NRC Law Variations - have your say

[Braveheart81]

No problem with teams playing predominantly 10 man rugby if that's what they think is their best tactic to win. I just believe rugby would be a better game if teams had to score the points themselves when the other team has some chance to stop them.

Why should the referee essentially have the power to directly award a team 3 points for often technical infringements? 2 random scrum penalties on the halfway line that are converted into penalty goals are worth more than a 20 phase try scored in the corner with a missed conversion. It doesn't make sense.

Why? The two penalties on the halfway line are very difficult to kick. Notice that Australian kickers in particular struggle with those. Several of our most accurate kickers can't kick that far.

The referee in every sport has a huge say on how a match goes because they are the judge of whether players are following the laws.

I don't understand why someone 'getting their timing wrong' shouldn't necessarily result in points. That's a huge aspect of the game. A game of rugby becomes far worse when players are allowed to slow the ball down at the breakdown because 'they got their timing wrong' and had a go at the ball when they were no longer entitled.

 

[Scoey]

Sorry I didn't mean to 'play the man' but I found the language in a couple of your posts highly patronising so I reciprocated. The point is that because they have to attempt with drop kicks penalty goals are virtually removed from sevens unless it's right in front near the end of a close match. If you're happy to make penalty goal attempts drop kicks then we'd basically be in agreement because in my proposal teams would be able to kick drop goals from penalties. I would prefer if they had to tap then attempt the drop goal but wouldn't mind if they didn't have to tap first so long as they had a time limit of 20 seconds or so.

No problems, I was trying not to sound patronising but if I came across like that then it was not intended so sorry about that also.

I think we're starting to get into the nuts and bolts of it though. You have made a few references to referee's essentially gifting 3 points to teams but I can't get on board with this train of thought. It is the infringing players that cost the 3 points, not the referees. Yes, referees will always make mistakes and sometimes that results in points but this is also the case with tries. Tries have been incorrectly awarded at times but there are no calls to scrap them.

Also the time taken to take the kick. I would be fine with this being shortened to 30-45 secs or something similar. The deterrent must remain though. Having players carded is severe action and has a big impact on the game so there needs to be something in between. In your example where a team goes through 20 phases to score in the corner, if you remove penalty goals I think you will see the end up multiple phases ending in tries.

And whilst their thoughts are certainly valid I wouldn't rely too heavily on the number of comments on the Wallabies Facebook page. In my experience, comments made on Facebook pages are rarely well thought out or considered and are usually a spur of the moment reaction to whatever the topic is. Again, I'm not trying to be patronising but it is a reality of Facebook as a medium that people will see a post, type in the first thing that pops into their heads, hit reply and then move on.

Rugby at the moment has got the balance fairly close to spot on. It's not perfect and I don't think anyone would suggest that it is. The closer you get to having the balance close to right then any changes made run the risk of upsetting that balance more then getting you closer to being perfect. I think removing penalty goals is too drastic a change to be positive.

 

[Omar Comin']

Why? The two penalties on the halfway line are very difficult to kick.

The referee in every sport has a huge say on how a match goes because they are the judge of whether players are following the laws.

Well it's difficult to do lots of things in rugby and most of them don't score points. But a few answers to your question:

Because referees are often guessing or could blow a penalty either way. Because a try involves a lot more work from the entire team (or special effort from individuals) and is what supporters want to see teams doing or trying to do. And because a try (or for that matter a drop goal) is easy to understand and less down to interpretation.

Why do you think it a good thing that contentious referee decisions and scrum collapses and so forth result in a direct 3 points?

Referees will always have an influence, but I just think it would be better if they didn't have such direct influence on the score. If they make decisions that award a team with possession and a territorial gain, or that remove a player from the field, then at least the team that benefits still has to actually score the points. And not from doing something that is as simple and as dull to watch as kicking the ball off a tee through the posts without any ability for the opposition to contest it.

I don't understand why someone 'getting their timing wrong' shouldn't necessarily result in points. That's a huge aspect of the game. A game of rugby becomes far worse when players are allowed to slow the ball down at the breakdown because 'they got their timing wrong' and had a go at the ball when they were no longer entitled.

Because it's boring, often subjective, pedantic and unnecessary. Why is conceding territory and possession not enough for non-cynical technical offences? It works in many other sports. Why have all these momentum stoppers? Cynical offences, give a card straight away. Repeated offences, use the card as it is used now. Technical and non-cynical offences, territory and possession is enough.

 

[Omar Comin']

Anyway, lets just agree to disagree. We'll see what happens when the NRC committee put forth their preferred suggestions/variations.

And then ultimately we'll see what impact any changes have. Maybe there'll be some genius stuff that none of us have thought of before.

If something to reduce penalty goals significantly is implemented, and it has an overall negative impact then I would have no problem admitting I'm wrong. But you guys seem to be unwilling to even fathom being wrong. And whether you like them or not, a lot of people don't enjoy all the penalty goals in rugby. I think it is worth trying some things in this and other areas.

It's pretty easy to adjust or scrap something that doesn't work as intended as soon as that becomes obvious. The 'yes 9' call for scrums a recent example.

 

[Quick Hands]

One thing which could be looked at is a shorter temporary suspension. Keep the 10 min sin bin for some things, but punish certain penalties with what in water polo is known as an exclusion.

For example in water polo if there is a change in possession and a team is making a counter attack and bringing the ball quickly out of defence, a foul by the team not in possession results in an exclusion. The player has to swim to a corner and stay there until posession changes or the other team has a shot a goal.

The devil wouild be in the detail, but the principle is that negative play should be penalised. Often a penalty slows down the attack to such an extent that a penalty goal becomes an option. I also believe that there should be plenty of lattitude around quick taps, if they are within a metre of the mark let;s just play on. Why reward the team which has slowed the pay down and infringed because the non-offending team wasn't on the right blade of grass?

 

[Omar Comin']

Good ideas Quick Hands. I hope you submitted them to the ARU.

The pedantry around which blade of grass a tap is taken from can be quite funny. I think if it's in line or behind the mark it should be play on.

 

[Quick Hands]

Good ideas Quick Hands. I hope you submitted them to the ARU.

The pedantry around which blade of grass a tap is taken from can be quite funny. I think if it's in line or behind the mark it should be play on.

I'd even say a metre either side (but not in front).

 

[Bullrush]

I'm starting to think that Rugby just might not be the game for you.

This is the conclusion I came to about Omar.

 

[#1 Tah]

This is the conclusion I came to about Omar.

Come on guys - you're banging on about how we can't alienate the fan base, and now you're telling a fan, who obviously cares deeply about the game and wants it to be successful, that rugby isn't the game for him.

I think it's awesome that we have such great debate here about the laws of the game, and this is why the ARU have a panel to decide on this and aren't just leaving it all up to us. If Omar want's the option to take a shot at goal from a penalty scrapped, then good on him, I'm sure he has submitted it for consideration. Just because his suggestion is from left field doesn't make it any more or less valid than any other suggestion.

Also, I believe the argument that young players playing under different rules will find it harder to adapt to the top level is invalid. Has the Big Bash league, or the Sheffield Shield (where four days are played instead of five) made us a weaker cricketing nation? Hell no! We all know the latest Ashes result.

I think before we can start tinkering with laws, we need to understand what the primary purpose of the NRC is - is it to bring the crowds back, develop players, or just filler to run under the Rugby Championship?

If it's to bring the crowds back, maybe we should look at scrapping penalty goals - it's one of the biggest gripes with modern rugby among non-traditional fans. If you walked up to an NRL fan and told them they could watch a game of Rugby without seeing the boring kicks at goal, they would sign up and bring the kids along too.

But if we want to develop players for the next level, we need to place an emphasis on the things that Australian Rugby has deficiencies in - meaning we need 80 minutes of long range place kicks, rolling mauls and scrums.

Obviously these are the extreme cases on both sides, and I am exaggerating a little, but my point is that the ARU have provided a form where anyone can submit laws and anything is on the table.

 

[Pusser]

One way to increase the time in play is to stop the delays at the scrum when forwards take an "injury " rest. Have a set time to get the scrum set and if it is not the first side ready should have the option of a scrum with the feed or a free kick. You could do the same with line outs.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Angus Ross]

1. Reduce each half to 30mins, but stop the clock when a scrum or lineout is called. The clock restarts when the ball leaves the scrum (or the scrum moves more than 2 m) or when the ball leaves the hooker's hand/is thrown in to the lineout. You'd need to set a time limit to set the scrum to stop mucking around- I'm able to watch a game of rugby on my iQ in 60 mins when I fast forward through scrums and lineout preparation).
2. When a penalty./free kick is called the offending team must immediately release the ball where it is- otherwise immediate 10m advancement of the penalty/free kick if the transgression occurs inside the offenders 22m, the attacking team then has the option of a penalty in front of the posts. I'm sick and tired of seeing a penalty against a team and the half back or lock goes to ridiculous lengths to pretend that they're letting the ball go but really are slowing the play down.
3. Advantage when in the attacking 22m is cumulative during the current phase and the 3rd offence is an immediate yellow card for the 3rd offender. For example at 2nd phase defending team doesn't release, at 5th phase defending team comes from the side, 9th phase defending team interferes with the half back- the third offender gets a yellow card when play next stops (irrespective of whether a try is scored)

 

[Gorgodze]

G'day all,

Apologies if this idea has been raised before but it came to me like a vision while watching the Reds game last night.

What about, if all current penalty offences committed by a team on attack (with the exception of violent play - i.e. starting a fight when you have the ball) resulted in a short arm rather than a penalty.

Reasons:

a) The defensive team's primary desire is to get the ball back - a short arm still rewards their good play - i.e. pilfering for example - because they get the result they're after - succesful defence and regaining possession

b) It does not punish the offensive team in a way that is disproportionate - i.e. a team on the attack on halfway who holds onto the ball in the tackle too long or inadvertantly runs interference in a backline move loses the ball but does not cop 3 points - clearly a disproportionate outcome for a team that was on attack and often trying to play good footy with no desire to cheat

c) The defensive team in this situation doesn't lose the oportunity to score points arising from a turnover (say for example the infringment was after full time and the scores were level) - because they can still earn points after a quick tap but have to do it through their offensive play (including by drawing a penalty) rather than just getting Morne Steyn to bang it over from 55 out

d) Keeping long arms for all current penalty offenses against teams on attack keeps the dissincentive for cheating in a way that reduces attacking opportunities - which is important to encourage attacking football and stop defenders slowing down the ball.

I think this is a good idea because rugby grapples with the balance between dissincentivising negative or cynical play while having less games decided by penalties. I think in this regard the biggest issue is the number of penalties earned by the rediculously good pilfering skills of modern players (I blame the great man George Smith). Rewarding these skills with turnover ball is enough and rubbing out penalties for it would lead to a lot more quick taps and a lot fewer games decided, and momentum destroyed, by plays that simply aren't negative or cyncial in a way defenders killing attacking play is.

Thoughts and thanks for reading a long and boring post.

ps - look out Melbourne tonight - Brumbies haven't been the same this season since McCabe was dropped - this is the best team picked all year.

 

[Tangawizi]

Get rid of the Torso Try!

 

[Braveheart81]

@Gorgodze - I disagree with some of your logic behind your argument.

Firstly, you've made it sound like a penalty on halfway is a gift three points. The fact that only a handful of kickers can reliably kick goals from there is surely an indication that it's far from a guaranteed three points.

The laws of the game exist regardless of whether you do something intentionally or not. Someone getting it wrong at the breakdown needs to be penalised because they're interfering with the flow of the game either by slowing down the attacking side or by not letting the defensive side win a turnover that they have rights to. It becomes very difficult if we start trying to differentiate between who is intentionally doing something wrong and who is just executing poorly.

Teams need to be discouraged from breaking the laws. The worst rugby games happen when the breakdown isn't effectively refereed and teams can get away with anything.

Penalty goals would be a problem if they were causing the inferior team to win more often but I just don't see that occuring. The Stormers beat the Sharks on the weekend despite scoring one less try but I didn't think they were really the inferior team.

 

[Omar Comin']

The shortlist from the NRC rules committee is supposed to be released for public vote today. Maybe they're waiting until the evening to do so?

Braveheart, the reason so many people would like to change the laws to reduce penalty goals isn't because any teams are winning unfairly, it's because they are boring. It's funny you mention interrupting the flow of the game because nothing does that more than penalty goal attempts.

 

[Braveheart81]

The shortlist from the NRC rules committee is supposed to be released for public vote today. Maybe they're waiting until the evening to do so?

Is there even a public vote at any point?

 

[Omar Comin']

Is there even a public vote at any point?

Yeah apparently they'll all go to a public vote.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Is there even a public vote at any point?

They probably have to clear the list of variations with the IRB first before they can allow a public vote. That way, they can ensure that no matter the mix they end up with it cannot be vetoed by the IRB.

 

[Braveheart81]

They probably have to clear the list of variations with the IRB first before they can allow a public vote. That way, they can ensure that no matter the mix they end up with it cannot be vetoed by the IRB.

It would seem that might be the case.

It seems difficult for the IRB to rule on a whole lot of hypotheticals though. Approving a certain set of laws might be agreeable but if the result is that only some of them are used, that result might not still be agreeable.

Anyway, I guess we'll find out soon enough what the plan is.

 

[Omar Comin']

I doubt the IRB will be a problem. The NRC variations are unlikely to be any more radical than what's been tried in the South African Varsity Cup.