Games’ greats want Dupont Law kicked out
● The unedifying sight of players becoming stationary amid a long-range kicking stalemate should soon be a thing of the past.
Swys de Bruin, a long time devotee of attacking rugby, and Charl Strydom, whose mindset leans heavily on defence, agree the dubious practice, or the Dupont Law, should be outlawed.
The practice — named after France’s regular captain Antoine Dupont for his cunning exploitation of the law — has underwhelmed and exasperated rugby audiences for the stalemate it at times creates in matches.
As the law stands, defenders are put onside when a kick receiver either passes or runs five metres with the ball.
Players in front of the kicker simply have to keep their position to be placed onside, which means the team receiving the kick will almost always adopt the safety first option of returning the kick.
Being trapped deep inside your own territory with just one or two players in defence, while the opposition has their entire team ready to pounce, is a scenario the receiving team wants to avoid at all cost.
Though they may have different philosophies on the game, De Bruin and Strydom agree the law should be scrapped. “Whatever happens, I want counterattack to return to the game,” insisted De Bruin.
“The game’s aerial ping pong has become a free for all. It requires one team to show guts but then the opposition is immediately placed onside. The two key elements of counterattack are pressure and space. In the absence of pressure, space becomes available to counter.”
As defence coach of the Cheetahs, Strydom
The game’s aerial ping pong has become a free for all. It requires one team to show guts but then the opposition is immediately placed onside
Swys de Bruin
Ex-Bok attack coach
recognises the value of the law, but he too finds it light on virtue. “For defence it is great, but for the game it is the worst thing in the world,” he said.
“Obviously, guys try and exploit the law but I told Hawies (Fourie, Cheetahs coach) we shouldn’t because I felt the law would change. For me it is an unbelievably silly law. It is a circus, and I’m against it. If you don’t kick well you are going to be under pressure.
“I don’t think they should even trial it,” he said in reference to Super Rugby Pacific that will do away with the law when it kicks off later this week. “They should rid the game of those laws as quickly as possible.
“It’s simple, when you kick, the onus should be on the kicking team to place their players onside. If you really want to encourage counterattack, which is something we all want to see, rugby should rid itself of meaningless kicks.”
While Strydom also wants to see the practice struck from the law book, De Bruin noted that stricter application of the offside law may have prevented the blight on the sport. “Maybe if the law was officiated better there wouldn’t have been this outcry,” said the former Lions coach.
“Ultimately everyone wants to cheat in a clever way. The team kicking will always nudge forward until the ref shouts that they should stop. Instead of warning the team, referees should perhaps give advantage to the receiving team.”
Strydom said he expected the law to be banished soon, but De Bruin was sceptical. “If I look at some of the decisions that are made, I’m not so sure. I think, though, World Rugby wants to encourage attacking rugby.”
Super Rugby Pacific will get the ball rolling later this week when it closes the loophole. The law has been sanctioned by World Rugby as a trial and follows various tweaks in recent seasons designed to increase ball-in-play time.