Experimental Laws to Promote Try-scoring Rugby in new NRC
- Thread starter Battalion
- Start date
- Status
I don't want to see the points system changed and I don't want to see goalkicking devalued. Australia perennially struggles with goalkicking compared to other top tier nations and I don't think we should do anything to suggest it is less important.
What I would like to see are changes to the clock. Stop the clock if there are any scrum resets and then only restart the clock when the ball is back in play. That way a scrum should use less than a minute. You could do the same for goalkicking and stop the clock when someone is lining up a shot (although still keep the time limit on how long a kick can take). This will mean that the ball is in play for more minutes each game which is something everyone wants to see.
I think international rugby is currently benefitting attacking teams sufficiently and teams that play a very conservative style are not succeeding. If mediocre results aren't sufficient encouragement to play more attacking rugby then changing the rules is unlikely to make much difference.
In the scrums I think they need to follow John Kirwan's suggestion and just let the halfback put the ball in as soon as they deem possible without referee involvement. Scrums are currently a mess and are not providing strong attacking opportunities for many teams at all.
In the lineouts, referees should more closely police the offside rule as teams often encrouch which limits space for the attacking team and makes it harder to play attacking rugby off good set piece ball.
What I would like to see are changes to the clock. Stop the clock if there are any scrum resets and then only restart the clock when the ball is back in play. That way a scrum should use less than a minute. You could do the same for goalkicking and stop the clock when someone is lining up a shot (although still keep the time limit on how long a kick can take). This will mean that the ball is in play for more minutes each game which is something everyone wants to see.
I think international rugby is currently benefitting attacking teams sufficiently and teams that play a very conservative style are not succeeding. If mediocre results aren't sufficient encouragement to play more attacking rugby then changing the rules is unlikely to make much difference.
In the scrums I think they need to follow John Kirwan's suggestion and just let the halfback put the ball in as soon as they deem possible without referee involvement. Scrums are currently a mess and are not providing strong attacking opportunities for many teams at all.
In the lineouts, referees should more closely police the offside rule as teams often encrouch which limits space for the attacking team and makes it harder to play attacking rugby off good set piece ball.
Bullrush
John Hipwell (52)
Honestly, this stuff gives me the shits.
How do the laws of the game stop any team from playing 'try-scoring' if that's what they actually want to play?
Here's an idea: if you want to promote try-scoring rugby, develp the skills of the players and give them the game plan to do it.
As BH has said, there are teams who DO play this style of rugby - the choice is really up to the coaches and players.
Watching the Rebels/Brumbies on Friday was a perfect example. It seemed like all anyone wanted to do in the first 40 was kick the ball down-field. I thought I had stepped into a time-warp to 2005 or something for a while. The crowd were booing their own Rebel players when they hoofed it back.
2nd half, the Rebels actually started attacking with ball-in-hand and lo and behold - they scored tries! There were no law changes at the half-time break - just a change in the players' willingness to have a crack.
How many times do see a team who is trailing in the last 10min give-up on the conservative game-plan and start trucking it up, pick-and-driving, throwing it wide and getting tries?! I've seen it a couple of times this year (maybe because I follow the Blues?! Hahaha) but again - all that changes is the players' approach.
The Laws are fine.
How do the laws of the game stop any team from playing 'try-scoring' if that's what they actually want to play?
Here's an idea: if you want to promote try-scoring rugby, develp the skills of the players and give them the game plan to do it.
As BH has said, there are teams who DO play this style of rugby - the choice is really up to the coaches and players.
Watching the Rebels/Brumbies on Friday was a perfect example. It seemed like all anyone wanted to do in the first 40 was kick the ball down-field. I thought I had stepped into a time-warp to 2005 or something for a while. The crowd were booing their own Rebel players when they hoofed it back.
2nd half, the Rebels actually started attacking with ball-in-hand and lo and behold - they scored tries! There were no law changes at the half-time break - just a change in the players' willingness to have a crack.
How many times do see a team who is trailing in the last 10min give-up on the conservative game-plan and start trucking it up, pick-and-driving, throwing it wide and getting tries?! I've seen it a couple of times this year (maybe because I follow the Blues?! Hahaha) but again - all that changes is the players' approach.
The Laws are fine.
tigerland12
John Thornett (49)
The competition is designed to prepare players for Super Rugby....so they should play by Super Rugby laws.
If you want to trial new laws do it at a Premier Rugby/Shute Shield level next season.
If you want to trial new laws do it at a Premier Rugby/Shute Shield level next season.
M
Muttonbird
Guest
Reducing points for penalties may encourage more infringing in the red zone and therefore more kicks at goal, and fewer tries.
Bairdy
Peter Fenwicke (45)
Literally this. This is all the changes that should occur.
My only suggestion would be to trial a 5 minute sin bin for repeated infringements, like when a ref is playing advantage for an offside in the defence's own 22, and they continue to infringe after that before the ref blows the penalty.
I don't agree with wholesale law changes / additions.
I do agree with tweaking things to speed up play / improve time the ball is in play. There is too much faffing around at scrum time, with goal-kicking, with lineouts and pedantry over quick-taps and quick penalties. Not to mention "injury" stoppages which aren't.
Points on offer are fine, general laws are fine.
5 min yellow-cards might be a two-edged sword, but may be worth a look.
I do agree with tweaking things to speed up play / improve time the ball is in play. There is too much faffing around at scrum time, with goal-kicking, with lineouts and pedantry over quick-taps and quick penalties. Not to mention "injury" stoppages which aren't.
Points on offer are fine, general laws are fine.
5 min yellow-cards might be a two-edged sword, but may be worth a look.
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
Problem with a 5 minute sin bin is that, as the Saders showed last year (and picking up Cyclopath's point), you can chew up 5 minutes with dodgy scrum resets - to say nothing of a lost contact lens or retying the bow in your boot laces that has gone slightly awry
Omar Comin'
Chilla Wilson (44)
Well I will go against the grain and say I think the points scoring system would be better if 2 penalty goals were worth less than a try. I'd keep 5 points for a try and 2 points for all types of goals.
I don't see why, for example, two 50/50 ruck penalties 40 metres out from the try line should be worth more points than an unconverted try. Rugby has quite technical laws and referees all have slightly different interpretations. So why is it a good thing that referee interpretations have so much direct influence on the score of the game? Not to mention how much game time is taken up by attempts at penalty goal. Nearly 10 minutes of 80 on average. I'd rather watch 10 extra minutes of teams playing rugby than a couple of guys goal kicking.
I don't believe the change in the point system would result in a huge increase in penalties. Teams would just more often kick for touch than kick for goal. If the defending team then gave away cynical penalties in their 22, they would receive yellow cards.
To be honest, I wouldn't be against getting rid of penalty goals altogether. I'm a traditionalist that way. They didn't exist in the original laws of the game.
I don't see why, for example, two 50/50 ruck penalties 40 metres out from the try line should be worth more points than an unconverted try. Rugby has quite technical laws and referees all have slightly different interpretations. So why is it a good thing that referee interpretations have so much direct influence on the score of the game? Not to mention how much game time is taken up by attempts at penalty goal. Nearly 10 minutes of 80 on average. I'd rather watch 10 extra minutes of teams playing rugby than a couple of guys goal kicking.
I don't believe the change in the point system would result in a huge increase in penalties. Teams would just more often kick for touch than kick for goal. If the defending team then gave away cynical penalties in their 22, they would receive yellow cards.
To be honest, I wouldn't be against getting rid of penalty goals altogether. I'm a traditionalist that way. They didn't exist in the original laws of the game.
ChargerWA
Mark Loane (55)
Just make the scrums set quicker. Still stop the clock, but if the team isnt in position ready to scrum within 30 seconds it becomes a penalty to the team who is ready, and maybe give 15 seconds for a reset once all players are back to their feet since they dont have to run to where the scrum is taking place. The number of scrums and even the resets don't bother me, its the pfaffing around from the players that piss me off.
I love watching the classic matches back when the two front rows engage with no input from the ref and the halfback is still busy retreiving the ball oblivious to the scrum contest already having started.
I love watching the classic matches back when the two front rows engage with no input from the ref and the halfback is still busy retreiving the ball oblivious to the scrum contest already having started.
Battalion
Allen Oxlade (6)
good points.
is that true. 10 minutes for penalty shots? any idea on the time taken up in the bad games?
Battalion
Allen Oxlade (6)
i think you hit the nail on the head. not all teams actually want to play try-scoring rugby. penalty fests ensue.
an afl state booing kicking. i'd like to see that.
Omar Comin'
Chilla Wilson (44)
Actually more like 11 minutes. From stats taken at the 2011 world cup anyway. Given that's the average, some matches would be closer to 20 minutes.
http://www.theroar.com.au/2012/09/03/how-long-is-a-rugby-match-really/
Some highlights from the article above:
Average in play time = 35:51
Average time on scrums = 13:49
Average time on penalty goal attempts = 10:55
Almost 2 old
Chris McKivat (8)
A couple of you fellas have selective memories. What competitions were the "Stellenbosch Laws" and the "ELV's" and the new "Scrum engagements "tried in first before they were endorsed by the IRB ? Anyway besides that.... The problem with the scrum lays fairly at the feet of the referees and nobody else. I know that statement will no doubt draw howls of protest , but, on that fateful day that the first ref uttered that first fateful "engage" the contest has become the most over scrutinized area of our game. The scrum feed was originally to the advantage of the non offending team but it would now almost not be the case. The ref has the ability to speed the set piece up by telling the team to hurry up. If they don't then he has the option to give a free kick for time waisting. Next step is the yellow card. It's all in his/her hands.
Brumby Runner
David Wilson (68)
I don't think the question is how to make the game encourage more try scoring, rather how to stop defences spoiling attacking position by infringing, cynical or not. The answer just might be in a suggestion put forward elsewhere on this site to allow the game to restart after a penalty kick in a position of advantage to the attacking team. That might mean after a successful kick by way of a scrum at the point of the infringement, or by drop kick from under the posts. Unsuccessful kicks would still recommence the game from the 22. Combine that with say reducing the value of a penalty goal or drop goal to 2 and I think there would be much more discipline by the defending team and the attacking team would not forfeit their position by electing to go for goal.
- Status