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

[Quick Hands]

1 Not feeding the ball into the middle of the scrum to be strictly enforced, otherwise let's stop pretending that it is a 50/50 contest for possession (not a change, just getting the current law enforced)

2 Once the ball is at the feet of the No8 and available, the referee should call 'use it' exactly as is the case with rucks

3 Once the situation in 2 arises, penalties are off the table except for foul play (punching etc)

4 Quick penalties and free kicks can be taken within a 1 metre radius of the place of infringement

 

[Pedrolicus]

1 police the 'last feet' rule for rucks.
2 when a ball is payable from a penalised scrum the team should get penalty advantage not just another stoppage.

Also a collapsed scrum where the ball comes out should be play on unless you're gonna penalise the team that had the ball.

 

[Bobas]

I would make Yellows 5 mins so referees don't feel like they're ruining the contest by using them as warnings instead of after warnings and you can get two before the red card.

I also think that if a front rower is off the pitch for a yellow and the team with that player off is awarded a scrum, that should default to a line out taken at the closest side line. This would stop double change that happens when a front rower has a forced break.

 

[Bobas]

to clarify, for repeated infringements, 5mins first yellow, 10mins second, red 3rd.

still straight reds for dangerous play.

 

[todd4]

Red Cards. Being sent off for the rest of the game not only penalizes the offending player but also penalizes that teams fans and the game itself as a spectacle. Quite often a game is ruined as soon as a red card is issued.

My suggestion would be along the lines of;

1. Double time in sin bin (20mins).
2. At the end of 20mins player is not allowed to return to the field but is substituted by a bench player.
3. The judiciary can then ban the player after the game for however long is appropriate.

This would allow the offending players team to still have a chance of winning the game despite some disadvantage.
It is, after all, the offending player who should bear the brunt of the punishment.

 

[todd4]

I would make Yellows 5 mins so referees don't feel like they're ruining the contest by using them as warnings instead of after warnings and you can get two before the red card.

Agree making first yellow 5 mins the ref would be more inclined to use it early to enforce compliance.

 

[qwerty51]

Red Cards. Being sent off for the rest of the game not only penalizes the offending player but also penalizes that teams fans and the game itself as a spectacle. Quite often a game is ruined as soon as a red card is issued.

My suggestion would be along the lines of;

1. Double time in sin bin (20mins).
2. At the end of 20mins player is not allowed to return to the field but is substituted by a bench player.
3. The judiciary can then ban the player after the game for however long is appropriate.

This would allow the offending players team to still have a chance of winning the game despite some disadvantage.
It is, after all, the offending player who should bear the brunt of the punishment.

Like like like. I think as rugby grows in popularity this has to be considered. Red cards kill the game the moment they are given out. No one wants that.

 

[dru]

Penalties worth 1 point only. BUT

If the infringement is by the defending team within the 25, play is re-started by a tap to the attacking team at the place of infringement.

Also agree with rugby being played with 15. Cards need rethinking.

 

[Scoey]

Red card should mean the player plays no further part in the game but can be replaced after 10 mins.
A 20 min bin would likely kill the game still.

 

[todd4]

Red card should mean the player plays no further part in the game but can be replaced after 10 mins.
A 20 min bin would likely kill the game still.

I'd be happy with that.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Red Cards. Being sent off for the rest of the game not only penalizes the offending player but also penalizes that teams fans and the game itself as a spectacle. Quite often a game is ruined as soon as a red card is issued.

My suggestion would be along the lines of;

1. Double time in sin bin (20mins).
2. At the end of 20mins player is not allowed to return to the field but is substituted by a bench player.
3. The judiciary can then ban the player after the game for however long is appropriate.

This would allow the offending players team to still have a chance of winning the game despite some disadvantage.
It is, after all, the offending player who should bear the brunt of the punishment.

My other concern with the current situation is that if the red carded player is a front rower or half back, then another innocent player also suffers as usually a flanker is taken off the allow the replacement front rower or half back to take the field. Just too many anomolies with the current situation.

I agree the carded player should be replaced but I think that 20 minutes is probably too long as well.

 

[Braveheart81]

It's a tough one.

If the red card was a lesser punishment than it currently is, do you think referees would use it more frequently?

A red card is meant to have a significant impact on the outcome of a game.

If a red card was only 20 minutes you should still see the team that has the player advantage winning in most situations, particularly if the teams are reasonably even. If fans were used to the 20 minute red card situation (and then that player replaced) would the same argument still be being made about a red card killing the game?

 

[Pfitzy]

OK, so let's see if I'm getting this right: you're playing the RWC final, and the opposition has a great flyhalf who can kick goals from 60m. You send your least valuable forward out there to knock him senseless, to the point where he can't continue. You soak up the pressure for 20 minutes, then put someone else on and win the thing.

Your least valuable forward gets banned for 4 months, but who gives a fuck? You won the RWC!



Red cards are there for acts of foul play - kicking, punching, knees, elbows, and other bullshit. If they were used more often, they wouldn't be needed quite so much eventually.

The problem is, refs are ruled by pussy fans thinking about "oh no it wrecks the game!"

STIFF. SHIT.

People throwing punches on rugby fields wreck games. People having their careers ended wrecks games. Put your fucking thinking caps on.

 

[Braveheart81]

I agree with those last parts of your post Pfitzy.

The onus will always have to be on the players to not commit red card offences.

If the game gets 'ruined' because of a red card, blame the player who committed the offence, not the referee.

 

[Lindommer]

Three codes have sending-off protocols, two don't. Does foul play in AFL and American football lead to unfair results? Discuss.



Dunno about Gaelic football, someone can elucidate me here.

 

[Pfitzy]

American Football - the NFL, but also College Football (which is bigger in a lot of ways) - has very strict protocols about behaviour though, including acting like a dickwad on the field. Aussie kicker Brad Wing celebrated a touchdown before he crossed the line and got called back for it.

In the NFL, being penalised for being a dick is costly when you're talking multi-million dollar contracts, and being ejected from your team - there are hundreds waiting to take your place.

 

[Braveheart81]

Three codes have sending-off protocols, two don't. Does foul play in AFL and American football lead to unfair results? Discuss.

In AFL if the foul play causes an injury then often it will have a big impact on the result.

The way the interchange is used in AFL means that teams are at a huge disadvantage if they're down players on the bench. The substitute rule has helped minimise this impact but it can still happen.

 

[Viking]

Stop the clock for penalty kicks.

 

[fatprop]

I like the NRL protocols on the judiciary.

Clear points per offence (videos/photos are used to demonstrate levels (grade 1 etc)), with specific points equaling weeks.

Early pleas equaling a discount,

Lessor offences collect points but points not used will be added to future visits.

Defending offence equals no discount, most arguments end up being the "grade" of offence.

 

[Scoey]

OK, so let's see if I'm getting this right: you're playing the RWC final, and the opposition has a great flyhalf who can kick goals from 60m. You send your least valuable forward out there to knock him senseless, to the point where he can't continue. You soak up the pressure for 20 minutes, then put someone else on and win the thing.

Your least valuable forward gets banned for 4 months, but who gives a fuck? You won the RWC!



Red cards are there for acts of foul play - kicking, punching, knees, elbows, and other bullshit. If they were used more often, they wouldn't be needed quite so much eventually.

The problem is, refs are ruled by pussy fans thinking about "oh no it wrecks the game!"

STIFF. SHIT.

People throwing punches on rugby fields wreck games. People having their careers ended wrecks games. Put your fucking thinking caps on.

When was the last time a player on the receiving end of a 'red card' offence, took no further part in the game? I'm honestly wondering, because I can't think of one recently.
It's a professional game and I can't see a team that has made it to a RWC Final thinking that the other team in the final only has one decent player so if we send out a hitman and take the fucker out, we'll shit this thing in. Putting your thinking cap on might be a good idea.