NRC Law Variations - have your say

[Omar Comin']

As soon as the ref blows his whistle weather it be a penalty, set piece, injury or any other reason the clock should stop. i think the clock should only run when the ball is in play! you lose about 10 mins a game while the clock is running and its just players setting up between periods, this frustrates me because there has been so many close games in super rugby that could have been a hell of a lot more thrilling if there was more time on the clock.

You lose much more than 10 minutes.

If what you suggest became law it would take almost 4 hours for a game of rugby to finish. Currently, in an 80 minute game there is about 35 minutes of ball in play.

I wouldn't go as extreme as you suggest (soccer and rugby league, for example don't have 90 and 80 minutes of ball in play time either)...but I'd like to see that ball in play time increase.

 

[biggsy]

Really good podcast with matt today, I have totally over looked this section of the forum. Lucky I didn't send a tweet and deleting it saying that "the forum should put a thread about Law suggestions for the NRC"... Or did I.. Another quade cooper moment for me.

 

[Braveheart81]

I would tinker around the edges, mostly with stopping the clock in the closing stages of the game when there is a stoppage on the field. Stop the clock for every scrum reset throughout the game.

Get rid of the crouch, bind, set call and let the forwards set the scrum themselves. It used to work, so why can't it work now?

You can't force teams to play attacking rugby through the laws. A team either has that desire or they don't.

All this talk about getting rid of penalty goals makes it sound like trying to score a try from a 5m lineout or pick and drives close to the tryline is exciting rugby. Getting rid of penalty goals isn't going to suddenly make teams play more with a more attacking style.

The last three years of Super Rugby has been won by a team playing attacking, enterprising rugby so I don't think you can say there is anything broken in the current laws.

 

[terry j]

Is "hyperbole" the word of the day?

indubitably

 

[boyo]

I can see the merit of no law changes, but, on the other hand, I like some of these suggestions.

 

[Bullrush]

You can't force teams to play attacking rugby through the laws. A team either has that desire or they don't.

This. x 1,000.

 

[Slim 293]

I would tinker around the edges, mostly with stopping the clock in the closing stages of the game when there is a stoppage on the field. Stop the clock for every scrum reset throughout the game.

Get rid of the crouch, bind, set call and let the forwards set the scrum themselves. It used to work, so why can't it work now?

You can't force teams to play attacking rugby through the laws. A team either has that desire or they don't.

All this talk about getting rid of penalty goals makes it sound like trying to score a try from a 5m lineout or pick and drives close to the tryline is exciting rugby. Getting rid of penalty goals isn't going to suddenly make teams play more with a more attacking style.

The last three years of Super Rugby has been won by a team playing attacking, enterprising rugby so I don't think you can say there is anything broken in the current laws.

Hear, hear..........

In regards to the scrums, I'm sure we could narrow down the calls to at least one simple commencement command from the referee........

eg. scrums get themselves into place, bind..... and then the referee gives a simple "set", "go", "ok", "yep" or whatever one syllable command indicating they're right to engage each other and everything else that follows.........

 

[Omar Comin']

All this talk about getting rid of penalty goals makes it sound like trying to score a try from a 5m lineout or pick and drives close to the tryline is exciting rugby. Getting rid of penalty goals isn't going to suddenly make teams play more with a more attacking style.

You must find it a real mystery when a team decides to kick for a 5m lineout from a penalty and everyone cheers.

5m lineouts and pick and drives close to the line are better to watch than a team being on attack and then everything stopping for a minute or two while one guy takes a kick at goal.

If the only way you could score points is in general play then teams would have no choice but to attack. Not necessarily with flair or fancy moves (there would still be many different ways to go about it), but they would have to advance the ball either over the line or at least deep into the opposition half. And you would never get games as bad as the Brumbies vs Sharks on the weekend because there would be less disincentive for running the ball from your own half.

 

[Slim 293]

You must find it a real mystery when a team decides to kick for a 5m lineout from a penalty and everyone cheers.

If the option for penalty goals is removed you'll no longer have crowds cheering when teams kick for the line...........

Mirroring rugby league rules removes options and the concept of risk when teams do choose to not go for the posts..........

That's a game I don't want to watch.........

 

[Omar Comin']

If the option for penalty goals is removed you'll no longer have crowds cheering when teams kick for the line.....

Mirroring rugby league rules removes options and the concept of risk when teams do choose to not go for the posts....

That's a game I don't want to watch...

They also won't groan or boo when a team decides to kick for goal for the 4th or 5th time. They'd just remain engaged with the game. Actually I think people would cheer the awarding of the penalty more than they do now because they'd know their team was about to have a great attacking opportunity.

And yes, in one way it would mirror rugby league. Rugby has taken many things from rugby league throughout time. Sometimes they get things right. Getting rid of (or at least close to it) penalty goals would hardly turn the game into rugby league though would it. It would barely dent the tactical complexity of the game.

I'd be willing to bet Rugby would gain more fans than it would lose getting rid of penalty goals. Thankfully the ARU is going to experiment with laws, and initiatives to at least reduce penalty goals will likely be among them. You don't have to watch it if you don't want to.

 

[Slim 293]

They also won't groan or boo when a team decides to kick for goal for the 4th or 5th time.

People groan and boo?

Maybe that's just a Sydney thing?

Anyways, I think you're inventing problems that don't exist and thus don't need fixing...........

 

[Omar Comin']

Well I think you're just incredibly conservative. Rugby is losing the battle for eye balls in Australia. Well and truly. And if you ever ask fringe fans of the game (or sports fans that don't like rugby) what they don't like about it, the amount of penalty goals is a common answer. It's reasonably common among big rugby fans too! A lot of the other answers (too many stoppages, kicking the ball away too much, even scrum collapses to some extent) are linked to teams playing for penalty goals. Take away penalty goals and you largely reduce the effectiveness of tactics people find dull and negative.

Even if it was just a Sydney thing you're talking about the most important rugby market in Australia. A 3rd of the NRC is made up of Sydney teams.

Anyway, happy to agree to disagree. But the NRC will involve law trials and the stated objective is to enhance the entertainment value of the game. I'm not inventing anything.

 

[Pfitzy]

Is "hyperbole" the word of the day?

It's a perfectly cromulent word.

 

[barbarian]

My two:

Understand the debate about penalty goals, I have a slightly different issue. I dislike them when they are taken from 40 and 50m out. If a team gets a scrum penalty on halfway have they really earned the right to three points? I am not sure they have.

So my change would be to make penalty goals worth 1 point from outside the 40, 2 points from outside the 22, and 3 points from inside the red zone. This encourages attacking rugby (because from that distance out you are rarely getting into driving maul territory anyway) and still discourages cynical play.

My second is to try and cut down on penalties given in the opposition 22. Refs are too hesitant to go to the pocket because being without a player for 10 minutes is a big deal in the context of the match. I would love to see a rule where a player who gives away a penalty in the oppo 22 is automatically binned for the next play (unless the offence is worth a YC).

They can only come back onto the field at the next stoppage in play, unless that stoppage is another penalty in which case the offending team lose another player.

In many cases the rule would have no effect as the attacking team would take the shot at 3 and the player would come back on at kick-off or restart. But it would make a team think- do they want to have a crack at the opposition with 14, even if its only for a minute or two?

I'm not sure either rule would be a goer long-term, but I think they would add a bit of interest without affecting the flow of the game.
.

 

[Jagman]

Professional fouls are the worst thing in rugby. I believe not enough is done remove this aspect. At the moment the defensive team thinks conceding 3 points is worth getting the ball back down the other end so why not mess with that thought process.
suggestions: increase points for penalty goals kicked when penalty is conceded in red zone; have the following kick restarts from the try line and 22 for failed and successful penalty goals respectfully for penalties conceded in the red zone. These two mess with both aspects of that thought process. You will concede more than 3 points and/or the ball won't go to other end.
What's more actually find a way to let a team have an advantage. If the attacking team has an advantage in their oppositions red zone and the opposition illegally kill the ball to kill that advantage the attacking team should get the equivalent benefit of two penalties not one. How about a 3 minute sin bin to encourage the attacking team to make the most of it and score a try.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Polynesian Warriors]

I really don't want to see rugby points getting out of control abit. There was nothing wrong with the points when they were 4 for a try and 2 for conversion (6 converted try) back in the days. When rule changes came into affect in the early 90's tries went up to 5 and 7 for a converted try. I like to see the score go back to 4 pointer for a try and 2 for a conversion and change whatever the penalty goal is whether its 3 or 2.

4 = try
2 = conversion
2 = penalty
2 = drop goal

As for the amounts of penalty given in many games the only way I can think of that can be implemented is the three foul and your out rules from basketball, but then again a player with two fouls can stop a try been scored in the last minutes of play if he wanted his team to win.

 

[fatprop]

The only a few changes I would make to the rules, is expand the advantage law to cover not straight throws, if the defenders don't compete, play on

The rest are more game management:

Scrums? Lindo had it right, a time to get the thing packed or a free kick, if it looks like a ploy to avoid scrums ie keeps happening, yellow card the culprit, bring on another prop.

Too much time wasting through injury? require a replacement for props & hookers, the rest play on move the scrum if they are in the way, in the lineout get them over the sideline, unless they are dying of course.

Professional/negative fouls, much less tolerance, more cards for negative play (and this includes ruck penalties spread between units) team warning after say three in the 22, next hits the bin, and doesn't re-start at half time, it is the same f*cking match

Oh and if a draw, go to golden point, and just like touch rugby, lose a player from each side after every three minutes.

 

[terry j]

As for the amounts of penalty given in many games the only way I can think of that can be implemented is the three foul and your out rules from basketball, but then again a player with two fouls can stop a try been scored in the last minutes of play if he wanted his team to win.

beat me to it.

 

[Braveheart81]

A lot of the other answers (too many stoppages, kicking the ball away too much, even scrum collapses to some extent) are linked to teams playing for penalty goals. Take away penalty goals and you largely reduce the effectiveness of tactics people find dull and negative.

If you've got a scrum that can win penalties and that is a tactic you employ, you'll probably keep doing it regardless of whether you can kick at goal.

You're still getting an advantage of being able to kick downfield and retain possession.

Providing you punish cynical play and have the breakdown laws adjudicated in a way that allows the attacking team to play rugby, I don't really see what else you can do.

You can only lead a horse to water...

Much has been said about the Brumbies vs Sharks game being a boring kickathon but fewer mentions of the fact that it was raining.

People seem to ignore the fact that 6 other games were played and some of them were very entertaining. It's not the laws that determine whether teams play entertaining rugby or not.

 

[qwerty51]

As for the amounts of penalty given in many games the only way I can think of that can be implemented is the three foul and your out rules from basketball, but then again a player with two fouls can stop a try been scored in the last minutes of play if he wanted his team to win.

Say goodbye to Simmons and Higginbotham's careers!