Experimental rules/laws.

[Rebels3]

I think the captains challenge works a treat if the TMO isn’t able to interrupt the game as currently happens. That way teams will point out play that they deem is foul or incorrect. Also would mean we can just get on with the refs call. Would of almost certainly meant the Reds disallowed try last night would of been awarded because I don’t think the Brums would of challenged it and the Brums would of referred Wrights hand on the ball at the end of the match.

Would dramatically speed up the game without the TMO interruption all the time.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

I think the captains challenge works a treat if the TMO isn’t able to interrupt the game as currently happens. That way teams will point out play that they deem is foul or incorrect. Also would mean we can just get on with the refs call. Would of almost certainly meant the Reds disallowed try last night would of been awarded because I don’t think the Brums would of challenged it and the Brums would of referred Wrights hand on the ball at the end of the match.

Would dramatically speed up the game without the TMO interruption all the time.

If they are limited and it eliminates the TMO interfering with the flow of the game. Then it might be alright.

I keep saying 'flow' because I actually think that's more important than speed. Keeping the game moving is important but not at the expense of having a good contest. The NRL are seeing blowouts all over the place with players beginning to call them out on it for trying to have a collision sport played at touch speeds. Which hurts the contest.

 

[Dan54]

Mate, I agree. Unfortunately tv are the paymasters these days and if they say they will give you $X to show your game, but can you do this, that and the other, the people accepting the money are going to go along with it. In Australia anyways where we weren’t sure what the future held without fox. not sure why NZ are stuffing around with the rules that much when it’s the only show in town. As an aside, Anyone remember when they were having the soccer World Cup in America and CBS wanted the goals bigger and breaks so the could slot ads in? FIFA just said no. You wonder if they’d have more of a discussion 30 years later.

Yep Drew, being a f***en rugby tragic (obviously I got no life) I go into a few rugby forums, and almost universally the golden point is disliked, actually almost all the variations are. I personally don't know anyone who like them as a whole, but that maybe because I spend a lot of time talking rugby to old buggers like me at rugby games etc. Maybe I need a life.
The honest truth is most don't make a hell of a difference to game, but it feels so wrong to me a; players can ask for a refs decision to be checked when you got 4 refs running game, b; you can kick the ball away and bounce it into touch and get the throw in (without it being a penalty, c; you have 2 teams hammering shit out of each other for 80 minutes and they locked together at end, so we have 10 minutes of forceback to see who is winner. Win, lose or draw are results of games. (I can live with it in a final where a winner is seemingly required. d; all though it doesn't annoy me quite as much, a team is hammering away at tryline, player goes over and held up , so opposition can get to kick the thing 50 metres back down the field, although I will some of mates like it, or say like me they can live with it.
Still I wonder what rules are going to get used in TT, players and refs will have to adapt.

If they want to adjust laws do it to the ones that allow a player to hold the ball and his teammates can all stand in front and prevent anyone getting to him, they call it a maul!

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

WR (World Rugby) have launched "Game On Global", a suite of optional Law Variations that members can apply to community rugby from January:

"Optional changes include the number of players on each team, the duration, field size, replacements, tackle height, weight restrictions, kicking and set piece modifications.

"Teams must play with equal numbers but that could range from 10 to 15 players per-side, depending on availability. In the case of a 10-a-side match, scrums can be contested by five players from each team."

10-a-side rugby? World Rugby makes sweeping changes to community game

World Rugby hopes several law variations will improve safety and participation challenges.

www.nzherald.co.nz

Full details here:

‘Game On Global’ community law variations to advance rugby accessibility and welfare | World Rugby

Welfare and accessibility are at the heart of Game On Global, a groundbreaking programme of optional community law variations launched by World Rugby and national member unions today.

www.world.rugby

https://resources.world.rugby/worldrugby/document/2021/11/26/29c29456-608f-4bf5-8987-f740de6cf747/Game_on_Global_ENGLISH.docx

 

[Dismal Pillock]

Seeing increasing number of NZ players now instinctively looking for the 50/22 option.

Good rewards if you can nail it.

Beats players launching lazy speculative shithouse midfield bombs thats for sure.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

^ I'm still a bit on the fence but given I initially hated it I may yet come to if not love it then at least be able to live with it.

 

[Dan54]

Seeing increasing number of NZ players now instinctively looking for the 50/22 option.

Good rewards if you can nail it.

Beats players launching lazy speculative shithouse midfield bombs thats for sure.

Well I was not a fan of them at all, but liked them for awhile yesterday when the Jordie pulled off a couple.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

"The 50/22 is an abomination upon the game...

".... except when it's Jordie Barrett doing it, eh Mrs Dan?"

"Yes, Dear"

 

[Dan54]

Yep, he's done it now, so bin it again

 

[Dismal Pillock]

Downside of 50/22 is it just ends up with 5 metre line lineouts and the inevitable undefendable rolling maul where anyone trying to defend their line is pinged whereas the attacking team join in front of the ball carrier, from the side, peel off and go around again, do the conga, stop the thing 3 times and start again, bit of Electric Boogaloo, whatever the fuck they want to do until the hooker plops over the line.

I'm wondering if the penalty kick to the corner for your lineout should be done away with. When non rugger sorts see that they must think how absurd. The game stops and a guy kicks it uncontested 5 metres into the stands and his team gets the ball back. Just WFT.

 

[LeCheese]

Downside of 50/22 is it just ends up with 5 metre line lineouts and the inevitable undefendable rolling maul where anyone trying to defend their line is pinged whereas the attacking team join in front of the ball carrier, from the side, peel off and go around again, do the conga, stop the thing 3 times and start again, bit of Electric Boogaloo, whatever the fuck they want to do until the hooker plops over the line.

I'm wondering if the penalty kick to the corner for your lineout should be done away with. When non rugger sorts see that they must think how absurd. The game stops and a guy kicks it uncontested 5 metres into the stands and his team gets the ball back. Just WFT.

High skill and reasonable risk to attempt a 50/22, incentivised by reasonably high reward if points are somewhat likely. I think it's been a great addition to the game and added a much needed attacking option. Agree that the mauls are a mess though (and bloody boring footy), not sure what the fix is

 

[PhilClinton]

High skill and reasonable risk to attempt a 50/22, incentivised by reasonably high reward if points are somewhat likely. I think it's been a great addition to the game and added a much needed attacking option. Agree that the mauls are a mess though (and bloody boring footy), not sure what the fix is

Allow the defending team more ways to stop the progress of a maul, within the laws of the game. So no grabbing players heads, necks etc or coming around from an offside position, but let them pull players out and down and make plays at the ball by reaching over the top.

Putting some power back in the defending teams hands makes the maul a less appealing option for attacking teams. Good teams though will still be able to setup and use them, but it's a higher risk play.

Either that or make it a simple use it or lose it from the moment the maul gets halted. Essentially giving the attacking team one chance to form the maul and get moving, if at any stage the maul is stopped, the ball must be released and played. Nothing irks me more than hearing the ref say "that's once" and then the attacking team has time to tighten up and add more players and score.

 

[LeCheese]

Allow the defending team more ways to stop the progress of a maul, within the laws of the game. So no grabbing players heads, necks etc or coming around from an offside position, but let them pull players out and down and make plays at the ball by reaching over the top.

Putting some power back in the defending teams hands makes the maul a less appealing option for attacking teams. Good teams though will still be able to setup and use them, but it's a higher risk play.

Either that or make it a simple use it or lose it from the moment the maul gets halted. Essentially giving the attacking team one chance to form the maul and get moving, if at any stage the maul is stopped, the ball must be released and played. Nothing irks me more than hearing the ref say "that's once" and then the attacking team has time to tighten up and add more players and score.

I think your second suggestion is probably the way to go, would be a nice way to speed things up a bit as well. A first step would be being more consistency around the stop/starts now, seems to be a lot of variability across refs/games/individual mauls as to what constitutes halted forward movement

As for your first suggestion, I can't really see more freedom for the defensive team being introduced. Allowing for less structure around a maul, and more methods of collapsing/disrupting could be seen as a risk from a player safety perspective.

 

[D-Box]

For rolling mauls, the closest point the line out can be could be shifted back out to 10m (at least for penalties). A 10 m rolling maul is a much more difficult proposition.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

I think your second suggestion is probably the way to go, would be a nice way to speed things up a bit as well. A first step would be being more consistency around the stop/starts now, seems to be a lot of variability across refs/games/individual mauls as to what constitutes halted forward movement

As for your first suggestion, I can't really see more freedom for the defensive team being introduced. Allowing for less structure around a maul, and more methods of collapsing/disrupting could be seen as a risk from a player safety perspective.

The ELV I mentioned earlier specified that any tackle had to be at least waist-high to avoid the scenario of a player going to ground & causing the maul to essentially trip over him which is obviously dangerous esp if the prone player isn't seen by the mauler(s).

 

[LeCheese]

The ELV I mentioned earlier specified that any tackle had to be at least waist-high to avoid the scenario of a player going to ground & causing the maul to essentially trip over him which is obviously dangerous esp if the prone player isn't seen by the mauler(s).

I'm pretty sure that ELV was about lowering accepted tackle height from where it is currently (shoulders and below) to either nipple-line and below or waist and below, not raising it to between waist and shoulder.

Either way, I was talking about Phil's suggestion to allow more ways to effectively sack the maul - so the safety comment was less about players external to the maul being trodden on (although is still definitely a consideration), and more about those within the maul collapsing on one another.

 

[liquor box]

The extra time variations come up so little that I don't see them as much of an issue. I'm going to go in the opposite direction and actually suggest more variations.

In MLR they are trialing the 60 second shot clock. Which is working well. I'd like to see it tried here. I also want stricter application of the use it call. As in there's none of the delay we see when 9s stand there for 5 seconds after being told to use it. It should be that if the ball is just sitting there and the 9s is there when 'use it' is called the ball must move immediately.

I also want to see tweaks to the advantage application. In the Top League many refs call penalty advantage but will remove it when play has progressed 25m down field. Keeps the flow of the game going nicely. Should be applied here. Same for kicking away advantage. You've got the call try to use it. If you kick it aimlessly down field (note there a difference between a cross field kick and just pointing down field) then it should be forfeited.

Nothing major. Just things to maintain the flow of the game.

I would have a scrum and lineout shot clock as well.

I agree with the advantage rule as well, but it could also be based on number of passes or rucks formed before advantage is over.


If I had my way I would adjust maul rules, if a maul is formed within 15m of the try line then there has to be a pass prior to the try being scored. This stops the try scorer just collapsing onto the ball without the defence having a chance to stop him. If you cant stop it from 15m then you get what you deserve.

I have also wondered if a goal line punt as opposed to a dropout would be better, it would allow for a high bomb to be kicked where both teams can contest the ball, or a more accurate cross field kick to catch the opponent out giving the kicking team a better option for trying to attack after the kick.

I would think any "victim" of a head knock that results in a penalty or card should be mandatorily tested under a concussion protocol and other injuries that stop play should where safe remove them to the side line like soccer and allow the game to continue.

 

[PhilClinton]

Article doesn’t add much to our above conversation but it shows the issue is at least being discussed.

To be fair Marshall’s view on how to stop the maul (sack the jumper before it can form) seems to be taken from back in his playing days. As noted above the laws these days are quite clear on preventing players being collapsed. It’s also incredibly hard to get hands on the ball because a well trained team has already positioned their two lead blockers at the front of the maul virtually as the jumper lands.

Has the rolling maul become too powerful as an attacking weapon?

All Blacks great Justin Marshall has taken aim at the proliferation of rolling mauls in Super Rugby Pacific, suggesting it's time for a rethink on the powerful set-piece place to achieve a greater "balance" between attack and defence.

www.espn.com.au

 

[Jimmy_Crouch]

Majority of the issues can just be resolved by refereeing the laws. Attacking team are taking the piss at the maul at the moment. They are getting away with murder.

 

[PhilClinton]

Majority of the issues can just be resolved by refereeing the laws. Attacking team are taking the piss at the maul at the moment. They are getting away with murder.

Agree, there needs to be better delegation of responsibility between lineman and ref. Let’s be honest a team defending its own try line are policed more heavily than any other place on the field.

If the ref wants to keep an eye on them, that’s fine. But the touchy needs to be looking at the maul setup in that case, instead of having both officials slamming the defensive side.