La France se rapproche un peu plus de la 3e place mondiale

It’s interesting because the ABs have averaged around the 70% figure over the last 7 years/seasons - so to expect them to do much better when they clearly need more time to work on selections is unrealistic.

So it's not so important to worry about the factors covered in this article yet, because they could become a non issue on their own once WR fix the other parts of the game.

As has been pointed out in comments and perhaps even the article, we are comparing apples to oranges with the RWC and EOYT stats. They get played very differently, you can tell the data comes from WR lol.

The new contestable kicks law is an interesting one. First, I think its clear that teams avoided contestable kicks at the WC because they are a card lottery, so not something the better teams want to do/risk. Hence another reason for the low stats based on the above arguments. Currently teams are happy to kick it away as referees are giving away free penalties for blocking at the kicking line ala the recent SF v Saracens match, but there is also an interesting occurrence of defending teams also not being able to receive the ball as easily without that static wall in front of them, knocking on more often from my eye. Personally I would not have implemented this law change (in this manner), and I think shouldering and even blocking at the kicking line should be encouraged as it stops the D from immediately turning and running back, and the 'blocking' law should instead be around a radius of the landing zone/receivers, were everyone should be well clear of it unless contesting.

An excellent example of both the positives and the negatives occurred in the derby match between Irish rivals Munster and Leinster in the United Rugby Championship just after Christmas. The ball-in-play time was average at just over 36 minutes, and the two teams between them set 200 rucks, which is well above it. All five successful goal kicks in the game were a conversion of tries scored, and came in anywhere between 10 and 30 seconds under the allotted limit of 60 seconds per kick. No fewer than 14 kickable goals were refused, with both sides opting to take lineouts deep inside the opponent’s 22m zone rather than attempting the three-pointer.

So you're suggesting even that 36 minute number was inflated/made to look good (high enough) only because of the teams aggressive attitude? What could it have normally been with general 3 point taking, 32 minutes?

Four of the six resets occurred in the first half but the majority of penalties were awarded in the second, hinting at just how early pressure is created in the referee’s mind – to shape perceptions and force them to make decisions later in the game.

Leinster’s set-piece was unquestionably the stronger of the two but the primary question is: should the reward for a stronger scrum come from penalties, or greater attacking opportunity with the ball played out?

This first one is a point that should be front and center of the debate, it is creating clear bias. It is illustrated most clearly by Leinster having the worst scrum in the Champions Cup so far. So the anomaly is either this one game which results in Leinster getting a huge random bonus/advantage for the opposition to overcome, or that scrums are such a lottery a dominant scrum can gain no advantage, or in Leinsters case, even be disadvantaged by the results/rulings, over multiple games.. The outcomes of these two stats (from this game in isolation and the 3 or 4 CC games) are so drastically opposite it shows something must clearly be wrong with how they are adjudicated.

As is referred to multiple times in the article, there is a clear difference between how certain competitions referees adjudicate, it is not just whether a refer has to ask an available ball to be played or not. But under the scope of how the game should be adjudicated in future, if a dominant scrumming team wanted to role the ball forward 2 meters before spreading it wide, should they not be allowed/offered that advantage?

Clearly receiving a penalty and conceding 30/40 meters on average is not the right answer to that team being rewarded, but I do agree with some of the ideas that want to come up with ways to give a team the same advantage scrum rolling forwards provides. My first question would be however, is why isn't a free kick working? Are teams just lazy, slow to adapt and utiltize it? Is the referee too pedantic with how he allows it to be taken? Is the attacking team worried (technically, I mean 'warranted' in their concern) they get easily turned over taking a fk advantage too quickly?

Personally, at this stage, I think the law book should be more closely enforced and penalties only awarded for repeated offences. That is, the exact same offence, not something slightly different, and in the same phase, not for when the same offence is incurred 60 minutes later. Currently, as per the particles stats, once the 'free kick' phase is 'over', there just seems a glut of immediate penalties for the rest of the game for me.

Three simple solutions are already possible.

If we were to trial things further and not just change the focus of how the laws are currently applied (or even just moving onto accepting the more important problems of the game like fixing size/fitness balance);

1, If you're going to create somewhere to stop and then start the clock, why not just stop the clock when the live play breaks down, and only start it again when the ref says "play" once the ball is able to be played at scrum time (whether it flies out and is already technically over or a #8 etc is waiting for some forward momentum before picking it up)?

2, This goes back to the 'scope' I have talked about and where/how say a team defending a scrum should say be rewarded by making the attacking team backtrack, even if the ball is still cleared. There is something really interesting about a 9 able to harass proceedings because his scrum has dominance (just not enough to win ball or fk etc) over the attacking team. But as things stand, the game does seem more interesting to me when there is the no 'roughing' of the 9 law active in all aspects of the game.

3, Only when your team is under advantage. Not because you're scrambling (though technically I see this being allowed anyway) and not to take unfair advantage of a team that hasn't yet offended in any way. A sneaky side run would be something interesting once the refs call is heard, though in this case I would perhaps favour a rule that says something like "the defending team cannot advance" (hard for everyone to hear in a test match though) after they've infringed (unless 5meters out from their line ofc).

Thanks again for creating another great forum topic Nick.

Give mounga a forward pack that does there job and mounga can do his job . The prime age is between 30-33 . He’s literally at the peak of his powers . Speed , power but above all , experience . big game experience . Experience dmac will never ever get close too .

Razor doesn’t have games to waste experimenting either . The key to his long term success is phycological . If he experiments and it doesn’t work . His players will think he doesn’t know what he’s doing and the ship will sink .

But winning creates momentum. And if he can get them winning . They will believe they’re unbeatable …

Razor has a formula . But he needs mounga … then he will get a 12 that can break the line . And now mounga has extra space and time …

Mounga at 10 and a line breaking 12 will fix everything in the backline . But time will tell what occurs .

if he develops as some people expect he could be world class by 2027, but if Isiekwe had developed as expected by people when he was 19, he'd be world class too. You can't assume that teenagers will develop linearly as they move into their twenties.

Ofc the problem is heightened when the referee has not played in the pack, has never been in a scrum. It is very clear, at least to me, that many top level referees don't begin to understand the mechanics of the scrum.

I feel the laws are adequate as they stand to a great extent. The problem, as I see it, is that referees right up to top level just don't apply them in the the letter of the law or in the spirit they should .

Any significant downward pressure by a prop to cause a collapse should be penalised. For example look at the scrum clip at 54.49 mins. It is the Leinster LH who forces downwards first, then the Munster TH "pancakes" I believe the Leinster prop is the offender there.

I also think that with most of the wheels in those clips, it was Leinster who are the offenders. That can be hard to pick though in many cases. Another point is the hooker standing up. That was being penalised 3/4 years ago. So Kellaher would have been penalised back then in that first clip at 04.17.

I think the directive should be given now to referees at all levels to stop giving penalties simply because a team is being moved backwards. And the directive should be "order the team with the ball to clear it, and within 3 secs."

It would help if a change was made to remove the option to take another scrum after a penalty is awarded. Must take a tap or a kick.