I think a 40/20 is a real positive play - and kicking into touch especially inside the opponents 20 is a very attacking play as you are putting pressure on the skill set of the opponents inside their danger zone. That is a very different dynamic compared to a 20 metre restart.

Doesn't control still come into it though? Otherwise you could never have a drop goal, because the moment the point of the ball contacts the floor it's a knock-on.

If you observed that definition to the letter, you'd have a hundred incorrect play the balls every game simply because the ball is so rarely placed ahead of the foremost foot. Almost always, the foot is in the air and the ball is placed below or behind it rather than in front of it.

"Losing possession – intentionally – accidentally 8. A tackled player shall not intentionally part with the ball other than by bringing it into play in the prescribed manner. If, after being tackled, he accidentally loses possession, a scrum shall be formed except after the fifth play-the-ball."

So dropping the ball and then playing it with the foot would be legal. I think this part is more to do with just dropping the ball while getting up, throwing it forward etc. In the actual act of playing the ball you can drop it. What we see is that if the ball parts company with the hand at any point during a PTB then the ref blows for a scrum, but that in itself is not illegal. That's what I am talking about. As he's playing the ball a player is not "accidentally losing possession" he's putting the ball on the ground to play it and the rules say he can drop it if he wants. No mention of controlling that drop.

Agree about placing the ball - that's my other point - we just see it rolled between the legs now rather than heeled. Seems strange refs chose to not follow any of the letter of the law regarding the act of playing the ball other than playing it forward.

It can be a negative tactic if teams are doing it from minute 1. But it can also be a sensible tactic if doing it in the 75th minute with a 1 score lead and tired bodies out there.

If Leeds tried to keep a kick in play in-goal and the opposition winger carried it back and found a gap in the kick chase and went on to score in the last couple of minutes of a GF to win it would you not bemoan Leeds not doing the smart thing of drilling it dead and getting their line organised.

The margins between a great kick and a poor one are so narrow in many cases that I'd be loathe to penalise teams for getting it slightly wrong by giving the opposition an extra tackle.

I can see why people want rid as they think it would see an increase in kickers landing it in-goal and putting great kicks in.....however I could easily see it going the other way and kickers too concerned with giving a penalty away that they go conservative and try and land their kicks 10m out and playing it safe instead of going aggressive and aiming for the try line.

Alternatively you kick into the end goal and get a repeat set - a deal more skill involved in that.

It may be sensible but it is still a negative play - going for a score to kill the game would be a positive play - and yes 2003 and Cardiff!!

Turn it on its head and Leeds needed a last minute try and the opposition simply kicked it dead how would you feel - frustrated?

Let's not forget the game is in the entertainment business - do we really want to see this type of play on a regular basis? I personally don't

Balance is about right for me. In the endgame, teams seem to feel they gain more from kicking for touch than they do from kicking dead - even if the kick only covers a handful of metres. And while this too could be construed as a negative play it's been a legit tactic for as long as I've watched RL. A fundamental part of the game, if you will. If kicking dead really is perceived to be spoiling the game, then allow a quicker restart or change it from 20m to 30m. Though to be honest I don't see that it is.

I do not like the new law that allows a defender to kill the play by sticking a foot over the dead ball line before touching what are often very skilful kicks.

Exactly, kicking for 2 can be both a negative play and a smart play. Should we get rid of the choice to kick for goal when you get a penalty and always make teams go for a try instead just on the basis of entertainment?



Not at the rule I wouldn't, that we left ourselves chasing the game yes, but no not the rule.



I understand the point of it being the entertainment business and people say they wouldn't mind if we lost but play good rugby (although if that happened enough times I think people would grow tired of not get over the winning line) however you've also got to appreciate it from the players and coaches views. It's their jobs and careers and you're a hell of lot less likely to keep your jobs if you aren't winning games.

I agree with last point and I understand why players do it, doesn't make for great viewing - these players do this for a living.

There is a world of a difference between taking two points on offer than simply punting the ball dead - skill level for a start and two additional points as a positive externality.