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

[Brumby Runner]

All true Cyclo. Especially in the Wallabies game, the Fijians were swimming around the side to get at the ball carrier at the back in many of the mauls.

I have also noted this year that the Wallabies (and the Super teams beforehand - especially the Brumbies) had players joining in front of the ball carrier. Most evident when the backs join to make it a 10 - 12 man maul. Mauls are too difficult to police and much too difficult to stop legally. There needs to be some simplification like use it the first time it stops, or some more lenient law about pulling it down.

But on the subject of mauls as they are right now, Rory Arnold again showed his value in setting up the Wallabies attacking mauls. He keeps it moving forward and is almost impossible for the opposition to get around him to come through the middle to disrupt.

 

[Tex]

England were doing it very effectively against Tonga. Not directly interfering with the ball player, but certainly loitering slowly on the wrong side of the maul before gently removing themselves onside.

 

[Strewthcobber]

England were doing it very effectively against Tonga. Not directly interfering with the ball player, but certainly loitering slowly on the wrong side of the maul before gently removing themselves onside.

Is it offence to be on the wrong side of the maul if you got there legally?

 

[cyclopath]

All true Cyclo. Especially in the Wallabies game, the Fijians were swimming around the side to get at the ball carrier at the back in many of the mauls.

I have also noted this year that the Wallabies (and the Super teams beforehand - especially the Brumbies) had players joining in front of the ball carrier. Most evident when the backs join to make it a 10 - 12 man maul. Mauls are too difficult to police and much too difficult to stop legally. There needs to be some simplification like use it the first time it stops, or some more lenient law about pulling it down.

But on the subject of mauls as they are right now, Rory Arnold again showed his value in setting up the Wallabies attacking mauls. He keeps it moving forward and is almost impossible for the opposition to get around him to come through the middle to disrupt.

It's like parking a moai in the middle with him there.

 

[cyclopath]

Is it offence to be on the wrong side of the maul if you got there legally?

No, if you come through the middle. Most getting to the other side on the weekend in the games were taking an alternate Google Maps route.

 

[zer0]

Mauls are too difficult to police and much too difficult to stop legally. There needs to be some simplification like use it the first time it stops, or some more lenient law about pulling it down.

I'm all for this. It annoys me greatly that it's illegal for the defence to collapse the maul on the ground of player safety. Yet those safety concerns don't matter if you have the ball, as the attacking team can collapse it at their leisure once they're over the line.

Either let anyone pull it down, or start penalising attacking teams if anyone but the ball carrier goes to ground.

 

[Dismal Pillock]

Not a huge fan of legendary tuff guy Bruno Elizabeth continually reaching over mauls and pulling opposing players jerseys up and over their heads.

So they can't see.

Cool tactic bro.

 

[Dctarget]

On Bruno, not a fan of him jumping into every tackle he runs into.

 

[Finsbury Girl]

A few things:

i) rucking
ii) 15 man scrums
iii) Stop cleaning out 20 metres past the ruck
iv) If a half back has his hands on the ball, he has played the ball and is fair game to be smashed

 

[Proud Pig]

A few things:

i) rucking
ii) 15 man scrums
iii) Stop cleaning out 20 metres past the ruck
iv) If a half back has his hands on the ball, he has played the ball and is fair game to be smashed

I would like to modify iv) a little to be: If a half back, he is fair game to be smashed.

I think that would improve the game greatly for all.
Maybe not so much for the half backs but we all secretly know they would love it, the feisty little scamps.

 

[Uh huh]

Here's one I posted in the 'Ideas for the NRC' thread:

At present, if a team is attacking and has a penalty advantage, there could be a perverse incentive (particularly if it's in the dying minutes and they're behind by six or seven) not to score in the corner, but rather to accept the penalty for a better chance of scoring in a good position for the conversion. While I accept this exact case is very unusual, I have seen plenty of instances where teams might've been better off not finishing their attacking movement in the corner when they had advantage. You could also argue the current process incentivises committing a penalty offence to stop a try in the middle for the chance of the attacking team being pushed wide and scoring in the corner.

A simple solution is that tries scored while the attacking team has penalty advantage don't need to be converted, much like a penalty try. It would also add a greater incentive for attacking teams to do something wild when they have penalty advantage, like a cross kick or chip and chase.

 

[Forcefield]

Although it would be quite detrimental to the current Wallabies, I'd like a mark to be able to be taken from anywhere on the field. It might stop the incessant box kicking stodge of some teams.

 

[Dan54]

A few things:

i) rucking
ii) 15 man scrums
iii) Stop cleaning out 20 metres past the ruck
iv) If a half back has his hands on the ball, he has played the ball and is fair game to be smashed

Not sure what you mean by rucking FG, but if they can tidy it up, maybe .
not keen on 15 man scrums but......
Agree about cleaning out past ruck, but that is already a law you can't go too far
Agree about HB, oh hell do I agree with that one (mind you I was a lock when you could do what you wanted with them anyway)
One othe I amy like is with a droppie, if it misses and goes dead it is treated as an ordinary kick where theam gets option of scrum.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

^ I assumed FG wants to bring back rucking (yes please); stop backs joining scrums (agree), stop guys cleaning out past the ball (already covered as you say, just needs to be policed way better) & ball to be "live" as soon as the 9 touches it (with proviso that the smasher come from an onside position, agree with proud pig ).

I'd want rolling maul to be classed as obstruction as soon as there's a player in front of the ball-carrier OR able to be taken down per the ELV from a few years back.

 

[wamberal]

Also the half back is not allowed to fake picking up the ball. If he moves his hands towards the ball, the ref should say play on.

 

[Dismal Pillock]

Also the half back is not allowed to fake picking up the ball. If he moves his hands towards the ball, the ref should say play on.

haha, that'd be some fun. "But Sir, I wasn't reaching for the ball, I was just waving to my mum in the crowd."
"But Sir, I wasn't reaching for the ball, it was just my arm epilepsy flaring up momentarily."

 

[Beer Baron]

Also the half back is not allowed to fake picking up the ball. If he moves his hands towards the ball, the ref should say play on.

This is as bad as diving

 

[Proud Pig]

Rolling mauls are the area that I think need the most work.
Now, I like any other low numbered god, love a well executed rolling maul.
However, as it stands they are almost impossible to defend legally.

This is why they are the go to for most sides when they have a penalty on attack.
The scrum used to be the best attacking option as it created open play for the backs to actually earn their money, rather than just standing around preening as the Adonis's of the front row showed them what it is to be a real man.
Now, penalty on attack is a simple choice of take the three or go for the line and the rolling maul.

I am sick of seeing defenders being forced to swim around the outside of a maul to get to the ball carrier because going through the six players in the middle is a virtual impossibility.

And, when a player legally does gets through the middle of the maul and is about to reach the ball carrier the attacking team just takes it straight to ground and the defensive team is called for collapsing. This happens a lot, I would suggest almost 50% of collapses are the result of the attacking team taking the maul to ground.

The other really frustrating part of mauls is the classic truck and trailer, either get properly bound or get called for obstruction (this is applying a rule rather than a rule change I know).

So, I would like it if there is an attacking player between the defense and the ball-carrier, consider them the ball carrier and as such they are allowed to be tackled from an onside position and brought to ground.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

^ that was pretty much the ELV with the proviso you couldn't take out someone's legs. No idea why they binned it but I suspect them oop North disn't like it.

 

[Brumby Runner]

A few things:

i) rucking
ii) 15 man scrums
iii) Stop cleaning out 20 metres past the ruck
iv) If a half back has his hands on the ball, he has played the ball and is fair game to be smashed

iii) - I know you are exaggerating for effect, but I would like to see any clean out of a player not bound to the ruck as a penalty.
iv) - agree entirely.