Experimental Laws to Promote Try-scoring Rugby in new NRC

[Bullrush]

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 issue I have is that it is a very, very thin line between great defence and infringing. We all know that we can look at the same play from a R. McCaw or a George Smith or an S. Burger and some will see it as a brilliant defensive effort and other will swear black and blue that it was a clear infringement. As frustrating as it can be as a spectator sometimes, it's also what I love about the game. There is always contest for the ball and a split second can make a world of difference.

The way to encourage more try scoring lies in better attack, not limiting defences.

 

[Battalion]

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

thanks omar. that is astounding. so we only ever watch one half of rugby.

from same roar article.

Rugby World Cup | Time in play (of 80 minutes) | Percentage time in play​

1991 | 24 mins 48 seconds | 31%​

1995 | 26 mins 43 secs | 33.4%​

1999 | 30 mins 43 secs | 38.4%​

2003 | 33 mins 35 secs | 42%​

2007 | 35 mins 12 secs | 44%​

2011 | 35 mins 25 secs | 44.3%​

(Source IRB Report 2011)

 

[Battalion]

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.

this is going straight to the pool room.

severe. i like it. might even gives us more than one half of actual rugby.

 

[Battalion]

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.

clock stoppages. with omar's revelation about play time. agree with you bh. address stoppages. playing devil's advocate on that one. how long is a reasonable time for players and fans to be on the field. could creep up to over 120 minutes.

on the other nrc thread. someone suggested a countdown clock. might be good getting crowd involved in countdowns.

picks up at 20 seconds...

 

[Braveheart81]

What is an appropriate level of time in play in an 80 minute game?

I tend to think that we are not that far off what would be an optimum level.

Stop the clock for things like scrum resets that can take a lot of time and frustrate fans. Maybe stop the clock for shots at goal (or limit them to using up 30 seconds from the moment the whistle blows).

Rugby is generally a fast paced game when the ball is in play. When you get the odd passage of two minutes of the ball remaining in play, every player is dead on their feet.

 

[liquor box]

I think to encourage teams to go for tries you need some way to give a benefit for not kicking penalties.

I think a 5 minute binning is too much, and have often thought that when the non infringing team scores that a binning should be cancelled, the advantage has been paid. This is how Ice Hockey works, if scoring occurs during the penalty then the penalised player returns.

This means that it is not a big deal if multiple players get sent to the bin, nor if it is the first minute of a game. Rugby referees try not to send players to the bin because it is such an advantage/disadvantage situation.

I think a 1 minute bin for non serious penalties (penalties that stop a try by foul play) so things like an accidental off side or obstruction on the halfway line could work. Make the offender stand behind their in goal line for a minute or until the next score. This would mean that the attacking team gets to kick for touch and either rolling maul with an extra forward or have a few phases with a one man overlap.


That being said, I find Rugby almost perfect and am happy for it to stay the same

 

[Braveheart81]

I don't know why we want to stop people having shots at goal.

Kicking goals is a crucial part of rugby union whether we like it or not and to discourage it at any level seems like a folly to me given Australia's continued relative weakness when it comes to kicking.

If that was an international directive then sure, go for it, but it's not and it's unlikely ever to be.

It would be batshit crazy for the ARU to establish a third tier and then try and discourage goal kicking. If the NRC finds us a Marnitz Boshoff, Simon Hickey or Fred Zeilinga then it is doing great things for Australian rugby.

Try and discourage players from giving away penalties, not from teams taking shots at goal.

 

[boyo]

Try and discourage players from giving away penalties

Very much this.

 

[Omar Comin']

I don't know why we want to stop people having shots at goal.

Kicking goals is a crucial part of rugby union whether we like it or not and to discourage it at any level seems like a folly to me given Australia's continued relative weakness when it comes to kicking.

If that was an international directive then sure, go for it, but it's not and it's unlikely ever to be.

It would be batshit crazy for the ARU to establish a third tier and then try and discourage goal kicking. If the NRC finds us a Marnitz Boshoff, Simon Hickey or Fred Zeilinga then it is doing great things for Australian rugby.

Try and discourage players from giving away penalties, not from teams taking shots at goal.

You're thinking with the mindset that the purpose of Australian rugby is to improve the Wallabies.

I think this has been the number 1 problem in Australian rugby. It's what holds rugby back as a sport in this country. Because the Wallabies are just 1 team and they cannot always be winning.

The Australian sporting market clearly does not like watching people kick goals resulting from technical penalties. The fact it takes up over 10 minutes of game time in most matches is a problem.

We should be looking to make rugby a more popular game in this country. By having rugby played the way people here would like to see it played would be IMO of greater benefit to Australian rugby than developing goal kickers.

I also don't like the idea of stopping the clock for scrums. It will allow more time wasting and resting. It'll make the games take too long. The better solution is to quicken up the whole process. One problem people have said about rugby in the professional era is that the players keep getting bigger and bigger...by increasing the ball in play time and the fitness requirements that trend may lessen and smaller players come back into the game.

 

[It is what it is]

Keep the points for a penalty goal the same (3) but narrow the goal posts and raise the cross bar. The game doesn't need players kicking goals from 5-10m inside their own half, let alone the time wasted. OR allow drop kicks only for goal attempts outside the 22m line to encourage quick taps or line kick.
Time off for scrum resets within the final 5 minutes of a game, it's too hard to do for all of the game as the ref has enough to worry about.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

It would be batshit crazy for the ARU to establish a third tier and then try and discourage goal kicking. If the NRC finds us a Marnitz Boshoff, Simon Hickey or Fred Zeilinga then it is doing great things for Australian rugby.

It would be batshit crazy for the ARU to establish a third tier and then play it under any set of Laws and/or scoring system than those used in the tiers above.

 

[East Coast Aces]

2 minute sin bin for defending players who give away a penalty inside their own 22m

 

[Bullrush]

2 minute sin bin for defending players who give away a penalty inside their own 22m

Yeah....we don't want people actually trying to compete for possession when the opposition is so close to scoring a try right?

If tries are the only thing you really find exciting or entertaining about rugby....don't watch it!

 

[Omar Comin']

Yeah..we don't want people actually trying to compete for possession when the opposition is so close to scoring a try right?

If tries are the only thing you really find exciting or entertaining about rugby..don't watch it!

Why would that stop people competing for possession?

At the moment we have a 3 point penalty goal as the deterrent for infringements. Perhaps there are alternatives that provide a similar deterrent but don't take up so much match time and provide more entertainment than one guy taking a kick at goal.

 

[Bullrush]

Because who wants to compete for possession where if you get it wrong or if the ref 'interprets' the laws a certain way then you're off to the bin??

You'd just make a tackle and everyone fan out.....how many tries scored then?!

 

[Slim 293]

I just have to ask.........

Is there really not enough try scoring rugby being played?

 

[Omar Comin']

Because who wants to compete for possession where if you get it wrong or if the ref 'interprets' the laws a certain way then you're off to the bin??

You'd just make a tackle and everyone fan out...how many tries scored then?!

How is it worse than getting it wrong, or a ref interpretation leading to conceding 3 points from a kick at goal?

Having a man binned for 2 minutes (or even 5) would hardly guarantee a try. I remember seeing a stat somewhere that the average yellow card results in a net deficit of 4-5 points for the team that concedes it. That's in 10 minutes.

At least with tries (or for that matter drop goals) the team has to score them in general play by playing rugby. Do you think it's a good thing that contentious refereeing decisions or small errors of timing (in competing for the ball) result in such an easy 3 points?

 

[Bullrush]

How is it worse than getting it wrong, or a ref interpretation leading to conceding 3 points from a kick at goal?

Having a man binned for 2 minutes (or even 5) would hardly guarantee a try. I remember seeing a stat somewhere that the average yellow card results in a net deficit of 4-5 points for the team that concedes it. That's in 10 minutes.

At least with tries (or for that matter drop goals) the team has to score them in general play by playing rugby. Do you think it's a good thing that contentious refereeing decisions or small errors of timing (in competing for the ball) result in such an easy 3 points?

Given how much I enjoy watching rugby I don't really think it's that big of a problem.


Players will not want to take the risk of getting binned for 2min no matter what the stat is for points scored when a team is short (especially when you see games like the Rebels/Brumbies game where I think 10points were scored while tardy was in the bin) so they won't take a chance to turn over possession in the 22. You'll just get players fanning out with nothing but defence on their mind. If the idea is to encourage try-scoring, I'm not sure that pushing teams into a siege mentality every time they enter their own 22 is how you do it.

Again, scoring tries comes from an a team that wants to attack and has the skills and game-plan to do it.

 

[Omar Comin']

I just have to ask...

Is there really not enough try scoring rugby being played?

The number of tries scored is not a big factor. It's the amount of rugby played and how it flows. Any time reduced taking shots at penalty goal means more rucks, mauls, scrums, lineouts, line breaks, tackles, offloads, drop goals, tactical kicking and all the other things that are more entertaining and interesting to watch. The less penalty goal attempts, the less rugby that is interrupted. And the less possible it is for teams to win with negative tactics.

 

[Bullrush]

The number of tries scored is not a big factor. It's the amount of rugby played and how it flows. Any time reduced taking shots at penalty goal means more rucks, mauls, scrums, lineouts, line breaks, tackles, offloads, drop goals, tactical kicking and all the other things that are more entertaining and interesting to watch. The less penalty goal attempts, the less rugby that is interrupted. And the less possible it is for teams to win with negative tactics.

I think you'll find the more attacking teams are winning....not the teams with 'negative tactics'....which is a subjective statement anyway.

What you don't find entertaining some rugby watchers find enthralling....



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk