YOUR experimental law variations.

probably already mentioned but failed drop goal attempts should be treated the same as punts (scrum from the spot of the kick)

Interesting how the game has changed from it's earliest roots when making a try earned zero points, and merely gave a team the chance at kicking a goal - hence the term try. Kicking goals WAS the game in it's original form (as much as we can surmise). Just interesting to see how the game has changed in 150 or so years.

what's with the 'advantage' when the other team knocks on? To get the ball (thru a mistake from the other side) IS the advantage. For sure, pull it up if they knock on too, can't have a succession of knock ons.

Surely 'advantage' should be reserved for 'breaking the laws' rather than mistakes or poor skills?

^a knock-on is only supposed to be a one phase advantage - so basically if you don't knock it on its advantage over.

Is that the law? I always see that it goes for well over one phase, or am I imagining things? It seems that if you cannot turn it into a break or such, they call it back. I can't recall it ever being only 'one phase'??

Don't know if it's the law but it does get reffed like that. Basically until after that phase and it's advantage over.

Maybe one of the refs around here will know if it's actually in the rule book.

I like it!

If not properly bound in a ruck or maul, all players, except halfback, to be five metres behind last foot. I'm sick of seeing forwards loitering around doing bugger all!

That law will do nothing except slow the game down and let players charge into rucks recklessly (which is illegal)

Saying that, welcome to the forum

We've been over this, King G.

Reckless charging is illegal, as you say. How can we get any slower than allowing forwards to peel off the ruck, and set themselves for another one when the ball is clearly available to be played. Watch some test matches pre 1991, the game was faster! The purpose of "use it or lose it" was to speed up play, not slow it down!

Scrums; the enage must be tackled. It's a fucking mess right now. I advocate that the power hit is removed and that the assistant ref/touch judge is brought onto the field to rule that attacking tight-head bind remains legal and square throughout, while ref makes similar calls for attacking loosehead side.

Packs bind, opposing front rows touch, then immediately engage (ref/touchie both affirm binding is legal, square and over the mark).. scrum feed then affirmed as straight by ref (ref actually shouts feed is straight), and all players must remain legally bound and square until ref signals that scrum is over.

For all the noise made about how diabolical the scrum is, the Super Rugby semis and the final and the Test on Sunday all seemed to work pretty well.

What's the problem again??

Charging in is only illegal if you don't bind to the player you clear, IIRC.

The scrums in the final went pretty well, but I suspect that Lawrence didn't make a lot of noise in order to assist the flow of the game. Purists might argue that he let some fouls slip through.

Give it another week or two and there will enough collapsed scrums and time set aside to reset them to reveal the problem.

I would like to see the scrum addressed.

Teams are very good at disrupting their opponents loosehead ball these days and it is getting to the stage where the best cheaters win the scrum contests. It is impossible for refs to see all that is going on and for that reason I agree with Riptide that we need an extra one or two officials to keep teams honest. Less fanatical rugby supporter friends hate the wasted time involved with endless reset scrums and are losing interest in the game.

I have recently thought a solution would be to have a 4-3-1 scrum format rather than the present 3-4-1 setup. With four players, the front row would be much more stable and the forces from the back rows would be much smaller and further distibuted. The backs would also have more room to do their stuff with the absence of breakaways. This type of scrum would make it harder to collapse, to wheel and to bore in. I can't think of any negatives.

Definitely thinking out of the box for sure, and I've never heard it for sure. Can't say I agree at all though. I mean, the lack of room for backs could just as easily be addressed by reducing number of players to 13. I want to retain props, foster their dark arts, and ensure the game keeps the scrum pretty much as is, except eliminating the collapse and endless reset as much as possible.

^^ They just need to get rid of the hit and problem solved. You tube some old tests from the 80s.. never had these problems then..