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

[Brumby Runner]

The area I would like to see simplified is the rolling maul. Too often, the maul seems to contain multiple infringements by both teams; attacking players joining in front of the ball carrier is one of my pet hates. Don't really know how to improve it, but make it one stop in forward motion and must use the ball would be a start.

 

[boyo]

The rolling maul is legalised obstruction.

 

[Guy]

The obvious one for me is the scrum - I'd like to the packs bind first and then push. Also each prop must approve his opposition props jersey before the game.


And bring back rucking of-course.

I just ventured onto this topic for the first time ever and Bowside's very first post is the one quoted above... You might get a job working for George Lucas the way you're going mate!

 

[mudskipper]

The real problem with international rugby is the profession foul in the defending quarter... this is just killing the game really needs to be delt with fast and card players...

Really need an honorable game again the last Wallatahs match against the Boks was outrageous...

 

[Bon]

Dispense with the touch, clutch, and kiss at scrum time, reinstate the scrum to what it was before the pc brigade got hold of it. Oh, and bring back RUCKING.proper rucking I mean,not this namby pamby sooky nana nonsense we see now.

 

[Brumby Runner]

For most fans' sake, I also think the rulings on touch should be simplified. Either the plane of touch applies at all times so that the ball is in touch if it passes the plane regardless of where a player in the air who knocks it back into the field of play lands, or it is in play regardless of where the player in the air touches it and lands.

 

[Braveheart81]

For most fans' sake, I also think the rulings on touch should be simplified. Either the plane of touch applies at all times so that the ball is in touch if it passes the plane regardless of where a player in the air who knocks it back into the field of play lands, or it is in play regardless of where the player in the air touches it and lands.

I agree.

The rule that you can be outside the field of play (touching the ground) but bat the ball that hasn't crossed the plane of touch back infields and the ball isn't out is absolutely bizarre.

Personally I think the rule should just be that the ball is only out if it touches the ground or touches a player who is touching the ground outside the field of play.

I think that would make it identical to basketball which is how I think it should be.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

The real problem with international rugby is the profession foul in the defending quarter. this is just killing the game really needs to be delt with fast and card players.

Really need an honorable game again the last Wallatahs match against the Boks was outrageous...

Read the page before this. A similar system to the one used in Ice Hockey could help rectify that issue.

 

[Muttonbird]

I think held up in goal should be changed to benefit the defending team. The attacking team has thrown everything at the line and been found wanting. They've rolled the dice and the defence has held and should be rewarded for that instead of having to go through it all again with an attacking 5m scrum.

I've heard the argument that because the attacking team has crossed the line they should be rewarded, but crossing the line alone in rugby means nothing, you have to get the ball down.

Held up in goal = drop out 22.

 

[Muttonbird]

Also, the deliberate knock-down. WTF? If the defending player is good enough and brave enough to leave his defensive line to get at the ball then good luck to him. Knock-on, attacking scrum, no worries. This is not a card-able offense, is it?

Deliberate knock-down = knock-on, scrum & no yellow card.

 

[Dam0]

I think held up in goal should be changed to benefit the defending team. The attacking team has thrown everything at the line and been found wanting. They've rolled the dice and the defence has held and should be rewarded for that instead of having to go through it all again with an attacking 5m scrum.

I've heard the argument that because the attacking team has crossed the line they should be rewarded, but crossing the line alone in rugby means nothing, you have to get the ball down.

Held up in goal = drop out 22.

I disagree on principle anyway because I don't see why the defending team should get a free 22 metres upfield - much like why we don't allow advantage after a knock on into goal to result in a 22m DO if forced by the defending team. Possibly you could be on stronger ground to say the defensive team should get the put-in to the 5m scrum, but I don't really don't see why it should be changed.

However, even saying that, I think you are missing a crucial part of this law, that is perhaps more relevant for the 99.9% of games with no TMO, than for the ones on TV. Very often when the attacking team gets the ball over the line, they have in fact scored, but if the referee can't see it then he can't award it. The fairest thing to do is to give the attacking team the ball back. After all, they may actually have just been robbed of a try.

 

[Dam0]

I agree.

The rule that you can be outside the field of play (touching the ground) but bat the ball that hasn't crossed the plane of touch back infields and the ball isn't out is absolutely bizarre.

Personally I think the rule should just be that the ball is only out if it touches the ground or touches a player who is touching the ground outside the field of play.

I think that would make it identical to basketball which is how I think it should be.

Yes, but with the proviso that you can't be standing in touch, jump up and bat the ball back into the field of play and then land back in touch. That would be ridiculous.

Make it so that provided you had both feet in the Field of Play, you may jump into touch and bat the ball back into play before your feet touch the ground in touch.

 

[Braveheart81]

Yes, but with the proviso that you can't be standing in touch, jump up and bat the ball back into the field of play and then land back in touch. That would be ridiculous.

Make it so that provided you had both feet in the Field of Play, you may jump into touch and bat the ball back into play before your feet touch the ground in touch.

Yes. I should have added this.

That is part of what I meant when referring to the rules being the same as basketball. You have to have been within the field of play immediately before you touch the ball otherwise you are considered out.

 

[It is what it is]

Narrow the goal posts and raise the cross bar to lower goal kicking's appeal over try scoring.

 

[Muttonbird]

I disagree on principle anyway because I don't see why the defending team should get a free 22 metres upfield - much like why we don't allow advantage after a knock on into goal to result in a 22m DO if forced by the defending team. Possibly you could be on stronger ground to say the defensive team should get the put-in to the 5m scrum, but I don't really don't see why it should be changed.

However, even saying that, I think you are missing a crucial part of this law, that is perhaps more relevant for the 99.9% of games with no TMO, than for the ones on TV. Very often when the attacking team gets the ball over the line, they have in fact scored, but if the referee can't see it then he can't award it. The fairest thing to do is to give the attacking team the ball back. After all, they may actually have just been robbed of a try.

When the attacking team kicks to the line and gets it wrong by kicking in goal and the defending team forces the ball it's a 22 m restart, also a "free" 22 meters, as you put it. I think when the attacking team goes for the try but fails it is a similar occurrence.

You've made the point that the 99.9% of games with no TMO should dictate policy on this. I can't see where that's going. We've now got refs referring to the big screen in crucial test matches and ignoring the TMO altogether. How many grounds have a big-screen? Roughly the same number that have a TMO?

 

[mxyzptlk]

Also, the deliberate knock-down. WTF? If the defending player is good enough and brave enough to leave his defensive line to get at the ball then good luck to him. Knock-on, attacking scrum, no worries. This is not a card-able offense, is it?

Deliberate knock-down = knock-on, scrum & no yellow card.

I was reading through all of these pages specifically looking for this argument.

Agreed that a knock-down should be a knock on. You see knock-downs more often inside the 22, and the closer to the try line you get, the more you see. Something about the defense knocking down a pass close to the try line seems to me live active, aggressive defense, not necessarily cynical play. If the penalty was just a scrum, I wonder how that would change defense within 5 meters of the try line; might even make for more interceptions.

 

[BeastieBoy]

2 points only for a penalty or drop goal unless taken from the other side of 50M line then 3 points. Can opt to take it that far back. 50 second shot clock for goals then you lose it.Captains can query ref decisions in each half until they get one wrong. No try's allowed from pushovers or pick and go. Must be 2 passes from the ruck or maule. No penalties from scrums just indirect. No kick out in the full except from the in goal.half back determines when to put the ball in. Fumbles allowed by halfback at the base of the scrum or ruck and maule. If tied at full time 2 players are removed every 2 minutes down to a minimum of 7 till you get a result. Quick taps allowed and you don't have to wait till the ref gets set. Goal line drop outs rather than 22s.no pushover tries allowed. Mandatory loose jumpers for the tight 5.

 

[Braveheart81]

^ I think I disagree with every single one of those suggestions. Except maybe the 50 second time limit for shots at goal and the halfback deciding when to put the ball in.

Each to their own I guess.

 

[fatprop]

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.

 

[Swat]

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.