NRC Law Variations - have your say

[Slim 293]

So the ARU in their wisdom have deprioritised an area of the game, penalty goal kicking, which has been indirectly (Ireland 2011) and directly (England 2007) seen them knocked out of the last two World Cups. Not sure they understand this development lark.

Agreed.......... a very disappointing decision that doesn't help Australia in the long term.

 

[JSRF10]

JSRF10, no it's just they've caved to what the masses think makes the game worse.

The problem is the moron masses haven't really thought it through completely.

I was going to add to my rant that if TV is allegedly paying for the comp why do we even need to change the rules to get some on the fence fans to maybe watch?

 

[Train Without a Station]

If they cracked down on repeated cynical infringements - or rather just refereed the current laws it would be irrelevant as it would prevent cynical play as it would be harshly dealt with.

If they cannot do it with the current system, why would they do it more now with nothing changing in that regard?

A converted try is already worth more than a penalty goal and amassing tries is already considerably more beneficial than kicking for goal. In your scenario it is still 21-9 over 24-6.

Nothing will change because one is still guaranteed points and referees will still be reluctant to significantly affect games (as noted the rules regarding this have not changed at all) and therefore players will infringe.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

But tight games can come down to victory being determined by the team with the best kicker.

Mungoball golden goal revisited. 75 minutes trying to score tries, and the rest of the game trying to kick a drop goal to determine the winner.

 

[TOCC]

I don't see this points change been such a big issue..

Maybe someone can do the math and work out which landmark games over the past decade would have different results if this point structure was in play.

Will it encourage cynical play? There is that risk, but heck this is a development competition, let's use it to test these things out. If it doesn't work then so be it, it's not the end of the world.

Already the rule changes have pricked people's interest, the casual rugby fan is now slightly more interested in watching this tournament now. This is exactly why they were designed to do, increase interest in this tournament.

 

[Slim 293]

Maybe someone can do the math and work out which landmark games over the past decade would have different results if this point structure was in play.

The Tahs would've lost the Grand Final..........

France would've won the 2011 RWC Final...........

 

[Dan54]

I hope they have not shot themselves in the foot with these changes, I thought the idea of the NRC was to develop players to give ARU more depth, not get players to played a hybrid game that may actually make them a bit less use as Super or test players. I can understand they want to bring in a few fence sitting mungo fans etc, but not sure if this game is going to engage the die hard rugby fans, and when push comes to shove could actually lose some. I hope I am wrong, but although I will go to at least first couple of games,I am feeling I won't be watching what I hoped, the next tier of young players mixed in with seasoned players playing the game I have always loved.
As I said I hope I am wrong but am a lot less excited than I was a couple of weeks ago!

 

[Joe King]

I don't think it will be a huge disadvantage to developing future players. And with conversions worth 3 points, kicking practise will still be important. points will still be the same in Super Rugby leading up to the Wallabies too.

Be good to see how it goes. Now it will take three penalty goals to be more than a try. Could encourage going for the try instead, a little more.

I can see the potential for increased deliberate infringements from the defending team in order to stop the try. But this might be off-set if the attacking team don't go for the penalty goal, but keep going for the try instead. Could lead to a few cards for the defending team if they keep it up.

Anyway, there are always so many variables in rugby and one little thing can affect so many others. We won't really know until they give it a go.

The 'developing players' vs 'creating interest in rugby' is a tricky balance for the NRC to get right, and there will be different opinions on where to draw the line. I'm happy with this trial law, but it needs to be reeled in pretty quick if it doesn't have a positive impact.

 

[Omar Comin']

If they cracked down on repeated cynical infringements - or rather just refereed the current laws it would be irrelevant as it would prevent cynical play as it would be harshly dealt with.

If they cannot do it with the current system, why would they do it more now with nothing changing in that regard?

A converted try is already worth more than a penalty goal and amassing tries is already considerably more beneficial than kicking for goal. In your scenario it is still 21-9 over 24-6.

Nothing will change because one is still guaranteed points and referees will still be reluctant to significantly affect games (as noted the rules regarding this have not changed at all) and therefore players will infringe.

If they refereed the current laws we'd have 50 penalties blown every game.

The further crackdown on repeated and cynical infringements is needed as teams WILL play on or kick for touch from more penalties as a result of the change in points system. Again, this has already been trialled in the South African Varsity Cup. After the initial year using this points system tries were up by 25%, and attempts at penalty goal were down by over 70% – with no increase in yellow cards. Penalties were up by 11% on the previous year.

11% is nothing. Most games have around 20 penalties so that's an extra 2 per game. And given the increase in ball in play (due to less penalty goal kicking), it's even less significant. As there was no increase in yellow cards perhaps the number of penalties would be less if cards were used a little more.

 

[Train Without a Station]

11% per year and it's 30 per game in by the 2019 RWC. It's not nothing.

 

[Omar Comin']

11% per year and it's 30 per game in by the 2019 RWC. It's not nothing.

Why do you think there would be another 11% increase every year with no further changes? It may well be the opposite. The varsity cup have been using this scoring system for 3 years - it would have been scrapped by now if it was having a negative impact.

70% less attempts at penalty goal is worth an 11% increase in penalties in my opinion. And as the ARU have written, by far the most popular suggestion to the NRC Law Variation committee was a change in the point system. Give the people what they want. Less penalty goals. And who knows, if we can make it work at NRC level then changes to the IRB laws may also happen in future. The NRC is the perfect competition to experiment.

 

[Pass it to Dunning!]

I'm bummed out to see scrumhalves limited to the mid-point of the scrum. One of the coolest parts of Nick Phipps' game this year has been is capacity to kick the ball as the opposition no 9 passes it from the base of the scrum.

 

[Braveheart81]

I'm bummed out to see scrumhalves limited to the mid-point of the scrum. One of the coolest parts of Nick Phipps' game this year has been is capacity to kick the ball as the opposition no 9 passes it from the base of the scrum.

I agree that this is a silly law.

You're removing one of the contests for the ball which is that a scrum under pressure has more difficulties getting the ball out because they're backpedalling and copping it from the halfback.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Defending scrum halfs get far too much leeway now and are on the player as soon as they touch the ball. Teams playing against a grubby halfback will rarely get the opportunity to actually pass the ball.

Anybody who fucks around back there should be punished with pressure but it just seems ridiculous now.

 

[mst]

I agree that this is a silly law.

You're removing one of the contests for the ball which is that a scrum under pressure has more difficulties getting the ball out because they're backpedalling and copping it from the halfback.

I couldn't agree with you more Braveheart and Pass it. It's one of the few occasions that we get to see the No.9's compete shoulder to shoulder and be at their annoying best. Phipps' has been a master at it this year. Why stop a fair contest?

 

[Yikes]

I'm bummed out to see scrumhalves limited to the mid-point of the scrum. One of the coolest parts of Nick Phipps' game this year has been is capacity to kick the ball as the opposition no 9 passes it from the base of the scrum.

Scrum halves are not limited to the mid-point. What are you reading?
The #9 just can't get into the pocket. The golden rule will be that the 9 cannot touch the scrum. Basically - it's improving the ball delivery slightly while still ensuring that a scrum under pressure will have pressure from the 9.

 

[Yikes]

I hope they have not shot themselves in the foot with these changes, I thought the idea of the NRC was to develop players to give ARU more depth, not get players to played a hybrid game that may actually make them a bit less use as Super or test players. I can understand they want to bring in a few fence sitting mungo fans etc, but not sure if this game is going to engage the die hard rugby fans, and when push comes to shove could actually lose some. I hope I am wrong, but although I will go to at least first couple of games,I am feeling I won't be watching what I hoped, the next tier of young players mixed in with seasoned players playing the game I have always loved.
As I said I hope I am wrong but am a lot less excited than I was a couple of weeks ago!

Honestly, you're entitled to your own opinion obviously, but this is a bit much. Hybrid game? WTF?

There's been absolutely minimal tinkering with a couple of things that will make the game a little quicker with more ball in play time and hopefully fewer penalty goals. None of the guts of the Laws at breakdown or set piece have even been touched.

 

[qwerty51]

So what happens after 30 secs of a scrum, clock stops?

 

[Scoey]

There's been absolutely minimal tinkering with a couple of things that will make the game a little quicker with more ball in play time and hopefully fewer penalty goals. None of the guts of the Laws at breakdown or set piece have even been touched.

To me, personally, the points system is part of the fabric of the game. It's a delicate balance and I think we've got it pretty close to perfect. I don't like this change and I disagree that it can be described as minimal tinkering.

I also think that penalty kicks are a big part of the game. Love them or hate them, Rugby is beautiful because there are numerous different and legitimate ways that a team can accumulate points against you an ultimately beat you. Any attempt to make the game all about tries will dilute the game and remove a large part of the drama and the interest. I accept that plenty of folk feel differently but I think that if you support a move toward a game with an increasing focus on tries as a priority then you haven't fully appreciated or understood the impacts the changes may make.

 

[p.Tah]

The change in points may not work, but then again it could and the game could be better for it. Who knows unless we try it. If it doesn't work, we go back to the current scoring.