NRC Law Variations - have your say

[It is what it is]

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.

Very true and a penalty awarded in the 79th minute is worth the same points as one given in the 1st minute.

 

[Braveheart81]

• 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.

If you never go to ground, you're not a tackler.

I think it's important that the player who assists in the tackle and stays on their feet has to show daylight before they can go for the ball. It would be too much of a bonus for the defensive team if that player didn't have to release the tackled player.

 

[FiveStarStu]

i don't know if this has been said previously but a law that i'd like to see is:

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.

I love this idea. If it gets too troublesome for the ref to track, have the soccer concept of additional time marked by the fourth referee or TMO.

I reckon the Reds v Rebels match would have been a cracker if the Rebels got the kick return, only to find out they had to survive five more minutes.

Fans pay for eighty minutes, give them eighty minutes.

 

[Slim 293]

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.

\

Then teams shouldn't infringe with the game on the line.........

 

[Slim 293]

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.

It will be a hit in Australia and PNG!

 

[boyo]

And northern England.

 

[KevinO]

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.

You forgot that you can only steal the ball in a one on one tackle.

 

[KevinO]

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

Yes you can, the team that scores more trys wins, even if they are behind on the score board from penalty kicks, imagine if this rule exist England would have never won a World Cup.

 

[terry j]

Yes you can, the team that scores more trys wins, even if they are behind on the score board from penalty kicks, imagine if this rule exist England would have never won a World Cup.

yeah, in my idle moments I have pondered this!

at the very least, if you lose yet score more tires it should be another bonus point.

 

[Omar Comin']

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.

The problem is it's hardly ever that black and white. It's down to interpretation. And in a high percentage of rucks you could penalise either team. Players are almost always going off their feet as a consequence of competing for example. But you can't change that unless you want a game where the whistle blows every 10 seconds...or a game where teams are afraid to play in their own half.

For a lot of people the rules are so technical they don't understand why a penalty has been given. And that includes certain former Wallabies that commentate on the games! When a referee interpretation has such a direct influence on the score this is highlighted.

Anyway, I don't expect the NRC committee to get rid of penalty goals. I'd guess they'll reduce the points or what types of infringements are kickable. But I've thought about this a lot and my opinion is that the best, most simple option would be to get rid of them completely (other than the fact people could tap and go for drop goals from penalties). No one likes them, they interrupt play for 10 minutes of most matches, they give complex refereeing interpretations too much influence, they allow negative kick the ball away and spoil tactics to be effective, they make teams afraid to play in their own half and they're not needed because yellow cards used properly would provide enough punishment for cynical or repeated offences.

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

I suggested teams with the worst scrum (collapse) percentage at the end of the competition are deducted of some bonus points.

(suggestions link)
http://meltwater-fb-1036222.meltwaterrise.com/details

 

[TheKing]

http://propelperform.com/rugby-law-change/#sthash.pa3iQ3Wo.dpbs

The search is over. Rugby Union no longer has to experiment with rules that seem like a good idea in the boardroom but fail miserably on the field. No more Special Committees, Experimental Law Variations or Think Tanks.
The proposal below sorts out the two major issues surrounding Union: increasing ‘ball-in-play’; and rewarding ‘attacking rugby’.
It also stays true to the ‘fabric of the game’: an emphasis on set pieces (scrums and lineouts); and competing for the ball at every opportunity.

There have been other proposals that sound good at the time but are doomed to fail.
For example, there are many that say that the try should be worth more points. While good in theory, this will not work for the same reason that decreasing the points a penalty is worth won’t work.
The fundamental drawback with the above-mentioned propositions are:
When the value of the try is increased, there is a concomitant increase in value of stopping that try.
For example, an astute player understands that giving away a penalty (off-sides, not releasing, etc.) might only be 3 points, compared to a potential 7-point try.

A similar concept applies to decreasing the value of a penalty: Decrease the value of the penalty goal and you decrease the willingness to not give away that penalty.

Rod Kafer, on Rugby HQ, suggested that there should be time periods when teams are not allowed to kick. Again, sounds good in theory: less kicking equals more running rugby.

The flip side, of course, is that any team that knows the other team cannot kick will bring their wingers and fullbacks into the defensive line, clogging the midfield even more.

​

The Proposal​

Any rule changes must satisfy the following criteria:

• Increase attacking rugby/reward the attacking team.
• Increase ball-in-play.
• Must not de-emphasise scrums and lineouts.
• Must allow for contest of the ball.

So here we have it:

If a defending player infringes in their own half* they are yellow carded until the following set piece, penalty, or until after the following kick at posts (conversion, penalty or drop goal).

Read that again.
Breaking it down, note:

• It can only be the player on the defending side that is sent off.
• It only applies in the defensive half*.
• It lasts until following scrum or set lineout; or until the opposition decides to kick for points.

Does the proposal satisfy the criteria?​

• Increase attacking rugby/reward the attacking team.

Yes! The team with ball in hand, in the opposition’s half is rewarded if anyone infringes against them.
They are then further rewarded by having an overlap for as long as they keep the ball alive.

• Increase ball-in-play.

Yes! The longer the attacking team keep the ball alive, the more fatigued the defending team will be due to the extra workload. Ball in play is heavily rewarded. In fact, skillful ball-in-play is heavily rewarded.
If the attacking team elects to kick for touch or have a scrum, the carded player will be able to return immediately for that set piece.The attacking team will look to have ‘quick throw-ins’ to prolong the time the infringing player is off the field.
If the attacking team opts to kick for posts (penalty, conversion or drop kick), the carded player will be able to return immediately afterwards.

• Must not de-emphasise scrums and lineouts.

Yes. While there may be an increase in quick throw-ins, the normal lineouts will remain integral to the game.

• Must allow for contest of the ball.

Yes. Defending players in their own half* will just have to be more astute.
So, all criteria are satisfied.
Some additional details:

• The offending player only runs off the field, not to some designated area. In other words, the longest distance for any player to get off the field would be 35m (assuming 70m width). They have to stay on ‘their’ side of the Assistant Referee.
• A player deemed to be taking too long to get off the field will cause their team to lose an additional 10 metres.
• Quick lineouts don’t count as a ‘set piece’, therefore a player cannot return to play.
• Scrums are always eight on eight.

With Australia introducing the National Rugby Championship (NRC) later this year we have an ideal platform to launch, monitor and adjust this law change.
- See more at: http://propelperform.com/rugby-law-change/#sthash.pa3iQ3Wo.dpuf

 

[ChargerWA]

This is where my thoughts have been going lately. Ice hockey style short penalties. It's the best way to incentivise an attacking team to keep the ball in hand while they have a numerical advatage without hurting the fundamentals of Rugby.

A change I would make to the above would either for an off side penalty only incurring a send off of committed in your own 22. Or make it the second penalty by the defending team occurs a send off. Losing a player on the first seems a little harsh.

 

[TheKing]

A change I would make to the above would either for an off side penalty only incurring a send off of committed in your own 22. Or make it the second penalty by the defending team occurs a send off. Losing a player on the first seems a little harsh.

It may seem harsh, but it heavily incentivises teams not to play game-killing rugby inside their half, and in any case, they have only lost a player until the next break in play. If they elect to pack a scrum or kick for touch, then the team doesn't lose a player at all. The only advantage to be gained by this rule is a numerical advantage that can be nullified by making a single mistake.

I so desperately want to see this trialled. This change would breed clinical execution, create more space for attacking rugby etc etc etc.

I think this is so perfect

 

[Scoey]

It may seem harsh, but it heavily incentivises teams not to play game-killing rugby inside their half, and in any case, they have only lost a player until the next break in play. If they elect to pack a scrum or kick for touch, then the team doesn't lose a player at all. The only advantage to be gained by this rule is a numerical advantage that can be nullified by making a single mistake.

I so desperately want to see this trialled. This change would breed clinical execution, create more space for attacking rugby etc etc etc.

I think this is so perfect

Can I play devils advocate just for a second? First I'll say, I really like what you posted up but I have one concern, and it's probably only a little one.

A team is defending and infringes just inside their own half: the offending player leaves the field. The attacking team are punching the ball up the middle but concede a turnover. The team down a player has a good opportunity for a counter attack but simply hoof the ball into the corner to get their missing player back.

I know that if the other team manages a quick throw it's still play on but some of the best rugby I see comes from turnover ball counter attack. I would hate for that to be less attractive to teams.

Like I said, probably not a big deal because it wouldn't happen a lot but still thought I'd mention it.

 

[TheKing]

Can I play devils advocate just for a second? First I'll say, I really like what you posted up but I have one concern, and it's probably only a little one.

A team is defending and infringes just inside their own half: the offending player leaves the field. The attacking team are punching the ball up the middle but concede a turnover. The team down a player has a good opportunity for a counter attack but simply hoof the ball into the corner to get their missing player back.

I know that if the other team manages a quick throw it's still play on but some of the best rugby I see comes from turnover ball counter attack. I would hate for that to be less attractive to teams.

Like I said, probably not a big deal because it wouldn't happen a lot but still thought I'd mention it.

Great point.. logically I'd say there needs to be a condition where the defending team regains position the player is allowed to rush back on to the field.

Maybe if the player is made to sit in the touch judges pocket while off the field he would be able to get back on the field quickly enough to assist in the counter.

Great point though.

 

[Omar Comin']

On its own I don't think it would have as big an influence as you expect.

The vast majority of the time teams would still kick for goal where they would normally. Scoring a try from a tap kick, even a man up is not easy. You'd have to go through the phases for 20-50 metres and most of the time you wouldn't score.

I remember reading a while back that the average amount of points a team scores with a man up from a yellow card is around 6. And that's in 10 minutes.

 

[Omar Comin']

When the value of the try is increased, there is a concomitant increase in value of stopping that try.

Teams already do everything to try and stop tries. It would make a negligible difference on the defensive team. If anything, they'd have to be more disciplined. It's easier now for the defensive team because they know if they give away a penalty the attacking team will kick for points. They might then take a while to get hot on attack again. It usually takes a few penalties close to the line to get on a yellow card warning, so they're safe to give away a few knowing they'll concede a shot at 3 points, and will be able to relieve the pressure without conceding 5 or 7.

If teams were encouraged to keep attacking, then they wouldn't be able to keep giving away penalties as they'll get yellow cards much sooner.

When the varsity cup introduced 2 point penalty goals and 3 point conversions there was only a minor increase in the number of penalties (something like 5% - i.e. about 1 per game, yet a big decrease in penalty goals). I would also bet there was an increase in the ball in play time, so relatively it probably stayed about the same.

If you devalue, or even get rid of penalty goals all you have to do is use yellow cards sooner for repeated or cynical infringements. You don't need to make it any more complicated IMO.

 

[Bullrush]

The thing that annoys me about these discussions is that people who want drastic changes to the rules harp on about rugby being the 4th most popular sport here and Australian spectators don't enjoy the game as it is etc etc.

Well, just go and make your own game that you think will excite your fellow Australians and maybe a few other people around the globe and play that......you've already got 2 of those. But please leave this game free of the majority of your rule changes.... this is rugby and most of the rugby world quite like it.

 

[Braveheart81]

The thing that annoys me about these discussions is that people who want drastic changes to the rules harp on about rugby being the 4th most popular sport here and Australian spectators don't enjoy the game as it is etc etc.

Well, just go and make your own game that you think will excite your fellow Australians and maybe a few other people around the globe and play that..you've already got 2 of those. But please leave this game free of the majority of your rule changes.. this is rugby and most of the rugby world quite like it.

I agree with this.

Law trials should tinker around the edges at the things that frustrate core rugby fans the most.

I would say that large chunks of time being lost to scrum resets etc. is the most frustrating and that can easily be fixed by stopping the clock.

I think the concept of changing the game to interest people who aren't currently interested is a complete folly and will only lead to alienating the existing fans.

People largely follow particular sports they've either grown up playing or following or that they get into because of friends, family or colleagues because they are exposed to it a lot of want to belong.

E.g. my boss is a big rugby league fan but watches more rugby union now than he would have previously because he knows I'm a tragic and he wants to be able to engage with me more on the topic.

I really don't think there are many people looking for new sports to follow and they sit down and watch a bunch of them and decide what they find the most exciting or interesting.