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

[suckerforred]

Not sure if it has been mentioned before but can the 'Advantage' be tightened up. Something like - if there is no obvious advantage in 3/5 phases the penlty is called. If there is a subsequent infringment then gel's mandatory yellow can kick in.

I just feel that this will stop the times, which seem to be increasing, where we are not sure if the advantage is over or not & the ref takes play back about 20 phases for an advantage that should have been well and truely over.

 

[elementfreak]

Not sure if it has been mentioned before but can the 'Advantage' be tightened up. Something like - if there is no obvious advantage in 3/5 phases the penlty is called. If there is a subsequent infringment then gel's mandatory yellow can kick in.

I just feel that this will stop the times, which seem to be increasing, where we are not sure if the advantage is over or not & the ref takes play back about 20 phases for an advantage that should have been well and truely over.

The general rule of thumb, that I referee to, is 3 phases of clean possession and a gain in ground for a PK advantage. For a scrum advantage it's usually 2 clean passes.

 

[Brumbieman]

I'd like to see a very concerted, global push, to simplify rugby.

Identify the key areas, eg the breakdown, scrum and simplify them a bit. I loved the ELV's attempt to do this with the breakdown, and my god it made for some fantastic rugby.

Our sports biggest issue, is that it's so complicated it's hard to draw new fans, and the interpretation of the ref is always a lottery that most sports don't have to deal with.

 

[Langthorne]

Accidental off side.

If a player bumps into a player in front of them from their own team, play on if the attacking teams gets no advantage from the collision.

 

[wamberal]

Accidental off side.

If a player bumps into a player in front of them from their own team, play on if the attacking teams gets no advantage from the collision.

I think that is the current interpretation most referees seem to follow?

 

[RugbyFuture]

I don't care what other people say, they should make all kicks at goal worth 2 points.

also from the ELV's collapsible mauls if forward momentum has halted.

 

[Scrubber2050]

intoduction of a 10 second advantage rule

 

[dudebudstud]

The general rule of thumb, that I referee to, is 3 phases of clean possession and a gain in ground for a PK advantage. For a scrum advantage it's usually 2 clean passes.

As a fellow ref, my interpretation of advantage is kind of similar. For scrum advantage I'll call advantage over if they make the gain line in two phases or less. Any loss in ground and I call it back. I figure if a scrum was given and won the team could expect to make the gain line from an 8 man pickup.

For a penalty advantage I am looking for a gain of 10 meters in 3 phases. I figure the team taking a penalty can expect to gain somewhere between 10 meters in a tap and go situation to a minimum of 20 meters if they kick for touch.
Obviously a longer advantage applies if the team is within reach of scoring.

 

[dudebudstud]

intoduction of a 10 second advantage rule

A phase based approach would be better than a time based one. Imagine this- Blue team is 5 meters out from the try line when they are awarded a penalty advantage. They play on and gain 3 meters, a couple more rucks form and they suck in more and more defenders. By this time 2 or 3 phases have passed. They now have an overlap and can pass it wide to score.

If the advantage was called after 10 seconds it would have killed the momentum. Remember the advantage has to be tactical or territorial. While in my example a territorial advantage would have been essentially scoring a try, the tactical advantage would involve the dragging in defenders and thus making space out wide

 

[Scrubber2050]

I probably about taking the Discretion of what is the advantage away from the Referee and a 10 second rule overseen by the video ref

 

[It is what it is]

I'd like to see a very concerted, global push, to simplify rugby.

Identify the key areas, eg the breakdown, scrum and simplify them a bit. I loved the ELV's attempt to do this with the breakdown, and my god it made for some fantastic rugby.

Our sports biggest issue, is that it's so complicated it's hard to draw new fans, and the interpretation of the ref is always a lottery that most sports don't have to deal with.

Agree with you.
The tough thing is that the IRB is so controlled by the northern unions and they aren't confronted with the challenge of rugby league and AFL like we are in Australia. Yes they have soccer but it tends to attract a different fan base.
Another challenge is to keep the ball more visible for spectators. Scrums, rucks and rolling mauls hide the ball. The more popular sports have the ball in play and visible for the fans, whether at home or watching live.

 

[Dan54]

Agree with you.
The tough thing is that the IRB is so controlled by the northern unions and they aren't confronted with the challenge of rugby league and AFL like we are in Australia. Yes they have soccer but it tends to attract a different fan base.
Another challenge is to keep the ball more visible for spectators. Scrums, rucks and rolling mauls hide the ball. The more popular sports have the ball in play and visible for the fans, whether at home or watching live.

Last time I looked there was an Aussie running IRB, and they play league in England, I really think us in SH have an equal say in how game is run, so whilst understanding where you coming form, I personally have no probs with visbilty of ball etc, and don't want to see changes to try and get a few more people watching the game in Aus,while losing the supporters from the rest of the world that love the game as it basically is.
If I wanted to watch a game where all is simple, and had 2 points for kicks etc,with no no pesky rucks/mauls etc, I would probably just watch league!

 

[hawktrain]

I never thought I'd say this as a back who wouldn't dream of sticking his head in a maul unless it was going to be a try scoring one, but I think more reward needs to be given to teams who can form dominant mauls.

Currently, if the defensive team can get enough blokes in to slow the maul down a bit and then bring it to the ground, they don't have to then roll away and make the ball available. 9/10 times this means the ball is trapped in and results in a turnover and a scrum. Hence, the attacking backs never get to attack off the platform of a mal that has perhaps just advanced the ball 15-20m upfield, and apart from the territory, a great maul goes unrewarded.

It would prove awkward at first and might result in some slow ball, but I think defenders should be forced to roll away once a maul goes to ground. IMO, stopping a maul is akin to making a tackle - you're a defender/group of defenders putting a stop to the forward momentum of the attack. When a tackle is made, the defenders have to roll away and the attacking team receives the ball if it becomes unplayable. But for mauls these two factors are reversed - why? Perhaps there's a historic reason that someone could fill me in on.

 

[Braveheart81]

I disagree. I like the use it or lose it rule. If you get held up in the tackle and can't get the ball out you deserve to lose it. Alternatively, if your team keeps the ball up off the ground intentionally so you can make ground with a rolling maul then you deserve to lose it if you stuff it up and can't get the ball out.

Forcing players to roll away which would give the attacking side a better chance of retaining the ball or getting a penalty is just rewarding an error in my opinion.

There has to be some downside to not executing a rolling maul correctly.

 

[wamberal]

We really have to simplify the rules of the game. It is relatively easy to understand the rules of most popular games if you watch them a few times.


Not so in the case of our game. That is a huge handicap to the spread of the game, especially in an age of increasing choice, shorter and shorter attention spans, and simplification of just about everything.

 

[gel]

I don't think the rules really need to be simpler, the referees just need to interpret them consistently.

The international refs seem to each have some major issue with the game with which they take issue which are at odds with other referees. The result being that one team can seem to be on fire one week, yet get completely neutered the following week even though they are trying to play exactly the same way. Whilst for some this may appear to add variety, in reality it is a manufactured variety that subtracts from the very core of the game itself - that is, the constant competition for the ball which is supposed to provide the means for the variation in the way the game is played.

I think it is deplorable that people can predict what will happen with some referees weeks prior to game being played (that French guy and his refereeing of the scrums and constant fault finding, or Bryce Lawrence and the complete abortions at the breakdowns).

I have no idea what the referees do to ensure a level of professionalism and training but it seems that it may not be based around a consistent, structured system. (This does NOT mean they are not professional - it means it doesn't appear to be following one set of principals or guidelines leading to inconsistency in how they control the game).

I hope the NRC put some serious effort in ensuring that those who have the biggest impact on how the game is played out are the least noticeable.

 

[terry j]

We really have to simplify the rules of the game. It is relatively easy to understand the rules of most popular games if you watch them a few times.


Not so in the case of our game. That is a huge handicap to the spread of the game, especially in an age of increasing choice, shorter and shorter attention spans, and simplification of just about everything.

yes and no perhaps.

All hypothetical, but who's to say *we* would enjoy this different version? I mean it would not (by definition) be the same game we love. And, as far as I can tell, the 'simplifying' of the game has already been done.

And I can assure you it IS very simple to understand, boring as bat shit but simple to understand!

I really do wonder if we simply look at it through our unique circumstances, the 'rest of the world' seem to have rugby quite high on the popularity stakes, and it could even be argued that they LOVE the scrum, winning by multiples of three etc etc.

That of course is not to say 'no rule changes at all' but I would be wary of a mere 'simplifying it' as the guiding principle.

 

[wamberal]

I really, honestly, do not know how any serious observer of the game can look back on the Lions series and say that the game is simple enough.

When the result of an important match hangs on a referee's opinion of the "fairness" of a scrum, surely that is not easy for the unaligned fan to comprehend? I have been watching and playing and supporting the game, variously, for far longer than I care to count. And just the scrum laws alone, and their interpretation, is enough to tell me that only a mother could love this ugly child. Apart from anything else, it is surely axiomatic that only an expert scrummer would know what the fark is going on, and no current international referees are expert scrummers. How does this make sense to the disinterested observer? Answer: it doesn't. Guesswork is not intrinsically interesting, or entertaining, even when the result of a very important game, or series, depends on it.

Don't start on the refereeing of the breakdown, or the obvious idiocy of the rolling maul during which the ball carrier cannot be tackled. A game in which a player picks up the ball, and runs with it, and gets tackled, except when he is shielded by a few of his fellow players. Objectively, this is just absurd.

Some of you buggers need to look at the game as people new to it look at it. I had to do that when I lived in a country where American football and baseball were the two major sports that I could watch (soccer also, but not so interesting to me). I got interested in both sports pretty quickly, mainly because they are both easy to understand. Ditto when I lived in Melbourne, and got totally immersed in the VFL, as it then was.


Rugby is not a popular sport internationally, frankly, by any objective measure. It could be a lot more popular - funnily enough, both the NRL and AFL show us how in a confined domestic environment that is actually very competitive. And if the IRB is not capable of learning lessons from other sports (as well as what, no doubt, their own research tells them), we will continue to wallow along.

 

[suckerforred]

Wamberal, I understand what you are trying to say, but I have to agree with others when they say that a lot of the confusion comes from the interpretation of the laws by the officals rather than the laws themselves.

How do we fix this? I have no idea other than training, training, training. The SA ref's got put into some scrums pre Super Rugby in 2013 and I think that we saw some benefit from that early in the season when they called free kicks fairly swiftly when it was not clear what the problem was with the scrum. Maybe we need to get all ref's packing some scrums as part of their training?

Concentrating on scrums, what changes would make is simpler for the ref's to adjudicate:

Which ever side is going forward before the ball goes in gets penalised because they are obviously pushing before the feed? Well, until the other side just doesn't push at all & therefore gain the penalty in a dangerous way.

Which ever prop's elbow touches the ground first is deamed to have collapsed the scrum - penalty to oposition. But what about the bloke with long arms that is dragged down by his oppersite?

Do we make sure the props are bound properly before the set is called? Actually this is a good idea but will require good communication between the on field ref & his 'assistants'. And do we require props to wear bigger jerseys to allow the bind?

One thing that I do not want to see is watering down of the part that the scrum, lineout, maul & breakdown. They are all important contests for the ball and this is what makes Union different from the other rugby code.

 

[Braveheart81]

The problem is that the scrum is a complex area which isn't refereed the same way from match to match.

Clearly you have to train referees to be more consistent and potentially you bring in some assistance from the TMO (not to make specific calls but maybe provide feedback to the referee as the game goes on to point out issues that are happening in the scrum that are easier to see with the benefit of replays).

It is difficult to make the scrum foolproof without removing the contest like in rugby league. I think everyone would agree that the last thing we want to see in rugby union is for the scrum to be watered down to no longer being a contest and a key part of many games.