Don’t Disneyfy rugby!

Keba Mothoagae

A couple of weeks ago, I chanced upon the backend of a rugby television programme out of the Antipodes in which the panel was excitably discussing the proposed “50-22” law.

Clearly the brainchild of an unfettered hipster running amok in the bowels of World Rugby’s headquarters, the law states that, should a team kick the ball from within its own half (the “50”), and it lands in the opponent’s 22-metre area and into touch, the kicking team is rewarded with an attacking lineout.

After rewinding the segment enough times to ensure I’d heard correctly – almost falling off my treadmill, in the process – I immediately dived into the internet to satisfy my incredulity.

Another unnecessary way to further ‘Disneyfy’ rugby union, 50-22 has divided opinions, to no one’s shock and horror. Inspired directly by the “40-22” rule in rugby league, this proposed law’s backers believe that it could lead to the nature of the game being less combative.

Specifically, that defending teams will drop more players back in fear of an ace kicking game plan, thus reducing the number of players in an approaching defensive line, where a lot of injuries occur in the age of monster backs moving at frightening speeds.

Debatably, this might see teams select smaller, more skillful backline players to exploit the increased real estate in front of them, as if a fool would drop Sonny Bill Williams, Rieko Ioane or Israel Folau, who clearly lack the skill and pace to make merry in this favourable scenario…

Say what you like, but a collision sport requiring you to physically dominate your opponent to win will always have a high injury rate. Human beings are bigger than they have ever been, and the “smaller” players referred to are still larger and more powerful than those before the advent of professional rugby.

Even if the proposed law comes into effect, the big boys are going to get first preference by the natural law of selection.

However, my biggest gripe lies on the scoreboard. In an age when sports are struggling to draw a crowd and jostling for a fickle audience on the telly, more points, runs and goals are being scored as authorities tweak the laws in favour of attacking teams to drive interest.

As a purist, this law change will feel like defence being punished more than the rewarding of attacking endeavour.

It’s hard enough trying to keep the All Blacks pinned in their own half knowing how lethal their breakout play is, but now the best kicking nation on earth can punish you with a clinical kicking game, and the resultant first phase play from within your own 22 is enough to cause one nightmares! Now, that last part was me being dramatic, but my point does still stand: we need to reward good defence, too.

If a team can’t secure possession in its own half because of excellent turnover play by the defence, it shouldn’t be the latter’s problem. The whole idea of clearing the ball under pressure is to relieve it, and a lucky bounce into the touch area of the final quarter of the pitch cannot be rewarded with an attacking lineout! Hell no!

And besides, a perfectly-placed kick into the five metre area from open play always makes for absorbing viewing during the ensuing defensive lineout when five crucial points can be conceded from a wayward throw.

Also, this law could result in a sword that cuts both ways. I suspect attack-heavy outfits may think twice about the ball-in-hand approach from within their own half, fearing what might happen if, for example the outside backs are on an adventure deep into enemy territory, leaving their own 22m unattended.

“There could be more ball in play, and fewer tackles, but less attractive play,” is what Newcastle Falcons and England utility back Toby Flood had to say about this potential speed trap.

At the rate that things are going, World Rugby might as well remove two players from each team. But wait, didn’t the great JPR Williams once say the same thing decades ago? And wasn’t this a very unpopular addition to the convoluted powerplays in Varsity Cup rugby?

That’s another story!

FRESH TAKE is an initiative to identify, feature and develop talented rugby writers who are not yet part of the mainstream media. If that sounds like you, send us a sample of a story you’d like to write to

Check out Keba’s vlog HERE

- Keba Mothoagae

Let's chat

  • John Comyn

    Assuming it means “land” in the 22 metre area and then go out it may not be a bad rule. To start with it is not that easy to land it in the field of play before it goes out. The risk the kicking side runs is it goes out on the full. This may also negate the endless kicking up field with a view to getting a throw-in while gaining field position. Also players back in defense are not going to let it roll out unless they absolutely have to. Certainly a rule worth trialing.

    • Stephen

      But, if my teams defense is so good that the only thing another team can do is kick the ball into touch, why is my defense not rewarded with a lineout from where the ball was kicked, even if it landed in field first? Kick the ball to be contested, yes! That means my defense is being rewarded by the other team taking a risk to try and win territory. Attack can not always be rewarded, defense should be rewarded as well. Why not bring in a rule that turns the ball over if you dont go over the advantage line after 5 consecutive phases. Oh yes, that is called gridiron football. Rugby is rugby, injuries can be reduced, but dont change the shape of the game.

  • Wesley

    First time I hear of this, and its disgustingly stupid.

    But lets perhaps look at alternatives, to be fair.

    Maybe a 22-22 rule? Kicking from your own 22 and bouncing it in their 22, making it extremely difficult to execute. That I would reward any day of the week… It happens oh so scarcely, but if made a rule, could keep the back defenders honest?

    But a silly 27m broadside / cross-kick, no pinpoint accuracy required, and you perhaps could get rewarded with an attacking lineout 7 / 10 times, winning field position you didn’t earn?

    F… off….

  • Sweetaz

    Unfortunately, these things always have unintended consequences. I’m betting it won’t be long before they allow forward passes ala American Football as defences become just too hard to break down.

  • Dean Bright

    SA teams will do nothing but kick to the corner and maul drive. Wait, isn’t that what they do anyway? (Stormers in particular)

    • Sweetaz

      lol,—At least they won……..As a Stormers supporter, I’ve got to take any win, any way it comes.

      • SweetAz

        I support a sports team, it has absolutely zero effect on my emotional state. Dealing with stupid people, on the other hand, pushes me to the edge quite easily. I have a very low tolerance for willful stupidity.
        The kind of stupidity that embraces a single provincial side to the exclusion of all others, the kind of stupidity that does not understand the effects of continuity and cohesion and how they affect the kind of rugby our teams play. The kind of stupidity that thinks all the players and coaches, not from Arseteng are universally lacking in skills and intelligence.

        In other words,………you.

      • Barry

        A season saving performance and to my mind much should be credited to Kitshoff and his leadership.

        The vast improvement in defense was an attitudinal affair – it came from the players and not from a change in game plan! Gutsy stuff!

        • Barry

          My post is about a team that had their backs to the wall and came good, not about their status or rankings in the greater pool. Shout if you need me to draw a picture?

        • mrsweetaz

          You have a really big mouth for a guy whose team currently is second last in the conference,—without too many prospects of improving. Yeah, I mean even the Stormers beat the Lions, how kak is that?

Comments are closed.