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.

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

Discussion in 'Rugby Discussion' started by Bowside, Jun 11, 2012.

  1. Bowside Peter Johnson (47)

    Likes Received:
    1,829
    The obvious one for me is the scrum - I'd like to the packs bind first and then push. Also each prop must approve his opposition props jersey before the game.

    I'd also get rid of short line outs (i.e. whole pack has to partake) to allow the backs more space for first phase plays.

    At the base of a ruck or at the back of a scrum, once there is clear air over the ball I think it should be considered out and fair game to opposition players.

    I dont think any of these would drastically alter the way the game is played, but I think it would be a lot tidier, faster and simpler as a result.

    And bring back rucking of-course.
    wilful likes this.
  2. FiveStarStu Bill McLean (32)

    Likes Received:
    573
    Definitely agree with the pack and push rule. Would eliminate 90% of resets.
  3. Seb V Tony Shaw (54)

    Likes Received:
    3,378
    I would make it illegal for props to have skin tight fitted jerseys.
  4. Bruwheresmycar Nicholas Shehadie (39)

    Likes Received:
    682
    For a fun trial I'd like to see:

    - Make penalties worth 2 points
    - If a team with advantage attempts a dropgoal, advantage ends.

    So we'd see teams with penalty advantage setting up for the drop goal, instead of wasting dozens of minutes of valuable game time setting up penalty shots.

    Downsides could be (1) more infringements and (2) less use of advantage to attack. But I think the opposite could just as well be true, so would be worth a trial.

    Positives: Faster game / more rugby played in the 80 minutes, less waiting around for shots at goal.
    Swarley and Jnor like this.
  5. Manuel Herbert Moran (7)

    Likes Received:
    35
    I would give attacking teams six opportunities to score on each possession, and then they would lose it. Also, the defence wouldn't be allowed to try recover the ball on the ground and they have to go back 10 metres after each tackle. And I'd get rid of flankers, pushing on scrums and lineouts.
  6. Richo John Thornett (49)

    Likes Received:
    3,291
    Gold.
  7. qwerty51 George Gregan (70)

    Likes Received:
    7,778
    The fucking centipede thing the Bulls and other Saffers do.
  8. Dam0 Dave Cowper (27)

    Likes Received:
    529
    There are a few rules I'd change but the one glaring one for me is to get rid of the distinction between a ball carrier being "brought to ground only" and a ball carrier being "tackled".

    At present, if on the ground but not held, the ball carrier has the following options: (law 14.1)
    A player with the ball must immediately do one of three things:
    • Get up with the ball
    • Pass the ball
    • Release the ball.
    Sanction: Penalty kick

    On the other hand, if a player is brought to ground and held: (law 15.5)
    (b) A tackled player must immediately pass the ball or release it. That player must also get up
    or move away from it at once.
    Sanction: Penalty kick
    (ie the option to just get up with the ball is lost)

    The problem is that the distinction between being brought to ground, and being brought to ground and held is so often a very fine one. This has been further exasperated by the fact that there is such an emphasis on the tackler releasing immediately. One problem is that if the tackler lets go immediately, it often means that the ball carrier is allowed to simply get up and carry on, whereas if the tackler was a bit slower, he would be forced to release the ball. In theory, the law is manageable, but in reality, the distinction is too fine. The problem is that in practice, at speed, players (and refs) consistently get it wrong.

    My solution would be to say that anyone on the ground with the ball, no matter how they got there must release the ball and get on feet before playing the ball again.
    Langthorne, Running Rugby and HKTiger like this.
  9. RugbyReg George Smith (75)

    Likes Received:
    14,788
    missed drop goal attempts (that go dead) result in a scrum to the opposition from where the attempt was taken, like normal kicks that go dead.
  10. Karl Bill McLean (32)

    Likes Received:
    354
    Ditto the scrum, the above re releasing if on the ground and make penalties 2 and try conversions 3. The trial they did in SA on this looked very promising. Statistically insignificant penalty count increase (about .5 per game I think) but huge drop in penalty kicks at goal and huge increase in points from tries.

    Do that and fix the scrum at least.
    Dave Beat likes this.
  11. Slim 293 George Gregan (70)

    Likes Received:
    11,207
    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...
  12. Schadenfreude John Solomon (38)

    Likes Received:
    688
    Time off for:
    • Kicks at goal
    • After a try is scored
    • Scrums
    • Lineouts
    AlexH and qwerty51 like this.
  13. Schadenfreude John Solomon (38)

    Likes Received:
    688
    Actually, it would be easier to score tries if there were only 13.
  14. Lindommer Steve Williams (59)

    Likes Received:
    3,748
    Now, don't get me started on this one:

    • loose(r) jumpers for props.
    • MUCH quicker scrums.
    • Watson's Law to be rigidly applied: ball out of rucks if a bird can shit on it.
    • ball out if the BALL touches, or crosses, the lines. Only exception is a kicked ball blown back in while in flight. Take a leaf out of soccer's and AFL's books here.
    • scoring team kicks off. Super League tried it, and it worked.
    • clock stops for kicks at goal. 60 second timer strictly enforced. Kicker to set up during injury and TMO stoppages and gets 15 seconds.
    • penalties reduced to 2 points.
    • all field goal misses result in scrum at kicking point.
    • lines to be renamed try and side lines.
    • ball touching base of posts with pads not a try.
    • no penalties, scrums or kicks within 15m of a sideline.
    • yellow cards to be rigidly enforced for repeat, or cynical, offences, especially early in the game.
    Some of these are management issues which could be applied under the current laws but I reckon the new ones are worth a go in some sort of experimental competition. A few are merely tidying up of somewhat outdated laws.
  15. Slim 293 George Gregan (70)

    Likes Received:
    11,207

    It works in football and AFL, but I just do not see that working in rugby...
  16. Lindommer Steve Williams (59)

    Likes Received:
    3,748
    Rugby should suck it and see. A trial would be the way to check if it's workable. For me as a TJ I reckon it'd be damned easy to rule on the ball only, not various appendages touching the sideline.
  17. Dam0 Dave Cowper (27)

    Likes Received:
    529
    This would mean that the AR would have to be watching the ball carrier and decide exactly when he takes the ball over the line. Sounds like a game management nightmare to me. Watching the feet to see if they touch the paint is simpler and more definitive.


    Why? What's wrong with the variety of having the game take place on all parts of the field?
    Penguin and Slim 293 like this.
  18. Slim 293 George Gregan (70)

    Likes Received:
    11,207
    It's much easier to see somebody physically touching the sideline than it is to judge whether someone has brought the ball over the line off the ground while running with it.
  19. Lindommer Steve Williams (59)

    Likes Received:
    3,748
    Not having scrums, penalties or kicks within 15m of a sidleine would (should/could) have many positive effects. If it's a scrum the attacking side will have 15m of blindside to work with. If a kick for the line the kicking side will have a much better angle to get distance. If a kick at goal the mark will be up to 15m closer to the middle resulting in a easier kick.

    The object of this, and a few other suggested changes, isn't to alter the fabric of rugby but to further penalise offences. If any of them result in fewer penalties as players think a bit more about the consequences of infringing, so much the better. But some of the suggested changes in the Laws here are certainly worth a trial.
  20. Lindommer Steve Williams (59)

    Likes Received:
    3,748
    AFL don't seem to have much trouble working this one out, with a curved boundary line to boot. And their boundary umpires are generally further away from the play than rugby TJs.

Share This Page