Experimental Laws to Promote Try-scoring Rugby in new NRC

[Braveheart81]

If all you want to see is the ball in play then watch 7s. There's a reason those games go for 14 or 20 minutes.

Someone has already posted stats showing that the time the ball is in play has consistently increased in the last 20 years.

We are seeing both Super Rugby and test rugby being dominated by sides that play attacking rugby and try to score tries.

I think this debate would have a lot more merit if rugby was being dominated by teams playing a grinding conservative game but that simply isn't true.

The NRC will be a complete waste of time if it diverges too much from the regular game. The goal is to bridge the gap between club and Super Rugby and the fanbase will be a subset of Super Rugby and club rugby fans.

The NRC is never going to attract swathes of rugby league and AFL fans who think rugby is boring.

Sent from my HTC One XL using Tapatalk

 

[Omar Comin']

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..

By negative I basically mean playing for penalties.

And it's not so much about who or what wins.

Like you I am a rugby tragic. I watch a lot of it every week. I like the strategic complexity and that teams can win with different styles. But it doesn't mean I think it's perfect. The only things I really don't like in rugby is all the kicking at penalty goals (and thus the DIRECT influence on the score of the referee) and the time it takes to set up scrums. In my experience there aren't many people that find penalty goal kicking enthralling.

Especially among fringe fans. And they're the ones rugby needs to convert into tragics!

 

[Omar Comin']

The NRC will be a complete waste of time if it diverges too much from the regular game. The goal is to bridge the gap between club and Super Rugby and the fanbase will be a subset of Super Rugby and club rugby fans.

In the long term the NRC shouldn't just be a player pathway. I don't think trialling some small changes to reduce time wasting and penalty goal kicking is such a bad idea. If they don't work, scrap them or try something else. But if they have a positive effect it will make for more entertaining rugby and provide impetus to make changes at international level.

I do watch 7's by the way. Regularly and had a great time at the Vegas tournament last year. Will be at the London one in a few weeks. But I prefer 15's. Players could adapt to an extra say 10 minutes of ball in play time. As I said before, it might help maintain a place in the game for the smaller players.

 

[Battalion]

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

thanks east cost aces. what were your thoughts on liquor box ice hockey suggestion. has a similar theme to it.

and as an aside. why is it the 22m and not the 20m? does anyone know the origin of this? if it is imperial v metric system thing?

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

 

[Brumby Runner]

thanks east cost aces. what were your thoughts on liquor box ice hockey suggestion. has a similar theme to it.

and as an aside. why is it the 22m and not the 20m? does anyone know the origin of this? if it is imperial v metric system thing?

Closest metric measure to 25 yards as it was prior to 1966 is my guess.

 

[East Coast Aces]

thanks east cost aces. what were your thoughts on liquor box ice hockey suggestion. has a similar theme to it.

and as an aside. why is it the 22m and not the 20m? does anyone know the origin of this? if it is imperial v metric system thing?

Na keep the guilty sinners in the box for the full 2 mins. It's only one scrum reset anyway.

 

[East Coast Aces]

I also would like to see the reserves reduced from 8 to 5. This would keep fatigue players on the field longer creating more opportunities against tired defenders.

We really only needs 1 prop, 1 hooker, 1 2nd row/backrower (think Fardy, MMM, Potgeiger et al), 1 inside back and 1 outside back.

other benefits of a reduced bench would be lower costs for player wages and travel expenses. Better distribution of talent.

 

[Battalion]

thanks braveheart.

If all you want to see is the ball in play then watch 7s. There's a reason those games go for 14 or 20 minutes.

see your point. any laws can't fatigue players too much. a goldilocks zone would be best.

what is the average playing time for a super rugby game? 40min?

would 10 min more playing time than a super rugby match be an unrealistic goal? 100min total game time in total including half time break and 40min halves.

Someone has already posted stats showing that the time the ball is in play has consistently increased in the last 20 years.

give credit to omar's on page 1. great link. you didn't like it though bh

playing time has increased. but reached a barrier at 35min. are we able to break that barrier?

The NRC will be a complete waste of time if it diverges too much from the regular game. The goal is to bridge the gap between club and Super Rugby and the fanbase will be a subset of Super Rugby and club rugby fans.

The NRC is never going to attract swathes of rugby league and AFL fans who think rugby is boring.

thanks braveheart. you're right. bridging gap a big part. no disputes there.

nrc is going to provide something super rugby and club rugby does not... a national rugby champion every year. new fans will look at the game. needs to be exciting to bring them back. short term the swathes won't be there. but long term, it would be a brave man to rule it out (no pun intended).

 

[Battalion]

I also would like to see the reserves reduced from 8 to 5. This would keep fatigue players on the field longer creating more opportunities against tired defenders.

We really only needs 1 prop, 1 hooker, 1 2nd row/backrower (think Fardy, MMM, Potgeiger et al), 1 inside back and 1 outside back.

other benefits of a reduced bench would be lower costs for player wages and travel expenses. Better distribution of talent.

funny. just talking about fatigue.

do you think if playing time increased by say 10min above average for a super rugby game, the bench of 8 would then be appropriate again?

for safety of players. goes anyone have statistics on injuries as playing time has increased (and keeping the same numbers on the bench)? perhaps rupa?

also would be great to see as many opportunities as possible for club players get a guernsey though in the nrc.

 

[Omar Comin']

Even if ball in play time increased by 10 minutes, it would still be less than the average ball in play time in rugby league (which I believe is around 60 minutes a match). Rugby League guys manage it fine. Lets not even mention AFL.

I think pro rugby players could cope with 45-50 minutes. Some players would probably need to increase their fitness slightly, but it wouldn't be a radical change. It'd be a good change for spectators though.

 

[Pfitzy]

OK but in league, a set of 6 takes approximately 65 seconds, including the kick at the end. At least twenty of those seconds is a play-the-ball, and not all players are actually in play during that time. You can pretty much eliminate the backlines even moving forward during the first four tackles in the NRL, because its just a boshfest between forwards at least 80% of the time. Throw in the interchange bench and you don't exactly have the fittest players as they claim. George Rose is a professional player FFS!

AFL - yeah they have a bigger field, but there is so much more work off the ball. They're fitter on average than just about every athlete on the planet even if the contact element is dismissed by some - though I challenge any AFL critic to try running that far and actually having to take a hit at the end of it. Only our sevens players come close IMHO and even then they're only going in 15-20 minute bursts...

 

[Braveheart81]

If more minutes of live play is the desire then the simplest way to achieve that whilst still keeping the key elements of rugby union would be to just stop the clock when kicks at goal are being taken. Still keep a time limit on the kicks as they have now except don't have the game clock running at the time.

Right now I think the actual balance in rugby in terms of attacking rugby winning and the laws favouring the attacking team are pretty much spot on.

 

[Almost 2 old]

OK but in league, a set of 6 takes approximately 65 seconds, including the kick at the end. At least twenty of those seconds is a play-the-ball, and not all players are actually in play during that time. You can pretty much eliminate the backlines even moving forward during the first four tackles in the NRL, because its just a boshfest between forwards at least 80% of the time. Throw in the interchange bench and you don't exactly have the fittest players as they claim. George Rose is a professional player FFS!

AFL - yeah they have a bigger field, but there is so much more work off the ball. They're fitter on average than just about every athlete on the planet even if the contact element is dismissed by some - though I challenge any AFL critic to try running that far and actually having to take a hit at the end of it. Only our sevens players come close IMHO and even then they're only going in 15-20 minute bursts.

I will not dispute the fitness level of the AFL at its top level as they stripped 15 kegs from Issy and probably similar % weight from Karmichael Hunt and the Canadian second rower who plays in the ruck for some club, but, in the 2014 season the AFL will allow 120 interchanges per team per game. Before this year it was unlimited.

 

[Pfitzy]

I'm not saying they're superhuman, but fuck they cover some km and at pace. You need a shitload of endurance + burst speed as well.

Anyway, this is about new Laws. I'm hoping to get some time in the next month to rewrite the bits of the Laws that desperately fucking need it. Might even contact the powers that be at GAGR and make it into a series of articles.

 

[Braveheart81]

AFL players definitely have higher aerobic fitness than rugby union or league players because they have to run a whole lot further in the game.

There is less contact though so players don't need to have as much muscle bulk.

The use of interchanges has obviously given players the ability to run harder whilst they are on the field because they get short breaks every now and again.

 

[Omar Comin']

OK but in league, a set of 6 takes approximately 65 seconds, including the kick at the end. At least twenty of those seconds is a play-the-ball, and not all players are actually in play during that time. You can pretty much eliminate the backlines even moving forward during the first four tackles in the NRL, because its just a boshfest between forwards at least 80% of the time. Throw in the interchange bench and you don't exactly have the fittest players as they claim. George Rose is a professional player FFS!

This is true, but I think you're also underestimating how tiring constantly getting back the 10 metres is in defence in rugby league. Some of the forwards make 40 or 50 tackles a game and 15+ runs. Pretty sure a rugby league player would travel a greater distance during a game than any rugby player...with the possible exception of flankers who are following the ball around.

And it's not like the back lines in rugby don't have plenty of time standing around waiting for the ball either. An extra 10 minutes of ball in play time will make hardly any difference to the fabric of the game. And if it shifts the power/skill balance ever so slightly back towards skill then I personally think that would be a good thing.

Do we all agree that rugby is a better game in 2014 than it was in 1991 when there was an average 25 minutes of in play action in a match? Why wouldn't it be a better game if we went from 35 minutes of ball in play time to 45? I don't understand the conservatism of rugby people sometimes. All it would take is reducing the stuff no one actually likes. Less and quicker penalty goals and quickening up the scrum process. Trial things, see what works and what doesn't, but I think these are worthy goals.

 

[Braveheart81]

Do we all agree that rugby is a better game in 2014 than it was in 1991 when there was an average 25 minutes of in play action in a match? Why wouldn't it be a better game if we went from 35 minutes of ball in play time to 45? I don't understand the conservatism of rugby people sometimes. All it would take is reducing the stuff no one actually likes. Less and quicker penalty goals and quickening up the scrum process. Trial things, see what works and what doesn't, but I think these are worthy goals.

Whilst it might be true to an extent in Australia, I don't think the majority of world rugby dislikes penalty goals.

I reckon you probably see a bigger crowd reaction when Frans Steyn kicks a 55m penalty goal than when the Sharks push a maul over the try line from a 5m lineout to score a try.

By all means cut down the time taken out of the game for penalty goals and scrum resets by stopping the clock, but I think both are integral parts of rugby union.

I and many other rugby union fans find the game infinitely more interesting and exciting than rugby league. I think it is an unlikely expectation to think that a few subtle changes to the laws are likely to win over rugby league fans.

 

[Tip]

6 point tries. 3 point conversions & drop goals.
2 point penalty goals outside 22m
4 point penalty goals inside 22m

This might stop teams from cynical defence in the red zone.

 

[Omar Comin']

Whilst it might be true to an extent in Australia, I don't think the majority of world rugby dislikes penalty goals.

I reckon you probably see a bigger crowd reaction when Frans Steyn kicks a 55m penalty goal than when the Sharks push a maul over the try line from a 5m lineout to score a try.

By all means cut down the time taken out of the game for penalty goals and scrum resets by stopping the clock, but I think both are integral parts of rugby union.

I and many other rugby union fans find the game infinitely more interesting and exciting than rugby league. I think it is an unlikely expectation to think that a few subtle changes to the laws are likely to win over rugby league fans.

Well a 55m goal is somewhat spectacular so I don't disagree. I think in general though people like to see ball in play more than they like to see a minute or two taken up by one guy taking a shot at goal. You know what's better than a 55m penalty goal...a 55m drop goal! Same spectacle but happens in general play.

The problem with stopping the clock is that it would make the match go substantially longer. This would impact upon things like broadcast times. It makes things more complicated. I would much rather see ball in play time increase within the 80 minutes as they are timed now.

And, I don't think you'll necessarily convert the dyed in the wool league fan. But there are a lot of fringe fans that get into a game of rugby that has good continuity. But then you get the games with 10+ shots at penalty goal and they switch off. If those games didn't happen, and rugby had greater continuity more consistently I think the sport would be more popular.

You only have to look at how much buzz there was in 2010 and 2011 when the Reds were playing really exciting rugby, culminating in their title victory in 2011. The viewer numbers for Reds games in this time were huge. Contrast that with the viewer numbers for Brumbies games last year when they had similar success without any of the style.

 

[Braveheart81]

And, I don't think you'll necessarily convert the dyed in the wool league fan. But there are a lot of fringe fans that get into a game of rugby that has good continuity. But then you get the games with 10+ shots at penalty goal and they switch off. If those games didn't happen, and rugby had greater continuity more consistently I think the sport would be more popular.

You only have to look at how much buzz there was in 2010 and 2011 when the Reds were playing really exciting rugby, culminating in their title victory in 2011. The viewer numbers for Reds games in this time were huge. Contrast that with the viewer number for Brumbies games last year.

Good and bad games happen in every single sport.

You can't change the laws to get rid of bad games.

I also disagree that games with lots of shots at goal are routinely the bad games.

The Reds definitely played an exciting brand of rugby in 2011 and were very successful doing it. They also have a much, much bigger fan base than the Brumbies.

Aside from the final, the 2011 Reds season didn't really translate into a huge swathe of extra viewers and crowd numbers until the 2012 season though.

The Brumbies could be scoring 10 tries a week and they couldn't get the viewers the Reds got.