1. Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

Ideas for NRC

Discussion in 'National Rugby Championship (NRC)' started by Hugh Jarse, Nov 15, 2015.

  1. The Honey Badger Peter Fenwicke (45)

    Likes Received:
    938
    Suggest the Mods amend the the thread title and delete 2016.


    I take it the infringement limit is a number and is still been worked out????

    Pretty much this is the way games are reffed anyway. Repeated infringements, say not rolling away quickly enough. Get 3 penalties and most refs will say the next one goes to the bin. Same with scrum penalties, a random prop is binned after repeated infringement. I assume the purpose of the law is to mandate it at number X and not leave it to refs discretion. Thats good for consistency I guess.

    But does it have to be the same infringement?? Can it be any breakdown infringement by the same team. Say 2 X Not Rolling away and 1 X Not through the gate?
  2. RugbyReg Stirling Mortlock (74)

    Likes Received:
    13,088
    does the kick receiving team have to be 10m back like a kick off, or 22m back?

    If it's 10ms back then its another bloody line on the field.
  3. WorkingClassRugger Mark Ella (57)

    Likes Received:
    3,003

    The solution is to just have them 5m from the kick. There's already a line there and they'd be no farther away than a current 22m. I'd also like to see them use the GRR 'no kick to touch' on the full from your own 22m variation as well.
    RugbyReg likes this.
  4. Bobas Darby Loudon (17)

    Likes Received:
    179
    These trial laws are so predictably boring.

    The accumulated penalties for yellow cards has always been too hard to quantify or make explicit. Now it will just create more negative tactics to play for the yellow.

    Drop outs for held up. How about just a 22m tap to the attacking team, which would mean that when it happens in injury time it isn't game over.

    The other law I want to see trialed is that the attacking team serves any penalty (not just foul play) supersedes knock-on advantage. Sick of seeing a good forced ruck penalty (for holding on) brought back for a scrum.
  5. Lindommer Andrew Slack (58)

    Likes Received:
    3,563
    A pet project of mine: scoring side kicks off to restart play. Super League did it, NFL does it, I convinced my son's mini comp to do it and it reduced 85-0 thrashings to 30/40-0. Imagine a close match at the death, the scoring side doesn't get the ball back enabling their opponent a chance to catch up.
  6. Brumby Runner Phil Kearns (64)

    Likes Received:
    5,118
    7s do it too Lindo.
  7. WorkingClassRugger Mark Ella (57)

    Likes Received:
    3,003

    Certainly wouldn't mind seeing it trialled.
  8. WorkingClassRugger Mark Ella (57)

    Likes Received:
    3,003

    I'd like to see penalty kicks for goal become drop kicks much in the same vein as they are for both them and conversions in 7s trialled.
  9. The Honey Badger Peter Fenwicke (45)

    Likes Received:
    938
    I'd like the scoring side to have the option to kick off or receive.

    So a team with a 1 point lead with minutes to play could elect to kick off and play field position rather then receive and risk a penalty.
  10. chibimatty Jimmy Flynn (14)

    Likes Received:
    160
    Yup, that's one of my pet peeves also
  11. Lindommer Andrew Slack (58)

    Likes Received:
    3,563
    Same as 7s, NFL and SuperLeague. This'd stop blowouts (70-0 games would end up 40-0) and would also make close games very interesting at the death. Definitely worth a try.
  12. John S Charlie Fox (21)

    Likes Received:
    198
  13. Uh huh Herbert Moran (7)

    Likes Received:
    116
    Here's one I've been stewing over for a while:

    At present, if a team is attacking and has a penalty advantage, there could be a perverse incentive (particularly if it's in the dying minutes and they're behind by six or seven) not to score in the corner, but rather to accept the penalty for a better chance of scoring in a good position for the conversion. While I accept this exact case is very unusual, I have seen plenty of instances where teams might've been better off not finishing their attacking movement in the corner when they had advantage. You could also argue the current process incentivises committing a penalty offence to stop a try in the middle for the chance of the attacking team being pushed wide and scoring in the corner.

    A simple solution is that tries scored while the attacking team has penalty advantage don't need to be converted, much like a penalty try. It would also add a greater incentive for attacking teams to do something wild when they have penalty advantage, like a cross kick or chip and chase.
  14. RugbyReg Stirling Mortlock (74)

    Likes Received:
    13,088
    innovative. Extreme but I don't mind that idea at all.
  15. Eyes and Ears Arch Winning (36)

    Likes Received:
    362
    It is an interesting legacy of the laws of the game that a try out wide is on average not worth as many points as a try under the posts. There would definitely be ways to resolve this issue however I suspect that most fans would like to keep the drama of a sideline conversion. My own opinion is that the individual skills of goal kicking have become too important relative to the team skills required to score points or set up those goal kicking opportunities. Therefore I would be happy to see significant change in this area eg why aren't all tries just worth 7 points and then there is no conversion? It would also remove 60 seconds of dead time. Plus it solves the issue mentioned above.
  16. Jimmy_Crouch Jim Clark (26)

    Likes Received:
    417

    I like it. The biggest one that does my head in when teams have multiple advantages but score so get no further benefit. If the defending team actually stop the try they would get a yellow card but generally the team scores and all is forgotten.

    I'd also change the dropped goal law. If a player attempts a dropped goal but misses and goes dead it is just like a kick in general play (scrum from where it was kicked).
    Uh huh and RugbyReg like this.
  17. RugbyReg Stirling Mortlock (74)

    Likes Received:
    13,088
    One idea I'd like to see introduced is teams announcing their 23 at a reasonable time. It's ridiculous that games are tomorrow and four teams haven't been announced.
    Jimmy_Crouch likes this.
  18. Adam84 Arch Winning (36)

    Likes Received:
    865
    I guess it’s pretty hard in a semi-professional comp to do that though, you don’t have the luxury of forecasting out depending on a number of external factors like work and injuries. It’s easier to do so in a professional comp when players injuries and rehab are all handled in house on a daily basis.

    I think what the NRL does with their team naming is pretty clever, a squad of 21-man squads names for all 16 clubs is named on Wednesday, updated with 19-man line-ups 24 hours before each game and with the final 17-man sides one hour before kick-off.

    Something similar could be done in the NRC, with a squad of 27 named on Wednesday, then whittled down come game day.
    Jimmy_Crouch likes this.
  19. Jimmy_Crouch Jim Clark (26)

    Likes Received:
    417

    100%. Wrong thread but this is especially important for Super Rugby. All teams should all have to submit their playing 23 to the competition manager (SANZAA) for release at the same time. This would also include an NFL style injury report noting expected return dates of players.

    Media, fans, betting agents, punters, fantasy sports players would all appreciate it. What is wrong with transparency?
  20. Uh huh Herbert Moran (7)

    Likes Received:
    116
    Completely agree, I've wanted that changed for years.

Share This Page