Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11

Thread: 50/22 no good

      
  1. #1

    Referees in Australia
    SimonSmith's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Central Australian Rugby Referees
    Grade
    B3
    Join Date
    27 Jan 04
    Posts
    8,780

    Default 50/22 no good

    Bledisloe 1 yesterday. Possibly the worst 40 minutes of international rugby I’ve seen.

    But a moment that highlights just how garbage this law is.
    Australia break, and have a 3 on 2, their right hand side, on about the NZ 10m line.
    Ball carrier runs out of ideas and shoes into NZ in goal - with the resulting GLDK.

    All that advantage because your winger is an idiot…
    The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.
    Marcus Aurelius

    Man may do as he will; he may not will what he wills
    Arthur Schopenhauer

    Tullamore Dew, the Afghan Wigs, and many, many strippers - how to get over your ex. How true.

  2. #2

    Referees in New Zealand
    Ian_Cook's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Retired player and referee
    Grade
    Level 2
    Join Date
    12 Jul 05
    Posts
    13,628

    Default Re: 50/22 no good

    Quote Originally Posted by SimonSmith View Post
    Bledisloe 1 yesterday. Possibly the worst 40 minutes of international rugby I’ve seen.

    But a moment that highlights just how garbage this law is.
    Australia break, and have a 3 on 2, their right hand side, on about the NZ 10m line.
    Ball carrier runs out of ideas and shoes into NZ in goal - with the resulting GLDK.

    All that advantage because your winger is an idiot…
    To be fair, that had nothing to do with the 50/22 law. It would be the same result even without 50/22, and without GLDK, would have been a 22.

    You're wrongly blaming a new law just because one player was an idiot. That is hardly a fair test!

    FWIW: I think the law should have been 10/22 not 50/22 - just to require a little extra kicking skill, and dissuading poor kickers from attempt it.
    "You can Google for information, but you can't Google for understanding"
    - Jay Windley

  3. #3

    Referees in Australia
    Dickie E's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    VRRA
    Grade
    Level 2
    Join Date
    19 Jan 07
    Posts
    13,184

    Default Re: 50/22 no good

    Quote Originally Posted by Ian_Cook View Post

    FWIW: I think the law should have been 10/22 not 50/22 - just to require a little extra kicking skill, and dissuading poor kickers from attempt it.
    Remember though (AFAIK) this whole 50/22 thing is solely to try to push the winger back out of the defensive line to protect touch. Which is, in theory, achieved whether or not the ball carrier actually kicks the ball.
    I, for one, like Roman numerals

  4. #4
    Rugby Club Member Rich_NL's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Rugby Nederland
    Grade
    WR level 2
    Join Date
    13 Apr 15
    Posts
    1,437

    Default Re: 50/22 no good

    I don't understand why poor decion making or execution reflect badly on a law. I missed the match, though, and I'm interested to see what effects the law trials have.

  5. #5

    Referees in New Zealand
    Ian_Cook's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Retired player and referee
    Grade
    Level 2
    Join Date
    12 Jul 05
    Posts
    13,628

    Default Re: 50/22 no good

    Quote Originally Posted by Dickie E View Post
    Remember though (AFAIK) this whole 50/22 thing is solely to try to push the winger back out of the defensive line to protect touch. Which is, in theory, achieved whether or not the ball carrier actually kicks the ball.
    True, but from the perspective of a defending team team in possession, its an opportunity to gain territory and retain possession through kicking skill. I think it just needs to be a little harder than bouncing a 28m kick into touch.
    "You can Google for information, but you can't Google for understanding"
    - Jay Windley

  6. #6

    Referees in Australia
    SimonSmith's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Central Australian Rugby Referees
    Grade
    B3
    Join Date
    27 Jan 04
    Posts
    8,780

    Default Re: 50/22 no good

    Yeah, I meant GLDK - I had just escaped a different argument about 50/22.

    A law is only as good as how it plays out - we just found, to my mind, a serious flaw. A 22 would be fairer to the defense in that situation. Getting pinned on your goal line because the opposition winger is a bit shit doesn’t feel right to me.
    The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.
    Marcus Aurelius

    Man may do as he will; he may not will what he wills
    Arthur Schopenhauer

    Tullamore Dew, the Afghan Wigs, and many, many strippers - how to get over your ex. How true.

  7. #7

    Referees in England


    Soc/Assoc
    --
    Grade
    Grassroots
    Join Date
    14 Sep 09
    Posts
    19,258

    Default Re: 50/22 no good

    it's a weird logic
    - make kicking more attractive, so that defenders will drop back to prevent kicking. Outcome = more running, less kicking


    It's not intuitive!

    But it was trialled last season right? so presumably there are stats that show that it worked.

  8. #8

    Advises in England
    OB..'s Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Glos & District
    Grade
    Adviser (grass roots)
    Join Date
    07 Oct 04
    Posts
    22,877

    Default Re: 50/22 no good

    Yesterday I saw Gloucester (38) v Ealing Trailfinders (36).Much rusty early season stuff with some bright flashes.

    I was keen to see how the new laws affected play, but without having the referee's feed, all I could note were a mere two obvious attempts at a 50-22 (only one successful), and a big difference near the goal line due to the new latching laws. An improvement IMHO - not just thud and blunder as before, but an effort at skilled play.

    Maxwell-Keys was the ref.
    He trudg’d along unknowing what he sought,
    And whistled as he went, for want of thought.
    The Referee by John Dryden

  9. #9

    Referees in England
    chbg's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    D&WRURS, HRURS & ARURS
    Grade
    Level 8
    Join Date
    15 May 09
    Posts
    1,165

    Default Re: 50/22 no good

    None in my (testy) Colts match today, but their focus wasn't really on expansive rugby, unfortunately.

    But reported that their 1st XV had used it with great effectiveness on Saturday early in the match - completely changing the run of play at the time. Reported that it forced opposition wings to drop back to cover touch. Opposition never tried it (perhaps being overwhelmed, as it was a one-way score), so eventually their own wings advanced back into the defensive line.
    Be reasonable - do it my way.

  10. #10

    ELRA/Club Referee


    Soc/Assoc
    None
    Grade
    Select Grade
    Join Date
    08 Nov 18
    Posts
    264

    Default Re: 50/22 no good

    Ive watched a couple of pre-season friendlies at Nat 1/2 level and I reckon there were 8-10 50/22s in the two games. What struck me though was that they seemed to be predominantly used from first or second phase ball following a ruck between the half-way line and the 10m. In most instances the kicker had limited other options and prior to this season would probably have made a similar kick in order to gain ground, albeit giving up possession. I didnt really see any instances where I thought the defending side were dropping players out of the defensive line to specifically defend the kick anymore than they would have done in previous seasons. I'm sure the tactic will develop but so far not much to write about except the added benefit of the throw in as well as a gain in ground.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •