IRB Law amendments post RWC 2011

[Scotty]

The thing that I believe holds our game back the most from growing and limits it's appeal to fringe fans is the amount of stoppages. Anything we can do to increase the time the ball is in play (to an extent) is a good thing IMO:

1. Lindommers shot clock for goal kicks

2. A type of injury clock to limit forwards going down with injury before every set piece later in the game - if you have to be treated for more than a minute you are automatically subbed (or something like that)

3. Lee's scrum engagement changes to limit resets to scrums

4. A set rule for yellow card application for multiple ruck infringements - every three is an automatic yellow. Combine this with 2 points for penalties and drop kicks and you will see the ball in play more often

If these types of changes mean that tight forwards start to struggle with the pace of the game then they might need to apply an interchange type system to the bench or increase it to 8 so there are 2 props on the bench.

 

[BRIX]

G'day fellas, haven't posted in a long while but trust you are all well...

Top 3 Amendments I would look into that aren't included in this current thread are:

- Knock on advantage (would like to see this advantage expire after the 1st phase of turnover ball)

- Long arm advantage (should expire after, say 20 meters gained by attacking team, or 3-4 phases completed) Getting called back is getting ridiculous

- Quick taps (would like to see a 2 meter circumference (tap-zone) from where the offense was committed, due to too much traffic in area of infringement

Cheers

 

[Rev Spooner]

Agree with the last point Brix - what possible advantage is there to a team when they take the quick tap 15cm from the referee's desired spot and are called back. Seems to happen a lot and it favours the team that has infringed.

 

[fatprop]

The straight scrum put in is a bit of a challenge.

Half the problem is the big hit, with the scrum moving forward and 9 just putting the ball in as the scrum walks over the ball.

Require a stable, stationary scrum, with a simpler less hit focussed set up, and the whole thing becomes simpler.

You will still see good scrums snapping on the pressure once the ball is in, to walk over the ball or to stop the hooker from striking because of the pressure being exerted.

What you will see less of is props collapsing at big stupid hits go wrong and props being required to scrummage.

 

[Lee Grant]

Agree doesn't quite do it.

:notworthy :salute

Interesting some of the stats I've just seen from 6N earlier this year.

- On average 12 scrums per game collapsed.
- The ball emerged from scrums first time only 56% of the time.

Scrums will still imperfect even when the power hit is outlawed but I would warrant that:
- the collapses would be halved
- the 44% of scrums when the ball didn't come out first time would be halved

... at least.

 

[Bowside]

1. Bring back rucking.

2. Remove the power hit from scrums.

3. No reset once the ball has been won.

4. Get rid of that 10 metre rule when you are infront of the kicker, but he puts you back onside before you enter the play.

 

[Gnostic]

Agree doesn't quite do it.

:notworthy :salute

Interesting some of the stats I've just seen from 6N earlier this year.

- On average 12 scrums per game collapsed.
- The ball emerged from scrums first time only 56% of the time.

Scrums will still imperfect even when the power hit is outlawed but I would warrant that:
- the collapses would be halved
- the 44% of scrums when the ball didn't come out first time would be halved

... at least.

Heresy. The offending scrums must have had Australian Props or been coached by Australian Coaches. Various NH types ouwld have us believe that their country (Choose which one) are the scrum doyens and any changes will only be because of Australia's weakness at this facet of play.

I did post some time ago that information was the Power Hit was gone after the RWC. Can't find it now, but I think it will be a very good thing. Front row play will not become simpler but I think we will see a lot of old time Props being consulted to get some of the real dark arts back.

 

[Bruce Ross]

Would it not make sense to forgo all the brilliant new ideas to improve rugby this time around and devote all the collective energy to simplifying the Laws?

 

[Moses]

I reckon G&GR should make a submission to the IRB, we could pick a single rule that is properly shit and put together a quality paper then send it in. It will of course be completely ignored, but that then gives us the right to bitch every time the chosen rule is infringed.

Two candidate rules for my mind would be:
1: When the ball is kicked out on the full, outside the 22, and during a full arm advantage, the captain has the option to either:
- throw a lineout from where the (already kicked) ball entered touch
- all the existing options (kick again for touch/lineout, kick for poles, quick tap, scrum)

2: Taking a quick tap can be within 2 metres of the exact spot (but not in front of the exact spot). Who gives a shit anyway, the opposition have to be back 10 so it's inconsequential.

 

[ChargerWA]

Please work on option 2. Option 1 is the opposite of simplification of the laws.

The problem with option 2, is it will be hard to write a quality paper because even a 2 year old can see it makes fucking sense to do it that way.

 

[Refabit]

Please work on option 2. Option 1 is the opposite of simplification of the laws.

The problem with option 2, is it will be hard to write a quality paper because even a 2 year old can see it makes fucking sense to do it that way.

Decent refs apply this now anyway.
The unfit & pedantic ones do not.

 

[antipodean]

2: Taking a quick tap can be within 2 metres of the exact spot (but not in front of the exact spot). Who gives a shit anyway, the opposition have to be back 10 so it's inconsequential.

No. Then there's arguments about whether it was within two metres. The idea is to make the laws easier to apply and less subjective.

1. Bring back rucking.

2. Remove the power hit from scrums.

Yes. The game is ruined because rucking, real rucking, no longer exists. Players should be forced to bind and drive over the ball. If someone wants to lie all over the ball on the wrong side of the ruck, then they should suffer the consequences.

Changing the scrum to engagement of front rows, then second row and lastly backrow removes the importance of and instability caused by the power hit. Then they can actually scrummage.

4. A set rule for yellow card application for multiple ruck infringements - every three is an automatic yellow. Combine this with 2 points for penalties and drop kicks and you will see the ball in play more often

Shit no. Rugby is first and foremost a game of competition for the ball. The ruck is supposed to be a element of this contest. Your suggestion would turn the game into touch football.

The other element is reducing the points for kicking. This will only exaggerate the effect of the idiotic change made in 1992 to increase the value of a converted try. The reality is a defending team is more likely to cynically infringe; giving away three points is better than seven. If people want to see more tries being scored, make penalties worth more. A drop kick is a skill and should be rewarded appropriately.

If you're going to suggest a law change/ amendment, take the time to work out how you would get around it. Then see if it would actually have the impact you want.

 

[Lee Grant]

Changing the scrum to engagement of front rows, then second row and lastly backrow removes the importance of and instability caused by the power hit. Then they can actually scrummage.


The reality is a defending team is more likely to cynically infringe; giving away three points is better than seven. If people want to see more tries being scored, make penalties worth more. A drop kick is a skill and should be rewarded appropriately.

If you're going to suggest a law change/ amendment, take the time to work out how you would get around it. Then see if it would actually have the impact you want.

Scrummaging - your suggestion will reward dominant scrums. Now they are hamstrung by the lottery of the power hit when the forces don't meet just so. They are pinged by the ref on his best guess unless they have the luck to have Rolland with the whistle and even he gets it wrong a lot.

Then there is the too early engage call as two packs sprint half a metre. That's something else refs can get wrong and they do.

In the old days guess what dominant scrums did? They dominated. There was no place to hide; no power hit to allow guesses. Sure there were some collapses, but not a lot, and they were pinged for pushing before the ball was put in, though that was easy to spot. Compared to now the scrum took less time.

The game is a lot faster now in most ways but scrummaging then was heaps faster. Heaps - and weak scrums suffered more than they do now.

I have to admit that here was one area that the old scrums were pinged for every now and then that is not now; so that should be taken into account. Hookers who hooked the ball too early got pinged. They aren't now because the defending hooker just pushes. Why would he try to hook the ball which is not put in the tunnel?

Conventions of referees especially in senior games have destroyed the hooking contest which was a wonderful, wonderful skill. The thing is though: the average punter has no idea what he is missing.


Reducing the points of a penalty would be a disaster for the reason you state. Folks who advocate it do so in good faith but don't recognise the likely unfavourable unintended consequences of it, as it seems so clear to them. When the same discussion comes up a year from now they will say the same thing in good faith.

Their rebuttal to your objection may be that if players are cynical near their goal line then cards should be issued until players stop doing it. Whistling Dixie or pissing in the wind makes more sense unless we see referees use cards more with the laws and points system we have now.

Incidentally, I think the balance of 5, 2 and 3 points is about right.

 

[Scotty]

No. Then there's arguments about whether it was within two metres. The idea is to make the laws easier to apply and less subjective.


Yes. The game is ruined because rucking, real rucking, no longer exists. Players should be forced to bind and drive over the ball. If someone wants to lie all over the ball on the wrong side of the ruck, then they should suffer the consequences.

Changing the scrum to engagement of front rows, then second row and lastly backrow removes the importance of and instability caused by the power hit. Then they can actually scrummage.


Shit no. Rugby is first and foremost a game of competition for the ball. The ruck is supposed to be a element of this contest. Your suggestion would turn the game into touch football.

The other element is reducing the points for kicking. This will only exaggerate the effect of the idiotic change made in 1992 to increase the value of a converted try. The reality is a defending team is more likely to cynically infringe; giving away three points is better than seven. If people want to see more tries being scored, make penalties worth more. A drop kick is a skill and should be rewarded appropriately.

If you're going to suggest a law change/ amendment, take the time to work out how you would get around it. Then see if it would actually have the impact you want.

The intention is to ensure that the referee applies a yellow card for repeated infringements, something that should already happen, but changes a lot from ref to ref, and therefore different teams get away with different amounts of cynical play. I purposefully suggested the yellow card rule (or at least a rule of thumb) because of the suggesting of reducing dp and pgs to 2 points would as you say increase cynical fouls, particularly in a teams own half. I don't see why having a rule for yellow cards after a certain number of ruck infringements would lead to touch football? Please explain this conclusion to me?

 

[Scotty]

Reducing the points of a penalty would be a disaster for the reason you state. Folks who advocate it do so in good faith but don't recognise the likely unfavourable unintended consequences of it, as it seems so clear to them. When the same discussion comes up a year from now they will say the same thing in good faith.

Their rebuttal to your objection may be that if players are cynical near their goal line then cards should be issued until players stop doing it. Whistling Dixie or pissing in the wind makes more sense unless we see referees use cards more with the laws and points system we have now.

Incidentally, I think the balance of 5, 2 and 3 points is about right.

Lee,

So you don't think a law stating that after a set number of ruck penalties a team receives a yellow card would not work to curb cynical play, and thus increase the likelihood of teams going for tries when coupled with a reduction in points for dgs and pgs?

 

[Bullrush]

The intention is to ensure that the referee applies a yellow card for repeated infringements, something that should already happen, but changes a lot from ref to ref, and therefore different teams get away with different amounts of cynical play. I purposefully suggested the yellow card rule (or at least a rule of thumb) because of the suggesting of reducing dp and pgs to 2 points would as you say increase cynical fouls, particularly in a teams own half. I don't see why having a rule for yellow cards after a certain number of ruck infringements would lead to touch football? Please explain this conclusion to me?

As Antipodean stated, the game is about competition for the ball. If refs start getting yellow card fever because players are contesting possession, guys will stop competing unless they are 120% certain they won't get pinged. And even then it's dangerous. Look at what happened to Ritchie McCaw in the 1st Reds/Crusader match-up. People still can't agree if he was entitled to that ball or not. If that had been an instance which led to a yellow card.....very contentious

 

[Second row]

Of course some of us cynical old timers might say that there is no need to change law 20 to remove the power hit:

(i)Charging. A front row must not form at a distance from its opponents and rush against
them. This is dangerous play.
Sanction: Penalty kick
(j) Stationary and parallel. Until the ball leaves the scrum half’s hands, the scrum must be
stationary and the middle line must be parallel to the goal lines. A team must not shove the
scrum away from the mark before the ball is thrown in.
Sanction: Free Kick

No charging, stationary and parallel - it's already illegal. Who told the whistle-blowers to ignore it?

 

[Scotty]

As Antipodean stated, the game is about competition for the ball. If refs start getting yellow card fever because players are contesting possession, guys will stop competing unless they are 120% certain they won't get pinged. And even then it's dangerous. Look at what happened to Ritchie McCaw in the 1st Reds/Crusader match-up. People still can't agree if he was entitled to that ball or not. If that had been an instance which led to a yellow card.....very contentious

Teams don't stop competing for the ball when they have had a player yellow carded now why do you think that might change with this suggested law?

We could of course look at going the other way and just let a free for all at the contest as you would maybe like. It would be similar to some of the elvs but the concern would be that it would be relatively easy to slow down opposition ball while the attacking team would need to commit a lot of numbers and reduce their attacking ability. It would make the refs job easier with less rules to adjudicate on but I'm not sure it would lead to a great spectacle.

 

[rugbyisfun]

yeh, some great work in this thread lads:
- scrum half can only go to mid-line of scrum (side ball being fed) OR can go other side and defend (last feet, not back the 5m)
- if attempt at a penalty conversion is unsuccessful, then full arm penalty awarded to the other team at place of kick.
- DEFINITELY, if it is deemed the non-throwing team (lineout) don't make a serious attempt at competing, then not-straight CANNOT be awarded to the defending team.

 

[Lee Grant]

Of course some of us cynical old timers might say that there is no need to change law 20 to remove the power hit:

(i) Charging. A front row must not form at a distance from its opponents and rush against
them. This is dangerous play. Sanction: Penalty kick

(j) Stationary and parallel. Until the ball leaves the scrum half's hands, the scrum must be
stationary and the middle line must be parallel to the goal lines. A team must not shove the
scrum away from the mark before the ball is thrown in. Sanction: Free Kick

No charging, stationary and parallel - it's already illegal. Who told the whistle-blowers to ignore it?

Very good that 2nd Row: I had forgotten the first one and the 2nd is invoked sometimes with the comment, "You can't push through the hit," but to allow the power hit then make them pause and push afterwards goes against nature. It is one law that has a problem with compliance as does another about straight scrum feeds - and both are victims of the power hit.

I guess the first one is supposed to stop packs running in from a metre or two away but it could be invoked to stop the shorter power hit. It would just need a directive from the IRB that what we call the power hit is the same thing as charging.

Lee,

So you don't think a law stating that after a set number of ruck penalties a team receives a yellow card would not work to curb cynical play, and thus increase the likelihood of teams going for tries when coupled with a reduction in points for dgs and pgs?

I like some of the suggestions such as allowing throws not wider than to the outside shoulder if the lineout is not contested, but I'm generally against law changes because a lot of the look good, smell good suggestions could have unintended results. That applies to the one I mentioned also.

I wouldn't trust officials who routinely allow short skew scrum feeds yet ping long lineout throws which a marginally off target to have any consistency with a new law.

Even the change to the current power hit I would like is not a new thing for me because I have seen the soft engage and power push after the scrum feed work in the old days. Also, as 2nd Row says, there is already a law that forbids charging into the scrum that can be used to stop the hit.

I wouldn't look at any new law until enforcement of the old ones is done and dusted. Your one is well thought through, but the problem with unforeseen consequences is that you can't foresee them.
.