I think that is a big barrier in Australia for rugby to attract fans in AFL states. Unless you are introduced to the game by someone who understands it, casual observers walk away scratching their heads. Not sure how you get around it though. I do think anything that makes the ball contestable is probably understandable to newbies and also helps differentiate rugby from league in a positive way.
The biggest barrier for Rugby Union in Australia is the fact they can't scrimmage! When they could be bothered to learn how to Scrum they were always a very difficult team to beat........hence the Wallabies former success! But you can thank the Eddie Jones type coaches, who CBA to learn how to Scrum, but instead just bitched about and agitated behind closed doors for doing away with real scrummaging...........
The counter to this is to not move after catching the ball and make the kicker do the running and play everyone on, then kick back to him. You will see the lazy guys eventually having to retreat to try and cover the space left at the back by the kicker.
You would need a cannon for a foot to enjoy this tactic and gain territory. But it could be used as a method to tire an opposition team before launching an attack.
World Rugby seems pretty flexible and attentive to such phenomena. They will change the laws if it turns out to be a problem, as they did with offside at the tackle after that Italy theatre show against England.
Good analysis. I wasn't really aware of this loophole TBH. This video made it easy to understand. I don't really like this loophole as it seems to be against the whole spirit of the game. I'd like it to be closed off by World Rugby. Otherwise, I feel games could get messy and pretty ugly to watch
There doesn't need to be a law change imo. There's a law that requires all offside players to retreat UNTIL put onside. In other words the referees can be harsher with the whistle and make the bath players retreat until Gloucester run 5 metres
The legal requirement for being offside is and what a player must do is: A player is offside if they are in front of a team-mate who kicked the ball and fails to retire immediately behind an onside team-mate or an imaginary line across the field 10 metres on that player’s side from where the ball is caught or lands. So the legal requirement is that the player only retreat a minimum of 10 from the ball not all the way back to the kick to be back on side. So if the are already 10 meters they are permitted to just stand there. Once a player has either 1. Run five meter, 2. Passes the Ball 3. Kicks the ball or 4. Touches the ball intentionally without having possession (so basically a bobbled ball knocked backwards. So the loophole is legit but it’s only recently that refs are also aware of it and much let it happen. Just look at a few years ago, players like Barns and Owens were calling penalties for players not retreating even when they were beyond 10 meters away so this seems to be a bad hole that DuPont has legitimately found. Obviously it’s bad and goes against the spirit of the game so just close it. So just take the 10 meter rule away and players become obligated to retreat.
@@mattb8803 Way back in the 20th Century when I played, referees and players knew this. I took advantage of it myself. In fact back then you could even advance while offside as long as you stopped outside a 10 m circle of an opponent waiting to play the ball.
But this can also work the other way. In the recent Scotland/France match, the Scots catcher didn't advance after catching the ball. The French kicker, expecting the kick to be returned, also didn't run forward to play his team onside and the game froze for several seconds. This happened on successive kicks. If the receiving team were leading at the time they could run down some significant time by simply not moving after making the catch
It's similar in many ways to the England v Italy game a few years back in the 6N, where Italy didn't contest any rucks, and because they weren't contesting the ruck, there was no offside. Loophole successfully exploited and it confused the English mightily, to the point that they kept asking the referee what to do, and he just told them "I'm not your coach". I think that loophole got closed straight after that game...
@@RUBBER_BULLETapparently it was changed to say "a player from either team over the ball forms a ruck" instead of "a player from each team". That's what the news articles from 2017 were saying. The current laws on the world rugby site don't say that. And I don't understand, in that case, how you'd ever take the ball off a tackled player after releasing them because it'd automatically be hands in the ruck.
And I didn't even consider it a loophole. Nobody would've considered it so until the phony non-ruck "rucks" came into the game in the mid-1990s. You don't want to contest the breakdown, fine, but they shouldn't've changed the law just to pretend a tackled player with support creates an offside line as if it were a ruck.
I think it was Scotland in this year's 6 nations against Wales, in the first half Wales weren't chasing their kicks so one of the Scotland players just stood there with the ball. I think there are two options for removing this play from Rugby, either making it compulsory for any player who is ahead of their kicker to retreat towards their own goal line until they are inside. Or adding a time limit to the list of ways that anyone who is in front of the kicker is then deemed inside (therefore preventing the catcher from standing with the ball). Personally I would prefer to see players having to retreat if they're offside because it would promote more counter attacking rugby and would reduce the number of games dominated by kick tennis because more defensive players would be in positions to catch the ball
It was made worse in the Bath example because they weren't waiting for the catcher to run 5 meters, they were moving after any forward movement at all. Referee could have called this multiple times.
I don’t know why they changed the law. When I played you were onside if you were behind the kicker. If you were in front you became onside once an onside player passed you or when the opposition catcher had run ten metres. Mind you I stopped playing in 1980.
This law has not been changed. It was always only 5 m (in any direction, even in a circle) that the opponent had to move to make you onside. Actually when you started playing it was probably 5 *yards* .
@@goodmaro But when I played you only had to stay 10 yards away until you were onside. Now you are penalised for running towards the player until you are onside even if you are thirty metres away. So I submit that it has changed, or at least the modern interpretation of the law has changed
Great vid, well explained Uggy. Imo the refs aren't applying the retreat law properly. This law is designed for players who are in retreat and the ball is advanced into traffic which makes the impossible task of distinguishing offside players. The onus must always be for offside players to make a genuine attempt to retreat
@@mathieumercier7936 didn’t say anything about penalising. I’ll explain in simpleton, boks find ways to exploit the rules or do something to create an advantage. Which by the way if you want to be a great team is what you’re meant to do… in that it is what differentiates a good team from a great team. Any way SA lately have been particularly good at doing this thanks to Rassie’s back for thinking outside the box. Now rather than you know adapt to said tactics and one up them as you would if you are a great team. Teams that I won’t name but are located up north and thinks winning the six nation is an achievement, prefer to moan and cry to whoever will listen, they I’ll throw a fit until the rule and or tactic gets rid of. In other words rather than rise above other teams and become the best those usual culprits tend to rather try force the opposition to lower to their level and then try scrap their way through. Now before you come up with nonsense, we are talking about tactics here so of course I am obviously referring to these teams management not the team itself since that’s their entire job.
I just wanted to say how high quality your videos are, I have huge respect for the time and effort you're putting into growing this channel and hope you blow up. keep up the great work 🤙
I have a dream... Would be interesting to see the top 4 of each world rugby league play a straight forward knockout format till there's a winner. I know it's fanciful thinking due to congested fixture lists. But I would imagine the two European cup finalists automatically qualify and that allows the 5th ranked team in that respective league to qualify. Also applicable for English teams. So for example the 5th teams placed in the URC and Top 14 as Leinster and Toulouse will automatically qualify being European Cup finalists. If Sarries played then the 5th English Premier gets a look in. Then the top four from the URC, 4 from the French Top 14, 4 from the English premiership and 4 from SuperRugby then maybe invite the winners of the Japanese league and the best South American club. This way each top tier nation will be represented and will create renewed interest among club supporters. Each play home and away like the soccer European cup with away points counting more. Each winner on to the next round and a home and away final winner takes all so no one can complain about home advantage. Maximum 8 games. Play it in the year between RWC's and knock international games on the head for those two months. We already do it for the RWC so it can be done. Start all games on the same weekend and complete the competition in 6-8 weeks. None of these long drawn out fixture lists that take months and months to complete where fans lose track and interest as it just takes too long. Best total score between the 2 games determines the winner. Imagine your club playing the second final at home knowing that they only need to beat their opponents by a certain margin to be world club champions but knowing that the opposition points are worth more due them playing away from home. Players play for the club that employs them. There are some serious international World Cup winners plying their trade in the Japanese league. I wouldn't want to play a Japanese team with Ardie Savea, PSDT, Kwagga Smith, Damian Dallende, Jesse Kriel, Beauden Barret, Aaron Smith, Richie Mounga, Brodie Retallick lurking around. I'd definitely watch these games as it would give a strong indication of which league has the most powerful teams and the different styles of play. Imagine your team being known as World Club champions... How cool would that be. It would also maybe encourage teams to play outside their normal strategies due to away points counting more. Something like the home teams converted try counting the standard 7 points but for the away team it counts 10. This will bring in new tactics and ways of playing. The teams playing the second fixtures know away points count more so they'll go gang busters for the win...I can hear Dr Rassie's brain whirring away already 😁. Each group will only have teams from other countries in it. For example you can't start with a group having Toulouse and La Rochelle in it. But it's also possible that 2 teams from the same country could reach the finals. So a group would have the no 1 ranked team from their league for eg Leinster then nr 2 from another League (Exeter Chiefs for eg) then 3rd placed team in SuperRugby (possibly The Tahs or the Highlanders) and the 4th placed team in the Top 14 (Castres or Bordeaux). Imagine the endless possibilities in match ups. Clubs will be strongly incentivised to retain players and to grow strong youth academies. Imagine a Toulouse vs Auckland Blues home and away finals played on back to back weekends and there's only a 5 point difference between the teams....or Stormers vs Harlequins at Newlands and Twickenham respectively or Leinster vs the Canes, Munster vs Fijian Drua, Los Pumas vs Wild Knights in Tokyo and Buenos Aires one weekend after another. One can only dream... Thoughts?
The Crims, Kiwis, Irish and Yarpies have been doing it for years, but it's when an English clubside (coached by a Yarpie) do it that people start whining about it.......
Simple solution , kicker must play all of his team on side before they can move. This will go a long way to prevent the kicking game. The recent Scotland v France game both kickers stood still for several seconds thus no movement.
0: 42 had the kicker actually advance 5 metres before the Bath player started running also? 1:55 20 years ago 'purists' used to call Super 12 'Ping Pong' ... now look at the game, it is actually piss poor and one can see some merit is getting rid of such nonsense even if it seems to be going against the grain. The Laws that facilitate 'pingpong' are at fault in the first place. 3:50 I think you saw stationary play during Scotland's 6 Nation games recently. Take a Mark and stand still like a tree! Bizzare.
That's why all the NH teams were kicked out in early stages of the RWC. They focused too much on laws and rules instead of just playing rugby. That's the beauty of rugby its never scientific its always just straight man power for the win!
As Fin Russell demonstrated last weekend though, the fielding player can simply stand still. This forces the kicker to chase their own kick down to put everyone onside, and it highlights the players not retiring to an onside position - which strictly speaking they are supposed to be doing, they just don't get pinged for it.
Bath have been running this all season - saw it in the Prem Cup game against Northampton and then again in the league about a month later and was fuming about it the whole time in the stands. I can only see it prolonging the aerial battles, a 10m gap closed down to 5m isn't long enough. Rugby League players have to deal with a 10m gap every phase and they can't break through very often.
Every pro team knew this law but until recently it was rare that a team used intentionally a player down the field and kick in front of him on purpose. Covering the field after a kick was more a collective thing rather than an individual one. Now this tactic could change a lot of things, but maybe passing the ball could be the solution to get around the solo defender.
Pretty hopeful Finn Russel takes this from bath for Scotland in the 6N. Tho it looks like it requires a bit of coaching DVM would be perfect for this pressue role.
Time to change the rules. We could have more counter attacking if we can get these guys back. Some of those French clips have players advancing before they are onside, which isn't allowed.
Once the opposition has run 5m the players can advance. They don’t have to stop advancing until their team mate behind them has caught the ball. This is what I saw but I wasn’t looking too closely all the time. However, I’m pretty sure you need to retreat once you are offside and cannot loiter to gain an advantage. This definitely was not happening and players should have been pinged. Edit: I’m wrong. They only have to retreat the 10m and can then wait there.
@@peteb3131 Current rule is that you only have to retreat if you are within 10 meters of where the kick is going to land, and otherwise you can loiter until a teammate puts you onside, the ball carrier runs 5 meters, or passes the ball.
That static defensive line is so flat footed and broken it's primed to be exploited with some fancy "Kolbe" style footwork. Instead of just kicking it back again and again I reckon if a team does this to you you could have a play when you have your best attacking backs look for dog legs and counter.
Its an easy fix - the defenders have to be run onside by a player who was behind the kicker or the kicker itself. Plus the player being run onside has to be 10 metres out from where the ball lands.
So you'd abolish the whole section "offside player made onside by action of other team"? That would be really severe! You kick deep, the other side gets to start a whole attacking movement and is past half your team before they can get onside. Basically it'd mean whoever kicks deep first has a huge advantage in that whoever kicks deep in response is likely to have a slough of players offside.
@@goodmaro Hi, I played rugby for 15 years and this was the rule we used. It worked fine with no issues. People have found a loophole which has ruined this part of the game. Just remove the loophole and keep the law simple. Once the kicking game is initiated, players would not be allowed to just stay where they were; as they would be seen as offside (unless run onside by their own player). They would have to run back a bit to be put onside quicker. This would bring more running and fatigue into the game; which is definitely needed considering forwards only play 1 half of rugby nowadays and there are 6 of them on the bench... Plus it would allow more space for the fielding team to counter. Much more fun!
@@plonka4wonka I played in the 1980s and early 1990s, and we used just the official rule, and that worked fine too. In fact while I was playing an offside player was still allowed to *advance* up to 10 yards from the opponent. Around the turn of the century they closed that loophole. So the law's already more restrictive than it used to be on offside players. I really don't see a need to restrict it further.
@@goodmaro Hi, yes but you see the state of the game now. The proof is in the pudding and the truth is what works. I do not know what you mean by this ruling being 'too severe'. It would mean more running to get back onside but that is not too severe. Players are already too heavy which is increasing the impact in the contact which is causing more injuries. The game needs more running so it becomes more aerobic. That way, players will have to lose weight and the forces going through the contact will decrease. It will make the game more accessible to athletes with lighter frames. It is what the game needs. Also, as mentioned before, it will give the fielding team an advantage to run it back...that is exactly what we want! We want the game of rugby to be a more possession and skill based game; where teams choose to run the ball first and kick the ball back when it is on; rather than the other way round. If it becomes too much of a risk to kick it back, maybe teams will choose to run it back instead. We all want to see the back 3 running it back; rather than a South Africa/ England type game where it is just kick-chase-force a knock on - scrum - penalty - kick at goal and win by 1 point kind of game. That is boring and requires very little creativity. That type of game favours big packs who can scrum/maul and limits the potential of our game tremendously. Lets open things up and bring some unpredictability and openness to the game!
@@plonka4wonkaThen you're not thinking it far enough thru. You've put a lot of pressure on the opponents and forced them to kick, but they have lots of players onside. You field the kick but since you don't have supporting players in place, you find yourself kicking back to the opponents quickly. Unless you find touch, your pack and backs who were putting the pressure on are then offside, and the opponents then have an enormous numbers advantage to run the ball back. So what are you going to do? At all costs, you're going to make sure your kick goes into touch to give your pack a breather, since while the lineout forms they don't have to run back far to get onside. Even if you wind up with the kick going directly to touch from outside your 22 m, the lineout is still better than leaving the ball on the field with most of your team offside, who then have to watch helplessly as the opposing fullback runs thru them. So as if we didn't already have enough lineouts, this change would produce more of them.
I played rugby for 19 years in regions of the US and nearly 3 years in Yorkshire, UK (197O's). I later refereed 100 plus matches and coached both men's and women's teams. Rugby was once a "beautiful" game..ie if one was willing to get fit enough to "run" and "tussle" for 80 minutes and learn the necessary skills, ideally making oneself able to function at a number of positions, then because of the LAWs and their enforcement vis a vis commonly accepted English, and a code that put the "spirit" of the Law ( actually spoken of in the attendant pages at the back of the Laws booklet) ahead of winning at any cost. Indeed, rugby was nominally all amateur at that point and many of the players, even at the highest levels had jobs to return to on Mondays. Since rugby became openly "pro" the game has gone downhill in my opinion and the declining numbers of players in both UK and Australia (perhaps Ireland as well) might suggest I'm not alone in my opinion. Across the board, mates in UK have said, nearly in one voice, "I'm happy to have played when I did..." and some like myself would not allow child or grandchild to play the game as I see it now....The shocking number of serious injuries would be one reason. 12 years ago head injuries were being compared to US Gridiron football ( which remains under lawsuits by former players) and now the incidence of concussion is being compared by the NFL TO RUGBY....claiming the NFL NOT the most dangerous contact sport...that rugby is. IN my 19 years I knew of one concussion on the field...to a fellow who had had 7 previous concussions doing moto-cross bike racing. 3 years ago there were 22 reported deaths in European rugby and France admitted to under-reporting. About 4 years ago a full back for Wales (went down) and commentator hoped that he would be able to continue, noting that the player had had "3 concussions in the past 5 months". This the while the league speaks of player safety being of first importance....if so, then how is it that the Laws, as changed on NOT CHANGED BUT laxly interpreted, have produced larger lads ( two stone between world cups) playing on faster pitches ( synthetic turf or pitches mowed to golf green length) and up to 8 substitutions ( usually for bigger blokes who are highly praised for making it through 60 minutes of a match); that mauls for line-outs actually put 7 lads in front of the ball carrier ie off-side and blocking; that a tackled player doesn't "place or release IMMEDIATELY" nor make any attempt to roll away...and his back becomes the offside line rather than a free ball, as it should be, isn't available to the first player on the scene; that a "jackel" is available to receive a shoulder charge THAT WOULD BE DISALLOWED IF HE WERE A BALL CARRIER: the old style rucking over the ball is currently pointless so teams spread out across the pitch thereby no space in which to move the ball, so teams must BASH through the defense ie players are bigger and more punishing...."win the collision" as opposed to "take the tackle on your own terms" ie in a manner that keeps the ball available to your side....The scrum, which was at one time a mere "re-start" as a jump ball in basketball or face off in hockey, now becomes a strength and weight contest to see if one side can make the other break their bind and thereby incur a penalty. Need bigger blokes for that, one's who can be given a rest after the interval by replacing them...And how is feeding the scrum meaningful? Why not just get rid of the scrum ( the most indentifiable structure of the game" There are too many Laws that promote in the sense of "latent function" ie the consequences that make this more and more a game of "brutality"( Eddie James pronouncement to the FRench 3 seasons back) rather than a beautiful game open to all shapes and sizes of players at every level of the game. Note: the greats of rugby through the 1990's, wouldn't for the most part be given a trial for their national side in the position that they played as they'd be deemed 'too small"....In the name of sport, that is not an evolution it is a devolution....Rugby is becoming that which was under threat of national ban in the US in 1905 by the President Teddy Roosevelt, unless if found a way to limit its injuries and deaths. The sense of that I beleive at the core of the decline of participants in Australia and UK....and yet no one speaks of this. Has everyone "drunk the Kool_Aid"?
@@christoduplessis8177 I don't think he wants to get rid of the scrum; he's saying why don't we eliminate the feeding (which is for all intents and purposes allowed).
You raise too many points to respond to, but I agree with two of them: 1) The eight substitutions has increased the danger in the game and lessened the importance of fitness. 2) Scrums have become a test of strength rather than a simple "restart'; it was never intended to be punitive if you weren't as strong as the other scrum, you just lost the ball. And the feeding that is allowed....
so in theory u could waste a lot of time , if kicker or somone behind him doesnt put people on side or player moves 5-m player could kill 1-2 mins at least befor kicking, depending upon laws wording,
If you split the chasing defence on a deep territory kick into 3 groups then you can see how this totally changes the strategy. 1. Back 3 2. Midfield wall (the bus) 3. Blitz chasers (2 players) It’s very similar to a normal defensive structure so is easy to coordinate with the rest of the game. The blitz chasers just stay almost static right at the reach of the kick. The midfield wall can stay unusually far upfield to smother any running threat. And the back 3 just stay back, not even bothering to chase. It becomes all about chess like positioning on the field and the skill of fielding/kicking. The midfield wall stays up field. Englands midfield wall were criticised for not backtracking at RWC but they were just being smart. IMHO it is the primary structure and strategy in open play. I reckon that it’s totally contradictory to the theory and ethos of the game and they should just get rid of the rule and state that players can only be onside once played onside by the kicker (or perhaps any player behind them at the kick).
Typical that the sport that makes no sense actually makes no sense. (For example scrums, something the top pros don’t appear to be able to do. Plus the cheating including no hooking after being given a crooked put in)
When I played (back in the 70’s in NZ) if you kicked the ball instead of running it and keeping possession through linking up with support players, the coach would kick YOU, in the rear! Back then, if you were not put onside by the kicker, you were NOT allowed to take part in any play, no matter what the oppostion players were doing. IT”S CALLED OFFSIDE AND IT SHOULD NOT BE CHANGED, no matter what. I used to love Rugby Union, but becaiuse of B--S-T rule changes like this, I can’t watch the game these days. I MUCH prefer Rugby League, where those players would be penalised EVERY TIME and the players are MUCH fitter and the games are faster and higher scoring. Union is just a lot of wasted time these ays as Referees coach teams in how to set scrums and the bunker decides if the player who was lifted eight feet off the ground by his teamates (which was ILLEGAL in my day) then crashed on his head when he was touched by an opponent trying to compete for the ball, can be safely lifted onto a gurney and taken to hospital, and what should happen to the poor bugger who has maybe crippled his opponent through the criminally mindless stupidity of the Officials of Rugby Union who have allowed what was once an ILLEGAL action in a lineout, which has placed the players who are lifted into totally unsafe positions! Even if they’re not touched by another player, they are so unstable at the heights they reach that disaster is almost inevitable. Gone are the dyas when wingers with incredible speed could actually run onto a ball at speed, after that ball has been passed through the hands of the inner backline, because gameplay nowadays is; pass once, run into the opposition, get the ball back to the halfback, pass once, hit the position, then repeat. AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN, ETC, ETC, ETC. Until someone kicks the damn thing to the opposition fullback, who will run into the opposition, get the ball to the halfback, and… you know the rtest of the story. This mind numbing tomfoolery is broken up by a scrum ot two, which wil take betwen 5 and 10 minutes each, because the Ref has to be able to show off his scrum coaching skills. Despite the best efforts of said Ref, these scrums usually result yet another penalty from some obscure scrum infringement and the ensuing kick for goal will probably see the scoreboard tick over and one team will now be that much closer to double digits. I’d rather watch grass grow! The last game of Union I watched that had me enthralled for the whole 80 minutes plus, was the World Cup game between Japan and Sth Africa in 2015 or so. the rest have been boring as batshit.
Easy way to fix this is remove the 10 meter rule and then it obliterates players to retreat, they won’t be allow to just stand there or they are considered offside. Ensure that offside players must retreat or make an effort to retreat to get back onside. Have I interpreted that correctly?
You call this a loophole? I used to play that way. In fact, back when I played, while offside you could still move forward until you were 10 yards from a waiting opponent. Now you have to stop moving forward.
I hate it when two players play kick tennis while the rest of the players stand in the middle. Maybe the law should change so that the offside players have to retreat to behind where the ball was kicked from.
The game violates Bushnell's Law. It feels like it was nearly really designed. It just seems to have been hacked together, with patches applied every time the authorities realised that there was some serious flaw in the laws.
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
For me, the biggest issue is just how complex the laws are. They make no sense to a casual fan
I think that is a big barrier in Australia for rugby to attract fans in AFL states. Unless you are introduced to the game by someone who understands it, casual observers walk away scratching their heads. Not sure how you get around it though. I do think anything that makes the ball contestable is probably understandable to newbies and also helps differentiate rugby from league in a positive way.
Is that because "casual fans" don't have the brain power to read/learn the laws.......
The biggest barrier for Rugby Union in Australia is the fact they can't scrimmage!
When they could be bothered to learn how to Scrum they were always a very difficult team to beat........hence the Wallabies former success! But you can thank the Eddie Jones type coaches, who CBA to learn how to Scrum, but instead just
bitched about and agitated behind closed doors for doing away with real scrummaging...........
@@williamforsyth-ye4rcYet every other popular sport you just watch. Arrogant.
Thisssss, we had a weekend with big controversies over interpretation of rugby laws. How is this still going on
The counter to this is to not move after catching the ball and make the kicker do the running and play everyone on, then kick back to him. You will see the lazy guys eventually having to retreat to try and cover the space left at the back by the kicker.
You would need a cannon for a foot to enjoy this tactic and gain territory. But it could be used as a method to tire an opposition team before launching an attack.
World Rugby seems pretty flexible and attentive to such phenomena. They will change the laws if it turns out to be a problem, as they did with offside at the tackle after that Italy theatre show against England.
Oh man you beat me to the coverage on this! Bit of an interesting case this one aye 😅
I’ll be checking out yours for sure bro 🔥 & absolutely haha, will be interesting to see how they navigate it
Good analysis. I wasn't really aware of this loophole TBH. This video made it easy to understand.
I don't really like this loophole as it seems to be against the whole spirit of the game. I'd like it to be closed off by World Rugby. Otherwise, I feel games could get messy and pretty ugly to watch
You’re a true scholar of the game, @Uggy - and that’s why you are the the most original and authentic rugby’Tubers…
There doesn't need to be a law change imo. There's a law that requires all offside players to retreat UNTIL put onside.
In other words the referees can be harsher with the whistle and make the bath players retreat until Gloucester run 5 metres
I just checked the laws now. You only need to retreat 10m and can stay there (as far as I can tell).
That's what everyone thought the law said. But the law doesn't say this AT ALL. Look it up.
The legal requirement for being offside is and what a player must do is: A player is offside if they are in front of a team-mate who kicked the ball and fails to retire immediately behind an onside team-mate or an imaginary line across the field 10 metres on that player’s side from where the ball is caught or lands.
So the legal requirement is that the player only retreat a minimum of 10 from the ball not all the way back to the kick to be back on side.
So if the are already 10 meters they are permitted to just stand there.
Once a player has either 1. Run five meter, 2. Passes the Ball 3. Kicks the ball or 4. Touches the ball intentionally without having possession (so basically a bobbled ball knocked backwards.
So the loophole is legit but it’s only recently that refs are also aware of it and much let it happen.
Just look at a few years ago, players like Barns and Owens were calling penalties for players not retreating even when they were beyond 10 meters away so this seems to be a bad hole that DuPont has legitimately found.
Obviously it’s bad and goes against the spirit of the game so just close it. So just take the 10 meter rule away and players become obligated to retreat.
@@mattb8803 Way back in the 20th Century when I played, referees and players knew this. I took advantage of it myself. In fact back then you could even advance while offside as long as you stopped outside a 10 m circle of an opponent waiting to play the ball.
But this can also work the other way. In the recent Scotland/France match, the Scots catcher didn't advance after catching the ball. The French kicker, expecting the kick to be returned, also didn't run forward to play his team onside and the game froze for several seconds. This happened on successive kicks. If the receiving team were leading at the time they could run down some significant time by simply not moving after making the catch
It's similar in many ways to the England v Italy game a few years back in the 6N, where Italy didn't contest any rucks, and because they weren't contesting the ruck, there was no offside. Loophole successfully exploited and it confused the English mightily, to the point that they kept asking the referee what to do, and he just told them "I'm not your coach".
I think that loophole got closed straight after that game...
Did it? I thought that the simple answer to that trick was to keep driving forward. It worked once because the players were unsure of how to respond.
@@RUBBER_BULLETapparently it was changed to say "a player from either team over the ball forms a ruck" instead of "a player from each team". That's what the news articles from 2017 were saying.
The current laws on the world rugby site don't say that. And I don't understand, in that case, how you'd ever take the ball off a tackled player after releasing them because it'd automatically be hands in the ruck.
And I didn't even consider it a loophole. Nobody would've considered it so until the phony non-ruck "rucks" came into the game in the mid-1990s. You don't want to contest the breakdown, fine, but they shouldn't've changed the law just to pretend a tackled player with support creates an offside line as if it were a ruck.
I think it was Scotland in this year's 6 nations against Wales, in the first half Wales weren't chasing their kicks so one of the Scotland players just stood there with the ball. I think there are two options for removing this play from Rugby, either making it compulsory for any player who is ahead of their kicker to retreat towards their own goal line until they are inside. Or adding a time limit to the list of ways that anyone who is in front of the kicker is then deemed inside (therefore preventing the catcher from standing with the ball). Personally I would prefer to see players having to retreat if they're offside because it would promote more counter attacking rugby and would reduce the number of games dominated by kick tennis because more defensive players would be in positions to catch the ball
It was made worse in the Bath example because they weren't waiting for the catcher to run 5 meters, they were moving after any forward movement at all. Referee could have called this multiple times.
I don’t know why they changed the law. When I played you were onside if you were behind the kicker. If you were in front you became onside once an onside player passed you or when the opposition catcher had run ten metres. Mind you I stopped playing in 1980.
This law has not been changed. It was always only 5 m (in any direction, even in a circle) that the opponent had to move to make you onside. Actually when you started playing it was probably 5 *yards* .
@@goodmaro But when I played you only had to stay 10 yards away until you were onside. Now you are penalised for running towards the player until you are onside even if you are thirty metres away. So I submit that it has changed, or at least the modern interpretation of the law has changed
Great vid, well explained Uggy. Imo the refs aren't applying the retreat law properly. This law is designed for players who are in retreat and the ball is advanced into traffic which makes the impossible task of distinguishing offside players. The onus must always be for offside players to make a genuine attempt to retreat
I’m amazed nobody has worked this out before. Portugal were doing this at the RWC.
Check out who their coach was. Patrice lagisquet (spelling?). Very clever rugby man
Also, on several occasions, the bath players started running too estly and were offside.
Don’t worry just have to wait for the boks to start using it then they will say it’s outrageous and get rid of it.
Yes, because every law in rugby is about penalizing the boks and the boks only. We all saw that at last RWC.
@@mathieumercier7936 didn’t say anything about penalising. I’ll explain in simpleton, boks find ways to exploit the rules or do something to create an advantage. Which by the way if you want to be a great team is what you’re meant to do… in that it is what differentiates a good team from a great team. Any way SA lately have been particularly good at doing this thanks to Rassie’s back for thinking outside the box. Now rather than you know adapt to said tactics and one up them as you would if you are a great team. Teams that I won’t name but are located up north and thinks winning the six nation is an achievement, prefer to moan and cry to whoever will listen, they I’ll throw a fit until the rule and or tactic gets rid of. In other words rather than rise above other teams and become the best those usual culprits tend to rather try force the opposition to lower to their level and then try scrap their way through. Now before you come up with nonsense, we are talking about tactics here so of course I am obviously referring to these teams management not the team itself since that’s their entire job.
Yup, bunch of haters lol😂
I just wanted to say how high quality your videos are, I have huge respect for the time and effort you're putting into growing this channel and hope you blow up. keep up the great work 🤙
Damn… this made my day. Thanks so much! I really appreciate your support.
@@uggy happy to hear it but I'm not the one to thank, you're putting the effort in and it's paying off! You deserve it
I have a dream...
Would be interesting to see the top 4 of each world rugby league play a straight forward knockout format till there's a winner. I know it's fanciful thinking due to congested fixture lists. But I would imagine the two European cup finalists automatically qualify and that allows the 5th ranked team in that respective league to qualify. Also applicable for English teams. So for example the 5th teams placed in the URC and Top 14 as Leinster and Toulouse will automatically qualify being European Cup finalists. If Sarries played then the 5th English Premier gets a look in. Then the top four from the URC, 4 from the French Top 14, 4 from the English premiership and 4 from SuperRugby then maybe invite the winners of the Japanese league and the best South American club. This way each top tier nation will be represented and will create renewed interest among club supporters. Each play home and away like the soccer European cup with away points counting more. Each winner on to the next round and a home and away final winner takes all so no one can complain about home advantage. Maximum 8 games. Play it in the year between RWC's and knock international games on the head for those two months. We already do it for the RWC so it can be done. Start all games on the same weekend and complete the competition in 6-8 weeks. None of these long drawn out fixture lists that take months and months to complete where fans lose track and interest as it just takes too long. Best total score between the 2 games determines the winner. Imagine your club playing the second final at home knowing that they only need to beat their opponents by a certain margin to be world club champions but knowing that the opposition points are worth more due them playing away from home. Players play for the club that employs them. There are some serious international World Cup winners plying their trade in the Japanese league. I wouldn't want to play a Japanese team with Ardie Savea, PSDT, Kwagga Smith, Damian Dallende, Jesse Kriel, Beauden Barret, Aaron Smith, Richie Mounga, Brodie Retallick lurking around. I'd definitely watch these games as it would give a strong indication of which league has the most powerful teams and the different styles of play. Imagine your team being known as World Club champions... How cool would that be. It would also maybe encourage teams to play outside their normal strategies due to away points counting more. Something like the home teams converted try counting the standard 7 points but for the away team it counts 10. This will bring in new tactics and ways of playing. The teams playing the second fixtures know away points count more so they'll go gang busters for the win...I can hear Dr Rassie's brain whirring away already 😁. Each group will only have teams from other countries in it. For example you can't start with a group having Toulouse and La Rochelle in it. But it's also possible that 2 teams from the same country could reach the finals. So a group would have the no 1 ranked team from their league for eg Leinster then nr 2 from another League (Exeter Chiefs for eg) then 3rd placed team in SuperRugby (possibly The Tahs or the Highlanders) and the 4th placed team in the Top 14 (Castres or Bordeaux). Imagine the endless possibilities in match ups. Clubs will be strongly incentivised to retain players and to grow strong youth academies.
Imagine a Toulouse vs Auckland Blues home and away finals played on back to back weekends and there's only a 5 point difference between the teams....or Stormers vs Harlequins at Newlands and Twickenham respectively or Leinster vs the Canes, Munster vs Fijian Drua, Los Pumas vs Wild Knights in Tokyo and Buenos Aires one weekend after another. One can only dream... Thoughts?
Wow , we didn’t even see the top teams at the World Cup taking advantage of this , great work bath
The Crims, Kiwis, Irish and Yarpies have been doing it for years, but it's when an English clubside (coached by a Yarpie) do it that people start whining about it.......
Yes we did. They all did it
@@williamforsyth-ye4rc Ons is Japies.
Simple solution , kicker must play all of his team on side before they can move. This will go a long way to prevent the kicking game. The recent Scotland v France game both kickers stood still for several seconds thus no movement.
0: 42 had the kicker actually advance 5 metres before the Bath player started running also? 1:55 20 years ago 'purists' used to call Super 12 'Ping Pong' ... now look at the game, it is actually piss poor and one can see some merit is getting rid of such nonsense even if it seems to be going against the grain. The Laws that facilitate 'pingpong' are at fault in the first place. 3:50 I think you saw stationary play during Scotland's 6 Nation games recently. Take a Mark and stand still like a tree! Bizzare.
That's why all the NH teams were kicked out in early stages of the RWC. They focused too much on laws and rules instead of just playing rugby. That's the beauty of rugby its never scientific its always just straight man power for the win!
Like the almost analysis of this would love to see more of these types of videos
They’re coming! Thanks so much for the feedback mate, really appreciate it.
@@uggy Anytime mate just as long as u r making videos i dont really mind
As Fin Russell demonstrated last weekend though, the fielding player can simply stand still. This forces the kicker to chase their own kick down to put everyone onside, and it highlights the players not retiring to an onside position - which strictly speaking they are supposed to be doing, they just don't get pinged for it.
No, there has never been such a requirement.
Bath have been running this all season - saw it in the Prem Cup game against Northampton and then again in the league about a month later and was fuming about it the whole time in the stands. I can only see it prolonging the aerial battles, a 10m gap closed down to 5m isn't long enough. Rugby League players have to deal with a 10m gap every phase and they can't break through very often.
Every pro team knew this law but until recently it was rare that a team used intentionally a player down the field and kick in front of him on purpose. Covering the field after a kick was more a collective thing rather than an individual one. Now this tactic could change a lot of things, but maybe passing the ball could be the solution to get around the solo defender.
Pretty hopeful Finn Russel takes this from bath for Scotland in the 6N. Tho it looks like it requires a bit of coaching DVM would be perfect for this pressue role.
definitly going to start doing this in club games now
🤣 wonder how the normal club ref would go!
yeh should be fun@@uggy
Haven't really thought about this but my initial reaction would be to change it so that only players in their own half can be onside.
"kicking duals can be awesome these days..." Can they? Not sure im ever at the edge of my seat for a kicking dual.
i kept wondering why those players aren't considered offside but now it makes sense
Try doing it to Pacific Island teams who love to run the ball from their own try lines.
This is a bit off topic, but I used to love watching amanaki mafi drop back for the rebels and run the ball up from the back fence 🤣🔥
Seems quite an easy one to solve by saying that the kicker and those behind them are onside?
My takeaway is that if you receive a long kick and there is an offside opposition player *don't advance when you kick back*.
Will you be covering Ireland in the six nations?
Time to change the rules. We could have more counter attacking if we can get these guys back. Some of those French clips have players advancing before they are onside, which isn't allowed.
Once the opposition has run 5m the players can advance. They don’t have to stop advancing until their team mate behind them has caught the ball. This is what I saw but I wasn’t looking too closely all the time. However, I’m pretty sure you need to retreat once you are offside and cannot loiter to gain an advantage. This definitely was not happening and players should have been pinged.
Edit: I’m wrong. They only have to retreat the 10m and can then wait there.
@@peteb3131 Current rule is that you only have to retreat if you are within 10 meters of where the kick is going to land, and otherwise you can loiter until a teammate puts you onside, the ball carrier runs 5 meters, or passes the ball.
That static defensive line is so flat footed and broken it's primed to be exploited with some fancy "Kolbe" style footwork. Instead of just kicking it back again and again I reckon if a team does this to you you could have a play when you have your best attacking backs look for dog legs and counter.
Simple fix: Call them for not being behind the their kicker as soon as the opposition kicker moves 4 m and 99 cm
One good spiral kick with MASSIVE hang time would negate all the other kicks in that or any other sequences you played.
Thank you
Thanks for the comment legend!! Bit of a different style for me
Lazy but smart but lazy
Suprised how this didn't happen once in the england vs south africa game
Its an easy fix - the defenders have to be run onside by a player who was behind the kicker or the kicker itself. Plus the player being run onside has to be 10 metres out from where the ball lands.
So you'd abolish the whole section "offside player made onside by action of other team"? That would be really severe! You kick deep, the other side gets to start a whole attacking movement and is past half your team before they can get onside. Basically it'd mean whoever kicks deep first has a huge advantage in that whoever kicks deep in response is likely to have a slough of players offside.
@@goodmaro Hi, I played rugby for 15 years and this was the rule we used. It worked fine with no issues. People have found a loophole which has ruined this part of the game. Just remove the loophole and keep the law simple. Once the kicking game is initiated, players would not be allowed to just stay where they were; as they would be seen as offside (unless run onside by their own player). They would have to run back a bit to be put onside quicker. This would bring more running and fatigue into the game; which is definitely needed considering forwards only play 1 half of rugby nowadays and there are 6 of them on the bench... Plus it would allow more space for the fielding team to counter. Much more fun!
@@plonka4wonka I played in the 1980s and early 1990s, and we used just the official rule, and that worked fine too. In fact while I was playing an offside player was still allowed to *advance* up to 10 yards from the opponent. Around the turn of the century they closed that loophole. So the law's already more restrictive than it used to be on offside players. I really don't see a need to restrict it further.
@@goodmaro Hi, yes but you see the state of the game now. The proof is in the pudding and the truth is what works. I do not know what you mean by this ruling being 'too severe'. It would mean more running to get back onside but that is not too severe. Players are already too heavy which is increasing the impact in the contact which is causing more injuries. The game needs more running so it becomes more aerobic. That way, players will have to lose weight and the forces going through the contact will decrease. It will make the game more accessible to athletes with lighter frames. It is what the game needs. Also, as mentioned before, it will give the fielding team an advantage to run it back...that is exactly what we want! We want the game of rugby to be a more possession and skill based game; where teams choose to run the ball first and kick the ball back when it is on; rather than the other way round. If it becomes too much of a risk to kick it back, maybe teams will choose to run it back instead. We all want to see the back 3 running it back; rather than a South Africa/ England type game where it is just kick-chase-force a knock on - scrum - penalty - kick at goal and win by 1 point kind of game. That is boring and requires very little creativity. That type of game favours big packs who can scrum/maul and limits the potential of our game tremendously. Lets open things up and bring some unpredictability and openness to the game!
@@plonka4wonkaThen you're not thinking it far enough thru. You've put a lot of pressure on the opponents and forced them to kick, but they have lots of players onside. You field the kick but since you don't have supporting players in place, you find yourself kicking back to the opponents quickly. Unless you find touch, your pack and backs who were putting the pressure on are then offside, and the opponents then have an enormous numbers advantage to run the ball back. So what are you going to do? At all costs, you're going to make sure your kick goes into touch to give your pack a breather, since while the lineout forms they don't have to run back far to get onside. Even if you wind up with the kick going directly to touch from outside your 22 m, the lineout is still better than leaving the ball on the field with most of your team offside, who then have to watch helplessly as the opposing fullback runs thru them. So as if we didn't already have enough lineouts, this change would produce more of them.
so is this 5m thing a recent law change?
No, it's ancient.
Call for every CLUB to reject NEW rules....Keep Rugby Union the same...
its not a loophole,,,its a kicking duel and has been in the game since forever,,,why are people whingeing about this?
World Rugby has just closed the loophole. No more "Dupont Law" :)
I played rugby for 19 years in regions of the US and nearly 3 years in Yorkshire, UK (197O's). I later refereed 100 plus matches and coached both men's and women's teams. Rugby was once a "beautiful" game..ie if one was willing to get fit enough to "run" and "tussle" for 80 minutes and learn the necessary skills, ideally making oneself able to function at a number of positions, then because of the LAWs and their enforcement vis a vis commonly accepted English, and a code that put the "spirit" of the Law ( actually spoken of in the attendant pages at the back of the Laws booklet) ahead of winning at any cost. Indeed, rugby was nominally all amateur at that point and many of the players, even at the highest levels had jobs to return to on Mondays. Since rugby became openly "pro" the game has gone downhill in my opinion and the declining numbers of players in both UK and Australia (perhaps Ireland as well) might suggest I'm not alone in my opinion. Across the board, mates in UK have said, nearly in one voice, "I'm happy to have played when I did..." and some like myself would not allow child or grandchild to play the game as I see it now....The shocking number of serious injuries would be one reason. 12 years ago head injuries were being compared to US Gridiron football ( which remains under lawsuits by former players) and now the incidence of concussion is being compared by the NFL TO RUGBY....claiming the NFL NOT the most dangerous contact sport...that rugby is. IN my 19 years I knew of one concussion on the field...to a fellow who had had 7 previous concussions doing moto-cross bike racing. 3 years ago there were 22 reported deaths in European rugby and France admitted to under-reporting. About 4 years ago a full back for Wales (went down) and commentator hoped that he would be able to continue, noting that the player had had "3 concussions in the past 5 months". This the while the league speaks of player safety being of first importance....if so, then how is it that the Laws, as changed on NOT CHANGED BUT laxly interpreted, have produced larger lads ( two stone between world cups) playing on faster pitches ( synthetic turf or pitches mowed to golf green length) and up to 8 substitutions ( usually for bigger blokes who are highly praised for making it through 60 minutes of a match); that mauls for line-outs actually put 7 lads in front of the ball carrier ie off-side and blocking; that a tackled player doesn't "place or release IMMEDIATELY" nor make any attempt to roll away...and his back becomes the offside line rather than a free ball, as it should be, isn't available to the first player on the scene; that a "jackel" is available to receive a shoulder charge THAT WOULD BE DISALLOWED IF HE WERE A BALL CARRIER: the old style rucking over the ball is currently pointless so teams spread out across the pitch thereby no space in which to move the ball, so teams must BASH through the defense ie players are bigger and more punishing...."win the collision" as opposed to "take the tackle on your own terms" ie in a manner that keeps the ball available to your side....The scrum, which was at one time a mere "re-start" as a jump ball in basketball or face off in hockey, now becomes a strength and weight contest to see if one side can make the other break their bind and thereby incur a penalty. Need bigger blokes for that, one's who can be given a rest after the interval by replacing them...And how is feeding the scrum meaningful? Why not just get rid of the scrum ( the most indentifiable structure of the game" There are too many Laws that promote in the sense of "latent function" ie the consequences that make this more and more a game of "brutality"( Eddie James pronouncement to the FRench 3 seasons back) rather than a beautiful game open to all shapes and sizes of players at every level of the game. Note: the greats of rugby through the 1990's, wouldn't for the most part be given a trial for their national side in the position that they played as they'd be deemed 'too small"....In the name of sport, that is not an evolution it is a devolution....Rugby is becoming that which was under threat of national ban in the US in 1905 by the President Teddy Roosevelt, unless if found a way to limit its injuries and deaths. The sense of that I beleive at the core of the decline of participants in Australia and UK....and yet no one speaks of this. Has everyone "drunk the Kool_Aid"?
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
You lost all credibility when you wanted to get rid of the scrum, you don't know the game then. Perhaps try league.
@@christoduplessis8177 I don't think he wants to get rid of the scrum; he's saying why don't we eliminate the feeding (which is for all intents and purposes allowed).
You raise too many points to respond to, but I agree with two of them: 1) The eight substitutions has increased the danger in the game and lessened the importance of fitness. 2) Scrums have become a test of strength rather than a simple "restart'; it was never intended to be punitive if you weren't as strong as the other scrum, you just lost the ball. And the feeding that is allowed....
Extra comment for the algorithm cuz do a vid of a shot of absinthe for every time you say ball goes hard as
so in theory u could waste a lot of time , if kicker or somone behind him doesnt put people on side or player moves 5-m player could kill 1-2 mins at least befor kicking, depending upon laws wording,
Gloucester can't even risk running with the ball with 4 guys with no help facing 8 opponents
Only in England will you find this unimaginative, repeated kicking.
If you split the chasing defence on a deep territory kick into 3 groups then you can see how this totally changes the strategy.
1. Back 3
2. Midfield wall (the bus)
3. Blitz chasers (2 players)
It’s very similar to a normal defensive structure so is easy to coordinate with the rest of the game.
The blitz chasers just stay almost static right at the reach of the kick. The midfield wall can stay unusually far upfield to smother any running threat. And the back 3 just stay back, not even bothering to chase. It becomes all about chess like positioning on the field and the skill of fielding/kicking. The midfield wall stays up field. Englands midfield wall were criticised for not backtracking at RWC but they were just being smart.
IMHO it is the primary structure and strategy in open play.
I reckon that it’s totally contradictory to the theory and ethos of the game and they should just get rid of the rule and state that players can only be onside once played onside by the kicker (or perhaps any player behind them at the kick).
Typical that the sport that makes no sense actually makes no sense. (For example scrums, something the top pros don’t appear to be able to do. Plus the cheating including no hooking after being given a crooked put in)
When I played (back in the 70’s in NZ) if you kicked the ball instead of running it and keeping possession through linking up with support players, the coach would kick YOU, in the rear! Back then, if you were not put onside by the kicker, you were NOT allowed to take part in any play, no matter what the oppostion players were doing. IT”S CALLED OFFSIDE AND IT SHOULD NOT BE CHANGED, no matter what. I used to love Rugby Union, but becaiuse of B--S-T rule changes like this, I can’t watch the game these days. I MUCH prefer Rugby League, where those players would be penalised EVERY TIME and the players are MUCH fitter and the games are faster and higher scoring. Union is just a lot of wasted time these ays as Referees coach teams in how to set scrums and the bunker decides if the player who was lifted eight feet off the ground by his teamates (which was ILLEGAL in my day) then crashed on his head when he was touched by an opponent trying to compete for the ball, can be safely lifted onto a gurney and taken to hospital, and what should happen to the poor bugger who has maybe crippled his opponent through the criminally mindless stupidity of the Officials of Rugby Union who have allowed what was once an ILLEGAL action in a lineout, which has placed the players who are lifted into totally unsafe positions! Even if they’re not touched by another player, they are so unstable at the heights they reach that disaster is almost inevitable.
Gone are the dyas when wingers with incredible speed could actually run onto a ball at speed, after that ball has been passed through the hands of the inner backline, because gameplay nowadays is; pass once, run into the opposition, get the ball back to the halfback, pass once, hit the position, then repeat. AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN, ETC, ETC, ETC. Until someone kicks the damn thing to the opposition fullback, who will run into the opposition, get the ball to the halfback, and… you know the rtest of the story. This mind numbing tomfoolery is broken up by a scrum ot two, which wil take betwen 5 and 10 minutes each, because the Ref has to be able to show off his scrum coaching skills. Despite the best efforts of said Ref, these scrums usually result yet another penalty from some obscure scrum infringement and the ensuing kick for goal will probably see the scoreboard tick over and one team will now be that much closer to double digits.
I’d rather watch grass grow! The last game of Union I watched that had me enthralled for the whole 80 minutes plus, was the World Cup game between Japan and Sth Africa in 2015 or so. the rest have been boring as batshit.
Is this law legal in Australia?
Rugby has lost its soul, and its beauty.
Players have to make an attempt to retreat not just stand still.
Easy way to fix this is remove the 10 meter rule and then it obliterates players to retreat, they won’t be allow to just stand there or they are considered offside. Ensure that offside players must retreat or make an effort to retreat to get back onside.
Have I interpreted that correctly?
Thanks
Cheers for helping with the algorithm
Guess it didn't work in the World Cup for France/Dupont 😂.
You call this a loophole? I used to play that way. In fact, back when I played, while offside you could still move forward until you were 10 yards from a waiting opponent. Now you have to stop moving forward.
I hate it when two players play kick tennis while the rest of the players stand in the middle. Maybe the law should change so that the offside players have to retreat to behind where the ball was kicked from.
kicking "duel" arial "tennis" what did you call it...kicking ping pong? BORING!!
🤣
Brilliant use of a VERY badly written rule.
Rugby rules are too complicated to be honest
The game violates Bushnell's Law. It feels like it was nearly really designed. It just seems to have been hacked together, with patches applied every time the authorities realised that there was some serious flaw in the laws.
Aerial ping pong? I prefer kick tennis.
Rugby has been going to shit for a long time.
Change 5m to 10m and that's it
Bath is in the south so they pronounce it just like Aussies do
Change the NAME not the GAME....
Change the rule or lose rugby forever.
Who wants to watch that rubbish ??
This was a horrible loophole Jesus Christ🤦🏿♂️
European rugby culture.
Why do people pay to watch this rubbish ?
12 kicks in a row is stupid and boring. There should be a limit to the number of continuous kicks. Rugby is a running game, not a kicking game.
Rugby is dead. Played it my whole life for 20+ years. Haven’t watched a full 80mins for a few years now. Absolutely shite. Rugby League is winning