it will help us all.