• Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

Ideas for NRC

The Honey Badger

Jim Lenehan (48)
Suggest the Mods amend the the thread title and delete 2016.


I take it the infringement limit is a number and is still been worked out????

Pretty much this is the way games are reffed anyway. Repeated infringements, say not rolling away quickly enough. Get 3 penalties and most refs will say the next one goes to the bin. Same with scrum penalties, a random prop is binned after repeated infringement. I assume the purpose of the law is to mandate it at number X and not leave it to refs discretion. Thats good for consistency I guess.

But does it have to be the same infringement?? Can it be any breakdown infringement by the same team. Say 2 X Not Rolling away and 1 X Not through the gate?
 

RugbyReg

Rocky Elsom (76)
Staff member
I would expect the goal line drop out distance and direction to be entirely at the discretion of the kicker. Players would need to be behind the goal line to be onside at the time of the kick.

does the kick receiving team have to be 10m back like a kick off, or 22m back?

If it's 10ms back then its another bloody line on the field.
 

WorkingClassRugger

Simon Poidevin (60)
does the kick receiving team have to be 10m back like a kick off, or 22m back?

If it's 10ms back then its another bloody line on the field.


The solution is to just have them 5m from the kick. There's already a line there and they'd be no farther away than a current 22m. I'd also like to see them use the GRR 'no kick to touch' on the full from your own 22m variation as well.
 

Bobas

Darby Loudon (17)
These trial laws are so predictably boring.

The accumulated penalties for yellow cards has always been too hard to quantify or make explicit. Now it will just create more negative tactics to play for the yellow.

Drop outs for held up... How about just a 22m tap to the attacking team, which would mean that when it happens in injury time it isn't game over.

The other law I want to see trialed is that the attacking team serves any penalty (not just foul play) supersedes knock-on advantage. Sick of seeing a good forced ruck penalty (for holding on) brought back for a scrum.
 

Lindommer

Steve Williams (59)
A pet project of mine: scoring side kicks off to restart play. Super League did it, NFL does it, I convinced my son's mini comp to do it and it reduced 85-0 thrashings to 30/40-0. Imagine a close match at the death, the scoring side doesn't get the ball back enabling their opponent a chance to catch up.
 

WorkingClassRugger

Simon Poidevin (60)
A pet project of mine: scoring sides kicks off to restart play. Super League did it, NFL does it, I convinced my son's mini comp to do it and it reduced 85-0 thrashings to 30/40-0. Imagine a close match at the death, the scoring side doesn't get the ball back enabling their opponent a chance to catch up.


Certainly wouldn't mind seeing it trialled.
 

The Honey Badger

Jim Lenehan (48)
A pet project of mine: scoring side kicks off to restart play. Super League did it, NFL does it, I convinced my son's mini comp to do it and it reduced 85-0 thrashings to 30/40-0. Imagine a close match at the death, the scoring side doesn't get the ball back enabling their opponent a chance to catch up.
I'd like the scoring side to have the option to kick off or receive.

So a team with a 1 point lead with minutes to play could elect to kick off and play field position rather then receive and risk a penalty.
 

chibimatty

Jimmy Flynn (14)
The other law I want to see trialled is that the attacking team serves any penalty (not just foul play) supersedes knock-on advantage. Sick of seeing a good forced ruck penalty (for holding on) brought back for a scrum.
Yup, that's one of my pet peeves also
 

Uh huh

Alfred Walker (16)
Here's one I've been stewing over for a while:

At present, if a team is attacking and has a penalty advantage, there could be a perverse incentive (particularly if it's in the dying minutes and they're behind by six or seven) not to score in the corner, but rather to accept the penalty for a better chance of scoring in a good position for the conversion. While I accept this exact case is very unusual, I have seen plenty of instances where teams might've been better off not finishing their attacking movement in the corner when they had advantage. You could also argue the current process incentivises committing a penalty offence to stop a try in the middle for the chance of the attacking team being pushed wide and scoring in the corner.

A simple solution is that tries scored while the attacking team has penalty advantage don't need to be converted, much like a penalty try. It would also add a greater incentive for attacking teams to do something wild when they have penalty advantage, like a cross kick or chip and chase.
 

Eyes and Ears

Colin Windon (37)
It is an interesting legacy of the laws of the game that a try out wide is on average not worth as many points as a try under the posts. There would definitely be ways to resolve this issue however I suspect that most fans would like to keep the drama of a sideline conversion. My own opinion is that the individual skills of goal kicking have become too important relative to the team skills required to score points or set up those goal kicking opportunities. Therefore I would be happy to see significant change in this area eg why aren't all tries just worth 7 points and then there is no conversion? It would also remove 60 seconds of dead time. Plus it solves the issue mentioned above.
 

Jimmy_Crouch

Alan Cameron (40)
Here's one I've been stewing over for a while:

At present, if a team is attacking and has a penalty advantage, there could be a perverse incentive (particularly if it's in the dying minutes and they're behind by six or seven) not to score in the corner, but rather to accept the penalty for a better chance of scoring in a good position for the conversion. While I accept this exact case is very unusual, I have seen plenty of instances where teams might've been better off not finishing their attacking movement in the corner when they had advantage. You could also argue the current process incentivises committing a penalty offence to stop a try in the middle for the chance of the attacking team being pushed wide and scoring in the corner.

A simple solution is that tries scored while the attacking team has penalty advantage don't need to be converted, much like a penalty try. It would also add a greater incentive for attacking teams to do something wild when they have penalty advantage, like a cross kick or chip and chase.


I like it. The biggest one that does my head in when teams have multiple advantages but score so get no further benefit. If the defending team actually stop the try they would get a yellow card but generally the team scores and all is forgotten.

I'd also change the dropped goal law. If a player attempts a dropped goal but misses and goes dead it is just like a kick in general play (scrum from where it was kicked).
 

RugbyReg

Rocky Elsom (76)
Staff member
One idea I'd like to see introduced is teams announcing their 23 at a reasonable time. It's ridiculous that games are tomorrow and four teams haven't been announced.
 

Adam84

Tony Shaw (54)
I guess it’s pretty hard in a semi-professional comp to do that though, you don’t have the luxury of forecasting out depending on a number of external factors like work and injuries. It’s easier to do so in a professional comp when players injuries and rehab are all handled in house on a daily basis.

I think what the NRL does with their team naming is pretty clever, a squad of 21-man squads names for all 16 clubs is named on Wednesday, updated with 19-man line-ups 24 hours before each game and with the final 17-man sides one hour before kick-off.

Something similar could be done in the NRC, with a squad of 27 named on Wednesday, then whittled down come game day.
 

Jimmy_Crouch

Alan Cameron (40)
One idea I'd like to see introduced is teams announcing their 23 at a reasonable time. It's ridiculous that games are tomorrow and four teams haven't been announced.


100%. Wrong thread but this is especially important for Super Rugby. All teams should all have to submit their playing 23 to the competition manager (SANZAA) for release at the same time. This would also include an NFL style injury report noting expected return dates of players.

Media, fans, betting agents, punters, fantasy sports players would all appreciate it. What is wrong with transparency?
 

Uh huh

Alfred Walker (16)
I like it. The biggest one that does my head in when teams have multiple advantages but score so get no further benefit. If the defending team actually stop the try they would get a yellow card but generally the team scores and all is forgotten.

I'd also change the dropped goal law. If a player attempts a dropped goal but misses and goes dead it is just like a kick in general play (scrum from where it was kicked).

Completely agree, I've wanted that changed for years.
 
Top