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

[Brumby Runner]

Further to my comment on iii), I believe in the majority of cases those clean outs are designed to take defenders out of the line to create a hole for the next pick and drive. It is obstruction and should be penalised.

 

[fatprop]

1 Those elongated rucks as they set up a box kicks need to go
2 The AR to set the defensive line and put out his flag each time they jump the gun
3 30 second rule to have scrums and lineouts set, with a shot clock
4 120 second rule for penalty/kicks at goal

 

[Up the Guts]

2 The AR to set the defensive line and put out his flag each time they jump the gun

This should be happening already but the only time you'll ever see it enforced is for visiting teams in amateur games when the ARs are supplied by the home club.

 

[cyclopath]

1 Those elongated rucks as they set up a box kicks need to go
2 The AR to set the defensive line and put out his flag each time they jump the gun
3 30 second rule to have scrums and lineouts set, with a shot clock
4 120 second rule for penalty/kicks at goal

Fuck no. Give 'em 60 sec tops. I mean Jantjes already hops up and down for 60 seconds in the supplicant shitting position as it is. Biggar not much better.

 

[fatprop]

Fuck no. Give 'em 60 sec tops. I mean Jantjes already hops up and down for 60 seconds in the supplicant shitting position as it is. Biggar not much better.

I mean a shot clock ticking down from the moment the ref points to the posts, and at "0" the ball is in play

Same with the scrums & lineouts the side ready gets a free kick if the other side isn't set

 

[Scoey]

I reckon stop the clock for scrums and all shots at goal. Still give them a limited time to take the kick so they don't fluff around all day but it doesn't come off the game time.

But the biggest rule change for me is one that has been discussed a few times before, would be to change the red card law so that the player sent off can be replaced after 10 mins. I think it would solve a lot of issues people have with the game.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

^ only if there's an increase to the consequences for he sent-off player. This "it's a four-week offence but he's such a lovely guy we'll make it two" bullshit needs to go or you may get designated "hit men" creeping into the game & we don't need that.

 

[Strewthcobber]

No place kicks, all kicks at goal to be drop goals.

The delays at scrum and lineout have been bordering on ridiculous so far in the world cup. I'd be much more stringent blowing the whistle for time wasting, eg no huddles permitted before a lineout

 

[Dan54]

^ 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.

Yep the only trouble is rucking is not against the laws of the game, and they can't let the game be played like it was when I played and there was nothing that wasn't allowed in the ruck, the first time someone comes in too work someone over in a ruck the screams of outrage will be heard all around the world!! As I say everyone seems to say bring back rucking, but what they mean is bring back kicking the shit out of someone caught on the wrong side of a ruck ( but only from the other side), because everything else is basically allowed anyway.

 

[Micheal]

DELIBERATE KNOCKDOWNS. I’ve never known how they’ve even made sense and they seem to be against the very core principle of rugby: contestable possession.

Think about it this way:

If you kick a ball, you are making a conscious decision to forfeit possession for a strategical purpose. Once the ball has left your foot, it can be contested. Charge down? Game on. Caught? Game on. Someone tries to catch it but fumbles it? Knock on (or not - depending on the way it fell).

But when you pass a ball?

The ball is “technically” still possessed by your team until such a stage that it is caught cleanly by either team, or knocked on by your own.

Why? Why can’t I touch the ball if it’s in the air?

Some people say it’s negative and against the spirit of attcking play. So what? If you’re too close to an opposition player - and they’ll be able to touch the ball once you’ve passed it - don’t fucking pass it, brainiac.

So sick of games being interrupted by cards from “deliberate knockdowns” that aren’t deliberate at all and are simple reactions or attempts at intercepts.

Why is a mid air pass so holy???

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

Yep the only trouble is rucking is not against the laws of the game, and they can't let the game be played like it was when I played and there was nothing that wasn't allowed in the ruck, the first time someone comes in too work someone over in a ruck the screams of outrage will be heard all around the world!! As I say everyone seems to say bring back rucking, but what they mean is bring back kicking the shit out of someone caught on the wrong side of a ruck ( but only from the other side), because everything else is basically allowed anyway.

Not suggesting a return to the dark ages, Dan, just that the bloke who chooses to illegally slow the ball down by holding onto it or lying on it should be able to be given a "don't do that" by way of actual rucking as opposed to stomping/ kicking/ hacking. For that reason I'd probably limit it to elite-level as I think those blokes would soon come to an arrangement whereby it would become quite a rare occurrence. It's just not gunna work for Athletic v Wanderers in Senior Reserves, eh .

 

[Braveheart81]

DELIBERATE KNOCKDOWNS. I’ve never known how they’ve even made sense and they seem to be against the very core principle of rugby: contestable possession.

Think about it this way:

If you kick a ball, you are making a conscious decision to forfeit possession for a strategical purpose. Once the ball has left your foot, it can be contested. Charge down? Game on. Caught? Game on. Someone tries to catch it but fumbles it? Knock on (or not - depending on the way it fell).

But when you pass a ball?

The ball is “technically” still possessed by your team until such a stage that it is caught cleanly by either team, or knocked on by your own.

Why? Why can’t I touch the ball if it’s in the air?

Some people say it’s negative and against the spirit of attcking play. So what? If you’re too close to an opposition player - and they’ll be able to touch the ball once you’ve passed it - don’t fucking pass it, brainiac.

So sick of games being interrupted by cards from “deliberate knockdowns” that aren’t deliberate at all and are simple reactions or attempts at intercepts.

Why is a mid air pass so holy???

I'm all for the deliberate knock on law. It's a negative play. I don't see it any differently to having yellow cards for other deliberate infringements.

I think your first line takes the wrong starting point. It's not a contest for possession when there is a deliberate knock on. The offending player hasn't been in a position to contest possession, only to stop the opposition from continuing to enjoy it.

We've got lots of laws in the game to stop negative play. I don't see this as any different. The law is pretty simple. If you deliberately knock the ball on then you can be penalised. If it prevented a linebreak etc. you'll probably be yellow carded.

A failed intercept is a deliberate knock on. If you've tried to bat the ball up with one hand and you fail, all you've done is knock the ball on, deliberately.

 

[Eyes and Ears]

Rugby is a game played on the advantage line with often very flat attacks and limited space to the defensive line. IMO allowing deliberate knock-ons would result in a significant increase in that type of negative play and the resultant scrums particularly from a team with a dominant scrum. At least in League, there is a incentive not to do it as the tackle count restarts.

Plus can you imagine how many times an onside player would knock the ball out of the halfback's hands as he looks to clear from the back of a ruck.

I think the alternative would be much worse that what we have today.

 

[Proud Pig]

I agree on the deliberate knock on with the exception of the case of the failed intercept.
An attempt at an intercept cannot be considered negative play in fact it is the complete opposite.
If a player goes for a realistic intercept and fluffs it that should not be a penalty just a knock on.
The rules already allow for penalizing cynical play so if the knock on is truly deliberate then ping and card all good.

 

[Braveheart81]

I agree on the deliberate knock on with the exception of the case of the failed intercept.
An attempt at an intercept cannot be considered negative play in fact it is the complete opposite.
If a player goes for a realistic intercept and fluffs it that should not be a penalty just a knock on.
The rules already allow for penalizing cynical play so if the knock on is truly deliberate then ping and card all good.

This is the case currently.

What is not a realistic intercept is sticking one hand out in the hope that the ball somehow sticks or pops up so it can be caught. It's a deliberate knock-on if the player doesn't complete it. It's a high risk play.

 

[Dan54]

Not suggesting a return to the dark ages, Dan, just that the bloke who chooses to illegally slow the ball down by holding onto it or lying on it should be able to be given a "don't do that" by way of actual rucking as opposed to stomping/ kicking/ hacking. For that reason I'd probably limit it to elite-level as I think those blokes would soon come to an arrangement whereby it would become quite a rare occurrence. It's just not gunna work for Athletic v Wanderers in Senior Reserves, eh .

You can actually legally move players with your boots now, just had to be in a backward motion so it not stomping. But know what you mean about opening it a bit more, I always recall Tana not long before he retired playing a club game to build up fitness and saying it was actually good to finish the game with a few marks that hurt in the shower!!

 

[dru]

I reckon stop the clock for scrums and all shots at goal. Still give them a limited time to take the kick so they don't fluff around all day but it doesn't come off the game time.

But the biggest rule change for me is one that has been discussed a few times before, would be to change the red card law so that the player sent off can be replaced after 10 mins. I think it would solve a lot of issues people have with the game.

Like that RC system. Guaranteed 1 game ban though and no appeal.

Mauls - anyone in front of the ball carrier is off side.

Penalty goals worth 1 point.

 

[Lindommer]

Fuck no. Give 'em 60 sec tops.

The clock stops for 45 seconds from when the try's scored/penalty awarded, none if this faffing around and the clock starts when the tee arrives as it is now. 30 seconds if there's a stoppage in play for anything, ie, the kicker has to set up and get back to his runup before the stoppage is over.

 

[Derpus]

Left of field idea:

I would randomize the pools rather than have seeding system.

Almost every game is easily predictable at the moment.

 

[cyclopath]

Left of field idea:

I would randomize the pools rather than have seeding system.

Almost every game is easily predictable at the moment.

No.