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

[Aussie D]

would love to see the law makers get rid of the stupid rule (in my opinion) of a player catching a ball say 1m in the field of touch but because he has a foot over the line it is deemed out. Think it should be that the ball is out when it crosses the plane of touch and touches the ground or object that is in touch.

 

[Braveheart81]

A maul results in a turnover only if the maul is retreating, effectively making a maul more like an unsuccessful tackle. It removes confusion for spectators and players, ensuring that as an attacker you try to keep on your feet and as a defender you try to bring them to the ground, not this swapping back and forth depending on if you have someone supporting you.

The argument against that is that collapsing a maul is considered dangerous.

 

[Swat]

You still won't be able to collapse a maul, but what it ensures is that the initial collision is one where the defender attempts to either tackle the player, or drive them backwards, rather than trying to hold them up. Maul's will still occur although it would prevent people trying to hold a tackler up purely with the intention of a turnover.

 

[Blake]

Missed field goals to be treated like normal kicks, I.E. if it goes dead then it's a scrum from where it was kicked from, oppositions feed.

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

would love to see the law makers get rid of the stupid rule (in my opinion) of a player catching a ball say 1m in the field of touch but because he has a foot over the line it is deemed out. Think it should be that the ball is out when it crosses the plane of touch and touches the ground or object that is in touch.

If a player is not deemed in touch when he is holding the ball and his foot is out, that would have some wide reaching consequences.

You could try and frame it in a way whereby a player inside the field of play who catches the ball with his foot out is deemed to have taken the ball into touch. ie: "the ball is directly in touch when a player with most of his body over the touchline comes into contact with the ball".

I think anyway.

 

[Muttonbird]

On the new scrum laws, a longer bind onto the body mandatory with elbow up, death to any prop who binds on the arm or armpit and/or has their elbow pointing to the ground.

The ref tapping the shoulder of the nine to confirm he is satisfied with the stability of the scrum and can put the ball in.

Yes, it seems unsatisfactory that the defensive scrum has a clear signal from the ref when to put the weight on.

 

[Bardon]

If a player is not deemed in touch when he is holding the ball and his foot is out, that would have some wide reaching consequences.

You could try and frame it in a way whereby a player inside the field of play who catches the ball with his foot out is deemed to have taken the ball into touch. ie: "the ball is directly in touch when a player with most of his body over the touchline comes into contact with the ball".

I think anyway.

I don't agree with this rule change as I like how in touch is determined at present.

But I'd love to see it implemented just to see a TMO try to determine what constitutes most of a players body where someone is half in and half out in the build up to a try.

 

[ParraEElsNRL]

lol, as if the rules of union need changing, I thought it be perfect the way it is.

Isn't that what you people think anyway?

Yet here we are looking at a thread where you need to change things, poor union, mustn't be going as grand as made out eh?

 

[Braveheart81]

lol, as if the rules of union need changing, I thought it be perfect the way it is.

Isn't that what you people think anyway?

Yet here we are looking at a thread where you need to change things, poor union, mustn't be going as grand as made out eh?

The rules or laws of pretty much every sport change frequently.

Soccer is probably the one sport where there has been very little change. Part of that is probably due to some form of luddite like behaviour from FIFA.

Rugby league, AFL and rugby union make changes pretty much every year.

Cricket makes some changes most years, particularly in relation to the international playing conditions.

 

[cyclopath]

lol, as if the rules of union need changing, I thought it be perfect the way it is.

Isn't that what you people think anyway?

Yet here we are looking at a thread where you need to change things, poor union, mustn't be going as grand as made out eh?

Clearly the pinnacle event of Rugby League is not engaging you as much as you might want, that you feel the need to return for a troll after a long absence.

 

[gel]

Are the scrums meant to be all pushy, shovey prior to the ball being fed in?

If not, then there seems to be a hell of a lot of it happening prior to the feed - so whilst not necessarily wanting a law change as such, I wouldn't mind that being policed a bit more definitively.

 

[ParraEElsNRL]

Naaa, completely forgot about this site until WCR reminded me yesterday (at PR) that I indeed do have an account here.

Should be able to tell I had no idea with the way I done my username under the influence of liquid gold.

 

[BPC]

1. Cotton jerseys so the props can bind properly.
2. Physical violence against Chris Ashton is no longer a offence.
3. Mascots to fight to first blood or submission during half-time.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Naaa, completely forgot about this site until WCR reminded me yesterday (at PR) that I indeed do have an account here.

Should be able to tell I had no idea with the way I done my username under the influence of liquid gold.

My Bad. I didn't say you should start posting again.

 

[Brumby Runner]

On reflection (plenty of it) I would like to see the law allowing the scrum to move through 90 degrees and providing the feed to the other team removed. Imo there is too much uncertainty surrounding which team turns the scrum, and how, and it is left to the vagaries of the ref's interpretation as to whether it is reset or a penalty.

 

[Budgie]

Definitely agree with the pack and push rule. Would eliminate 90% of resets.

That was probably the intention of the adjustments but it hasn't happened so far.

What has happened to the Halfback putting the ball in straight in the centre of the tunnel? The Referees seem to have ignored that change after the first week or two.

 

[Lindommer]

Has Billy Pulver seen this thread? Seeing he's asked for suggestions it's time to fire up this old girl.

 

[Zander]

One for the new NPC, stop the clock after the first scrum reset (for each scrum) and start it again once the ball is out.

 

[swingpass]

i cant recall whether i posted this earlier.

i would like to see "double jeopardy" for defensive infringements in the attacking 25, especially those involving killing the ball or delaying the release. allow advantage by all means but if it doesn't accrue then come back for the penalty, taken in front of the posts, on the 25 and then allow the attacking team possession at the point of infringement after the kick at goal. they can resume with a scrum (attacking team put in), kick for touch (their throw) or tap. defensive team runs risk of giving up 10, not just 3 points

 

[gel]

I would like it to be a mandatory yellow card for an infringement whilst under a penalty advantage.

Smart teams will invest the time and effort in learning how to defend legally.

Cynical teams will end up with 11 players on the field and a multitude of tries scored against them.

(It worked for tennis - with the "point", "game and default of game for players purposefully time wasting. Although arguing and time wasting still do occur, it doesn't happen nearly as often today as what it was in the 80s and early 90s where every men's match had some loud mouth yelling that the ball was in).