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

[drewprint]

I glad I not the only one who gets pissed with that drew, also teams warming up in the in goal area, the laws of rugby say that each team have only 15 players on the field of play, and field of play is from deadball line to deadball line and game is still in progress when a try is scored!!

Agreed. The worst part is how they end up crowding and bumping the opposition players. Geez I’d be cranky if I just got scored against and this happened.

 

[Proud Pig]

I also believe in bringing back rucking, up to a point.
That point being of course if either a winger or a half decides to get involved in the breakdown.
Then they should be fair game for a bit of rucking.
Few things bring a smile to a front rowers face more than seeing a little fella spat out of the back of a ruck.
The grin can only get bigger if said front rower has managed to ruck his own winger.

 

[Derpus]

I also believe in bringing back rucking, up to a point.
That point being of course if either a winger or a half decides to get involved in the breakdown.
Then they should be fair game for a bit of rucking.
Few things bring a smile to a front rowers face more than seeing a little fella spat out of the back of a ruck.
The grin can only get bigger if said front rower has managed to ruck his own winger.

This is old fashion. Half the wingers going around these days are heavier than props.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Only question I see is whether 10 minutes down to 14 men is a sufficient deterrent for a red card offense.

But the offending player still has to front the judiciary. He/she could be out for numerous matches depending on the offence and severity.

The present situation is very inconsistent, depending on the time in the game the offence takes place and the interpretation of the matter by the referee. An offence deemed red card by a referee early in the game can see one side reduced to 14 players for almost the entire match, while the very same offence late in the game might see that side one man short for only a few minutes. It is all very inconsistent atm. The suggestion by Eastman would at least consistently leave all sides only down by 10 minutes or less (if the offence takes place in the final 10 minutes of a game).

I think the suggestion has a lot of merit and very little, if any in reality, down side.

 

[Brumby Runner]

It's something I thought the refs did well to crack down on in recent times, but it's definitely crept back in recently and have noticed it a lot in the NRC as well...

My observation is that in more cases than not, the player attempting to pilfer places his hands on the ground beyond the ball initially. Others, and I include an Aussie hooker in here, use their knees on a player on the ground to remain "on their feet".

Bridging is rife and not supporting own weight is very common.

 

[Derpus]

But the offending player still has to front the judiciary. He/she could be out for numerous matches depending on the offence and severity.

The present situation is very inconsistent, depending on the time in the game the offence takes place and the interpretation of the matter by the referee. An offence deemed red card by a referee early in the game can see one side reduced to 14 players for almost the entire match, while the very same offence late in the game might see that side one man short for only a few minutes. It is all very inconsistent atm. The suggestion by Eastman would at least consistently leave all sides only down by 10 minutes or less (if the offence takes place in the final 10 minutes of a game).

I think the suggestion has a lot of merit and very little, if any in reality, down side.

that's actually a really good point BR.

 

[Dan54]

Agreed. The worst part is how they end up crowding and bumping the opposition players. Geez I’d be cranky if I just got scored against and this happened.

I am an old bastard I know drew, but I would get pissed with my own team doing it, I would never survive in professional rugby, as a forward if my scrum smashes the opposition one, if my backline came in smacking me on back, I would get cranky and tell them to f*** off and get ready for next play!! Maybe I just a grumpy old man, but when I played just tell me at end of game when I did well , or f***ed up!

 

[Derpus]

I am an old bastard I know drew, but I would get pissed with my own team doing it, I would never survive in professional rugby, as a forward if my scrum smashes the opposition one, if my backline came in smacking me on back, I would get cranky and tell them to f*** off and get ready for next play!! Maybe I just a grumpy old man, but when I played just tell me at end of game when I did well , or f***ed up!

You'd get mad at your own team congratulating you on doing a thing well?

 

[tragic]

I think the deterrent is largely the suspension so I think that is fine.

My question with this would be whether the in game penalty is sufficient. 20 minutes down a player then you can bring on a replacement might be better.

10 minutes and then replaced is barely a harsher penalty than a yellow card and I think the team that is wronged is entitled to a bigger advantage for a red card offence than that.

I would agree with the red cards in days gone by. It had to be a pretty bloody serious offence to get sent off.
But red cards are a dime a dozen in this era.
Frequently the offence is not bad enough to determine the outcome of a game - which is what 14 men against a top tier side is essentially doing.

 

[Dan54]

You'd get mad at your own team congratulating you on doing a thing well?

Yep, during the play, I don't mind 'good hit' or something being said, but wingers, centres etc that insist on running in from 20-30 matres away, and back slapping because I had done my job and outscrummed opposition would piss me big time, man save your energy to do your job. As I say I a grumpy old bastard, I would find it f***ing annoying!

 

[tragic]

Drop goals should be reduced to 1 point.
They should be a game breaker only.

 

[dru]

Drop goals should be reduced to 1 point.
They should be a game breaker only.

Solid agreement here.

 

[Derpus]

probably been said already, but, the clock is stopped until the ball has been fed into the scrum and stops again if the scrum goes down and play stops.

 

[TSR]

Yep, during the play, I don't mind 'good hit' or something being said, but wingers, centres etc that insist on running in from 20-30 matres away, and back slapping because I had done my job and outscrummed opposition would piss me big time, man save your energy to do your job. As I say I a grumpy old bastard, I would find it f***ing annoying!

Clearly I’m too old too. Never understand the need to celebrate every success like it’s a game winning play.

I assumed it was just the backs trying to get on TV.

 

[formerflanker]

Clearly I’m too old too. Never understand the need to celebrate every success like it’s a game winning play.

I assumed it was just the backs trying to get on TV.

A logical assumption.
However that's society these days.
Bum pats between doubles tennis players. Fist pumps by beach volleyballers. Head pats for anyone who stuffs up in all sports. Low 5s from union refs.
Snowflakes the lot of 'em.

 

[TSR]

Indeed.

See I was always more a fan of the Boonie approach. Score a ton, raise the bat once, adjust the box and take gaurd for the next delivery.

Michael Slater has a lot to answer for.

 

[Lindommer]

probably been said already, but, the clock is stopped until the ball has been fed into the scrum and stops again if the scrum goes down and play stops.

Exactly the same as AFL. The aerial ping-pong timekeepers are meticulous about stopping the clock when the ball's not in play, something rugby would do well to copy.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Exactly the same as AFL. The aerial ping-pong timekeepers are meticulous about stopping the clock when the ball's not in play, something rugby would do well to copy.

We would kill the players. Games would be going for four hours!

 

[dru]

We would kill the players. Games would be going for four hours!

Not so sure on that. If it were 4 hours then you are talking NFL format with plenty of time not playing and intermitent bursts. I doubt we'd end up there.

We are however talking about actually 80 mins playing time.

 

[Braveheart81]

Not so sure on that. If it were 4 hours then you are talking NFL format with plenty of time not playing and intermitent bursts. I doubt we'd end up there.

We are however talking about actually 80 mins playing time.

If an average game has ball in play time of 35 minutes, it follows that stopping the clock when the ball isn't in play would more than double the length of time it takes to play a match.

An average game takes about 1 hour 45 minutes now? So you'd be looking at 3 and a half hours or more if you stopped the clock every time the ball wasn't in play.

I would like to see the clock stopped or the amount of clock time used reduced for shots at goal (unsure whether that would just be conversions or penalties as well) and the clock stopped for scrum resets. Those to me are the two most frustrating periods of time lost in the game.