Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
Yes, the irony of the kicking emphasis is interesting.
Australia domestic rugby 2020
- Thread starter Rugbynutter39
- Start date
Yes, the irony of the kicking emphasis is interesting.
I don't mind it.
Holding up the attacking team over the try line seems like it should be rewarded rather than the result being to face a defensive 5m scrum which is about the best attacking platform available.
This is the biggest change really as it switches which team benefits from something happening (and isn't entirely new like the 22-50 and 50-22 changes).
Blue
Andrew Slack (58)
In Australia perhaps. Other that fixing time wasting at scrums, the rest of the world just don't see the problems with the game that Australia does. In no other country does the game require to "respond" to two other codes and their mob of journalists continuously rubbishing it for being boring and this and that.
Australia can experiment all it wants, but other than scrum resets, I will be surprised if ANY of these changes are ever tried anywhere else.
Here are my suggestions:
1. Select better
2. Coach better
3. Pass better
4. Kick better
5. Defend better
6. Two resets max at scrum, then forced short-arm that has to be run.
7. Don't employ stubborn dickhead coaches.
Up the Guts
Steve Williams (59)
What gets me about the rule changes is that none of them are original, they’re all just ported straight from League.
The Nomad
Bob Davidson (42)
The NZ games last weekend showed proper policing of the breakdown rules certainly opened things up. Lots of penalties blown , but didn’t effect the flow of the game with teams mostly playing on quickly rather than opting for team meetings before deciding what to do next .
Brumby Runner
Jason Little (69)
With you all the way BH. If it does revert to a scrum, it should be with the defending team's feed.
what gets me about the law changes is that they had this big committee working on them for months didn't they? And they basically are just using the ones from the NRC, Matt To'omua's "no marks from chips" and the 20-minute Red Card.
wamberal
Phil Kearns (64)
What gets me about the law changes is that we need our best players playing under the recognised international laws if we want to do well against other international teams.
None of these changes are really changing anything dramatic though. There will still be 5m scrums, just less of them.
There will still be defensive players trying to catch a kick inside their 22. They just won't be able to claim a mark.
The kicking rules are changes but I don't see how encouraging more skilled general play kicking can be a negative for us.
We're not experimenting with anything fundamental here.
wamberal
Phil Kearns (64)
I was totally in favour of, and highly hopeful for the results of, the Stellenbosch Project. The only changes that will be adopted by the whole game are the ones that originate in Europe. So I suspect we are kind of wasting our time and energy a bit.
The 50-22 variation and the goal line dropout have both originated from the World Rugby Law Review Group which meets in London.
These are experiments being pushed by World Rugby for trial in various competitions.
These aren't things we've invented that have no prospect of ever happening.
kiap
Steve Williams (59)
With NRL taking Melbourne Storm out of Vic to compete, it's got to be likely SRAu follow suit.
Rebels might need to find an away-from-home base like the Force have done ( if that is still possible?)
Starting to get a bit hard now.
Either way the odds on any 2020 games in Melbourne or Perth are starting to look long.
Rebels might need to find an away-from-home base like the Force have done ( if that is still possible?)
Starting to get a bit hard now.
Either way the odds on any 2020 games in Melbourne or Perth are starting to look long.
dru
David Wilson (68)
Perhaps, but Perth is looking good for a Bled.
