Law changes in 2011?

[Spook]

I think tries should be worth twice what penalties are worth. Works in league. Drop goals should not be worth more than 1/2 a try - it's ridiculous. Refs needs to be tougher with yellow cards. Free kick sanctions should be given a go by all.

 

[Newb]

all for missed droppies leading to a scrum for the opposition or something. the 22 drop out is stupid.

i'm with thomo about the points system. i buy his reasoning that making tries worth more will only make them even more scarce as teams go for a penalty even if it means a yellow card. that said, i don't know that we should make penalties more and tries less. i say leave it. maybe droppies to 2 points but i don't really care about that as much. it is still a skill. don't believe me, ask the kiwis. still haven't gotten it right.

i like the idea of the opposition scrummie having to stay back on his side at a scrum. but i don't think his influence now is really that big of a deal. if he does have to stay on his side though, the scrummie feeding the ball MUST be required to put the ball in straight. that part of the game is utter bullshit.

with no pesky scrum half and a crooked feed, the scrum with the ball should have a pretty easy time of it if they're any good at all. which maybe is the point, but i like the scrum to be a contest still.

and how they can say a hooker has to throw a ball 5 meters in wind straight but a scrum half doesn't have to roll the damn ball straight over a meter is ridiculous.

 

[mark_s]

Thommond, your economics is focussing on the defending team only. You also need to make sure the team with the ball in hand has a stronger incentive to score tries rather than force a penalty from the defending team.

One of the most irritating thing about poofball is the way teams play for penalties by diving all over the place. I reckon you would get a similar outcome if tries and penalty goals were both worth 3 points.

Being serious though, maybe we need a 5min sin bin option so that refs are more likely to sit players down who continue to infringe but its a relatively minor offence (e.g. hands in the ruck, going off feet etc).

 

[Ash]

On the scrumhalf - I'd like to see him not allowed past the feet of the lock. It's so frustrating to see a ref let a top scrumhalf basically tackle a no. 8 before as he picks up the ball. A top scrumhalf can force either the no. 8 to flick the ball out, or force his oponent to stand on the far boot of the no. 8 and even then the defending scrumhalf can sometimes get away with coming around from lenient refs. It is, quite honestly, a stupid ruling which allows refs to not do anything about the defending scrumhalf basically tackling the no. 8 as soon as he sees his hands move off the bind to touch the ball.

Again, nothing more stupid than a no. 8 getting tackled from a stable scrum as soon as he touches the ball resulting in a knock on - and it's not like it's challenging from the scrumhalf to do at all. You quite often seen refs penalising halfbacks being a nuiscance on an oponents scrum in some games and letting it go in others.

On a stable scrum a no. 8 should have the option of picking up the ball and running. A halfback abusing that silly rule effectively cancels that option out. Yet another reason why backrow moves no longer exist - and they should with the newish 5 metre rule.

 

[Groucho]

Based on the evidence of the final weekend of the November internationals, there is a glimmer of hope that both Australia and New Zealand will eventually 'work out' the current rules and return to a ball in hand attacking style, and have an advantage over other teams in doing so, in addition to having the two strongest scrums going round.

If this should prove to be the case, then fuck 'em all.

 

[DPK]

I dont think that the number of points awarded for goals or tries should be changed, i think we should give the ELV "stellenbosch" laws another go with regards to the short arm free kick over full arm penalty arrangement. It makes for more exciting, fast paced rugby, and the season of Tri-Nations rugby played under these laws was definetely more exciting. The Shute Shield this year was played under these laws and its was at least twice as entertaining and much easier to watch than the test matches.

and another thing, something ive heard since i was a kid from various rugby fans (mostly piggies), replace the kickoff with a scrum fed by the referee. but i digress...

 

[Sully]

Someone in the NH has woken up to the fact the some games may be a bit boring and that there aren't many tries being scored

from sportal

Rob Andrew warned the International Rugby Board on Wednesday that spectators were being driven away by laws that were killing the game as a spectacle.
The Rugby Football Union pressed for an overhaul at the IRB's council interim meeting, blaming the interpretations for the recent injury crisis and the negative, safety-first tactics that were prevalent.

Hmm sounds familiar. Now where have I heard that before? If only there was a way that we could introduce some new laws that would encourage attacking play!

and then this

Andrew, the RFU's director of elite rugby, is worried that the lack of entertainment is already having an impact on supporters.

"I'm very concerned that attendances will start to decline unless changes are made. I think we're seeing it already," he said.

"You just have to talk to people in the game, including some of the coaches who have said they're turning the TV off themselves when they're watching matches."

But I'm sure that only 6 months ago I was told that NH Rugby couldn't be healthier and that if nothing was wrong don't mess with it! So what has changed since, yes Im going to say it, The ELV's were voted down? What major change in the game has caused this calamity?

The RFU received little support at the IRB meeting as the Tri Nations teams, who have been worst hit by declining attendances, seized their chance to avenge the rejection of the Experimental Law Variations (ELVs).

No shit Sherlock! We begged you for some help and you pricks laughed at us. Made fun of our forwards and told us that this was how the game should be played! Now you've been handed a spanking, your forwards have all grabbed their man bags and gone for a massage and a manicure at the day spa and you think there might be something wrong with the laws. Isn't it funny haw attitudes change when you no longer have the most dominant forward pack in the world and your record breaking flyhalf turns out to be a little one dimensional.

So what has gone wrong? Why has the ruck and maul turned into a cesspool? everything can be traced back to one decision. The rucking decision when the new age bleeding heart liberals decided that a few scratches stuffed up their fake tan lines. when some Idiot decided that the ref could police the Ruck without any help from a 200 cm 120 kilo foot solder wearing 15 mm studs. When we let the cheats and the floppers get a way with their cheating and flopping with only the admonishments ringing in their ears.

how many times have you heard "leave it seven" ouch that harsh! he couldn't grab it with bleeding fingers! Or this beauty "Roll away hooker" But sir I am, Look at me rolling so so slowly away. It's amazing how fast you can roll with a couple of boot marks on your back!

You can do two things that will fix this pretty much straight away
1. Stop say stupid line like "leave it" and start blowing you're whistle. Let's face it by the time the Refs issues his scathing remarks it's too late! the ball is already slowed down

2. This one is out there so take a little while to take it in and mull over it before you decide to BRING BACK RUCKING

Encourage players to stay on their feet! don't reward players for falling over accidentally on purpose in the Ruck,
yes I'm looking at you Mr Solialo, don't let players play the ball while off their feet. Allowing this one aspect of play, that is clearly a fundamental part of our game, to live again will fix so much of the modern game that it clearly needs a 12 month trial!

The End long live Rucking

 

[chief]

The ELV's were great, they weren't all that great refereed other than by the fine Matt Goddard. But they were a good idea and they did make the Super 14 more entertaining, and it did encourage fast paced attacking rugby which rugby is desperately needing right now! The decline is just too significant and they need to be changed immediately after RWC 2011.

 

[Gagger]

The ELV's were great, they weren't all that great refereed other than by the fine Matt Goddard.

Was it just me who thought he sounded camp?

 

[chief]

The ELV's were great, they weren't all that great refereed other than by the fine Matt Goddard.

Was it just me who thought he sounded camp?

I was wondering if someone would notice my use of adjectives in that very flamboyant comment. But if rugby is really going to be made 'attractive' it needs to bring them back. It really is the only option for rugby to really progress in other countries like Italy for instance. Which attracted a 80,000 people crowd to one of their games this year. For it to stay like that, Free kick sanctions at ruck area need to be bought back.

 

[rugbywhisperer]

The ELV's were great, they weren't all that great refereed other than by the fine Matt Goddard.

Was it just me who thought he sounded camp?

Your're not allowed to draw that conclusion sir - :lmao: :lmao:
We must all be free to express ourselves independently of the opinion or influences of others and if Mr. Goddard decides to express himself in a certain manner we are not allowed to draw any conclusion on that expression.
(in case you are wondering just finished Legal Theory at Uni in particular 'Queer Theory' so I'm right on the ball to for the downtroddenn minorities who have been marginalised by the legitimisation of a two sex system of government and legislation).

Sorry about that - I'll try not to let it happen again.

 

[Gagger]

Hey, I didn't say he was gay (he has a wife and kids I believe) just that he sounds like a row of tents!

http://blip.tv/file/1966416

 

[chief]

Thats a dead set classic.

"Aw who put these jerseys together." Classic by Matt.

 

[Thomond78]

Newb, just to make it clear; I'm not proposing we actually change the relative point values of tries and penalties. At the moment, the extra incentive to go for tries is the bonus point, and it works; I've seen enough HEC pools decided by this, and losing bonus points, to have settled that argument long since (which is what Mark_S mentioned). It's more a genuine intellectual curiosity; after all, it couldn't hurt to have proper data before we start tweaking.

The straight feed goes without saying. Brian Moore is fighting a non-stop campaign for this, and he's right.

The big problem up here isn't because we need to introduce a new law; it's because we introduced a new law, and need to get rid of it. The hands-in "ruling" Paddy No'Brain brought in, which has completely altered the relative risks of running it with the chance of losing it in contact, and kicking it. Kicking it is now, vastly, the safer and more sensible option (and don't pretend this is a hemisphere one; the AB's kicked the leather off the ball for the first half in Cardiff, and as for others, Mnr. Steyn, in the 3N, with a garryowen...). It's a disaster, an unmitigated disaster, and has to be got rid of. It undid all the good work that was being done last year in the crackdown on going off the feet; this time last year, we were starting to see classic rucking as a result of it.

It's also worth noting Stephen Jones and Mick Cleary are in favour of bringing back rucking; as you saw from Barnes last weekend, NH refs are now, by and large, happy enough with the guy just lying there getting an admonitory tickle. Ironically, it's the SH refs who aren't. The spitting of the dummy by the 3N is dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, btw. We want to kick POB in the clackers for being stupid, sort out the breakdown to keep people on their feet and bring back rucking; you should be jumping at the chance. Hell, what else have you lot been asking for for years...?

 

[Lee Grant]

I tried to read the above posts diligently but when I started I got the funny feeling that it was a repetition of deja vu all over again, once more.


All this kicking that is going on now used to be reserved for big matches where the fear of losing was greatest, or in the case of England: every game, just about. Now it is prevalent in ordinary games. There is no mystery about the reason, I wrote about it last year: teams are shit scared that they will lose the ball if they take it into contact.


They are scared because defenders have more rights now: firstly, the tackler was allowed to stay on the attacker's side of the tackle, and secondly: the recent ruling that a defender who had hands on the ball before a ruck was formed was allowed to keep his hands on it afterwards.


These are not good laws/rulings if you want to give a break to attackers, and the first one has always been refereed poorly anyway. To be a tackle the tackler has to go to ground but you often see guys who never left their feet being allowed on the attackers side of the breakdown. “He's the tackler,” says the ref, but he wasn't according to the definition.


And when the tackler does go to ground he often doesn't take his hands off the ballrunner on the ground; he more often than not keeps his hands on the tackled player to lever himself up. Some of them bounce up as soon as they reach the ground but keep their hands on like a cowboy roping a calf at the rodeo.


Changing these two things wouldn't do any harm, but basically I don't have any belief that whatever laws are changed that the referees will referee the new stuff in a way that the desired outcomes will be achieved.


The ELV trials were a perfect example: in Australian club rugby the amateur officials refereed the FK sanctions brilliantly (after about a month of practice). They cheerfully carded people early in the game to stop the cynical play that people thought would happen, and it had a curious result. Players actually abided by the spirit of the ELV.


It was almost as good later in the season in the semi-pro ARC and I couldn't wait for the 2008 S14 to start. We all saw what happened: the professional refs stuffed it up, Compared to the amateur referees, the professionals hardly every issued a yellow card for cynical play.


The second thing that happened was that the refs would stop the game and say things like: “If there's any more of that we'll have to go to full penalties.” Good grief: another layer of warnings and their brief was to speed up the game.


People in Oz and NZ are a bit pissed off that the IRB didn't have the FK sanctions ELV trialled globally, but I don't blame them; not the way it was refereed in the SH.


What's the connection between the FK sanctions and the aerial ping-pong? It is more likely that attacking players will run with the ball more when it is “play on” with a free kick. And we will see what we saw time and time again in 2007 in Oz: that the same referee who would not whistle up something in 2006 for a full penalty, had no compunction about whistling free kicks for the same incident in 2007.


Defenders were always re-aligning to deal with the frequent tap and goes, and often not succeeding. On the other side of the coin: those that had strong scrummagers or wanted to slow the game down, took the scrum option. Win, win.


There were no complaints about defence being too dominant in 2007 in Australia.

 

[DPK]

flawless, mr grant. email it to the IRB ad nauseum, ad infinitum.

 

[chief]

Grant that is a fucking fantastic point. The pro refs fucked it up. I know some of you guys are sick of hearing my shit about Matt Goddard. But what happened there is he binned players for fucking up the rucks and he got stood down. After that occurred referees were afraid to show yellow cards for cynical ruck infringements. Thank Lyndon Bray for that. ELV's were fantastic in the ARC, refs were not put as under much scrutiny as the pro refs people were happy to see them binned. All the nonsense about warning before going to a penalty and then they can have a penalty and then they can have a yellow card after that. After that incident with Goddard 'red zone' infringements became a joke, with referees increasingly not putting their hand towards their pocket.

 

[Thomond78]

And that, gentlemen, is when we turned, forever, against FKAGG. Because we took one look at that weakness, transposed it to cold, wet NH fields with people like Quinlan et al at it all day, and knew it could never work. That, and the maul ELV (and on that one, I think everyone agrees, it's better without that ELV).

But, generally, LG's right. That "ruling" allowing you to keep your hands in - in flat defiance of the laws, btw - is a disaster, and if we just got rid of that, it'd be a start. First, do no harm; and that one actively made things worse.

 

[Lindommer]

And that, gentlemen, is when we turned, forever, against FKAGG. Because we took one look at that weakness, transposed it to cold, wet NH fields with people like Quinlan et al at it all day, and knew it could never work.

Forgive me for raking over old coals but it's a crying shame some in the NH didn't trial the full ELVs rather than "looking" at them before making up their minds which way to jump. We in the SH did, of course, trial the full ELVs rather than trying to imagine what they might "look" like. And after "looking" at the full ELVs in the ARC we "knew" damned well they WOULD work.

 

[Lee Grant]

Once I got the above post out of my system I was able to read the other posts without being too nauseous. I'm not criticising the quality of the posts, quite the contrary, but I start to heave sometimes when I see stuff that can be fixed by proper refereeing and proper sanctions against referees who don't follow proper directions.

and how they can say a hooker has to throw a ball 5 meters in wind straight but a scrum half doesn't have to roll the damn ball straight over a meter is ridiculous.

This is a great mystery when we crow about rugby union being a game where players are allowed to compete for the ball. Defending hookers don't bother hooking for the ball now unless circumstances are favourable on the engage, because they would rather be a centre prop and add to the push.

Back in the day, even a throw into the scrum a few degrees off was pinged; so defending hookers struck for the ball most of the time. I those days, 50 years ago, the big talking point was not infringement at the breakdown (they had a curious law then that required players to stay on their feet) but whether or not a hooker from either side was striking too early. The hookers that could strike and get genuine tight heads were like gods.

It is a skill that is gone from the game, but its not the only one.

It is clear who is to blame.