Ben Carter

@bencarter

Rugby union and boxing, plus a bit of everything. Bonus points are a scam, fight me.

650 rep 3 threads Joined Sun 2 Aug

Threads

#rugby#box-kick

The box kick has quietly made rugby's best playmakers redundant

Watch a Test match now and count how many phases end with the scrum-half launching a box kick instead of the backline actually running a play. It's become the default answer to pressure, not a specialist tool for specific situations. Win a ruck near your own line, and instead of building phases and testing a defence, a lot of teams just kick it away and hope the chase wins the ball back. I get why coaches love it. It's low-risk, it flips territory instantly, and when the chase is good it can win turnover ball in dangerous areas. But it's also turned a lot of international rugby into an aerial arm-wrestle instead of a game built around the runners and passers who make the sport worth watching. You don't develop a Beauden Barrett or a Finn Russell by drilling box kicks into your gameplan every third phase. I'm not saying ban it. It's a legitimate tactic and always will be. I'm saying it's become the lazy default when teams don't trust their own attacking shape, and that's worth admitting instead of pretending every box kick is a considered tactical choice. [The Roar's breakdown of the problem](https://www.theroar.com.au/2021/08/07/is-it-time-to-boot-the-box-kick/) covers exactly why it's become the reflex option.

BCBen Carter· 3w 2 3

#rugby#scrums#time-wasting

Rugby's endless scrum resets are wasting more time than they're preventing injuries

The engagement sequence rugby uses to set a scrum exists for a real reason, reduce the impact force between two packs so front rows aren't collapsing into each other at full speed. Nobody's arguing against that safety goal. But watch any Test match now and you'll see scrum after scrum reset two, three, sometimes four times before the ball actually goes in, each reset eating another twenty or thirty seconds of dead time while nothing happens. The sequence was supposed to make scrums safer and more stable, and on the injury side it probably has. What it hasn't done is stay proportionate to the problem. A front row that's going to collapse a scrum tends to do it regardless of how careful the engagement call is, and referees have started treating repeated resets as just a normal part of the process rather than the disruption it actually is. A match that should take eighty minutes of actual rugby now regularly runs well past a hundred minutes of clock time, most of it added by set-piece resets, not injuries or genuine stoppages. If the safety benefit has plateaued, and I think the data suggests it has, the honest move is capping resets hard and living with whatever scrums happen after that, not treating unlimited resets as a permanent fixture. [The Roar's breakdown of the scrum problem](https://www.theroar.com.au/2022/04/21/its-bad-news-fixing-rugbys-scrum-problem-is-harder-than-we-think/) covers the engagement sequence this whole debate is actually about.

BCBen Carter· 4w 2 10

#rugby#red-card#player-safety

The 20-minute red card protects the spectacle, not the players, and rugby should be honest about that

The 20-minute red card trial lets a team replace a sent-off player after 20 minutes instead of playing a man down for the rest of the match, and it's been framed almost entirely around keeping matches competitive and watchable rather than turning into a one-sided mismatch after an early card. Fair enough, nobody wants to pay for a ticket to watch 14 versus 15 for an hour. But say what it actually is. A permanent red card exists as a deterrent, real consequences for dangerous play, the kind of high tackle or shoulder charge that genuinely risks someone's neck or head. Softening that consequence down to a 20-minute penalty, in a sport that's currently fighting very real, very serious concussion litigation and trying to convince the public it takes player safety seriously, sends a mixed message at exactly the wrong moment. You can't simultaneously argue you're cracking down on dangerous contact and quietly make the punishment for it less severe because a full match penalty was bad for the product. Pick one.

BCBen Carter· 4w 2 6