World Rugby to trial new Law variations

[WorkingClassRugger]

Apparently looking to speed the game up and further sort out the scrum among others. http://www.the42.ie/world-rugby-law-trials-september-2015-2324926-Sep2015/

 

[TOCC]

Some interesting variations, and it's important to note that not all of them will progress on to higher levels but I think they are a step in the right direction.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Pfitzy]

Some good stuff there.

 

[Scoey]

Will be interested to see how they go. I'm not a fan of changing the points value but. If they had to change them I think very slowly is the go. Either bring kicks back to 2 and leave tries at 5, or tries to 6 and leave kicks at 3 (conversions at 2pts).
I think the points changes in the NRC have highlighted that it was too big a change, too quick.
An interesting point made in the comments of that article was that with the points all being even numbers, there is no chance of having a 1 point ball game and the lead changing with a kick near the end. A close game will be a 2 point lead and teams being able to kick for a draw. Expect more draws.

 

[Gnostic]

Very important point Scoey. I like the fact that very few rugby game are ever not decided. I always found soccer immensely frustrating with the number of undecided matches , along with the diving and acting that is.

 

[Lindommer]

in my lifetime tries have gone from 3 to 4 to 5 and now, possibly, to 6 points. Hasn't improved positive play nor has it discouraged negative tactics along the way. Reduce penalties and droppies to two while upping the use of cards, that'll cut out negative buggers in a heartbeat. How would NZ rugby feel if Sean Fitzpatrick was carded the first time he wandered between a scrummie and five-eighth rather than copping a warning? Or Richie was given no latitude for falling the wrong side of a ruck? And others.

 

[neilc]

Interesting - judging by the comments on that article this was announced back in September but this is the first I have heard about it.

Some of these changes, like the playing on at the end of the game if there is a penalty when time is up, are being used in the NRC and make good sense. I'm a bit confused about the 5 metre drop out - what scenario would lead to this?

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I'm a bit confused about the 5 metre drop out - what scenario would lead to this?

I assume its for when you dont fancy your feed on your own line for fear of a pushover tight head.

 

[Omar Comin']

Good, I hope SANZAR get the jump on it and use all these changes in Super Rugby next year. Along with a couple of the other NRC variations (like the quick tap not having to taken from a specific blade of grass).

I'm a bit confused about the 5 metre drop out - what scenario would lead to this?

Sounds like it'd just be if someone knocks on over the line in the process of trying to score a try.

 

[Marcelo]

With those laws, we would never have had problems to beat the Scots

 

[dru]

I'd have been tempted to REDUCE points value. Try to 4points, penalty/conversion/drop 1 point.

If the value to "non tries" wasn't considered enough, try value to be 3 points.

 

[Teh Other Dave]

Perhaps I'm blaspheming, but taking the hit out of the scrum engagement is a good thing. Moving the scrum half to his side to feed the scrum seems ridiculous though. There is already advantage in having the loose head, allowing the feed to move one shoulder width towards his goal line is heading into mungo territory.

 

[wamberal]

Perhaps I'm blaspheming, but taking the hit out of the scrum engagement is a good thing. Moving the scrum half to his side to feed the scrum seems ridiculous though. There is already advantage in having the loose head, allowing the feed to move one shoulder width towards his goal line is heading into mungo territory.

In the last 50 years there has been a huge shift in just about everything to do with the scrum.


Surely the basic issue is that the non-offending side ( ie the side that did not commit the offence that caused a scrum to be required) should have a clear advantage. That's the way it used to be. That is the way it should be now. By the way, that advantage should lead to something congruent with the original offence that caused the scrum to be set. It should not lead to a penalty, or, heaven forbid, to a yellow card against one or other of the front rows.


The totally disproportionate effect that the scrum has developed over the last 20 years is not in the spirit of the game. The side which did not commit the original error should be able to win their own ball relatively reliably, and they should the use the bloody ball through the hands, and enough of the nonsense whereby a referee who has never put his head into a scrum in his life, and who does not know what is really going on, makes game-changing decisions. That is just total bullshit, and a very recent invention.


Enough of the scrumathons, thanks.

 

[Quick Hands]

Like Lindommer I've seen the value of tries increased from 3 to 4 to 5, with the same explanation given each time. At the lower levels of the game a 6 point try will lead to still more blow out scores.

World Rugby must be watching different games to the ones that I see if they think that the team putting the ball in needs any further advantage. The number of scrums which go against the feed (particularly at the top level) is miniscule - in fact there's far more likely to be an obscure penalty found than there is a tighthead scrum win.

I like the idea of no scrum option for FKs after an incorrect kick - this should be extended to all FKs. Also on this referees have decided that once they give a FK for a scrum infringement, all subsequent infringements will be a PK - this is not in the law book and needs to be stopped.

The wheeling scrum ruling indicates that WR (World Rugby) are almost completely divorced from reality. When was the last time that anyone on these threads can remember a scrum being reset after it wheels? I can't recall one for at least 5 years - what we see is that referees rule that one team is either pulling back or walking around (neither of which are found in the law book) and issue a penalty.

I see that they haven't addressed the issue of teams using the scrum as a penalty obtaining process rather than a ball winning process. A simple amendment - except in the case of an attacking 5 m scrum where a pushover is being attempted, once the ball moves beyond the 2nd row, the scrum penalty is off the table and the teams must use the ball or lose it.

 

[Omar Comin']

Like Lindommer I've seen the value of tries increased from 3 to 4 to 5, with the same explanation given each time. At the lower levels of the game a 6 point try will lead to still more blow out scores.

Well what counts as a blow out is relative to the points system. But if they're going to go 6 for a try and 2 for any type of goal they may as well make it 3 and 1.

 

[terry j]

I see that they haven't addressed the issue of teams using the scrum as a penalty obtaining process rather than a ball winning process. A simple amendment - except in the case of an attacking 5 m scrum where a pushover is being attempted, once the ball moves beyond the 2nd row, the scrum penalty is off the table and the teams must use the ball or lose it.

amen

 

[wamberal]

The only possible rationale that I can think of for a 6 point try, is that this would bring us into line with American Football, where a touchdown is worth 6 points.

 

[Omar Comin']

The rationale is the same as the NRC. Reduce the prevalence and incentive to kick penalty goals.

But I think the reason it's 2 and 6 rather than 1 and 3 is probably to keep scorelines more comparable to what they are now.

 

[liquor box]

the points value means nothing to me, if it was 50 points for a try, 30 for a penalty or field goal and 20 for conversions I would not care.

It just means the end score is higher but the game can be just as good.

If I see a game that is 4 tries to 3 with both teams choosing to run the ball than take penalties then it is probably a good game regardless whether it is 280-210 or 28-21.

 

[Kangaroo Sausage]

Increasing points for a try and decreasing for a penalty will also increase the incentive for a defending team to concede penalties to keep their line intact. Essentially rewarding cynical play. Not saying it's a bad thing but will require a strategy to combat this.

Sent from my SM-T705Y using Tapatalk