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

[papabear]

TOCC - Re quade cooper controlling the game, I agree but that's his job, his profession and the most highest chance of winning games.

He is doing what he is paid to do.

What he wants to do and most people want to do when they think of any form of rugby whether in the backyard, school or wherever is to have some fun.

How much it alters the game is arguable, rugby wasn't always so tight, eventually it will open up a game, then it will tighten again, it is kind of cyclical.

 

[Scoey]

I was going to reply but then thought better of it papabear as it's all been covered well.

What I would suggest is, that you have a run with the forwards if you're able and see how things are done and learn why. Your post simply highlights to me a lack of understanding bordering on sheer ignorance on what more than half of the players on a Rugby pitch do during a game.

 

[Pedrolicus]

Invariably, if the winger gets bundled into touch close to the line you've made the wrong decision in attack.

Not if you're isolated. Into touch means a lineout, you could win the ball back, but you have your defense set up anyway. While you'd rather score a try every time, getting put into touch is no different to a touch finder from general play. While you also want to keep the ball, I think worrying about touch often makes players throw 'Hail Marys' which aren't a high percentage option.

 

[Braveheart81]

Not if you're isolated. Into touch means a lineout, you could win the ball back, but you have your defense set up anyway. While you'd rather score a try every time, getting put into touch is no different to a touch finder from general play. While you also want to keep the ball, I think worrying about touch often makes players throw 'Hail Marys' which aren't a high percentage option.

I agree that the hail mary pass back inside as the winger is going into touch is even worse. I think in both situations the ball shouldn't have gone to that winger in the first place. Obviously there's some level where you've got to take some risk and if the winger almost scores then it was probably worth the risk.

You don't kick for touch when you're attacking within 10 metres of the try line so you also don't want your players running into touch.

 

[Pfitzy]

Showing how little you understand of the game PB. Particularly the fact that rugby players have generally better defensive alignment than league players, and the contestable nature of every possession.

 

[Pedrolicus]

I agree that the hail mary pass back inside as the winger is going into touch is even worse. I think in both situations the ball shouldn't have gone to that winger in the first place. Obviously there's some level where you've got to take some risk and if the winger almost scores then it was probably worth the risk.

You don't kick for touch when you're attacking within 10 metres of the try line so you also don't want your players running into touch.

No you don't but the result is the same, so it's not a terrible outcome. The worst outcome is to turn it over at the ruck or give away a penalty for holding on which can happen when the winger is isolated.

 

[Tex]

Reflecting on the Rebels Force game on Friday, I'd like to see some greater protections for blokes in rucks. This isn't a slag at the Force as all teams do it, but i'm really concerned about the rucking technique which essentially involves grabbing the bloke's head and twisting it until he submits. Effective, yes, but it seems the risks involved really don't weigh up against the value of the penalty you're trying to prevent.

The other part of it is the tendency to smash unprotected blokes in rucks. Charles did it on Friday. Took a good 10m run up and hit a Rebels player around the head with a flying shoulder (after the whistle too, mind).

We're so cautious now about identifying concussion, setting safe scrums, eliminating shoulder charges and banning players for the merest hint of a thrown fist or dump tackle, but the behaviour at the breakdown has gone south in recent seasons.

Crack down and clean it up before someone is badly hurt.

 

[Brumby Runner]

At one end of the spectrum we have the Hurricanes who run the ball wide at every opportunity and make the bulk of their line breaks on the wing. And nearly every line break leads to a try as they constantly back up both inside and outside and no-one seems to hog the pill but are all willing to let the player in better position take it.

At the other end, we have the Force who rarely get a backline movement going and even more rarely make a line break. Any where within the attacking 22m (happens occasionally) the forwards hog the ball with their pick and drives.

The Hurricanes are on top of the ladder and the Force are on the bottom. Even in not so successful years, the Hurricanes play much the same brand of football and they are one of the most attractive sides year in and year out.

As BH alluded to above, it is not one or the other. A very good team will have a combination but will know when to get the ball away from the middle and it doesn't have to be after numerous phases. I put the Warratahs and the Crusaders in this category. They have the forwards to play it tight when needed but the larger impression after watching them is that they have played a wide attacking game for most of the time.

Just specifically on the pick and drive. I really don't like to see it more than a couple of times in succession. A more effective tactic in my opinion when in possession a couple of metres from the tryline is to have a hard running player (Potgeiter, Nadolo, Nonu type of player) hitting up one off the ruck at full pace when he receives the ball.

 

[MungoMan]

I'd not change any of the laws to begin with. Instead, I'd rather have an audit, for want of a better word, of 'offences' that are frequently penalised in professional-level games but which are not clearly offences under the laws as written.

The pupose of this is fairly obvious: if something is being penalised and consensus is that this should continue, then clarity in the laws is a good thing.

 

[Viking]

Not exactly a law change, but I think the Super XV table should be re-structured once finals begin, by points descending. The exact teams qualify but it rewards the teams with a better season with home finals.

So it would be:
Hurricanes 66 - home semi
Highlanders 53 - home semi
Waratahs 52 Home qualifying
Chiefs 48 - Home qualifying
Brumbies 47
Stormers 45

Current system seems unfair to the Highlanders, Chiefs who had great seasons and the Stormers had the worst season yet in the current system they are rewarded with a home finals game.

 

[Braveheart81]

I still don't get why it's unfair.

Every sporting competition in the world that has a conference system rewards the conference winners above teams that don't win their conference but have a higher number of competition points.

It really seems that because we're more used to single conference competitions where the finishing order is strictly by order of competition points that we find the Super rugby conference system strange.

The salient point that needs to be accepted in any conference based sporting competition is that if you don't win your conference, you're not in front of any team that did win their conference.

 

[Viking]

I still don't get why it's unfair.

Every sporting competition in the world that has a conference system rewards the conference winners above teams that don't win their conference but have a higher number of competition points.

It really seems that because we're more used to single conference competitions where the finishing order is strictly by order of competition points that we find the Super rugby conference system strange.

The salient point that needs to be accepted in any conference based sporting competition is that if you don't win your conference, you're not in front of any team that did win their conference.

Do other conference systems play teams from other conferences during the general season?

 

[Braveheart81]

Do other conference systems play teams from other conferences during the general season?

Yes.

They all have reasonably similar structures where you play teams in your division most frequently, then teams in your own conference a bit less than that and then teams from the other conference(s) even less and some not at all.

Super Rugby obviously just has 3 conferences and no divisions within those conferences but the premise is otherwise the same.

 

[rugbysmartarse]

anyway, it's not worth messing with the Super Rugby finals format because it all changes next year anyhow

 

[Joeleee]

I also think there's a lot of value to having a guaranteed home final for each nation as well. Imagine if the only Australian team were playing in South Africa this week, the level of interest would be way down. Yes it's not all about commercialities, but it's a very real constraint that must be operated under.

 

[Tex]

World Rugby has further clarified laws they want more stringently policed. Mauls (bad luck, Brumbies), high contact in the tackle and ruck and foul scrum feeds. http://laws.worldrugby.org/index.php?domain=9&language=EN

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

 

[TOCC]

I think people can get to caught up in the intricacies of the conference system, at the end of the day as a fan all you need to know is that if your team wins the majority of their matches then they should make the finals. If you look at it like that then it really is quite simple.


In 2016 we have 2 groups(South Africa & Australasia) and 4 conferences(2xRSA, 1xAUS, 1xNZ). Whilst the draw itself might be a little complicated to work out the objective is still the same, win the majority of your regular season matches and every one of your finals matches and you become the Super Rugby champion.


As an Australian fan, your team will play every other kiwi team, your team will play every other Australian team at least once and will play 2 Australian teams twice, finally your team will play only 4(2 away & 2 home) of the 8 south african conference teams.


Finals again is a little complicated, there are 5 guaranteed positions for Australasian teams in the finals, South Africa only has 3... However South Africa gets 2 home quarter finals, Australia and New Zealand only get 1 home QF each.

After that, the Semi-Final and Grand Final locations are determined by the team with the most regular season points.

 

[TOCC]

Because I'm now on a rant, i just want to play out what the finals would look like based on 2015 standings.

So had the 2016 finals template been used on the 2015 table, this is what the Quarter Finals would look like for this week:

Quarter Final
Hurricanes(1) vs Crusaders(8)
Waratahs(2) vs Brumbies(7)
Stormers(3) vs Chiefs(6)
Lions(4) vs Highlanders(5)

Semi Final(assuming all home teams won)
Hurricanes vs Lions
Waratahs vs Stormers

Grand Final(assuming all home teams won)
Hurricanes vs Waratahs



*obviously a number variables unaccounted for

 

[Brumby Runner]

Because I'm now on a rant, i just want to play out what the finals would look like based on 2015 standings.

So had the 2016 finals template been used on the 2015 table, this is what the Quarter Finals would look like for this week:

Quarter Final
Hurricanes(1) vs Crusaders(8)
Waratahs(2) vs Brumbies(7)
Stormers(3) vs Chiefs(6)
Lions(4) vs Highlanders(5)

Semi Final(assuming all home teams won)
Hurricanes vs Lions
Waratahs vs Stormers

Grand Final(assuming all home teams won)
Hurricanes vs Waratahs



*obviously a number variables unaccounted for

Interesting @TOCC. Not disputing what you've posted, but how do you calculate the Lions finishing 4th and the Brumbies 7th? I can see the Stormers retain 3rd as the conference winner, but why elevate the Lions above teams that finished with more points?

EDIT : Or is that the outcome of guaranteeing two quarter finals to the Saffas?

 

[TOCC]

Duplicate