There is immense pressure on a head coach to deliver a win in each game they play. The game strategy will be planned by all the coaching team based on their own team’s strengths and weaknesses against the opposition they are playing.

If you take Brendan Venter as an example - Head coach for Saracens. International player who played at centre. As a coach he has implemented a game plan that involves a lot of kicking and a low risk attack strategy preferring to let the opposition make the mistakes. This has worked well for Saracens.

I think the increased amount of kicking is due to the fact that there is more chance of being turned over at the breakdown (IRB attempting to address this with further interpretations) and inconsistent refereeing. So the fear of losing the ball in your own half is there, whether you have a forward or a back as a head coach.

However - is it down to the Head Coaches, and their former playing positional experiences? I'm not so sure. I think its more down to which players control certain zones of the pitch and how the attacks and defences flow in-out-and around these zones.

The Kicking Chess we now see far too often is arguably based on the premise of who is going to be first to make one of the 2 cardinal errors - the at-kick error or the at-catch error. There are other background elements as well but the mindset is definitely on the wait and see principle. The reason we see it most at the top end of the game is that (when not under pressure) there is a greater level of accuracy and making distance from kickers and a better technical level of catching and passing from the fielders. Also - every player has a much greater speed about the park.

In theory when a decent kick is sent and fielded by one of the back 3 on Team A, then the Team B follow-up players come up with such numerical superiority that Team A's back 3 rarely take them on, choosing to return the kick deep. When Team B's back 3 now field it then all the roles are reversed and the whole cycle rolls on until something gives through technical imperfection (or impatience or enterprise!)

In order to break the cycle and run the ball, the fielding Team would need to augment their Back 3 quickly and redress the numerical imbalance. This could be organised on a particular call - but would have to be used sparingly, unless the opposition were prone to regular lapses in positional concentration. As has already been said, these days defences are so well drilled and organised that this surprise tactic can only be used occasionally.

So - in effect - we shold most likely expect more Kicking Chess in the weeks, months, years to come, unless there is some tinkering with the Laws. Thinking of the 40/20 Rule in rugby league, is there anything that might be done along those lines for instance?

1.  If you kick the ball from your own half and the oposition catch it cleanly in their 22, then there should be an option of a SCRUM BACK FROM WHERE THE BALL WAS KICKED, unless the catching player plays on.  This will put an end to hoofing it long and swamping the pitch with forwards preventing the counter attack, and encourage better kick chases, it will also make teams at least bring the ball over the half way line before kicking long, (however prospect of kicking dead).  It will also cut down on teams kicking away possession in the hope of forcing an error.

2.  This could also bring the back three and others more upfield creating space deep which can be exploited by a good kicker (bad kicker punished), where as at the moment the back three and others will stay deep to collect and return the kick, if they know that there is more chance of a counter attack they wont stay deep but move up to the defensive line leaving the full back.

As a coach that has played both in the forwards and backs, my teams are told never to give away possession.  I dont mind kicking but it must be there to either clear our lines or to attack.