Select Edition

Northern Northern
Southern Southern
Global Global
NZ NZ

Bizarre kick tennis scenes in Murrayfield could see end of 'Dupont Law'

By Ian Cameron
Australian referee Nic Berry (R) speaks with captains France's flanker Charles Ollivon (L) and Scotland's fly-half Finn Russell (C) as a decision on whether Scotland have scored a late try is considered during the Six Nations international rugby union match between Scotland and France at Murrayfield Stadium in Edinburgh, Scotland on February 10, 2024. France won the game 20-16. (Photo by Andy Buchanan / AFP) (Photo by ANDY BUCHANAN/AFP via Getty Images)

Some bizarre kick tennis scenes at Murrayfield today could yet spark the potential abolition of the so-called ‘Dupont Law’.

ADVERTISEMENT

France beat Scotland 20-16 in their Guinness Six Nations clash, with a late TMO decision adding some much-needed drama to what was at times a difficult watch for rugby fans.

What caught the eye during the match were episodes of kick tennis that have not been witnessed since the infamous Law Variations of the late 2000s.

Kick tennis has seen a resurgence of late, with the practice dubbed the Dupont Law emerging in the Top 14. It refers not to an actual rule change but to the exploitation of a loophole within rugby’s existing framework. The loophole allows players excessive time to execute kicks by taking advantage of opponents being offside — a scenario that played out painfully at Murrayfield.

For several minutes, opposing kickers on both teams stood motionless, exploiting this loophole to the fullest.

They did this by not advancing five metres or passing the ball, thereby keeping opposition players in an offside position. This tactic, while legal, led to a standstill as kickers took their own good time to return fire with a kick and put opposing players back on side, as if the receiver refrains from moving, they gain an inordinate amount of time to strategize their next move, drastically slowing down the game.

“It was smart by Dupont and everyone is copying it now, but it is an area that they (authorities) will have to change”, Bernard Jackman told RTE’s Against the Head earlier this week.

ADVERTISEMENT

Former Ireland fullback Rob Kearney also took umbrage at the exploitation of the law. “It’s a law that is not showing the game in it’s best light and something needs to be changed,” said Kearney on Virgin Media Sports.

RugbyPass analyst Sam Larner wrote on X that: “I suspect this might be the game that kills the 5m Dupont law…. Scotland just being smart with it.”

ADVERTISEMENT

The standstill at Murrayfield, perceived by many as poor viewing for spectators, will no doubt prompt calls for World Rugby to reconsider and possibly revise the rule to prevent such exploitation.

Related

ADVERTISEMENT

Join free

LIVE NOW - Singapore SVNS Day 1

Fresh Starts | Episode 3 | Cobus Reinach

Aotearoa Rugby Podcast | Episode 11

Chasing The Sun | Series 1 Episode 1

The Breakfast Show | Episode 7

Abbie Ward: A Bump in the Road

Pacific Four Series 2024 | Canada vs USA

Japan Rugby League One | Verblitz v Eagles | Full Match Replay

Trending on RugbyPass

Comments

Join free and tell us what you really think!

Sign up for free
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Features

Comments on RugbyPass

J
Jon 9 hours ago
The case for keeping the Melbourne Rebels in Super Rugby Pacific

I have heard it asked if RA is essentially one of the part owners and I suppose therefor should be on the other side of these two parties. If they purchased the rebels and guaranteed them, and are responsible enough they incur Rebels penalties, where is this line drawn? Seems rough to have to pay a penalty for something were your involvement sees you on the side of the conned party, the creditors. If the Rebels directors themselves have given the club their money, 6mil worth right, why aren’t they also listed as sitting with RA and the Tax office? And the legal threat was either way, new Rebels or defunct, I can’t see how RA assume the threat was less likely enough to warrant comment about it in this article. Surely RA ignore that and only worry about whether they can defend it or not, which they have reported as being comfortable with. So in effect wouldn’t it be more accurate to say there is no further legal threat (or worry) in denying the deal. Unless the directors have reneged on that. > Returns of a Japanese team or even Argentinean side, the Jaguares, were said to be on the cards, as were the ideas of standing up brand new teams in Hawaii or even Los Angeles – crazy ideas that seemingly forgot the time zone issues often cited as a turn-off for viewers when the competition contained teams from South Africa. Those timezones are great for SR and are what will probably be needed to unlock its future (cant see it remaining without _atleast _help from Aus), day games here are night games on the West Coast of america, were potential viewers triple, win win. With one of the best and easiest ways to unlock that being to play games or a host a team there. Less good the further across Aus you get though. Jaguares wouldn’t be the same Jaguares, but I still would think it’s better having them than keeping the Rebels. The other options aren’t really realistic 25’ options, no. From reading this authors last article I think if the new board can get the investment they seem to be confident in, you keeping them simply for the amount of money they’ll be investing in the game. Then ditch them later if they’re not good enough without such a high budget. Use them to get Jaguares reintergration stronger, with more key players on board, and have success drive success.

24 Go to comments
FEATURE
FEATURE Makazole Mapimpi: 'My life is somewhere I never thought it would be.' Makazole Mapimpi: 'My life is somewhere I never thought it would be.'
Search