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

[Dan54]

[quote="wamberal, post:

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.[/quote]
Yep Wamberal, I see where you coming from saying us buggers need to look at it from someone new to game, well how about looking at it from those who have always followed it, you seem to want to dumb down game so some new ones watch it, while not carring about the ones who love the game just the way it is.
If League and AFL have got it down pat, why are they not big internationally. I actually disagree about game not being popular internationally, it's well behind soccer, but I would think quite some distance ahead of any other football code!

 

[Scoey]

I haven't posted on here for some time but this thread has dragged me back out of the darkness (I'm not sure if it's kicking & screaming or not ).

I like the human element in the way the game is adjudicated. Sure it frustrates the shit out of me at times but it adds to the drama of the game. I think there is an inherent risk to trying to achieve perfection in the adjudication of an imperfect contest. The risk is that the contest is diluted or effectively removed altogether. The scrum is a great example of this. There are always going to be calls that are technically incorrect. Sometimes they will be referee error. Sometimes they will be because some wily old prop has managed to get one over his opponent. Sometimes a player will be penalised when the pitch conditions were to blame etc. It is the way it is and I don't think there is a problem with this.

The NRL is a good example of what happens when you try to 'improve' the game at all costs. Almost every try is referred to the TMO. The rules have reached a point where the attack and defense are almost equal in terms of advantage and the result is, get close to the line and then cross field kick to the corner because that's the 'best' way of getting the ball across the line. That's not for me.

Now that I've said all of this though, I did put a couple of comments on the front page article about this topic. To preface them, I wouldn't want to see these changes made to the game as a whole but would be ok to see them in something like the NRC. I think that the second suggestion could create some very interesting scenario's!

I think that any rule changes should be subtle. Personally, my vote would be to leave the game as it is, but if they want to tinker to make the game more 'exciting' then they should take a few cues from the more 'exciting' version of the code - 7's.

- All shots at goals, drop kick only. You can leave the scoring system as it is then as this will reduce the attractiveness of penalty kicks. Any offences within the 22 should still be a reasonably easy 3 pts but I doubt we would see kicks sailing over from 45m out, instead we should see them stick it in the corner and get stuck in.
- Introduction of a 5 minute sin bin and have the referees use it. You could go further and for cynical play (depending on severity etc) the ref could give the aggrieved team captain the option of full arm penalty, or half arm with 5 min sin bin to the offending player?


- Stricter enforcement of the 5 sec rule to clear the ball from rucks.

 

[terry j]

on the face of it what you say wamberal IS true, but frankly I am not sure that dumbing it down will solve any real problems.

As mentioned, there is a watered down version of the game, so the 'market' for tiddleywinks rugby has been fulfilled. The rest of us love this more complex and varied game.

In any case, it seems to be the human condition to always have 'controversy' no matter how simple the rules. Been wondering what game would not have these kerfuffles (ref interpretation is basically your sticking point) and about the only one I could come up with was chess and their ilk. THOSE rules leave absolutely no interpretation, a bit like a computer code in that sense. Then again, moves in grandmaster chess probably take five minutes or so thereby removing one of the problems, interpretation during lot's of action.

It seems to me no matter what clarifying or simplification is done in any sport there is ALWAYS controversy over interpretation! Look at cricket, 'bring in the third umpire and never again have these questionable decisions'.

yeah right. Personally I would far prefer it was left as it always was, in the hands of the umpire on the field. Sure, there will be the few that question a decision, but that is part and parcel of the tapestry of the game, and the third umpire has done nothing to change that.

Even the most 'basic' of games (not a dig, referring to the simple rules) like football. Think all of the yellow cards are universally agreed upon? Or whatever, now they too have video replays of the ball crossing the line, maybe that will remove those false decisions but to me it leaves a more sterile game, sterile in the sense of the human factor now absent.

Anyways, you are most certainly entitled to your opinion, I just feel that as understandable as your POV might be, the solution proposed might not be as useful as first thought.

I actually LOVE that the game is so complex, and delight when I learn a new law each year (as I inevitably do, even after ten years haha). I simply don't get why we can all talk about the good games of a player, or a bad game, and the resulting influence on the outcome, but for some reason we want a 'robot' controlling things?, or at least a 'robotic application of simple rules'.

nah, give me the multivaried game with all the warts of ref interpretations. Just that added layer of complexity and interest, no different in essence than the need of a team to do homework on the opposition (how to we counter the ABs back three? hence a different game plan than we used against the argies etc etc)

'Who is the ref? Ahh, ok, well we'd better pay more attention then to the breakdown than we did last week, yet conversely....'

edit, looks like scoey got in a few minutes before I did, with esentially the same points, the human element is an added benefit and distinction between our game and other codes. Agree fully with his post

 

[Bullrush]

Man….I don't know what you guys are talking about?!? I LOVED watching rugby this year. Yes, there were some boring games and there were some controversial calls but FML….THAT'S SPORT!!

 

[Dan54]

This is an exert taken from a Nigel Owens interview a couple of weeks back, sums up exactly what I feel!! Leave the laws alone!!

“Rugby doesn’t need to get too hung about laws and, indeed, referees generally. In the last few months I have been privileged to be involved in two of the greatest rugby games and sporting spectacles it is possible to imagine.

“When you look at those matches are you seriously telling me this great sport has a problem? You know, and I know, everybody in rugby knows, that the laws work fine when the intent is there from both teams to play positive, attacking, ‘legal’ rugby. It’s when that intent is missing, when teams go negative and set out to bend or break the laws that games can go sour. Referees have off days as well, we are only human, and that doesn’t help but let’s be honest and recognise what is actually going on. In professional sport there are sometimes those who don’t necessarily want the game played in the manner which the laws encourage and allow."

 

[wamberal]

Dan,

I really don't know whether to laugh or cry when I read that tripe. So, the game's rules are fine, because occasionally we rusted on fans see a great example of running, competitive, rugby?

And what about all the other games, that vary from okay to terrible?


How on earth can a game seriously hope to expand its fan base if the laws work fine only when the players have the right attitude, and the referee doesn't have an off day?


Sadly, the game has been run for far too long by young fogeys (worse than the old ones, IMHO).

 

[Scoey]

That glass really is half empty for you isn't it Wamberal.

The point is that at its best the game is glorious. Changing the rules risks changing how good our good games are and for what? To make the shit games a little less shit?

It's probably not needed but ill mention it again. If you want a game where the good games aren't too dissimilar to the shit ones then NRL will fill that order. The rule changes they made didn't raise the standard of all games - they just evened them all out. The result is the sterile contest we now see.

I'll take Rugby the way it is, warts and all. Fat blokes, skinny blokes, shit games and good games.

The contrast is what makes rugby the spectacle that it is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[terry j]

I just liked scoey and dans posts, but feel I need to explain it slightly more.

That is NOT to say that the rules are perfect, no tweaking at all required. Not sure how far wamberal would like to go, but it seems to me that yes, for example, we could tweak the laws around the scrum (say), even simplify to use that word. That is fine, make the scrums more consistent, more easily understood and refereed, as long as the scrums are part of the game.

For sure, clean up some of the laws of the breakdown, so we have a more consistent performance from refs from game to game, ref to ref, as long as the breakdowns are part of the game.

Maybe I for one took wamberal the wrong way? When he spoke of simplifying the game I took it he meant (as only an example) that the scrums might disappear?

So yes, I can grant some 'simplifying' might be needed, but am very wary of losing the character and uniqueness of the game as it has done for league. Twenty, thirty years ago it WAS quite entertaining even tho obviously different from union. It has changed a lot since then, and I for one would argue it has changed for the worse even tho it has become simpler.

It might come down to what definition of simpler, or how it is applied, that is under question.

 

[Dan54]

Scoey, a like doesn't say how much agree with your post, and Terry the same with yours, especially as I have an aversion to simpliyfing our great game just to attract people.
Wamberal, the gist of what Owens said was no matter how you change rules it is up to players, coaches etc how the game is played. If that makes you cry, go ahead and cry, but I agree wholeheartedly. Don't mind the odd tweak now and then, but I personally love the game just as it is, maybe we need to disagree (in the friendliest of terms) and just go on with loving the game.

 

[wamberal]

That glass really is half empty for you isn't it Wamberal.

The point is that at its best the game is glorious. Changing the rules risks changing how good our good games are and for what? To make the shit games a little less shit?k

It's probably not needed but ill mention it again. If you want a game where the good games aren't too dissimilar to the shit ones then NRL will fill that order. The rule changes they made didn't raise the standard of all games - they just evened them all out. The result is the sterile contest we now see.

No, the glass is running for out me. You see, I have been watching the game since the early fifties, I have seen more ups and downs than most of you have had hot breakfasts.

I have also had more than a decade working in a very senior role for one of the world's most successful sporting organisations, in which I was responsible for corporate planning for some years ( not in rugby, and not in Australia).

I admit that I do have high expectations for the game, that is probably because I understand its true potential more than most followers.

The game could grow, or it could wither away. It almost did, in the early Fifties, it was only saved then by a couple of hugely successful Fijian tours. The demographics of Sydney, in particular, are changing rapidly. My old (selective) High School no longer plays the game. If we cannot get young Islander kids in particular to play our game for love, not money, we will not survive another 20 years.

 

[Slim 293]

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 really........

There are elements of Aussie Rules that are just as complicated as a rugby breakdown..........

Same with Grid Iron now........

Getting young people into rugby is a separate marketability issue.......

 

[Sidbarret]

Scoey, a like doesn't say how much agree with your post, and Terry the same with yours, especially as I have an aversion to simpliyfing our great game just to attract people.
Wamberal, the gist of what Owens said was no matter how you change rules it is up to players, coaches etc how the game is played. If that makes you cry, go ahead and cry, but I agree wholeheartedly. Don't mind the odd tweak now and then, but I personally love the game just as it is, maybe we need to disagree (in the friendliest of terms) and just go on with loving the game.

The quality of the game is decided by the players, but I think commentators and referees often forget this. Do you remember Mexteds doctrine that three shouldn't be more than 7 or 8 penalties in a half of rugby? That's bullshit, sometimes teams infringe thirty times in a half and those cases they should be rightfully penalised, other times teams stay within the laws and there should be no penalties. Also, sometime one team is ill disciplined while the other show great discipline.

Too often we see referees trying to engineer a free-flowing, even game when that is not the game being played by the players on the pitch.

 

[Sidbarret]

Anyway, I would like to see two changes and one reinterpretation.

1- Get rid of the tackler exception at the tackle situation. For tackler to make a legal steal from the "wrong" side, tackler needs to make the tackle, go to ground, release the tackled player, get to his feet and beat the ruck. At pro level this almost never happens and is almost impossible to referee accurately. What invariably happens is that tackler either gets pinged for being beaten by the ruck or, tackler is clever, he just stands around like lost fart on the wrong side, impeding players coming in to clear out.

2- Simplifying the rules around kicks to touch. The ball is in touch if it touches the ground or a player in touch. If a player jumps to tap a ball back he is deemed inside/outside depending where he jumped from. Simple, no need to worry about the plane of touch or catch vs tap. Same with touch-goal, stop worrying about forward momentum when the ball is rolling around in goal.

3- Enforce the rule about no pushing before the ball is fed. Also get rid of the mini-hit. Both frontrows must be in static, stable and strong position before the ball goes in and then all hell can break lose.

 

[Eyes and Ears]

I like your first point.

 

[Proud Pig]

The only law I would like to see introduced is for all Wingers to be made to wear skirts.

 

[Bullrush]

If we cannot get young Islander kids in particular to play our game for love, not money, we will not survive another 20 years.

This is an Australian issue - not a rugby union problem and has nothing to do with the rules of the game. Young Islander kids play rugby in every country they can. Look at how many are starting to represent non-PI countries!

 

[Mank]

The laws of rugby union seem to work well enough at grass roots level. There are some very enjoyable games. And I agree with Nigel Owens point that when both teams just go out to play rugby, and not play the laws of rugby, we see great games.

So, with that in mind, I would like to do something about professional cheating. I don't know how though. Perhaps referees should be trained to spot it and the ARs should be more involved in flagging it. I mean things like holding back, not rolling away at rucks at crucial times, and so forth. If this can be disincentivised, perhaps we would see more of the enjoyable games.

The next thing is the scrum. It seems a ripe candidate for getting rid of the thing that frustrates most of us, dumb luck penalties which win or lose a game. At the moment it seems as though when team Red 'dominates' the scrum, a knock-on by team Blue is almost a guaranteed penalty to team Red. This doesn't seem in keeping with the spirit of the restart. My advice would be if team Red puts the ball in, anywhere outside of 5 yards from the opposition line, they have 5 meters of grace to use the ball. They will not receive a penalty from shoving the defending side further back. This means they have the advantage of the restart from a mistake by the opposition, and can gain 5 extra meters if they are dominant, but they cannot milk a penalty. They must play the ball if they have won the scrum. However to ensure that dominant scrums can obtain an advantage, the defending scrum can earn a penalty if they force the attacking side back and the attacking side choose to collapse instead of lose the ball.

 

[suckerforred]

However to ensure that dominant scrums can obtain an advantage, the defending scrum can earn a penalty if they force the attacking side back and the attacking side choose to collapse instead of lose the ball.

I see the problem being that it is dificult for the ref to tell which side is collapsing the scrum.

 

[Scoey]

Was having a think while watching the Rugby tonight and started thinking that a full arm penalty for not releasing the ball is probably a bit harsh.
What gave me this epiphany was when I saw a defender over a ruck, with hands on the ball but making little to no attempt to pick it up. The defender was making it look like he was but it was clear to me that he simply wanted the penalty and a free pass out of their 22.
There are circumstances that warrant a severe sanction (ie a player running back to chase a kick and is tackled and isolated as soon as he reaches it. The player holds on to avoid a try but this is cynical play and there are separate laws for that).
Generally speaking though when on attack there is no reason a player would want to hold on to the ball in a tackle other than to avoid a turn over. In this situation, the other team gaining possession (ie half arm penalty) is penalty enough for the infringing side and reward enough for the defending side. It shouldn't be worthy of 3 points or a 20-30m advancement up the field with throw in to the lineout.
Making it a half arm penalty may make players who are in position to turn over a ball at a ruck, simply make the turnover and counter attack, keeping the ball in play. Let's face it, that should always be the aim of rugby laws where possible.
Thoughts?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[cyclopath]

@Scoey you are dead right, a lot of players just "play at" winning the ball as you say. I noticed it a couple of times tonight too. I guess, like many things, intent is hard to read or interpret, and it would be hard to separate when a player is trying to kill the ball, where the penalty seems fair to the player on his feet.
Interesting though.