Scoey
Tony Shaw (54)
Ah good point Wilson. You are spot on. A mark an only be taken from an opposition's kick. I thought it sounded too ludicrous to work that way but couldn't put my finger on it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
NRC Law Variations - have your say
- Thread starter Gagger
- Start date
- Status
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think the logic with the mark anywhere law is completely off.
They've said that it is to discourage excessive and poor kicking.
Very rarely do players try and call for a mark in a heavily contested kick even if the opportunity is there. The focus is too strongly on trying to catch the ball. For this reason I can't really see it coming into play for contestable up and unders anywhere on the field.
How does allowing someone to take a mark from a poor kick disadvantage the kicking team? The way to take advantage from a poor kick that you catch on the full is to counter attack. If anything, someone deciding to call a mark and stop play just allows the team that kicked badly to reorganise their defence.
The one time when players will utilise this law is when the box kick goes a bit too far and calling a mark will avoid them getting tackled immediately and put under pressure by the defensive team. Is that really something you want to discourage though? It's a pretty effective tactic and something good rugby teams should be able to do.
They've said that it is to discourage excessive and poor kicking.
Very rarely do players try and call for a mark in a heavily contested kick even if the opportunity is there. The focus is too strongly on trying to catch the ball. For this reason I can't really see it coming into play for contestable up and unders anywhere on the field.
How does allowing someone to take a mark from a poor kick disadvantage the kicking team? The way to take advantage from a poor kick that you catch on the full is to counter attack. If anything, someone deciding to call a mark and stop play just allows the team that kicked badly to reorganise their defence.
The one time when players will utilise this law is when the box kick goes a bit too far and calling a mark will avoid them getting tackled immediately and put under pressure by the defensive team. Is that really something you want to discourage though? It's a pretty effective tactic and something good rugby teams should be able to do.
Pfitzy
Nathan Sharpe (72)
I think overall, the variations range from "Awesome" to "wait-and-see"
I don't see anything that is bad as such, but it will be interesting to see how players adapt. If it goes well, we will end up with a much faster game overall, but risk losing the proppiness of props and the lockiness of locks.
It will encourage a faster, fitter, forward pack with most set pieces seen as a restart which I guess was the original idea.
The yellow card one for me is the best of it - the idea being to stop the bullshit cynicism from teams like the Brumbies just trying to kill the game. If you want to keep doing that, its not the sacrifical lamb being picked on roll of the dice - the team infringement results in the team losing whoever they least want. Very tactical. Picking the scrum half might work, but it would hurt far worse to lose your goal kicker!
I like how they don't care about straight throw in the lineout if you don't compete (as it just leads to a scrum which wastes time), but feel they missed a trick in also not abolishing the numbers rule, which is petty technical dickery as far as I'm concerned.
Ultimately, it depends on the refs. In the original MARC the refs were bloody good at yellow carding professional fouls under the ELVs (which were a great set of changes IMHO) and I remember one of the Vikings players getting done in the first 6 minutes against the Rebels for not being back 10 metres on a tap and grabbing the halfback. Poetry.
I don't see anything that is bad as such, but it will be interesting to see how players adapt. If it goes well, we will end up with a much faster game overall, but risk losing the proppiness of props and the lockiness of locks.
It will encourage a faster, fitter, forward pack with most set pieces seen as a restart which I guess was the original idea.
The yellow card one for me is the best of it - the idea being to stop the bullshit cynicism from teams like the Brumbies just trying to kill the game. If you want to keep doing that, its not the sacrifical lamb being picked on roll of the dice - the team infringement results in the team losing whoever they least want. Very tactical. Picking the scrum half might work, but it would hurt far worse to lose your goal kicker!
I like how they don't care about straight throw in the lineout if you don't compete (as it just leads to a scrum which wastes time), but feel they missed a trick in also not abolishing the numbers rule, which is petty technical dickery as far as I'm concerned.
Ultimately, it depends on the refs. In the original MARC the refs were bloody good at yellow carding professional fouls under the ELVs (which were a great set of changes IMHO) and I remember one of the Vikings players getting done in the first 6 minutes against the Rebels for not being back 10 metres on a tap and grabbing the halfback. Poetry.
T
Train Without a Station
Guest
This issue with Yellow Cards is the lack of them. Teams infringe because they don't think they will get carded. You don't need to card their best player, just card one when it's actually warranted.
Against the Brumbies at the moment you would flick their hooker and call a scrum to restart; you then get a make shift hooker and a backrower gone
T
TOCC
Guest
I just think the refs need to be more liberal in sending players off, but I think the current sin-bin rules aren't conducive to this.. Maybe the first yellow card could be 5min, the second yellow could be 10min and finally the third could be a red card.
Regardless of the offence, if a player is penalised twice then he receives a yellow card.
Regardless of the offence, if a player is penalised twice then he receives a yellow card.
Brumby Runner
Jason Little (69)
Showing some prejudices again Fitzy. Why not just have a law outlawing the Brumbies and Vikings and be done with it?
Dan54
David Wilson (68)
- Again agree with you Slim, hell man you and I could enjoy having a beer and watching rugby as we seem to be on same page about the game generally!
THE value of penalty and field goals is set to be reduced to two points while a conversion will worth three points in the new National Rugby Championship that kicks off next week.
The change, which had to be approved by the IRB, is designed to place a greater value on try-scoring while also maintaining the penalty goal option to punish teams for offending.
That is one of several law changes expected to be signed off on by head coaches prior to the official competition launch at Coogee Oval today.
Other changes include:
* A time limit of 45 seconds to set and feed scrums.
* The time to kick a conversion has also been reduced from 90 to 45 seconds and will be managed by a “shot clock”.
* Quick lineout throw-ins allowed even if the ball is touched by any player or support staff as long as it is with the same ball.
Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.
End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.
* If a non-throwing team does not genuinely contest the lineout ball “the straightness of the throw is not considered.”
* Instead of the four-try point bonus point system, the winning team receive will receive a bonus point if they finish three or more tries ahead of their opponents.
http://www.foxsports.com.au/rugby/t...rss&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed
The change, which had to be approved by the IRB, is designed to place a greater value on try-scoring while also maintaining the penalty goal option to punish teams for offending.
That is one of several law changes expected to be signed off on by head coaches prior to the official competition launch at Coogee Oval today.
Other changes include:
* A time limit of 45 seconds to set and feed scrums.
* The time to kick a conversion has also been reduced from 90 to 45 seconds and will be managed by a “shot clock”.
* Quick lineout throw-ins allowed even if the ball is touched by any player or support staff as long as it is with the same ball.
Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.
End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.
* If a non-throwing team does not genuinely contest the lineout ball “the straightness of the throw is not considered.”
* Instead of the four-try point bonus point system, the winning team receive will receive a bonus point if they finish three or more tries ahead of their opponents.
http://www.foxsports.com.au/rugby/t...rss&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed
Brumby Runner
Jason Little (69)
I think these changes could be acceptable and are a whole lot better than some that had been postulated. The one I really like is the change to the bonus point system, especially if it means there are no more "losing" bonus points. Why any team should be rewarded for losing is beyond me.
T
Train Without a Station
Guest
Changing points merely encourages and further awards foul play. A pressure relieving penalty goal is now only 1/4 the value of a converted try. I'd take that risk.
Highlander35
Steve Williams (59)
I like the idea of a 3 point conversion, because it means all Kicks are worth the same amount.
Don't like the idea of reducing penalty value. More infringements.
Attacking bonus point? Don't really mind either way.
Shot clock? 45 seconds in fine for scrums, but 60 seconds would be better for conversions.
The non-straight call is just formalizing what we see a lot already.
Quick line-out throw is fine. Means perhaps there's less time-wasting.
Don't like the idea of reducing penalty value. More infringements.
Attacking bonus point? Don't really mind either way.
Shot clock? 45 seconds in fine for scrums, but 60 seconds would be better for conversions.
The non-straight call is just formalizing what we see a lot already.
Quick line-out throw is fine. Means perhaps there's less time-wasting.
I'm still a bit split on this. I always thought the idea behind the four try bonus point was to reward expansive rugby.
Under this method it changes the impetus to rewarding floggings.
As someone found out when they went through the 2014 Super Rugby table, changing the bonus point method made very little difference to the overall log so it's not really a big deal.
Agree completely with this. Why would a country that on the whole struggles with goalkicking further dilute the attention we pay to it?
Stopping the clock so it doesn't eat into game time whilst still allowing the 90 seconds would be a much better option.
For many kickers, 45 seconds will mean a changed kicking routine. As goalkicking is all about the routine and trying to replicate it exactly every time, this can't be a good thing.
qwerty51
Stirling Mortlock (74)
From http://www.rugby.com.au/News/NewsAr...ORP-NATIONAL-RUGBY-CHAMPIONSHIP-LAUNCHED.aspx
I find this hard to believe
I find this hard to believe
T
Train Without a Station
Guest
I find it easy to believe. There's a lot of idiots out there who only look at teams kicking for goal and saying that's bad, instead of looking at why they do and realise that it's because cynical play has halted their attacking momentum and therefore they are better off taking the points than the same thing happening again.
This will not result in any general changes (beyond when a team needs more than 2 points to take the lead) in the motivation to kick for goal. Teams will still take the points on offer. It will only result in further penalties due to intentional cynical infringements.
This will not result in any general changes (beyond when a team needs more than 2 points to take the lead) in the motivation to kick for goal. Teams will still take the points on offer. It will only result in further penalties due to intentional cynical infringements.
Hugh Jarse
Rocky Elsom (76)
This would work only if the referees got a lot more aggressive in the use of the Yellow Card for repeated and/or cynical penalties.
Maybe 10 minutes in the Bin is excessive. It creates a job for a match official to ensure compliance. Perhaps take the Water Polo lead and have the miscreant off the oval until the next try is scored, whether that is 40 seconds or 20 minutes.
T
Train Without a Station
Guest
It's not excessive. It's seen as excessive because the card is seldom used, so when it is it has a huge impact.
- Status