Law changes in 2011?

[chief]

The International Rugby Board Council has announced details of the Law amendment process which will shape the evaluation of the Laws and whether there is a need for any change following Rugby World Cup 2011 in New Zealand.

Even though the current law changes were introduced by a more transparent, thorough and democratic process than ever before, the laws have not met with universal approval and much blame for tedious play has been laid at the door of the laws, this despite the scintillating rugby played by New Zealand and Australia on the final day of the November Test window.

After an interim meeting of the IRB's Council on Tuesday, IRB Chairman Bernard Lapasset said: “We are all committed to ensuring that the Game is as enjoyable to play, officiate and watch as possible.

“Rugby is currently in good health with participation growing around the world, but there is concern about the attractiveness of the Game at the elite level and there is collective responsibility to ensure that a structured process can be implemented to allow for global analysis and to monitor trends relating to the shape and character of the Game.

“The framework agreed by the IRB Council will promote full Rugby stakeholder consultation and the participation of Member Unions to ensure that decisions made are in the best interest of Rugby worldwide."

The IRB's Council agreed a framework and timetable for the Laws review beginning in early 2010 with stakeholder consultation to assess global playing trends.

Central to the process will be the full participation of Tier 1 Member Unions within a specialist Laws Consultation Group, while the framework will also pave the way for an evaluation structure and trials if recommended.

 

[Moses]

I'd like to see marks allowed anywhere in your own half.

Also, since when has the word game deserved a capital?

 

[Boomy]

Either reduce the amount of points for a drop goal or, if the attempt is missed, have the same restart that takes place after a regular kick passes over the dead ball line...scrum where the attempt was taken from. It'll make sure that willy-nilly attempts don't disease our game.

 

[cyclopath]

Either reduce the amount of points for a drop goal or, if the attempt is missed, have the same restart that takes place after a regular kick passes over the dead ball line...scrum where the attempt was taken from. It'll make sure that willy-nilly attempts don't disease our game.

I agree on both - points to 2 (or even 1) but more importantly the second part. Shits me when someone has a random droppie which is usually the result of their team running out of meaningful attacking options, goes dead and they get the benefit of a 22m receive. Not sure F Steyn could be discouraged though!! Would piss his team mates off no end if they give up a scrum just in their half because of yet another low percentage attempt.

 

[Scott Allen]

Like the idea of a mark anywhere in your own half.

There's a lot of skill in a field goal - more than kicking a goal from a stationery kicking tee. So I don't see the points for a field goal should be reduced but I like the idea of the non-kicking team getting a scrum from where the ball was kicked if the attempt is missed.

If we're talking about changes to points, I ask the question: what do we want to see more of? Answer: tries. So why not change the points for a try to 8. That makes a try possibly worth 10 points with the conversion. That would encourage teams to attack more and go for 10 points instead of 3.

 

[Gagger]

We need to put the advantage back to the attacking team at the breakdown. Take it back to 'hands off' by the tackler when the ruck is formed

Breakdown rule to stay, but IRB sets up laws review for 2010

From correspondents in Dublin, Ireland
December 02, 2009

The International Rugby Board (IRB) have announced rules governing the breakdown, which some pundits say are ruining the sport, would remain in force but a laws review would start in 2010.

As things stand, the tackler at the breakdown is, provided he then gets on to his feet, allowed to compete for the ball.

Critics allege this has swung the balance too far in favour of the defending side, with referees more likely to now penalise the attacking team for ensuing ruck infringements such as holding on.

This, it is argued, has led to sides kicking away ball for fear of being caught in possession and so made Test match rugby union in particular less of an entertaining spectacle for fans.

My pet hate: letting the opposition halfback advance alongside the ball as it goes back through the winning scrum. It's hard enough to get clean ball out of a rugby scrum without having a halfback ready to wrap himself around the 9 or 8 as he tries to clear it. Make both halfbacks retire behind their own backrows immediately after the feed.

Totally fucking agreed

 

[Thomond78]

8 for a try works for me. If not that, reduce drop goals and penalties to 2 points. Totally agree that a drop attempt that goes dead should lead to a scrum at the kick point.

My pet hate: letting the opposition halfback advance alongside the ball as it goes back through the winning scrum. It's hard enough to get clean ball out of a rugby scrum without having a halfback ready to wrap himself around the 9 or 8 as he tries to clear it. Make both halfbacks retire behind their own backrows immediately after the feed.

Would be an utter disaster.

Think about it. You're defending. You can give up 8 points for a try, or a possible 2 points for a penalty. What do you do? Penalty, every time. So, fewer tries. We saw this when the value of a try went up to five points; the sin-bin had to be introduced to deal with it.

At the moment, the balance is right on the points ratio between the two. What we need is refs encouraged to card for persistent offending. Not the least of O'Brien's disasters this year was effectively sacking Goddard for doing just that; instead, he should have been commended for it.

 

[Thomond78]

We need to put the advantage back to the attacking team at the breakdown. Take it back to 'hands off' by the tackler when the ruck is formed.

Again, Paddy O'Brien's idiot fault. It really is a no-brainer. Soon as the ruck forms, hands off and everyone on their feet, or it's a penalty. Simple as. We were getting towards it last season up here, and it worked until Paddy fucked everything up.

My pet hate: letting the opposition halfback advance alongside the ball as it goes back through the winning scrum. It's hard enough to get clean ball out of a rugby scrum without having a halfback ready to wrap himself around the 9 or 8 as he tries to clear it. Make both halfbacks retire behind their own backrows immediately after the feed.

Totally fucking agreed
[/quote]

I don't agree. It's a skill, and it's a skill not just for the scrummie, but for the packs. Putting pressure on them by way of the wheel, getting the right shoulder up to defend or left shoulder up to attack the pass, are all important parts of scrummaging, that that change would kill.

 

[chief]

- Maybe still having Penalty offenses for ruck but they cannot go for the 3 points
- More frequent yellow cards for red zone offenses

 

[Thomond78]

- Maybe still having Penalty offenses for ruck but they cannot go for the 3 points
- More frequent yellow cards for red zone offenses

a) No; you need to be punished on the scoreboard.
b) Yes.

 

[cyclopath]

We need to put the advantage back to the attacking team at the breakdown. Take it back to 'hands off' by the tackler when the ruck is formed.

Again, Paddy O'Brien's idiot fault. It really is a no-brainer. Soon as the ruck forms, hands off and everyone on their feet, or it's a penalty. Simple as. We were getting towards it last season up here, and it worked until Paddy fucked everything up.

My pet hate: letting the opposition halfback advance alongside the ball as it goes back through the winning scrum. It's hard enough to get clean ball out of a rugby scrum without having a halfback ready to wrap himself around the 9 or 8 as he tries to clear it. Make both halfbacks retire behind their own backrows immediately after the feed.

Totally fucking agreed

I don't agree. It's a skill, and it's a skill not just for the scrummie, but for the packs. Putting pressure on them by way of the wheel, getting the right shoulder up to defend or left shoulder up to attack the pass, are all important parts of scrummaging, that that change would kill.
[/quote]
Sorry, Thomo, explain to me how the scrum half walking alongside the ball in the scrum is a skill? The original post had nothing to do with the wheel or anything else, it was with the halfback being effectively offside relative to all other team-mates. It shits me too. That team has "won" the ball, why should the oppo half get to fark around with it? Of course if his team gets the wheel on, his loosies (well 2 of them) have a crack and fair enough.

 

[Gagger]

Cyclo, it's just a way for inferior scrummaging nations, like Wales, Ireland and England, to try and even up the scrum contest that they can't win otherwise.

Christ, next they'll be trying to de-power the scrum in other ways.....

:fishing

 

[Thomond78]

Sorry, Thomo, explain to me how the scrum half walking alongside the ball in the scrum is a skill? The original post had nothing to do with the wheel or anything else, it was with the halfback being effectively offside relative to all other team-mates. It shits me too. That team has "won" the ball, why should the oppo half get to fark around with it? Of course if his team gets the wheel on, his loosies (well 2 of them) have a crack and fair enough.

Cyclo, it's because the whole point of the wheel, right shoulder attacking, left shoulder defending, is to get the defending scrum half either further away from (right shoulder, he has to stay onside, so your number 8 is between him and the ball, and the 8 can pick and go right away from him with a man over straight away) or closer to the ball (left shoulder, defending scrum half is still onside but now between the pass and the 10 and closer to the ball at the base, the 8 can't go left into the scrum-half and if he goes right, there's an extra metre for the blindside to stop him in). And that involves both skill and tactical decisions, from both sides (you can load up on the right and refuse the left so that the oppo spin it around for you, knackering themselves and tying themselves in while giving you the angle).

The argument about "winning" the ball won't stand up. By the same token, you've won the ball, so why should the opposition be allowed push if that disrupts it?

As it happens, back in the day, wing-forwards used be allowed creep up as long as they were between the ball and their goal line. The scrum-half is onside, as he's not in front of the ball. It works, and good scrum-halves haven't a problem with it, especially if there's a decent 8 who won't fuck up at the base (Heaslip, I'm looking in your direction...). Leave it.

 

[cyclopath]

Disagree.
The scrum is about the forwards. By all means shove and disrupt the oppo ball that's been "won", wheel it and let 2 of your loosies have a crack at the ball more easily. There is skill and grunt involved in the pack doing that (although I fail to see the "skill" involved in pulling back to wheel, which seemed to be what you implied at one point).
There is no skill in the 9 wandering forward and getting in the fucken way of the ball under the 8's feet, I'm sorry. For me, the 9 puts it in, and if he's lucky pulls it out.

 

[Cutter]

8 for a try works for me. If not that, reduce drop goals and penalties to 2 points. Totally agree that a drop attempt that goes dead should lead to a scrum at the kick point.

My pet hate: letting the opposition halfback advance alongside the ball as it goes back through the winning scrum. It's hard enough to get clean ball out of a rugby scrum without having a halfback ready to wrap himself around the 9 or 8 as he tries to clear it. Make both halfbacks retire behind their own backrows immediately after the feed.

Disagree with your pet hate. A good no.8 can clear the ball cleanly and it is a discrete no.8 skill which should be preserved.

Reduce penalties and drop goals to 1 point and leave tries and conversions as is. That will help.

 

[mark_s]

I hate that a pissant 9 can come round the back and stuff up hard won ball from the scrum. We don't allow this at rucks so why allow it at srcums? Get rid of this rule.

Penalties, conversions and drop goals should all be worth the same thing - 2 points. IF you reduce the value of a drop goal then there is no need to change the drop goal restart rule.

 

[Thomond78]

I hate that a pissant 9 can come round the back and stuff up hard won ball from the scrum. We don't allow this at rucks so why allow it at srcums? Get rid of this rule.

Penalties, conversions and drop goals should all be worth the same thing - 2 points. IF you reduce the value of a drop goal then there is no need to change the drop goal restart rule.

Here's a hint; because scrums aren't rucks. Apples, shockingly, aren't oranges. Scrum-halves have been able to deal with this for 130 years now, as have 8s. And if they suddenly can't, then blame the 8s and scrum-halves for not working on a basic part of their game, because, frankly, I don't see the likes of Parisse, Palu, Spies or Hairydonkey, or Philips, du Preez et al having any problems.

And the simple truth is; if you reduce the value of a penalty, a penalty is less of a punishment. So people will be faster to give up a penalty than a try worth three times as much. All the more so when there's a bonus for tries scored and a bonus for keeping the score down. You'll have even less running rugby. We know this, because that's exactly what happened last time we tried increasing the value of a try to give us more tries; we got less.

 

[mark_s]

Here's a hint; because scrums aren't rucks. Apples, shockingly, aren't oranges. Scrum-halves have been able to deal with this for 130 years now, as have 8s. And if they suddenly can't, then blame the 8s and scrum-halves for not working on a basic part of their game, because, frankly, I don't see the likes of Parisse, Palu, Spies or Hairydonkey, or Philips, du Preez et al having any problems.

And the simple truth is; if you reduce the value of a penalty, a penalty is less of a punishment. So people will be faster to give up a penalty than a try worth three times as much. All the more so when there's a bonus for tries scored and a bonus for keeping the score down. You'll have even less running rugby. We know this, because that's exactly what happened last time we tried increasing the value of a try to give us more tries; we got less.

Lets extend your logic Thommond. Do you think making penalties 5 points each will get rid of transgressions in the game? Maybe we should make tries 1 point and penalties 5 points, then we have tries galore!

Oh, the one other requested rule change - bring back rucking.

 

[rugbywhisperer]

The law states that the scrummie of the team who has NOT won the ball in a scrum cannot put either foot infront of the ball as he (or she) follows it, yet we have seen all year, particularly with the SA and NZ 9's they have not been pinged for this and moreso they have been flagrantly harassing the attacking 9 by holding and shoving, again with absolutely no action by any of the so called officials.
If this alone is monitored and poiiced in a true formalistic approach there would not be a problem with ball delivery by a half decent no9 from the scrumbase.
Flankers are also not doing their job.
While the law says they cannot change their stance during a scrum, they are allowed to pack in a manner that would make the progress of the defending 9 more onerous, thereby restricting his (or her) progress and harassment of the attacking no9.

 

[Thomond78]

Here's a hint; because scrums aren't rucks. Apples, shockingly, aren't oranges. Scrum-halves have been able to deal with this for 130 years now, as have 8s. And if they suddenly can't, then blame the 8s and scrum-halves for not working on a basic part of their game, because, frankly, I don't see the likes of Parisse, Palu, Spies or Hairydonkey, or Philips, du Preez et al having any problems.

And the simple truth is; if you reduce the value of a penalty, a penalty is less of a punishment. So people will be faster to give up a penalty than a try worth three times as much. All the more so when there's a bonus for tries scored and a bonus for keeping the score down. You'll have even less running rugby. We know this, because that's exactly what happened last time we tried increasing the value of a try to give us more tries; we got less.

Lets extend your logic Thommond. Do you think making penalties 5 points each will get rid of transgressions in the game? Maybe we should make tries 1 point and penalties 5 points, then we have tries galore!

Oh, the one other requested rule change - bring back rucking.

Well, if economics makes any sense, quite possibly. I'd love to see it as an experiment, just out of intellectual curiosity; run games in leagues with no other changes, just with tries worth three, four and five points, controlling so far as possible for other elements, and see what you got at the end.

But the one thing I can guarantee is, increasing the value of a try will mean it's more worthwhile killing the ball to stop a try. Good backrows make careers out of that sort of assessment.

Agreed on bringing back rucking. Tache is starting a mini-campaign for it here, too.