If you could change the laws of rugby, what would you change?

[TOCC]

Interesting comments, i like the idea of been able to call a mark anywhere in your own half. What was the thought behind changing the rule to start with, it obviously had some sort of negative impact on the game, does anyone know what they were?

 

[Quick Hands]

Interesting comments, i like the idea of been able to call a mark anywhere in your own half. What was the thought behind changing the rule to start with, it obviously had some sort of negative impact on the game, does anyone know what they were?

IIRC it was that people were calling the fair catch from kick offs. In those days most kick-offs were short (around the 10m line) and there was no law about tackling a player in the air, so no-one ever jumped to catch a kick - ever. You were taught catch kicks with both feet on the ground and your shoulder to the opposition.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

I suggest they the penalties were slightly up eyes and ears moreso because you had more actual playing time watching attacking rugby (ie less stoppage for kick for penalty goals).

The higher yellow cards reflects what was saying that yellow card is important to deter repeat offenders

 

[Brumby Runner]

I've been involved in too many debates over the NRC points system so am reluctant to wade in again. What I will say is that the changes to the points system in the NRC (on the evidence to date) didn't discourage penalty goal attempts, it effectively removed them from the game altogether.
The changes were aimed at encouraging more tries and discouraging penalty goal attempts and in this endeavour, they missed the target.

IIRC at least one game last year was won by a penalty kick after the final siren.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Substitutions.

Take a leaf from AFL. They have an interchange zone for each team marked on the oval.
The substituted player must cross the boundary line inside the interchange zone markings for their team, and the substitute player can not step into the playing area until the substituted player has crossed the boundary line.

There were eleventy thousand match officials and administrators at SFS and they still got it wrong in the last game on Day 1 of the Sydney 7's.
I can't recall specific game details but there have been other occasions where teams have had more than the allowable 15 (or 7) players in the playing area in pro rugby.

Clearly the current arrangements are not failsafe and need to be reviewed and revised. Not saying that NZL deliberately cheated but the final check and balance in the system is the substitute themselves. Shouldn't the substitute have to take some responsibility for ensuring that the player they are the substitute for has actually left the field?

 

[Strewthcobber]

Substitutions.

Take a leaf from AFL. They have an interchange zone for each team marked on the oval.
The substituted player must cross the boundary line inside the interchange zone markings for their team, and the substitute player can not step into the playing area until the substituted player has crossed the boundary line.

There were eleventy thousand match officials and administrators at SFS and they still got it wrong in the last game on Day 1 of the Sydney 7's.
I can't recall specific game details but there have been other occasions where teams have had more than the allowable 15 (or 7) players in the playing area in pro rugby.

Clearly the current arrangements are not failsafe and need to be reviewed and revised. Not saying that NZL deliberately cheated but the final check and balance in the system is the substitute themselves. Shouldn't the substitute have to take some responsibility for ensuring that the player they are the substitute for has actually left the field?

Think it was trialled somewhere at one point. In XVs anyway.


Iirc the belief was that it slowed the game down unacceptably. Wait for a storage. Wait for players to amble off, wait for subs to amble on etc etc

 

[Pfitzy]

No - in interchange, the game doesn't stop. If your player "ambles" then he's putting the whole team at a disadvantage.

Tactically you need to time the subs for those instances where you have the ball and are somewhere useful on the field, handy to the interchange area.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Substitutions.

Shouldn't the substitute have to take some responsibility for ensuring that the player they are the substitute for has actually left the field?

Not if World Rugby is going to voluntarily take the responsibility, which I believe they have.

So, WR (World Rugby) accepts responsibility; some NZ poster here have said that the Aus team and officials should have noticed; NZ just babes in the woods.

 

[Quick Hands]

There is a sideline official responsible for the replacement/interchange process at both 7s and 15s. Either the replacement didn't get clearance from the official to enter the field of play or the official erred in allowing him to do so before the replaced player had left the field of play.

Don't expect anything from it other than a Sir Humphrey style internal inquiry.

 

[Pedrolicus]

I would suggest putting the onus on the teams/players rather than officials. Yellow card for having more than you should on the field if it's noticed. Forfeit the result of it's only noticed later.

 

[suckerforred]

Further to the "interchange" situation..... At the Reds v Brumbies trial on the weekend when Poey got binned another Brumbies player went on. (Jordan Smiler I think it was). Took several minutes of the crowd yelling out about numbers before the official stopped the game to check. Not sure what the reason was but thinking that there may be some problems in the system.

 

[Eyes and Ears]

Given that trial results are not really important, it is often common practice for a YC player to be replaced in a trial. This ensures that the offending player is punished and more playing time is achieved for players which IMO is one of the main objectives of trials.

 

[suckerforred]

I was wondering that at the time E&E, but it had not been played that way for the Crusaders the week before. But the shear confusion showed by the officials makes me think that perhaps the "process" needs looking at.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

That is probably a good idea but that local arrangement needs to be documented somewhere to prevent confusion, particularly if the entertainers are charging folks for the privilege of watching the entertainment.
The punters have emotional energy invested in the supporting their team, and they want to see their team win (or play well) even if the Coaches are still tinkering with the team and don't really care about the result. They expect the "usual" laws and conventions to apply. Things like a 15 man bench also confuse, but I can see the merits of that in a trial from a Coaches perspective.

Wondering about your thoughts on replacing a sent off (Red Card) player. The Player is suitably chastised and will probably front Judiciary, but the two teams and Coaches get to play out their trial as rugby was meant to be player, 15 vs 15.

An ARU endorsed Game Management Guideline may be all that is needed to set things right. Something along the lines of "Subject to both teams agreeing before kick off, Players suspended (yellow card) or sent off (red card) may be replaced during the games which have been designated as trial matches, subject to both teams agreeing to this before kick off and informing the Match Officials of this agreement."

 

[Eyes and Ears]

HJ, you raise a good point once money is charged, then there are a higher levels of expectation from fans. IMO you have to be wary when you pay to go to a trial as it is definitely possible that neither team are trying to win the game. Many of the other rules (bench size, quarters, rolling subs, 3 teams etc) are amended to suit trial conditions and I don't see why YCs and RCs should be any different. Consent from both teams before the game is a sensible way of managing this. I am not sure that we always need the ARU to create policies to support it. I prefer a common sense approach but appreciate that guidance can facilitate sensible outcomes.

 

[Scoey]

I have not seen such cynical play in a long time as I did from the Brumbies in that particular game. The YC was a relief and I thought that it might be the catalyst for some more positive intent from the Brumbies as it was clear that such play was beyond the capacity of my team. I noticed Pocock being replaced and normal play being resumed and my hope fell away as normal play resumed.

HJ's point is a good one. Yes it was only a trial but it is the second taste of Rugby for fans that have been itching to see Super Rugby again. We were never going to be watching it as 'just a trial'.

 

[Dismal Pillock]

This mental stretched-out hindmost foot from the ruck allowing the halfback to tuck in his napkin, do the crossword, wave to mum in the stands, adjust his taint, put his hands on the ball, feel the stitching and have a read of the Gilbert's fucken psi, all prior to taking his sweet motherfucking time launching the 850th "fuckit, I give up" box kick of the afternoon 15 metres downfield, a kick which is immediately run back by the opposition to exactly where they all were standing in the first fucken place.

At one stage Tonga had FOUR GUYS snaking back to the halfback, all tenously bound with their back leg stretched out to give the halfback about 10 metres space from which to launch his precious "fuck this shit, I give up" gambit.

CHANGE IT, IRB.

Let's go back to "as soon as the halfback touches the ball, even with his damn foot, he is fair game."

 

[Derpus]

I'd fuck mauls off without a moment's hesitation.

 

[Dismal Pillock]

Mauls are an integral part of rugby but are too tricky to officiate let alone defend legally these days. I would remove the finicky laws and make mauls even more brutal:

"Any defender can try and pull down the maul from anywhere. The ball no longer needs to be transferred to the hindmost attacking player. Also, any prick can enter the maul from any angle. Fuckit, they do half the time anyway. Once the ball is trapped, the defending team receives possession."

That'll encourage the pricks to get out there and run.

 

[cyclopath]

Mauls are an integral part of rugby but are too tricky to officiate let alone defend legally these days. I would remove the finicky laws and make mauls even more brutal:

"Any defender can try and pull down the maul from anywhere. The ball no longer needs to be transferred to the hindmost attacking player. Also, any prick can enter the maul from any angle. Fuckit, they do half the time anyway. Once the ball is trapped, the defending team receives possession."

That'll encourage the pricks to get out there and run.

On the weekend, the practice of "swimming" around the maul was evident in several matches and seemingly not heavily policed. Be interesting to see how mauls play out in coming weeks. Not to mention players joining in front of ball carrier and so on. Reffing the maul is very organic.