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

[Slim 293]

I just want more protection for players in the air then what we've seen during the RC............

 

[Sully]

I want to see less pedantic refereeing, like last night when Nigel called Beale for a 'knock on' when he out the big hit on Adam Carter, tackles like that should be rewarded and not punished..

There should be some sort of exception to the knock rule if it's caused by the opposition and the ball isn't played at.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It was a 100% clear knock on.

 

[Dan54]

To be quite honest, if it's so dangerous perhaps we should make it illegal to jump for the ball, at the moment it's getting everyone jumps to catch ball whether they need to or not, I think it's to stop anyone tackling them and creating turnovers! I know safety is paramount, but perhaps it should up to players not to put themselves in dangerous positions.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Nah missing point Lorenzo people don't mind kicks at goals but (masses) prefer to see tries than games just continuous flow of kick for goals on penalties. Reason why have NRC experimental rules to reduce goals from 3 to 2 points to create more attacking rugby.

Watch rugby compared to league as scrums, rucks, mauls and lineouts make it more interesting. So I think I will pass on league.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

As with the downside for lowering the points value of penalties the downside here is that teams will just infringe at the scrum. Better education for refs and use of technology will assist. It is never going to be perfect but that is the nature of the game.

I agree Gnostic that may be the case but also as is case already if players have repeat infringements then refs need to use yellow card option. Evidence from last year's NRC though does not support your assumption that results in more penalties / infringements as from memory was not higher (number of penalties per game on average compared to super rugby).

 

[TOCC]

It was a 100% clear knock on.

By the definition of the rules yes, and that's why I'm commenting in this thread as I would like to see it changed.


I would like to see an amendment where it's not a knock on if it's caused by the opposition and the player hasn't played at it, as was the case in the Kurtley Beale tackle.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Gnostic]

To be quite honest, if it's so dangerous perhaps we should make it illegal to jump for the ball, at the moment it's getting everyone jumps to catch ball whether they need to or not, I think it's to stop anyone tackling them and creating turnovers! I know safety is paramount, but perhaps it should up to players not to put themselves in dangerous positions.

Interesting when Dagg was the one doing it and the Wallabies and Boks taking him out the tune was different - from both sides.

 

[Pfitzy]

To be quite honest, if it's so dangerous perhaps we should make it illegal to jump for the ball, at the moment it's getting everyone jumps to catch ball whether they need to or not, I think it's to stop anyone tackling them and creating turnovers! I know safety is paramount, but perhaps it should up to players not to put themselves in dangerous positions.

"Yes, if you could just stand there and get smashed while simultaneously catching that ball? Thanks - its for your safety, after all!"

 

[Pfitzy]

"Now Richie, next time Lote spear-tackles you, instead of trying to place the ball back, could you just turtle up and take the impact on your back instead of your head? Ta muchly!"

 

[Dan54]

Yep Pfitzy, just like getting smashed as you collect a hospital pass!! Ok it was bit tongue in cheek to suggest you can't jump, just I think the way it is going once someone jumps the no one else will be able to compete for the ball. And I never had a different approach whether it was Dagg or whoever. Not sure what the answer is, and agree we have to look after players, but I shudder a little when another contest is in risk of getting taken out of rugby!

 

[Gnostic]

How is it taken out? Either compete for the ball genuinely, or wait for the player to land genuinely. Not the rubbish we have seen to negate Folau in particular, taking the space at the point of landing or just in front of the ball landing area with no intention of competing. That isn't competition, hence my phrasing, it is preventing the competition and should be penalised without even considering the dangerous aspect of the play.

 

[TOCC]

All Blacks seemed to 'accidentally' pressure the player jumping for the ball a lot though.. I understand a good kick chase, but it happened a lot and certainly looks to be part of All Black tactics.. Like Conrad Smith grabbing hold of AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper)'s legs when he jumped for the ball, that was a bee's dick away from resulting In a serious injury.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Dan54]

Ok lets just agree to disagree, I see TOCC is bringing in ,it's the All Blacks sir', and Gnostic wants space left where ball was going to land??

 

[Pfitzy]

I think it comes down to "eyes on the ball" as with the AFL - if Conrad was looking skyward and took AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) out, then its a penalty for being reckless.

The issue was mainly borne out of the fact that they didn't look at a review because they knew 13 black was the culprit. Compare that to the situation later in the game where there was an early tackle they wanted looked at to get a player's number, and pinged To'omua rightly.

But why not take a moment, while AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) counts his teeth, to replay what is a player safety issue and look at the facts? Timing was bad, yes, but Smith didn't pull out of it by any means and the replay looks bad for him.

 

[Pfitzy]

Just watched a replay - Smith is watching the ball as it reaches its arc, then a little longer, but then looks down and sees AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) in the air the last couple of steps. Its not dirty, or intentional, but it is reckless and as with shoulder-cleanouts and tip tackles, the circumstances can't really excuse the outcome.

Anyway, let's just hope its consistently ruled within future games - whether its considered yellow or not.

 

[Scoey]

Nah missing point Lorenzo people don't mind kicks at goals but (masses) prefer to see tries than games just continuous flow of kick for goals on penalties. Reason why have NRC experimental rules to reduce goals from 3 to 2 points to create more attacking rugby.

Watch rugby compared to league as scrums, rucks, mauls and lineouts make it more interesting. So I think I will pass on league.

It's trivial, I know, but please only speak for yourself.
It's a pet hate of mine when people speak for 'the masses'. Talk about what law you want changed and why you want it changed but don't say stuff like, "people want to see....." Etc.

 

[TOCC]

Ok lets just agree to disagree, I see TOCC is bringing in ,it's the All Blacks sir', and Gnostic wants space left where ball was going to land??

I don't personally care if it's the All Blacks, England or Australia.. Its been increasingly 'competitive' under those high balls for a couple of seasons now, and like the All Blacks on the weekend It's an obvious tactic that teams are employing.. The inadvertent consequence of this tactic is that it's placing players in compromising positions far too often..




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Gnostic]

I look at the "taking of space" on kick receipt with no intention of playing or attempting to play the ball just like lying at the back of the ruck. Even when trapped the player impeding quick ball at the ruck gets penalised with the ref often adding "don't put yourself in that position" how is it different?

 

[Brumby Runner]

Do you reckon teams that cynically infringe in their own 40m or less to stop conceding tries will be put off by giving away less points for a PG? There's a downside to your upside.

Might work with two set penalty spots, say one about 10m out directly in front for offences committed inside the 22, and the other in the centre of the 22m line for penalties between the 22 and half way. Attacking team to have the option of kicking for sideline from the spot the offence occurred or kick for goal from the relevant penalty spot. Think it would keep most defending sides a bit honest.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Says who?

A try used to be worth zero points - it awarded you a "try" at goal. That's how central to rugby goalkicking has always been.

You can watch league if you don't value goal kicking.

And the central aspect of the penalty goal has diminished over a long period of time as the worth of a try was first valued and subsequently as it has increased. The diminishing relative value of the penalty goal is just the normal progression in the evolution of the game.