Box kicking has become too effective – that needs to change. Photo: Patrick Hachfe/Getty Images
What do I wish for rugby in 2024? Let me start by supporting Warren Gatland's recent call to reduce kicking and make rugby a more attacking spectacle. I think Gatland speaks for the majority of rugby union fans on this topic, but the question of how to achieve this is far from settled. Indeed, Gatland's decisions were unclear, and therein lies the problem.
You can't de-emphasize kicking without trying to de-incentivize it as the most effective means of gaining territory and putting pressure on opponents. To achieve this goal, World Rugby may have to make several attempts as proposed changes may fail or have unintended consequences. However, if he does not take this risk, he will have no chance of changing the strategies that are currently successful. There needs to be a willingness to make positive suggestions rather than sit back and say, “This won't work.”
I agree with Gatland's call to allow the score to be 50-22 even when the ball is returned to the attacking team's half. This could mean that the back three will play the ball back more often, freeing up space to attack wide.
I disagree with his call to eliminate the high ball mark at 22. Under the old law, where the catcher had to stand still and make a mark when catching the ball, the “over-under” was widely used. What stopped this was the change to allow a landing mark after catching the ball in the air. Removing it will likely lead to a return to previous tactics. In fact, extending the target area to the 10-meter line may further reduce the incentive to hit the high ball. If you coupled this with a law that required the point guard to hit the ball and pass or run, you would speed up the restart and prevent time from being wasted by kicking to touch.
All of this would go some way to eliminating the curse that many fans face on matchdays: kicks into the box. This type of kick has now become almost ubiquitous, not only as a way out of the team’s 22 meters, but also as an attack option between the opponent’s 22 and 10-meter line.
It's not just the frequency of the blows. has become destructive because it takes a long time to create. For no good reason, referees seem to be universally disinclined to impose a so-called five-second time limit on kickers to use the ball after they have been ordered to do so. I can only remember one such case in the entire year of 2023.
To make matters worse, World Rugby has abandoned its ban on track bats. Once again we see the endless spectacle of several forwards joining the rucks and wasting even more time as the ball slowly rolls back a few extra feet before it is finally kicked into the box. Once the ball is at the back of the ruck, the referee must declare that it has been played, and after that no player should be allowed to join the ruck. Yes, it will make it more difficult to shoot into the box – that's the point, and it will be the same for both sides.
As has already been said, you cannot guarantee a positive effect from such proposals, and this may mean that teams return to duels with long kicks, but at least during them there is a chance to counter-attack because there is space into which players can run away. Box kicking is a choking tactic that makes it nearly impossible to counterattack; that's why it is used so often.
While we're in the mood to dream, the judges should pay attention to the lineout lineout. They seem to have stopped the papal conclave that used to take place in front of each hallway, but they still let the face-off wait until the last second before going into the hallway. They already have a roll; they should not be given the added advantage of late entry, which simply takes up more time.
The same thing happens in fights. They again take time to prepare, form and complete. I understand that the referees do not want to rush the sequence, but they will be helped by the law that if the opening team is not ready to scrum by the agreed time, they lose service. If the other deck is not ready, a penalty kick is awarded.
Finally, I support Gatland's call to reduce the number of voluntary substitutions. If we can't agree to go back to injury-related subs only, then at least drastically reduce the number of subs. The trend towards a striker-dominated bench will only increase, limiting the fatigue that makes attacking space available. And this does not take into account the fact that this will lead to a reduction in the size of club squads and, possibly, their solvency. Wouldn't that be good after 2023?
Recent Comments