If you could change the laws of rugby, what would you change?

[Lorenzo]

I look at the "taking of space" on kick receipt with no intention of playing or attempting to play the ball just like lying at the back of the ruck. Even when trapped the player impeding quick ball at the ruck gets penalised with the ref often adding "don't put yourself in that position" how is it different?

Right? Like tip tackles also.

The game is full of obligations on the players to ensure they do not do things (rather than to try not doing things).

Kearns (in his infinite wisdom) concluded that Smith was not a dirty player, and (by implication) therefore ought not to be penalised. Pretty strange way of looking at it.

 

[Dan54]

I not sure how you are advocating changing the law still Gnostic. Look I agree players can't be taken in air, and the rule says that, but surely you can't really want players to have a clear space after they land, as soon as a foot touches ground you have to be able to be tackled. As I said we will agree to disagree, as I really think current laws cover it.

 

[Lindommer]

1. Scoring sides kicks off. SuperLeague did it, NFL does it, 7s do it as WCR pointed out and I noticed watching the final yesterday netball do it. High-scoring matches won't end up 75-0, they'll be something like 40-0 as the weaker side will deprive their opponent of possession for a small amount of time after every score. Close games will become more exciting as possession turns over each score. Will it work? Yes, I've watched it in junior rugby.

2. No penalties or scrums within 15m of the touch lines. Gives teams a nice blindside to work with after scrums and a better angle to take kicks.

3. Kicks at goal to be strictly timed. The current law stipulates time starts after the kicking tee arrives. How about the clock stops and kickers get 50 seconds? There'll be a dash from the side with the kicking tee, and kickers won't try and channel their dead granny while contemplating their navels.

4. Mauls should be adjudicated as per the current laws: ball carrier bound by a team-mate and opponent. Once the ball carrier breaks his bind with an opponent the ball has to be played immediately.

5. Scrums to be adjudicated as per the current laws: they are a QUICK way to restart play. No holding the ball at the back to milk a penalty.

 

[Braveheart81]

1. Scoring sides kicks off. SuperLeague did it, NFL does it, and I noticed watching the final yesterday netball do it. High-scoring matches won't end up 75-0, they'll be something like 40-0 as the weaker side will deprive their opponent of possession for a small amount of time after every score. Close games will become more exciting as possession turns over after every score. Will it work? Yes, I've watched it in junior rugby.

In netball, the restart is alternated irrespective of who scored the last goal.

 

[Lindommer]

Well spotted, Bh. There are times in netball (and in basketball, and also mungoball) when there's a lot of "my turn, your turn" about play. Anyways, I'm still strongly in favour of scoring side kick off in rugby. If anything it should be trialled in the NRC, or the Saffers' university comp where they seem to do such things.

 

[Omar Comin']

A try used to be worth zero points - it awarded you a "try" at goal. That's how central to rugby goalkicking has always been.

You can watch league if you don't value goal kicking.

And at that time there was no such thing as penalty goals in rugby so there goes that argument.

The NRC points system increases the value of conversions, so goal kicking remains crucially important.

 

[TOCC]

Says who?

A try used to be worth zero points - it awarded you a "try" at goal. That's how central to rugby goalkicking has always been.

You can watch league if you don't value goal kicking.

And rugby balls used to be half inflated sacks of leather which couldn't be kicked more then 20m... Things evolve




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[7083]

Excellent.

If we remove the contest of the ball from defenders then we can do away with filthy cheats like McCaw.

The great thing about taking the contest out of the scrum is now we can play with 5 extra backrow/centres and have an extra playmaker at hooker instead of one of those fat guys.

I would also return to 4 point tries, reduce penalty goals to 2 points, and drop goals to 1 point.

Penalties are just stupid. Tries tries tries!

And when we kick to touch for penalties (particularly as silly penalty goals will be a thing of the past), we can just tap the ball and keep running with it. Ball in hand more often and all that junk.

Oh, and can we reverse the numbers so we don't have to count down from 15...

But then you'd need to remove the brains of anyone involved in the game you're touting.... Particularly the supporters.

 

[7083]

I like the ARC rule of a conversion worth 3 and a penalty worth two. I'm not like the leagueys who think games are all about tries being scored... Far from it. But reducing the penalty to 2 points would encourage a kick for touch/line out or choose the scrum. What we need to understand about league supporters is they just want to watch a game without having to be made to think. It gives them a headache!

 

[Gnostic]

I not sure how you are advocating changing the law still Gnostic. Look I agree players can't be taken in air, and the rule says that, but surely you can't really want players to have a clear space after they land, as soon as a foot touches ground you have to be able to be tackled. As I said we will agree to disagree, as I really think current laws cover it.

I'm not advocating any changes of the laws. I don't want any changes, I want the existing laws enforced, and that means the player in the air cannot be tackled. That means "innocuous" contact like Smith did is also out because he wasn't actually challenging for the ball. The funny thing was early this year in the SXV comp it was being policed. If those players rushing through to make contact "innocuously" did in fact genuinely challenge for the ball or even held back and tackled when that one foot hit the ground there would be no problem.

 

[Scoey]

I've been involved in too many debates over the NRC points system so am reluctant to wade in again. What I will say is that the changes to the points system in the NRC (on the evidence to date) didn't discourage penalty goal attempts, it effectively removed them from the game altogether.
The changes were aimed at encouraging more tries and discouraging penalty goal attempts and in this endeavour, they missed the target.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

1. Scoring sides kicks off. SuperLeague did it, NFL does it, and I noticed watching the final yesterday netball do it. High-scoring matches won't end up 75-0, they'll be something like 40-0 as the weaker side will deprive their opponent of possession for a small amount of time after every score. Close games will become more exciting as possession turns over each score. Will it work? Yes, I've watched it in junior rugby.

2. No penalties or scrums within 15m of the touch lines. Gives teams a nice blindside to work with after scrums and a better angle to take kicks.

3. Kicks at goal to be strictly timed. The current law stipulates time starts after the kicking tee arrives. How about the clock stops and kickers get 50 seconds? There'll be a dash from the side with the kicking tee, and kickers won't try and channel their dead granny while contemplating their navels.

4. Mauls should be adjudicated as per the current laws: ball carrier bound by a team-mate and opponent. Once the ball carrier breaks his bind with an opponent the ball has to be played immediately.

5. Scrums to be adjudicated as per the current laws: they are a QUICK way to restart play. No holding the ball at the back to milk a penalty.

1.I am 100% on the same page as you on this one. It's also done in Rugby 7s. Should be at least trialed. I'd also like to see an amendment to the 22m drop out. I think it should reward good kicking and pressure. So, move it back to the try line. At the moment teams hack it down field and if they can force a 22m then great. This would encourage a emphasis on accurate tactical kicking. Which when executed can really turn momentum and can be appreciated by spectators.

2. This one would be interesting to see tested. It's almost NFL-esque. Would certainly put pressure on the defensive team to keep disciplined play as even a decent kicker could make you pay in a narrow corridor. Though, I doubt this would be well received.

2. Yes!!! God, yes. Penalty awarded. Ref points to posts then you have 60 seconds to get the tee out there and take the kick place a shot clock on screen to countdown. There's far too much arsing about with this these days. Either that or go the 7s route and have penalties shots as a drop kick. Then all you need is 30 seconds.

I'd add one more to your list. That is like the 30 second scrum setting do the same for line outs. Another area you often see stragglers holding up the game.

 

[Eyes and Ears]

I agree Gnostic that may be the case but also as is case already if players have repeat infringements then refs need to use yellow card option. Evidence from last year's NRC though does not support your assumption that results in more penalties / infringements as from memory was not higher (number of penalties per game on average compared to super rugby).

I don't have the exact stats but I recall NRC penalties were about 25 per game. I believe Super Rugby was about 21 to 22. Percentage wise, this is a material increase.
Yellow cards in NRC were also up significantly at about 1.5 a game versus significantly below 1 at Super Rugby.
My gut feeling is that Super Rugby teams would have been more cynical as they are playing for more and we would see very high penalties under the NRC rules at that level.

 

[Slim 293]

I'm not advocating any changes of the laws. I don't want any changes, I want the existing laws enforced, and that means the player in the air cannot be tackled. That means "innocuous" contact like Smith did is also out because he wasn't actually challenging for the ball. The funny thing was early this year in the SXV comp it was being policed. If those players rushing through to make contact "innocuously" did in fact genuinely challenge for the ball or even held back and tackled when that one foot hit the ground there would be no problem.

Agreed...........

The laws already exist that a player cannot be interfered with in the air when going for the ball.

What we've been seeing recently in the RC from both the Boks and the AB's is players not making any legitimate attempt to go for the ball and making contact with the player in the air's legs.........

It's dangerous play, and simply needs to be enforced properly.

 

[Dan54]

(I'm not advocating any changes of the laws. I don't want any changes, I want the existing laws enforced, and that means the player in the air cannot be tackled. That means "innocuous" contact like Smith did is also out because he wasn't actually challenging for the ball. The funny thing was early this year in the SXV comp it was being policed. If those players rushing through to make contact "innocuously" did in fact genuinely challenge for the ball or even held back and tackled when that one foot hit the ground there would be no problem)

Well sorry mate we agree the existing laws cover it, I have no problems with that at all. Just the thread was what rules need changing, so I assumed you were calling for them to be changed. Yep I have no probs with any laws being enforced, in fact my whole reasoning was they were alright!! I also agree Smith should of been penalised and if ref thought it was on purpose by all means he should of been YCed even.( I thought he was penalised , but that's for another thread)

 

[Omar Comin']

I've been involved in too many debates over the NRC points system so am reluctant to wade in again. What I will say is that the changes to the points system in the NRC (on the evidence to date) didn't discourage penalty goal attempts, it effectively removed them from the game altogether.
The changes were aimed at encouraging more tries and discouraging penalty goal attempts and in this endeavour, they missed the target.

Well it discouraged them to the extent that they were rare. A little more common than drop goal attempts. I think they hit their target in the bullseye. Very happy with that personally and I bet the ARU are too. It's also something I predicted while a lot of people on this site argued it wouldn't make a big difference to the amount of penalty goal attempts, just the number of infringements in the game. I've said it before but the penalty goal isn't a necessary sanction in the game because for most infringements a kick for touch is adequate advantage, while yellow cards can be used if teams become overly cynical. I think the NRC has shown this pretty well, but we'll see what happens in the 2nd season and if it leads to any changes at higher levels.

 

[Highlander35]

I'd like all kicks to be worth the same, preferably 2, but 3 would work as well.

With the teams hopefully taking it a bit more seriously this season, we'll ideally get a better view of it than last season to be fair, I don't think they'd admit it, but it was a little bit Barbarians/rep sides at times.

 

[p.Tah]

I think we should revert back to pre-1823 when we weren't permitted to pick the ball up.

 

[wamberal]

It will never happen, but I would love to see a trial in which a mark can be taken anywhere in the defensive half. That would stop the aerial ping pong in its tracks.

 

[Quick Hands]

It will never happen, but I would love to see a trial in which a mark can be taken anywhere in the defensive half. That would stop the aerial ping pong in its tracks.

Until 1978, you could take a mark (or more correctly a fair catch) anywhere on the field; including from a knock-on or a throw forward as well as a kick. You had to be stationary, with both feet on the ground and catch the ball cleanly (i.e. no juggling etc) and simultaneously exclaim the word "mark". (Hence the incorrect term mark being used when it should be a fair catch).

In 1978 the law was changed so that you could only take a fair catch in your own half. This lasted about one or two seasons and then it was changed to inside your own 22 only.

In the early 90s, the requirement to be stationary, with both feet on the ground and to take the ball cleanly were removed.

The ability to take a fair catch from a knock-on or throw forward was removed fairly recently - not sure when, maybe the late 90s or early 00s.