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

[TOCC]

Actually, what you're suggesting is that dominant scrums shouldn't be allowed to keep moving forward while the ball is held at the back...

There is already a law stating that the ball must emerge immediately from a stationary scrum:



So the laws are already similar to that of a maul.... I don't see any reason for change....

Dominant scrums should be rewarded....

A rule which is rarely enforced, and the dominant scrum would still be rewarded under the variation i proposed, having a stable platform to launch set-piece plays and also the ability to steal the opposition ball on their own scrum feed is a massive reward for a dominant scrum.. Much like having a dominant line out.

As i also mentioned previously, i want to see the rule of straight feeds been enforced more rigidly, make the scrum even more competitive. Once again this would give the dominant scrum a greater advantage and more likely chance of taking the opposition ball as well as retaining it on their own feed.

 

[Slim 293]

A rule which is rarely enforced, and the dominant scrum would still be rewarded under the variation i proposed.

So then the referees need to be instructed to enforce it more, otherwise there's no issue with the law as it stands.........

A dominant scrum, much like a maul, should be allowed to keep marching forward for as long as it can.........

 

[TOCC]

Mauls are currently a fine balance, they work because they aren't as prone to technical infringements.. Referees are able to accurately adjudicate on a rolling mauls, the same can't be said about scrums.

 

[Scoey]

And if such a law were to be applied, who will be the first team to keep the ball at the locks feet while their scrum drives forward?

Have you ever played in the second row slim? I don't mean that in an antagonistic way either. That's where I played all my footy and fuck what you're suggesting would be bloody hard to do!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TOCC]

Have you ever played in the second row slim? I don't mean that in an antagonistic way either. That's where I played all my footy and fuck what you're suggesting would be bloody hard to do!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

yep, firstly the lock isn't looking down at his own feet like a number 8 is able to, secondly the lock is crucial to the power of the scrum for him to start tap-dancing in the scrum in an attempt to keep the ball in would see it depowered.

 

[Slim 293]

Mauls are currently a fine balance, they work because they aren't as prone to technical infringements.. Referees are able to accurately adjudicate on a rolling mauls, the same can't be said about scrums.

I think you're shifting the goal posts here.........

 

[Slim 293]

Have you ever played in the second row slim? I don't mean that in an antagonistic way either. That's where I played all my footy and fuck what you're suggesting would be bloody hard to do!

I have, and I was thinking about that.........

But someone would find a way to exploit such a rule change........

 

[Scoey]

I have, and I was thinking about that...

But someone would find a way to exploit such a rule change....

Yeah they would for sure. I had a hard enough time letting the ball go past my feet without kicking the thing back forwards!! But then again if I was any good at what I was doing.... ;-)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TOCC]

Slim, you don't have to agree with the rule change, its one that i want to see tested as the title of the thread suggests.. If you don't like it then no dramas, I'm not particularly fussed.

 

[Muttonbird]

Ridiculous. A good example was in the Blues game where the ref (Walsh I think) wanted an opinion on the Piutau try. TMO came back and said there hadn't been any issue re: double movement but he was trying to find footage of if the ball was grounded over the line. Walsh came back and said he was pretty happy that the grounding was fine and awarded the try. Worked perfectly.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You just pulled out an example where the current directive didn't screw things up royally and painted it working like that every time.

Fine.

The ref can say at the start what he's sure about, then hand it over to the TMO. No more discussion between them.

 

[Scoey]

Why the TMO isn't just called an AR is beyond me. Having two guys apparently in charge is what creates the issue. There should only be one an that's the ref. All of the others should just assist the ref. You know what they say about too many cooks.....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bullrush]

You just pulled out an example where the current directive didn't screw things up royally and painted it working like that every time.

Fine.

The ref can say at the start what he's sure about, then hand it over to the TMO. No more discussion between them.

Well at least I've provided examples. Where are yours? And most of the time it IS working fine. I don't know why you want to limit the communication between them. To me, the on-field ref is the 'head ref' so to speak so it's on him to use his assistants as he chooses.

 

[Scoey]

Was having a think while watching the Rugby tonight and started thinking that a full arm penalty for not releasing the ball is probably a bit harsh.
What gave me this epiphany was when I saw a defender over a ruck, with hands on the ball but making little to no attempt to pick it up. The defender was making it look like he was but it was clear to me that he simply wanted the penalty and a free pass out of their 22.
There are circumstances that warrant a severe sanction (ie a player running back to chase a kick and is tackled and isolated as soon as he reaches it. The player holds on to avoid a try but this is cynical play and there are separate laws for that).
Generally speaking though when on attack there is no reason a player would want to hold on to the ball in a tackle other than to avoid a turn over. In this situation, the other team gaining possession (ie half arm penalty) is penalty enough for the infringing side and reward enough for the defending side. It shouldn't be worthy of 3 points or a 20-30m advancement up the field with throw in to the lineout.
Making it a half arm penalty may make players who are in position to turn over a ball at a ruck, simply make the turnover and counter attack, keeping the ball in play. Let's face it, that should always be the aim of rugby laws where possible.
Thoughts?

I sent an email to the ARU basically outlining my thoughts above as a response to their calls for ideas for trial laws for the NRC. The auto reply said that I would get some feedback within 2 days which I didn't for one second believe but it's been a little while now and I was wondering if I'd get any reply at all.

Did/has anyone else sent anything in and received a reply?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Scoey]

Just thought I'd provide an update. I received a reply to my email I sent to the ARU:

Hi Ross

Thank you for your email and interest in the NRC.
More detailed information on the competition including draw will be communicated in the next few months.
We will be going out to the public by early May with a call for law variation suggestions for the National Rugby Championship (NRC).
Your ideas below are a good start.

Regards
Ben Whitaker

So if you're keen to put some of your ideas on ELV's forward to the ARU for the NRC then keep and ear/eye out in early May.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Tighten up on the definition of "bound" in a maul. Hanging on to the advancing maul with one arm is not binding.

Remove the "mark".

Get rid of TMO authority. Referee can ask to review stuff on the big screen, or can take advice from an AR as to asking for a review on the big screen. TMO is only there as a liaison person between the TV Floor Manager/Producer and the Referee to coordinate the vision that is provided for the Referee to manage.

Open slather on numbers in the lineout. Both teams can put as many people in the lineout between the 5m and 15 m line regardless of whether they were defending or attacking lineout.

Once in the lineout players can not leave the line of touch to move to another position in the lineout.

The player who is the designated Halfback at each lineout can not join the lineout.

More leeway given to the attacking player chasing a kick to contest for the ball and not have to release the tackled player if the tackled player is isolated and doesn't have any support players.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

For me the two biggest blights on the game at the moment are scrum collapses and the rolling maul. I think the current scrum engagements are an improvement over where we were, but still not where we want to be I think. Getting the two front rows to bind first and then everyone else (as others have suggested) might be the way to go.

The rolling maul has just become legalised obstruction. Hanging on to the player in fronts shorts is not binding and the number of times I've seen the player at the back actually lose contact and re-bind is infuriating. If we're going to allow the rolling maul (and I think we should, it's part of the game) we should also allow defences more options to combat it. The main one I'd like to see is to allow collapsing or maybe allowing defenders to come around the side (though that does go to the heart of the offside law, something that is fundamental to the game).

 

[Braveheart81]

There's definitely a discrepancy in the laws that the attacking team is allowed to collapse a maul when the defenders are trying to hold the player up in the tackle to force a turnover whereas the defensive team aren't allowed to do it.

Intentionally collapsing the maul is often considered dangerous play so why isn't it dangerous when the attacking team does it?

 

[Dan54]

Geez Braveheart, you have been reading my mail, one of my great arguments about mauls is why you can collapse it if you have the ball, and not when you don't. Still I suppose don't start me

 

[Nusadan]

The attacking team knows that the tackler holding up the ball carrier in the maul will have to release the carrier if the carrier falls onto the ground, it's enshrined in the rules.

 

[Braveheart81]

The attacking team knows that the tackler holding up the ball carrier in the maul will have to release the carrier if the carrier falls onto the ground, it's enshrined in the rules.

It's in the laws that players in a maul must endeavour to stay on their feet (apart from the ball carrier).

It's also in the laws that players must not intentionally collapse a maul as it is dangerous play.

Neither of these laws seem to get applied to the attacking team.