NRC Law Variations - have your say

[Gorgodze]

@Braveheart

I hear what you're saying, and as a Brumby fan subjected to Jake White's love of Jesse Mogg taking rubbish penalty shots from 50 out all last year, God knows I agree they aren't guaranteed points. But I use the 50-out penalty analogy as an example of the extremeness of the outcome. A team on attack on halfway holds onto the ball a bit too long or something happens at a scrum and all of a sudden the other team might be scoring points despite having not had the ball and potentially being (just) inside their own half. That feels harsh and does put off a lot of non-rugby tragics.

I guess, simplisticly, the philosopy of my idea works such that:

a) You do something wrong on attack, you lose the ball
b) You do something wrong on defence and either defending gets harder (field position) or you cop points (penalty goal).

These outcomes feels fair, don't remove the disincentive for illegal play and would speed up the game. It is kind of like volleyball scoring actually!

 

[FiveStarStu]

The final twelve proposed variations:

1. Instead of 4 try bonus point, winning team is awarded a bonus point for finishing 3 or more tries ahead of their opponents.

2. Reduced time limits for conversions and penalty kick attempts.

3. After a successful or unsuccessful penalty goal attempt, play is restarted with a scrum to the non-kicking team at the place of the penalty.

4. Time limit for both teams to form a scrum.

5. No option to kick for goal from a scrum penalty (kick to touch allowed). If penalty becomes a ‘repeated infringement’ then kick at goal is allowed.

6. Scrum-half of non-feeding team is compulsory, must stay within 1m of the scrum, and cannot move past the mid-line of the scrum.

7. If a yellow card is given for repeated team infringement (excluding dangerous play), the non-offending captain chooses the opposition player who is temporarily suspended for 10 mins.

8. Players arriving through the gate may ‘drive out’ opponents past the ruck, creating more space behind the ruck for attack.

9. If non-throwing team does not contest for the ball, the straightness of the throw is not considered.

10. A ‘mark’ can be awarded any place on the field.

11. After half-time and full-time, if awarded a Penalty Kick, you can kick to touch and play the lineout.

12. Free Kick for kick-off infringements as per Sevens.

 

[FiveStarStu]

Very disappointing list for mine. Ranging from the ones that are so obvious they could be handled in referee directives (2, 4, 9, 11) to ones that are so ludicrous they shouldn't have been considered (7, 10).

In all, nothing that's going to make the game more enterprising or exciting, which is the most disappointing thing. They had the chance to be really innovative with this process, but they've bottled it.

 

[qwerty51]

I like most of them but 3, 7, 8 and 10 are shit.

8 is ridiculous that's just allowing obstruction. 7 is also stupid.

Can you imagine 7? The openside gets a penalty against him for not releasing or something and then the opposition captain sends the scrumhalf off. Who comes up with this shit?

 

[Omar Comin']

Very disappointed they're not going to trial at least a change in the points system. Taking away the option to kick at goal from scrum penalties isn't enough. If you're going to do it for technical scrum penalties, why not other technical penalties as well? The problem is allowing shots at goal from repeated infringements - whenever referees decide there's been enough repeats. It just means 2 tiers of escalation, which allows players to get away with stuff for longer. It's garbage. Repeated infringements should be cards, end of.

I really dislike number 3 and 8. Not sure how they got past such an esteemed panel.

Does 10 mean players can take marks from their own kicks? (or kicks from their own team).

 

[It is what it is]

Rule 7 has no chance of longevity so why experiment.
Imagine Broadcasters accepting Folau being sent off the field when they are paying for his appearance to sell advertising and pay TV subscriptions.
Or NZ fans watching Richie being walked.
Poor rule and if referees grew some balls when it matters and used yellow cards appropriately and effectively, they wouldn't have to go to this stupid step.

 

[#1 Tah]

Wow. Really screwed up with number three. Can you imagine a team with a dominant scrum, slotting penalties from 5m out in front of the posts, then dominating the restart to get another penalty for 80 minutes?

Number 1 is just filler. Surely the IRB doesn't have to be consulted on competition structure. Four, nine and eleven I would like to see make it through.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

The final twelve proposed variations:

1. Instead of 4 try bonus point, winning team is awarded a bonus point for finishing 3 or more tries ahead of their opponents.

2. Reduced time limits for conversions and penalty kick attempts.

3. After a successful or unsuccessful penalty goal attempt, play is restarted with a scrum to the non-kicking team at the place of the penalty.

4. Time limit for both teams to form a scrum.

5. No option to kick for goal from a scrum penalty (kick to touch allowed). If penalty becomes a ‘repeated infringement’ then kick at goal is allowed.

6. Scrum-half of non-feeding team is compulsory, must stay within 1m of the scrum, and cannot move past the mid-line of the scrum.

7. If a yellow card is given for repeated team infringement (excluding dangerous play), the non-offending captain chooses the opposition player who is temporarily suspended for 10 mins.

8. Players arriving through the gate may ‘drive out’ opponents past the ruck, creating more space behind the ruck for attack.

9. If non-throwing team does not contest for the ball, the straightness of the throw is not considered.

10. A ‘mark’ can be awarded any place on the field.

11. After half-time and full-time, if awarded a Penalty Kick, you can kick to touch and play the lineout.

12. Free Kick for kick-off infringements as per Sevens.

1. Pretty much the Top14 set up.

2. That's okay.

3. I hate this one. Shouldn't a successful penalty be rewarded with a kick off? Who thought this was a good idea? What's worse, it's been shortlisted by the committee. Jeez....

The scrum for a missed kick. That's okay-ish.

4. Fair enough.

5. Not too bad but how many repeats are permitted before it reverts to a kick.

6. Not too bad.

7. Stupid. Punish the player who infringes not his team mate.

8. Okay.

9. Absolutely fine with that one.

10. The point was to encourage fluidity in play wasn't it. I don't see how this one would work in practice. In theory if you kick you'll aim for space or just not kick at all. Probably won't be used by players if they have plenty of time and space. Still. Meh.

11. Okay

12. Why not just have all infringements apart from professional fouls as a short arm ala the ELV's.

Overall, I'm not too convinced any of these would have significant impact upon the game in terms of creating open, free running rugby.

 

[Omar Comin']

I agree with your analysis WCR. Most are fairly sensible minor tweaks that might have a small positive effect in reducing time wasting etc. But there's nothing particularly innovative that will encourage more risk taking or creative play and nothing to discourage cynical tactics or jakeball.

Maybe they needed to have some fans and fringe fans as part of the panel.

 

[Omar Comin']

3. After a successful or unsuccessful penalty goal attempt, play is restarted with a scrum to the non-kicking team at the place of the penalty.

This is the one that I think is absolutely terrible. How on earth did this get through. Hey, lets put the two parts of the game that people complain about the most together several times a match. Take up a minute or two of game time with a penalty attempt and then another minute or two in completing a scrum. That'll be attractive to viewers!

Can you imagine what will happen in games where one scrum is very dominant!? Penalty 30 metres out straight in front. Kick the goal. Scrum. Team feeding the ball collapses, penalty. Team with the dominant scrum keeps opting for scrums until penalty goal option allowed. Kick goal. Scrum. Team feeding the ball collapses, penalty. Kick goal. Scrum. Repeat until the end of the game.

Seriously, how does a panel with so much rugby expertise put this through?

Edit: Sorry just saw #1 Tah said the same thing with regards to a team with a dominant scrum.

 

[Braveheart81]

Seriously, how does a panel with so much rugby expertise put this through?

I'm guessing that this is a bit of a cross section of the suggestions they've got.

I'd guess that there were many, many more outlandish suggestions that they had to discard.

The crucial decision will be what they decide to go with in the end.

Scrum restarts, Captain's choice yellow cards and marks anywhere on the field are so stupid. Hopefully sanity prevails and none of those will be trialled.

They should keep it simple from here and go with the time wasting options and the lineouts not in straight laws and leave it at that. The free kicks off kick-off errors and being able to take a lineout from a penalty after the siren are also fine.

 

[It is what it is]

9. If non-throwing team does not contest for the ball, the straightness of the throw is not considered.

If a defending line out team has just one player raise an arm to the throw, does that constitute contesting for the ball?
If not they're going to have to devise more bloody rules for the rules.

 

[Hugie]

9. Should really be that the straightness of the throw is only considered if both team contest (i.e. jump) for the ball. If one or other or both teams choose not to contest why does it need to be straight? They've chosen to loose the contest and focus on the defence.

6. I'm OK with the half coming around, however the interpretation these days of the half off-side to too generous. Which is my view on all off side play around the scrum and breakdown. If any part of the player is momentarily off side he is off side (including his hand), he should stay well clear of the off side line. But I enjoy half back battles the defending half putting pressure on the attacking half, and the no. 8s trying to protect their half back.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

The Rams have put up a link to vote on their fb page.

 

[It is what it is]

9. Should really be that the straightness of the throw is only considered if both team contest (i.e. jump) for the ball. If one or other or both teams choose not to contest why does it need to be straight? They've chosen to loose the contest and focus on the defence.

Problem is that you cannot define "contesting" as jumping. Line outs are won and defended by props at the front of the lineout who never leave the ground.

 

[Melbourne Terrace]

Well if the majority of those ideas are actually being seriously considered then the competition is already a joke

 

[Omar Comin']

and marks anywhere on the field are so stupid.

I'm a little more open minded on this one. This has been trialled in the Varsity Cup so I presume they must have had some good results. I'm guessing the panel will have been in touch with South African officials about it.

As long as you can't mark your own kicks (or a kick from a teammate) then I think it could be decent. It would make the midfield bomb less effective unless it is done perfectly. South Africa won the 2007 world cup on that tactic. Kick the ball high so it lands a little outside the 22, smash the guy with the ball soon after he catches it, and force a turnover or a penalty. I don't think that's the sort of play most people want to watch.

 

[spikhaza]

I put number 9 in with my original submission, good to see it made it through.

There are some in there that are utter crap. Others that are meh, a few good ones

 

[spikhaza]

Also Hugie - that was my logic. It doesn't fucking matter if its not straight if they don't contest it!!

In my submission I defined contest as simply having a pod in the air. No one jumps = non contest.

This would stop the biggest antiboner/buzzkill when teams are 5 m out in the climax of a game and.... the opp team doesn't contest.... but they get the ball because it's 'not straight'

 

[ChargerWA]

I only voted for 4 and 9, that probably makes me a bit of a stick in the mud, but I don't agree with changing any of the core facets of the game.