• 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.

The Konze's Rules

Status
Not open for further replies.

DPK

Peter Sullivan (51)
A couple of ideas for fixing up rugby. I know this subject has been done to death, but I'd like to have a go.

Firstly, the referees harden up and adopt this system:

Referee's MUST yellow card a player from a team that has broken a law twice previously in that game. Also, referees MUST yellow card a player who has committed three offences.

This does not restrict referee's from sin binning players from teams who have broken a law less times than this.

Example:
3rd Minute: 7. Blue is penalised for playing the ball on the ground.
10th Minute: 4. Blue is penalised for playing the ball on the ground. Referee warns Blue Captain.
14th Minute: 12. Blue is penalised for playing the ball on the ground. 12 Blue is subsequently sin binned.

Any further Blue team players who play the ball on the ground are also sin binned immediately.

25th Minute: 4. Blue fails to release the tackled player and is penalised.
46th Minute: 4. Blue leaves his feet at the breakdown and is penalised. 4. Blue is subsequently sin binned.


And secondly, the fairly straightforward "Survivor Rugby" rule:

On the occasion that the referee yellow card a player, the opposition captain decides which player will leave the field.

Example: 9. Blue is yellow carded for repeat infringements. White captain selects that 3. Blue be the removed player, who then leaves the field for ten minutes.

For particular incidents where the referee deems that it is unsafe for a player to remain on the field, the referee may yellow card said player and not allow the opposition captain his selection. This applies for all red cards; upon issuing a red card, the referee will not allow the opposition captain the selection of which player leave the field.

Thoughts?
 

cyclopath

Stirling Mortlock (74)
Staff member
Ummm, first bit, sure, but will never happen as they won't remember who did exactly what, and whether the penalty is for the exact same offence, or one similar. The current "resetting" of the offence counter after one player is binned, or half-time, or momentary delerium from the ref is just hopeless.
Oppo captain nominating who goes off? Are you insane (I ask in the nicest possible way)? So, a perfectly "clean" player, who might happen to be his team's linch-pin, say for example Dan Carter, gets binned because a reckless team-mate re-offends. How is that in any way fair to Carter? Sorry, no way.
 

vidiot

John Solomon (38)
I'd be worried that it would amplify the effect of some of the idiosyncrasies we see from officials in each game. Especially in the scrum lottery.
 

DPK

Peter Sullivan (51)
Cyclo, no offense taken.

The idea is that the punishment for offending on the field is real and effective. It's not about the effect on the player, but the team.
 

MrMouse

Bob Loudon (25)
A couple of ideas for fixing up rugby. I know this subject has been done to death, but I'd like to have a go.

Firstly, the referees harden up and adopt this system:

Referee's MUST yellow card a player from a team that has broken a law twice previously in that game. Also, referees MUST yellow card a player who has committed three offences.

This does not restrict referee's from sin binning players from teams who have broken a law less times than this.

Example:
3rd Minute: 7. Blue is penalised for playing the ball on the ground.
10th Minute: 4. Blue is penalised for playing the ball on the ground. Referee warns Blue Captain.
14th Minute: 12. Blue is penalised for playing the ball on the ground. 12 Blue is subsequently sin binned.

Any further Blue team players who play the ball on the ground are also sin binned immediately.

25th Minute: 4. Blue fails to release the tackled player and is penalised.
46th Minute: 4. Blue leaves his feet at the breakdown and is penalised. 4. Blue is subsequently sin binned.


And secondly, the fairly straightforward "Survivor Rugby" rule:

On the occasion that the referee yellow card a player, the opposition captain decides which player will leave the field.

Example: 9. Blue is yellow carded for repeat infringements. White captain selects that 3. Blue be the removed player, who then leaves the field for ten minutes.

For particular incidents where the referee deems that it is unsafe for a player to remain on the field, the referee may yellow card said player and not allow the opposition captain his selection. This applies for all red cards; upon issuing a red card, the referee will not allow the opposition captain the selection of which player leave the field.

Thoughts?

Thought: I want what he's been smoking.
 

disco

Chilla Wilson (44)
Oppo captain nominating who goes off? Are you insane (I ask in the nicest possible way)? So, a perfectly "clean" player, who might happen to be his team's linch-pin, say for example Dan Carter, gets binned because a reckless team-mate re-offends. How is that in any way fair to Carter? Sorry, no way.

Well it would certainly put an end to coaches picking reckless re-offenders in their team.
 

chequebalance

Bill Watson (15)
Why even have a referee on the field? Why not have a guy upstairs watching a TV with a loud speaker calling the infringements?
We could even have the players do a 3-2-1 before the game as to who must go in the event of a red card, with the envelopes sitting on a tray on the sideline. In the event of a card being issued, the drama of the card opening would be more then the evictions of season 1 of Big Brother, It's time to go...... Then the fake look of commiseration on the faces of the remaining players and conciliatory hugs and promises to catch up when they get off. We could then interview the player who has been carded and ask them probing questions as to why they think the opposition choose them as the first player to go, with the usual response of, "I guess they seen me as the biggest threat", when in reality they just seen him as a d#ck. We could even have a late night uncut version hosted by "Van Roll C#nts Humphries" which would be aired on Channel 9 at some ridiculous hour just before the highlights of the actual game. Or... we could just leave it to the referees to adjudicate the game to the best of their abilities.
 

MajorlyRagerly

Trevor Allan (34)
Far too harsh and the referee subjectivity will have a larger effect on the games result than it does now.

Part of the attraction of the game to it's followers (us) is the knowledge which you must have to even enjoy it. I.e, the laws are complex, can be difficult to adjudicate and I doubt there is anybody on the planet, outisde perhaps the top 15-25 refs who even actually know all the laws.

I like the way the game is played differently across the planet, and the reffing has a bit to do with that. You want stop start, stop start go with guinness permiership. You want to watch nothing but scrum collissions - go watch Top 14. Want to see some running, watch the S14.

As fans, you simply need to accept that the laws aren't always going to be applied the way you like them & players will often, probably in almost every ruck, play outside them. It's just simply what makes rugby, rugby. This is not to say things are perfect as they are and should be immune from criticism, not at all. But creating more laws/ideas/procedures for teh man in the middle to try and get players to follow the laws, is overlooking a key ingredient of what rugby is all about (in my opinon).
 

DPK

Peter Sullivan (51)
The idea isn't to create more rules, more stoppages or more confusion, but I assume that noone really sets out to do that.

What I was aiming for was to create a scenario where a player doesn't break the rules because the punishment is much worse than the benefit of committing the penalty. Losing a key player punishes the team.

I'm not deadset that this is the way the game should be played, I was just trying to provoke some discussion of a way to smooth the game out. I love rugby, and I won't be told that games like the Brumbies vs Reds, where one team has 9 shots at goal, is rugby.

I agree that the complexity of the game is what makes it great, but enforcing the rules doesn't make it any less complex.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top