I agree that it is a harsh rule for the defending team, but I guess it stays consistant with the fact that if the defending team touches the ball in front of the goal line and then the ball is grounded or goes dead in goal, it is a five metre scrum.
If you could change the laws of rugby, what would you change?
- Thread starter Bowside
- Start date
All conversions and PK for goal to be drop kicks, and to be taken within 30 seconds.
No stuffing around waiting for the kicking T runner to arrive. No waiting for Wilkinsonesque simulated bowel movements.
TV won't like it, cause it is a potential advertisement opportunity.
No stuffing around waiting for the kicking T runner to arrive. No waiting for Wilkinsonesque simulated bowel movements.
TV won't like it, cause it is a potential advertisement opportunity.
T
TOCC
Guest
I just dug up this thread becasue after watching the 7's, i also agree that penalty goals should be drop goals and taken in 30sec's. ..
However a consequence of this is that some teams may become more cynical or liberal in their interpretation of their rules, well i think there should be an amendment to how the penalties are given and at fault players identified everytime.
So some rule changes are that we should steal the process of giving cards to players like they do in football but introduce a third card which is white..
1st offence = White Card/Penalty
2nd offence = Yellow Card/Penalty & 10min sin bin
3rd offence = Red Card /sin bin for game
It could get ugly for Australia at scrum time though :/
WorkingClassRugger
David Codey (61)
Could implement a similar system to that of Ice Hockey. A two minute time out for any offence committed in the "red zone" or within the 22m. The offending player has to stand in a box on the sideline for a two minute period while the opposition attempts to maximise the opportunity of a little extra space. Could even make it a 5 minute period. It would discourage many as it could lead to 2 or 3 off at one time which would almost guarantee a team would score.
T
TOCC
Guest
Yeah i like that concept as well...
Overall i think the rules of rugby are quite reasonable, albeit a little long for the average punter.. But at test level its quite evident that nearly all the teams are committing cynical fouls to slow the opposition down in attack and for me thats currently the biggest burden on the game.. So rather then trying to rewrite the rules into an even more complicated rulebook, just punish the teams by sending players off more..
That and penalty goals, i don't like the amount of time that is wasted on penalty goals, make it a drop goal with 30sec limit.
Overall i think the rules of rugby are quite reasonable, albeit a little long for the average punter.. But at test level its quite evident that nearly all the teams are committing cynical fouls to slow the opposition down in attack and for me thats currently the biggest burden on the game.. So rather then trying to rewrite the rules into an even more complicated rulebook, just punish the teams by sending players off more..
That and penalty goals, i don't like the amount of time that is wasted on penalty goals, make it a drop goal with 30sec limit.
hawktrain
Ted Thorn (20)
Every scrum infringement should be a FK. Penalty try can still occur if a team collapses on their own line, and front row players can still be binned for collapsing repeatedly, especially near their own line. But no PG's should be able to be kicked from scrum infringements.
Dan54
Tim Horan (67)
Lol and wouldn't that just be going back to how rugby used to be??
JSRF10
Dick Tooth (41)
And while we are at it we should reduce the pack by 2 players so there is more space on the field.
The scrum is an integral part of our game, teams with strong scrums shouldn't be penalised by not getting a scoreboard advantage from their superiority
Forcefield
Ken Catchpole (46)
Maybe mix you and TOCC's ideas a bit.
Three cards (White/Yellow/Red or similar variant). White = 5 minutes, Yellow = 10 minutes, Red = Rest of the game. A second white card for a player equals a yellow. Or maybe it would be better if white carded players can return to the field after five minutes or after the opposition has scored a try.
Low level intentional infringement in the Red Zone = white, Higher level = yellow. I think there are some types of offences in the Red Zone that don't warrant either card. I imagine referees have a fairly good idea of when players are taking the piss. I guess it depends on how much momentum the attacking team have.
WorkingClassRugger
David Codey (61)
Another area would be to tidy up the advantage laws in terms of what constitutes advantage across all officials particularly in terms of penalty advantage. At the moment its a little too variable depending on individual interpretation of the law.
At the elite levels I think the TMO could be utilised to help establish a defined advantage line. Using similar technology that's used in the NFL. A superimposed advantage line for penalty. At the point in which a penalty advantage is issued a line could appear say 10m further up field and a time clock start (say 10 seconds). The team would then have that period of time to cross the advantage line. They do, then advantage would be played. If not, then it goes back to the offence. Could even be done with the use of the AR setting the advantage line.
Or at the very least, if the ball is kicked away regardless of whether its a knock on or penalty advantage then I'd like it to be declared null. Same with teams that intentionally drop it to be awarded the penalty. The point should be to at least try and use the ball. No cynical play. If you are awarded advantage try your hand.
mudskipper
Colin Windon (37)
Good topic... If i could change the rules I would make the truck and trailer rolling maul illegal... And I'd remove the marking call rule in the 25...
WorkingClassRugger
David Codey (61)
That would work. I'm talking basically any offence in the 22 or red zone. Most of them all pretty cynical. Perhaps not offside but everything else. I just think if teams knew that they could be lose multiple players at once they'll be more inclined not to be so cynical near their own line.
I should add, that if the attacking team scores within that period. The offending player would then be allowed back on regardless on how long they had left on the penalty clock.
At the very least I think it should be trialed in one of the club comps.
Dam0
Dave Cowper (27)
I would take away the right of the tackler to get up and play the ball from any angle. Whilst it is a good law in principle it is simply too hard to referee properly. Referees constantly get it wrong - both ways, mind - and I think players lack the confidence to go for it because they don't trust that the officials are on top of it.
RoffsChoice
Jim Lenehan (48)
I'd have a harsher penalty for repeated scrum infringements. It would make scrummaging more important for the forwards to get right and the fans would (in theory) be subjected to less resets.
Plus, scrum collapses three times with no fault, have a lineout instead.
Plus, scrum collapses three times with no fault, have a lineout instead.
Dam0
Dave Cowper (27)
Yes, but then you would then be incentivising illegal play that makes it look like the other team has infringed. TH binding on the arm, FR's pulling back on the engage, standing up when you are going forward etc. Prior to the new laws, I would say that more often than not when the LH was pinged for putting his hand on the ground the PK should have gone the other way for the TH binding on the arm.
The problem with the scrum laws is that they are impractical to referee with any certainty. The new laws have gone some way to correcting this but it's still hard work. The proof of this is that often after multiple viewings from different angles referees can't agree on who was at fault in a scrum collapsing, and yet the guy in the middle is expected to make snap decisions. Its better than it was - regardless of what the naysayers are saying - but it's only a matter of time before crafty scrum coaches come up with new ways of winning PK's and we are back to square 1.
Dam0
Dave Cowper (27)
Ugh. I disagree with every aspect of this post.
Advantage is such a fluid and variable thing that is impossible to legislate it with any certainty. Often a team has an advantage even though they are still metres from getting to the advantage line, conversely a team that is beyond the advantage line may not have had an advantage. It depends upon the score, the game situation and the various strengths and weaknesses of the teams. A mechanical application would not work imo.
As for telling teams that they must use the ball in a certain way I don't like that at all. If a team wants the benefit of a PK or a scrum then their should be nothing in the laws that discourages it. Particularly in a close game, often teams just want to take the PK, not risk losing it when they make a break of 30m downfield which amounts to nothing.
Besides which, it seems to work pretty well in practice, there are only very few controversies around advantage calls. Occasionally you get some disagreement a call being too short or too long, but by and large it is not a big issue. The best games of rugby are often the ones where a referee applies an intelligent and practical use of the advantage law and I don't see any reason at all to change that.
hawktrain
Ted Thorn (20)
The dominant team gets rewarded with FK's just as they do on the first offence currently. I would just change it so that they're always FK's, because so many scrum penalties could easily go either way. I don't think someone putting a hand on the ground to stablilise themselves or missing a bind is worth 3 points.
WorkingClassRugger
David Codey (61)
ChargerWA
Mark Loane (55)
I think what ever changes are ever made, they cant add complexity to the laws or increase the need for referee intervention. Rugby is hard enough on the officials and fans as the laws currently stand.
But the unions are seemingly doing whatever they like anyway. Top14 and ITM have both stopped enforcing the straight feed to the scrum and I haven't heard a ref call "use it" in months (though admittedly that's because teams are using the ball quicker).