NRC Law Variations - have your say

[Yikes]

3. After a successful or unsuccessful penalty goal attempt, play is restarted with a scrum to the non-kicking team at the place of the penalty.

This is the one that I think is absolutely terrible. How on earth did this get through. Hey, lets put the two parts of the game that people complain about the most together several times a match. Take up a minute or two of game time with a penalty attempt and then another minute or two in completing a scrum. That'll be attractive to viewers!

Can you imagine what will happen in games where one scrum is very dominant!? Penalty 30 metres out straight in front. Kick the goal. Scrum. Team feeding the ball collapses, penalty. Team with the dominant scrum keeps opting for scrums until penalty goal option allowed. Kick goal. Scrum. Team feeding the ball collapses, penalty. Kick goal. Scrum. Repeat until the end of the game.

Seriously, how does a panel with so much rugby expertise put this through?

Edit: Sorry just saw #1 Tah said the same thing with regards to a team with a dominant scrum.

Have another think about it. If implemented, it would only be in concert with

- not being able to goal a PK from a scrum (avoids the scenario you pose)
- time limit for scrum
- time limit for goal.

What it would do is:

a) Discourage optimistic PK attempts from long range (you're better off kicking for touch) because if you miss, opposition has the ball in reasonable field position.

b) Discourage the defending team from giving away PK inside their own 22m. Currently, you save 4 points (or potentially 6 if they reduced PG to 2!) AND at the restart on half way you get to kick the ball way down into the opposition 22m, have them kick to touch and you have an attacking line out, all from giving away a PK!
Under this your return from giving a PK away is that you're still under pressure, you kick to touch and now the attacking team is still attacking.

If what pisses off most fans is:

- long range PK attempts contributing the lion's share of point scoring, and
- when your team starts to attack, the defending team just gives away a PK and two mins later your team is under the pump again.

This suggestion tries to address both issues.

 

[Braveheart81]

What about teams that are under the pump at scrumtime and their scrum is getting penalised because it's already gone past free kicks?

What happens if you take a penalty kick from 15m out straight in front and then go back for the next scrum which sees the inferior team getting pinged again?

It seems like this sort of suggestion (and the one regarding taking marks anywhere on the field) is to target a specific problem with little attention to what might happen to all the other games where there wasn't a problem previously.

A scrum on halfway is hardly a bad position to be in. Why would this rule make it any less likely that a team will turn down a shot for goal from halfway?

 

[Yikes]

What about teams that are under the pump at scrumtime and their scrum is getting penalised because it's already gone past free kicks?

What happens if you take a penalty kick from 15m out straight in front and then go back for the next scrum which sees the inferior team getting pinged again?

Agree - it would depend on what the 'new' situation is with repeated infringement.

A scrum on halfway is hardly a bad position to be in. Why would this rule make it any less likely that a team will turn down a shot for goal from halfway?

It's the other team's ball don't forget.

 

[Braveheart81]

It's the other team's ball don't forget.

I know and my point still stands. It's hardly a terrible position to be in to have a scrum on halfway when you're not in possession.

If the biggest problem people have is that they feel that scrums and penalty kicks waste too much time on the clock, then stopping the clock at those times seems like the best option to me.

Beyond that it is tactics which affect how a team plays, not the laws of the game.

 

[Omar Comin']

Yikes, as Braveheart said, goals will be able to be kicked from scrum penalties after repeated infringements.

If a team with a weaker scrum is getting steamrolled, and the stronger team is basically able to force a penalty at every scrum then you'll get a loop of penalty goals and scrums. From the same position, potentially all game!

Think about it. The penalty goal is kicked, and the scrum formed. The team feeding it gets crushed and there's a penalty to the team that just kicked a goal. Well they can't kick a goal right now, so they opt for another scrum. They then crush the opposition scrum for another penalty, and another. Until the referee gives them the option to kick for goal. Then they just repeat.

And yeah, defending a scrum from halfway is not a bad scenario at all.

Instead of a scrum, why not just make it a free kick? That would provide all the benefits you're looking for without the potential massive problem. Not to mention saving all the extra time those scrums would take as well (even with a time limit to set).

 

[Yikes]

Think about it. The penalty goal is kicked, and the scrum formed. The team feeding it gets crushed and there's a penalty to the team that just kicked a goal. Well they can't kick a goal right now, so they opt for another scrum. They then crush the opposition scrum for another penalty, and another. Until the referee gives them the option to kick for goal. Then they just repeat.

And yeah, defending a scrum from halfway is not a bad scenario at all.

Instead of a scrum, why not just make it a free kick? That would provide all the benefits you're looking for without the potential massive problem. Not to mention saving all the extra time those scrums would take as well (even with a time limit to set).

Because I think a FK is now an incentive to the defending team to give away a PK. They can kick downfield under no pressure.

I hear you, but colour me sceptical. I've never seen a game where a scrum has simply been totally incapable of getting ball-in ball-out at EVERY single scrum they pack with their feed. It just doesn't happen.

(There is another part to this: scrummaging is part of the game. You can't do anything to lessen the role of the scrum in the game. Australian Rugby already has enough issues without pretending that you don't have to be competitive come scrum time.)

 

[Omar Comin']

Because I think a FK is now an incentive to the defending team to give away a PK. They can kick downfield under no pressure.

They could, but it'd still be less of an incentive to give away penalties than getting a kick off on the half way as you do now (for a successful kick).

I hear you, but colour me sceptical. I've never seen a game where a scrum has simply been totally incapable of getting ball-in ball-out at EVERY single scrum they pack with their feed. It just doesn't happen.

I think it would give far too much advantage to a team with a dominant scrum. Especially with the new scrum laws that essentially require teams to hook the ball and therefore concede an 8 on 7 shove on their own feed. At an international level a team like Romania would start thrashing a team like Fiji or the USA.

(There is another part to this: scrummaging is part of the game. You can't do anything to lessen the role of the scrum in the game. Australian Rugby already has enough issues without pretending that you don't have to be competitive come scrum time.)

You're talking about adding several more scrums in every game in critical positions of the field. I agree we don't want to lessen the role of the scrum, but I don't think we want to make it potentially the most crucial part of the game.

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

To lift some pressure off the referees, how about they give one lucky member of the crowd a device that can be used to signal to the referee whether or not a line out was straight?

 

[Brumby Runner]

Think it's tin foil hat time. Most of these suggestions are so loopy they must have been put forward with the knowledge they will be voted out and the remaining three or four changes they wanted in the first place will be adopted and most voters will think they have had a hand in the decision making.

There were many more worthy changes canvassed in these threads that haven't made the list, like clarifying the "line of touch" laws and simplifying the scrum engagement etc to take the ref's interpretation out of the mix. But where are these? Perhaps the powers that be didn't want them so included a bag full of such ridiculous items to pull the wool over our eyes.

 

[It is what it is]

Think it's tin foil hat time. Most of these suggestions are so loopy they must have been put forward with the knowledge they will be voted out and the remaining three or four changes they wanted in the first place will be adopted and most voters will think they have had a hand in the decision making.

There were many more worthy changes canvassed in these threads that haven't made the list, like clarifying the "line of touch" laws and simplifying the scrum engagement etc to take the ref's interpretation out of the mix. But where are these? Perhaps the powers that be didn't want them so included a bag full of such ridiculous items to pull the wool over our eyes.

I like your thinking - the old "ambit claim" negotiating method.

 

[Wilson]

So they're apparently consulting with the teams over the 12 proposed variations to see which they pick: http://www.rugby.com.au/nrc/LawVariation.aspx

Will be interesting to see what they land on. Was thinking about it today and while it's too late for other new rules this year I'd love to see them bring back lifting to block penalties, a la John Eales. Might help cut down on the number of long range shots taken.

 

[Rugby Central]

Don't mind most of them except Law Variation 7. Any captain will select to remove the oppositions most dangerous player. That's hardly fair if that player has done nothing wrong.

For example, If NSW did constant infringements I'd get rid of Folau. Not his fault but would make it much easier for my side to have a kicking game and reduce their attack.

 

[Braveheart81]

I reckon you'd generally pick the halfback. I think that has just about the biggest impact on a team.

Will generally mean the 10 plays halfback and they don't do it very well and then they aren't at first receiver so it has a bit of a knock on effect.

In defence you're missing a player with a very defined and quite specialised role of being the sweeper. Not sure how many players without that experience would do it well on the fly.

 

[Blue]

To much fiddling around. What's the point? The IRB will knock it back. They don't care unless it's their ideas.

The only law change we need is reset scrum, and quicker formation.

Maximum two resets. On the third collapse it's a free kick which has to be tapped and ran with. So the game restarts quicker. If any team delays the scrum set it's a penalty.

We cannot take the advantage gained with scrum dominance out of the game, nor can we somehow penalise a team for having a long goal kicker. It's just silly.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Fa Shiz Blue. Let's just focus on referee the current rules and getting them right. I do agree with type limit type rules to eliminate wasted time. Maintains the fabric of the game while removing one of the biggest blights.

 

[Train Without a Station]

One of the biggest killers of all professional sports is not referees, but coaches. Coaches constantly come out and put pressure on the referees in press conference and the media due to the fact they are trying to shift blame from themselves. This puts further scrutiny on referees and makes them reluctance to make game changing calls when they are right.

Hopefully due to both the lower profile, and the fact that all these coaches have bigger appointments at Super Rugby franchises, this will be much less of a factor and allow referees to do their job without fear of unfair and undue scrutiny by a guy trying to save his job and blame somebody else.

 

[Eyes and Ears]

One of the biggest killers of all professional sports is not referees, but coaches. Coaches constantly come out and put pressure on the referees in press conference and the media due to the fact they are trying to shift blame from themselves. This puts further scrutiny on referees and makes them reluctance to make game changing calls when they are right.

Hopefully due to both the lower profile, and the fact that all these coaches have bigger appointments at Super Rugby franchises, this will be much less of a factor and allow referees to do their job without fear of unfair and undue scrutiny by a guy trying to save his job and blame somebody else.

I think you will find that this competition will be very professional in many aspects. Players will be out to prove they are Super ready and coaches will be looking to show that they are ready to be a Super Rugby Head Coach. I also think losses will be critical in a short season. Therefore IMO the referee scrutiny from coaches will be significant. This is not a selection competition - they will want to win.

 

[Slim 293]

Law Variations

1. Instead of 4 try bonus point, winning team is awarded a bonus point for finishing 3 or more tries ahead of their opponents

Good idea.

2. Reduced time limits for conversions and penalty kick attempts

Indifferent. I thought they'd already reduced time limits?

3. After a successful or unsuccessful penalty goal attempt, play is restarted with a scrum to the non-kicking team at the place of the penalty

Nah.

4. Time limit for both teams to form a scrum

Sure

5. No option to kick for goal from a scrum penalty (kick to touch allowed). If penalty becomes a ‘repeated infringement’ then kick at goal is allowed.

Dumb.

6. Scrum-half of non-feeding team is compulsory, must stay within 1m of the scrum, and cannot move past the mid-line of the scrum

Meh.

7. If a yellow card is given for repeated team infringement (excluding dangerous play), the non-offending captain chooses the opposition player who is temporarily suspended for 10 mins

Dumb.

8. Players arriving through the gate may ‘drive out’ opponents past the ruck, creating more space behind the ruck for attack

Nah.

9. If non-throwing team does not contest for the ball, the straightness of the throw is not considered

Unsure about this one.

10. A ‘mark’ can be awarded any place on the field

Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb.

11. After half-time and full-time, if awarded a Penalty Kick, you can kick to touch and play the lineout

Nah.

12. Free Kick for kick-off infringements as per Sevens

Nah.

 

[Scoey]

The more I think about the mark rule, the more I dislike it. It's basically AFL but with and offside rule. Whichever team ends up with Izzy could basically advance up the field by doing a short high kick, claiming a mark and then repeat until they are purge other end. Stupid.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Wilson]

The more I think about the mark rule, the more I dislike it. It's basically AFL but with and offside rule. Whichever team ends up with Izzy could basically advance up the field by doing a short high kick, claiming a mark and then repeat until they are purge other end. Stupid.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not sure you can take a mark of a kick from your own team, would depend on how the rule book defines 'a mark', but I always thought it had to be kicked by the opposition.