NRC Law Variations - have your say

[rugbyskier]

My change to penalties would be if there's a penalty infringement inside the defending team's 22, the attacking team gets a restart with a scrum at the point of infringement after having a kick at goal. This would stop cynical infringements where the defending team knows play goes back to a kick-off if the goal is successful, and allows the attacking team to go for a try.

 

[Physio-tahman]

TO discourage Jake-Ball How about marks can be taken from anywhere in your half if opposition takes kick from anywhere outside their quarter line to halfway?

 

[Omar Comin']

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.

Maybe at halfway, but you're hardly going to do that when you've got a scrum in centre field on the 22. Watching a dominant scrum is great, and there should be reward for dominance. But the reward shouldn't be an automatic 3 points every time there's a scrum in the opposition half.

But I'm not really talking about a dominant scrum hammering another scrum and forcing a penalty. Most of the time scrums are reasonably even but you still get all the mucking around. Teams know if the scrum collapses a few times there'll often be a penalty and it's often a lottery as to who gets it. And if you're in kicking range, and they're not, it can be worth the risk.

Getting rid of penalty goals wouldn't make scrum collapses extinct. But it would have some impact. The greater impact would be in how teams go about trying to win.

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.

But the current laws don't lead all the horses to water. The Brumbies and Sharks game wouldn't happen in a rugby without penalty goals. The reason the game was played like that was because neither team were willing to run the ball in their own half. That's due to the threat of conceding penalty goals or making a mistake and conceding possession - giving the other team a chance to force penalties and points at the scrum etc.

The weather wasn't even that bad. Teams shouldn't be afraid to play with a little bit of rain about.

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.

And none of them were top of the table clashes. 11k and 60k viewers for a top of the table clash is a pretty big indictment.

 

[Braveheart81]

But the current laws don't lead all the horses to water. The Brumbies and Sharks game wouldn't happen in a rugby without penalty goals. The reason the game was played like that was because neither team were willing to run the ball in their own half. That's due to the threat of conceding penalty goals or making a mistake and conceding possession - giving the other team a chance to force penalties and points at the scrum etc.

The weather wasn't even that bad. Teams shouldn't be afraid to play with a little bit of rain about.

Of course they would have played the same way without penalty goals.

Both teams have shown over a period of time that they want to play field position and only attack when they get the ball at the right end of the field. I think there would have been just as much kicking in this game regardless of the laws.

I think you're being too quick to make the leap that scrums only collapse because teams are looking to win penalties and that all non-running rugby is linked to there being penalty goals.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Reading so far there are a few suggestions I quite like. The scoring team kicking off could be interesting as could moving the 22m kick back to the goal line to reward attacking endeavour and precision kicking.

I'd personally like to see the short arm for evetything apart from professional fouls as per the ARC and a more judicial use of the yellow card for professional fouls. Though I think a 5min penalty exclusion could be worthwhile looking at similar to that in Ice Hockey. If the offence involves 2 players then both sit out for 5 mins and the other team gets a powerplay.

Oh, and all penalties shots at gosl become dropkicks. Place kicking only for tries.

 

[Omar Comin']

Of course they would have played the same way without penalty goals.

Both teams have shown over a period of time that they want to play field position and only attack when they get the ball at the right end of the field. I think there would have been just as much kicking in this game regardless of the laws.

Without penalty goals the only possible way to score points would be with possession. Teams might still play for field position, but the fear of playing in your own half wouldn't exist to anywhere near the same degree so even conservative teams would mix it up if they wanted to win the game. Aimless kicking downfield when under no pressure would become pointless.

I think you're being too quick to make the leap that scrums only collapse because teams are looking to win penalties and that all non-running rugby is linked to there being penalty goals.

You're misrepresenting my view. I never said scrums only collapse because of penalties. I said it is an influence. Another, for example is the modern jerseys. But there will always be some scrum collapses.

And I wouldn't want to see the game become basketball style rugby every game. That's not the point at all. Teams would still play rugby in multiple ways, we'd just get more rugby without the lengthy interruptions of penalty goals.

WorkingClassRugger's suggestion of drop kicks instead of place kicks for penalties is virtually the same idea. But I'd rather see a team forced to tap kick before they could go for the drop goal. e.g. halfback taps and passes to fly half, who attempts the drop goal. Meanwhile the defence has started to charge.

 

[Slim 293]

Let's just get rid of the goal posts all together...........

We could lay out cones and have 3 games played at the same time!

And instead of points, we just hand out McDonalds vouchers for the effort...........

Everybody wins!!!

 

[Omar Comin']

Nah, let's just do nothing and accept rugby as a niche, distantly 4th football code in Australia. Who would want to broaden the appeal of the sport anyway. We don't want an influx of riff-raff at games. They'd probably make too many loud noises.

 

[Slim 293]

More hyperbole should do the trick...........

 

[angrydog]

My two bobs worth;

- 2 point penalties
- 1 point FG
- No kicking out on the full in own 22
- BRING BACK RUCKING!
- Radically, but unrealistically, drop a man off the back row and play with 14. Allow the No8 and blindside to be interchangeable at each sides choice.

Otherwise, I like the game as is, but I know HEAPS of people who hate it because they find it too boring to watch. Whilst Europe, NZ, and other parts of the world may have no problem filling seats at Rugby matches we are competing with NRL and AFL and are getting our butts kicked. If we cannot adapt we are going to perish in the long run. Only the purists and true believers actually think we can survive by continuing in the current format.

 

[It is what it is]

More hyperbole should do the trick.....

I'm interested in the position you have taken.
You don't appear open to consider any changes to rules for the NRC.

Meanwhile there have been many rule changes introduced by the IRB over the past 10-15 years. Some have been for player safety, others speed up the game, while a number help either the attacking team or defending team depending on the situation.
Which if any of these changes would you like to see revoked?

 

[Slim 293]

That's not my position at all.........

I'm all for improvements in the laws, but what Omar and some others are proposing is essentially creating an entirely new game, and I'm completely against that............

 

[Omar Comin']

That's not my position at all...

I'm all for improvements in the laws, but what Omar and some others are proposing is essentially creating an entirely new game, and I'm completely against that....

Talking of hyperbole.

It's absolute rubbish to suggest I am trying to create a new game. What I've proposed is the exact same game...just without penalty goals. They take up about 10 or 11 minutes of game play so I'm suggesting we have more rucks, mauls, tries, linebreaks, passes, tackles, lineouts and scrums instead.

Oh and I suggested speeding up the scrum setting process, props jerseys with more grip and an extra point for a try scored from your own half.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Talking of hyperbole.

It's absolute rubbish to suggest I am trying to create a new game. What I've proposed is the exact same game.just without penalty goals. They take up about 10 or 11 minutes of game play so I'm suggesting we have more rucks, mauls, tries, linebreaks, passes, tackles, lineouts and scrums instead.

Oh and I suggested speeding up the scrum setting process, props jerseys with more grip and an extra point for a try scored from your own half.

I'n not too sure about the whole removal of penalty kicks. I think having them revert to drop kicks with a 30 second shot clock would liven that element up and encourage a little more endeavour. I don't like the lowering of points for penalties. I actually think that if anything they should be increased. Tries could become 6 points, keep conersions to 2, penalties to 4. Lowering penalties to 2 would only encourage infringing.

With the judicious use of the card system that should encourage more endeavour and discipline.

 

[Omar Comin']

I'n not too sure about the whole removal of penalty kicks. I think having them revert to drop kicks with a 30 second shot clock would liven that element up and encourage a little more endeavour. I don't like the lowering of points for penalties. I actually think that if anything they should be increased. Tries could become 6 points, keep conersions to 2, penalties to 4. Lowering penalties to 2 would only encourage infringing.

With the judicious use of the card system that should encourage more endeavour and discipline.

You're always going to get infringements in rugby.

Most penalties are not cynical infringements. Most are just guys competing and getting their timing wrong. People coming slightly from the side, or just failing to beat the ruck, or pushing off the defensive line a split second too early, or holding onto the ball a second too long. There are not many occasions where players intentionally give away a penalty.

You make penalties worth 4 points and you'll get a less competitive game. Teams would be afraid to play. Field position would become even more important and coaches would instruct their players to kick the ball away all the time.

Infringing isn't really the problem. It will happen and should happen if you want there to be a strong contest, especially for the ball. The punishment for infringements just shouldn't take up a minute of play every 2nd time! I would like the laws to encourage teams to play with the ball - with the laws favouring the attacking team...but at the same time discourage cynical or repeated infringements. Earlier use of yellow cards in place of penalty goals would achieve that.

 

[Omar Comin']

The other thing is that penalty goals allow the referee to decide a game. A penalty in a kickable position is almost an awarding of 3 points. And penalty goals are quite often the difference between winning or losing. I don't think that is ideal.

 

[boyo]

I agree that a penalty is far from ideal in determining a result, but the player(s) commit the offence, not the ref'.

No infringing = no penalty.

 

[Train Without a Station]

I'd like to see the following changes:

Reduce the contest of the scrum - Too boring;
Open the game up more - Remove 2 players, maybe the flankers;
Reduce the ruck contest - Too confusing. The tackled player should get up and ruck the ball back with his feet;
Limit the amount of phases - Too boring when teams play multiple phases. Maybe limit it to 6 phases total before a turn over;
Get rid of line outs - Boring. Just make it a tap to the team receiving instead;
Open the game up further - Move the offside like 5-10m back.

This is what we need to do to the game. Get rid of the silly rule interpretations and slow boring strength contests. Punters will love it.

 

[Brumby Jack]

Start sending in your suggestions

http://meltwater-fb-1036222.meltwaterrise.com/enter

 

[Hugie]

My two bobs worth:
Not too much wrong with the current laws, more the way they are interpreted.

• Change the refs view of off-side, about a meter back from where it is now, such that if any part of the player is off side then he is off side. Particularly around the ruck and maul. Too many players are almost a body length forward of the last foot of the last man. The refs should be recalibrated, off side line, then daylight, then the first part of the player. (the All Blacks would have trouble with that one).
• The defending half back coming around to pressure the attacking half, again if any part is forward of the ball (e.g. is hand, his nose, his foot) then it is off side i.e. move him back about a meter from what is now acceptable.
• WCR's "shot clock" for penalties, lineouts, scrum sets and resets. The ball goes to the team that is ready when time runs out.
• If a team doesn't compete at the lineout it is deemed to be straight.
• If a tackler is on his feet he is deemed to have released the tackled player. i.e. only a tackler not on his feet has to release, not on your feet = not in the game, don't participate in any way.
• The players, coaches management in the NRC get paid based on crowd attendance. That sure as hell will make them run the ball. Imagine if the Tahs player, managers and coaches were paid based on crowd attendance, we wouldn't have any of the nonsense we had to put up with over the last few years.

I like the laws as they are now it is the interpretation that can be changed to speed the game up.