NRC Law Variations - have your say

[Rebel rouser]

I've raised this idea before to a somewhat lukewarm reception, but I'd suggest keeping everything the same except for one single law: when a penalty is awarded, remove the option of kicking for goal. (Kinda like the U12s...)

My reasoning? By having an option between kicking for goal vs kicking for touch currently, it is implicit that the advantage gained from a territorial gain is worth roughly the same as 3 points. Hence, captain gets to choose. So if one is not inherently better than the other, then you should not be significantly affecting the outcome of the game by removing the goal option... just changing the scoring method to tries.

Edit: Huh. Only after posting did I see that Omar has basically suggested the same. So, yeah +1!

 

[Slim 293]

Lukewarm?

Try cold as ice..........

 

[Pfitzy]

Time constraints on kicks, scrums, and injuries.
Refs advised to crack down hard on professional fouls
Keep the game moving and the players' exhaustion will take it from there

 

[Omar Comin']

I think the best thing Rugby could do was reduce laws.

I liked the removal of the 'no hands in the ruck' law during the ARC. Happy to see that again.

Part of the complexity at the moment is the difference in the law between a tackle and a ruck. When it's just a tackle there's no offside line and you can use your hands. The second it becomes a ruck there's an offside line, you can't use your hands and the tackler must come through the gate like everyone else.

You could simplify it by treating the tackle and the ruck the same way when it comes to the offside line and trying to win the ball. The ELV trialled allowing the use of hands at the ruck. I think the problem is it maybe gives a bit too much advantage to the defending team. The other option would be to get rid of the pilfer/jackle and not allow hands at all once a tackle has been completed. Therefore to win the ball at any tackle you'd have to drive over the ball before a teammate could pick it up.

Might be a little too radical to trial at NRC level without it being an IRB initiative...but I think it could work to simplify the laws. It would favour the attacking team but still allow the defensive team to compete for the ball if they can get greater numbers to a tackle/ruck. And it would eliminate technical penalties that result from players not supporting their body weight, holding on to the ball, or failing to beat the ruck etc.

 

[Rebel rouser]

Lukewarm?

Try cold as ice....

Disagree if you'd like. But if you want to make a statement like that, at least make it constructive. I've stated my reasons.

The game can be played in this manner already, it is just one extreme of the spectrum. Eg. The Reds v the British and Irish Lions last year. Basically, it's about backing your try scoring ability. If you can score a try in 1 out of every 2 attempts (where you were within range) then you are getting equivalent reward. And that is why there is a choice.

 

[Slim 293]

It's just batshit crazy to remove one of the integral methods of point scoring from the game.........

It would be like AFL removing the behind posts........

Anyways, it doesn't improve the game in any way..........

 

[Omar Comin']

It's just batshit crazy to remove one of the integral methods of point scoring from the game...

It would be like AFL removing the behind posts....

Anyways, it doesn't improve the game in any way....

Rugby didn't originally have penalty goals.

And for ages there was the goal from mark. Was it batshit crazy to get rid of that?

I think it would improve the game considerably so long as you use yellow cards more readily for cynical or repeated infringements. It would increase the ball in play by about 10 minutes in an average match. More importantly it would not allow teams to win by kicking the ball away and forcing penalties. Sure, teams could still do that to gain territory but ultimately they'd have to get the ball over the line or kick drop goals in general play to score points.

Penalty goals are boring, unnecessary and encourage negative tactics.

 

[Slim 293]

And once upon a time tries were worth nothing...........

Penalty goals are an integral part of our game, and they don't need discarding........

But thankfully there's no chance of that happening..........

If you want to see nothing but tries tries tries, then sevens (or loig) is your game............

This competition is about expanding the depth of Australian rugby, and turning it into some Frankenstein game is not going to help that, nor is it going to miraculously attract hordes of people............

 

[Omar Comin']

Yes, so the only constant is change. Rugby, like a lot of sports has evolved considerably and continues to do so. Many things that used to be integral parts of the game no longer exist. Just because something has existed for a while doesn't mean it is a good thing nor that it should always remain so. Why do you think penalty goals are such a good part of the game?

The ARU thankfully and obviously see this competition as about more than just developing players. Otherwise they wouldn't be looking to trial law variations.

They want to create a well supported and popular competition and broaden rugby's appeal. The only chance of that happening is if people find the rugby consistently entertaining to watch.

 

[Omar Comin']

If you want to see nothing but tries tries tries, then sevens (or loig) is your game...

This is such a straw man argument by the way. I don't want to see tries, tries, tries. I want to see teams playing rugby for more than 35 minutes out of 80. I don't want to watch one guy from each team take multiple unchallenged attempts at goal every second time the referee blows his whistle.

Besides, there'd be nothing to stop teams taking a quick tap then attempting an immediate drop goal. But at least the defensive team would have some opportunity to attempt a charge down and it wouldn't be so easy to kick the 3 points.

 

[Slim 293]

While I do want to see the referee cracking down harder on teams who infringe within the 22m I, like most, don't see any issue with penalty goals, and thankfully it's not something that's going to be removed from the game.........

 

[Omar Comin']

I, like most, don't see any issue with penalty goals, and thankfully it's not something that's going to be removed from the game...

Most fringe fans and sports fans that don't like rugby I've ever come across in Australia do have a problem with penalty goals. And time wasting, and stodgy play aimed at 'winning' penalties.

I don't think most rugby fans find penalty goals enjoyable either. It's why whenever this topic comes up people talk about changing the points system. I think it very likely that the NRC will involve law experiments designed to substantially decrease (if not eradicate) penalty goals. It'll be a primary goal.

 

[Lindommer]

My two bob's worth;

1. Scoring team kick off. This'll cut blowouts down to something respectable as the dominant team'll be denied the ball for 30 seconds, or whatever, after each try. Some junior competitions do this, Super League did it, NFL does it and it seems to work well. It'll also make the result in close games very interesting.
2. No penalties/scrums within 15m of the touch lines. Better angle for kicking to touch and a bigger blindside to work with.
3. Kicks to take 60 seconds from try scored/penalty given and clock stopped for all kicks. Support staff will have to get a kicking tee on quick smart.
4. No buggerising around with the ball at stoppages/tries scored; instant 10m if the ball's not returned immediately to where it's needed or a 10m penalty at restarts. AFL cured this 30 years ago with the 50m sanction if the ball's not given to the free kicker ASAP.
5. No time wasting at scrums and lineouts. Referees can silently count, say, 10 seconds and give a free if the scrum/lineout isn't formed.
6. Ball placed against post pads not a try. The original Law here awarding a try was written when the leading edge of the post was a vertical extension of the goal line, this is now no longer the case with post pads. The front of most modern post pads would be at least 15cm from such a vertical extension.
7. Mauls to be adjudicated as per the Law book: the ball-carrier must be bound to an opposing player at all times. As soon as that contact's broken it becomes obstruction.
8. Cynical play to be stamped out, YCs from the first minute if necessary.

Some of these suggestions could be effected now without a change to the Laws (4, 5, 7 & 8), the others won't change the look of rugby one bit.

 

[Brumby Jack]

From Monday 19th you can have your say so save your best suggestions until then.

The way to submit your suggestions will be revealed on the Wallabies facebook page

 

[BigSteve]

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.

 

[ChargerWA]

But until ^ that is adopted internationally, it is going to skew Aussie coaches into picking forwards with a higher fitness level and likely reduced impact level. Which will damage Australian rugby in the long term. One in all in. The directives have to come from the IRB.

 

[BDA]

Come off it ChargerWA!

Forcing higher fitness levels surely wouldn't damage Australian Rugby Long term. These days team carry 2 extra props on the bench, and they generally only play 20 minutes anyway. extending game time a bit will just mean that reserve props will be brought on a bit earlier.

I think we should all keep an open mind in terms of proposed changes, because whilst us rugby tragics are happy with the game the way it is, we should keep in mind that if the NRC does not appeal to a wide audience it simply wont last.

 

[JSRF10]

This isn't league or AFL, we are bound to play by the same rules as everyone in the world or else the Wallabies and Aussie franchises will ultimately suffer. Unless the IRB direct rule changes none should be applied

 

[BDA]

such hyperbole. The idea that a small change to the scoring system or stoppage rules etc in the NRC will cause the Wallabies and Franchises to suffer is nonsense. Firstly we currently have no NRC at all, so anything is better for growing our fan base than what we currently have. Secondly, the NRC's longevity will rely on its level of appeal to audience - its a cold hard fact. Unless you think we are better off with no NRC at all then we need to consider how we make it more appealing to television audiences, most of which don't follow the sport.

I'm not advocating getting rid of scrums and penalties, changing the number of players or the rules at the breakdown, etc but there might be some minors changes we could make to make the game more exciting for lay persons.

 

[boyo]

Is "hyperbole" the word of the day?