NRC Law Variations - have your say

[Braveheart81]

This is a very arbitrary measure, but there are 19 sections of the NRL lawbook and 22 laws in rugby union.

Sure, some of our laws are more complex, but I really don't think it is that over the top.

I take comments from people who aren't fans of rugby with a grain of salt. Like probably half the people who respond to a poll on a newspaper website would be.

It's like people who aren't fans of soccer saying that soccer would be a better game if the goals were bigger so there were more goals scored. I don't think anyone who actually follows the game agrees with this.

There's no direct evidence to suggest the people complaining about something in rugby union who don't watch it would start watching it if the changes they wanted were made.

I'm wary of some of the changes in the NRC but happy to support it. I think it is a dangerous mentality to try and make changes to appeal to people who don't like your sport though. They might still not like it and you might make it a worse spectacle for people who love the game already.

It seems foolhardy to think that people who don't like something are the best people to listen to in order to improve it.

 

[Slim 293]

Teams are clearly going to infringe more in the red zone and risk the card now that there's a 6 point difference between a converted try and a penalty goal.........

"But refs are going to be tougher!"

Uh, then just make that the directive..............

 

[Slim 293]

It seems foolhardy to think that people who don't like something are the best people to listen to in order to improve it.

Indeed, I'm certain league fans don't want to hear my thoughts on how to improve their game...........

 

[Train Without a Station]

Exactly Slim. I don't know on what basis anybody can say referees are going to be tougher. They have introduced a number of rule changes and none of these relate to officiating cynical, deliberate infringements. So how could one have any expectation that this will change?

 

[Braveheart81]

There also seems to be a cognitive dissonance between being upset that referees give penalties that result in points as being a bad thing but then suggesting that they need to give out more yellow cards.

Surely giving out a yellow card is a decision by the referee that ultimately leads to more points than giving a penalty where a shot at goal can be taken.

 

[Yikes]

Exactly Slim. I don't know on what basis anybody can say referees are going to be tougher. They have introduced a number of rule changes and none of these relate to officiating cynical, deliberate infringements. So how could one have any expectation that this will change?

Because the information given to both teams and refs specifically on the point of the points change says "Referees to be strong with cynical or repeated infringements".
http://www.rugby.com.au/nrc/LawVariation.aspx

 

[Slim 293]

Because the information given to both teams and refs specifically on the point of the points change says "Referees to be strong with cynical or repeated infringements".
http://www.rugby.com.au/nrc/LawVariation.aspx

So we're to rely on the consistency of referee interpretation?

Teams are clearly going to infringe more in the red zone and risk the card now that there's a 6 point difference between a converted try and a penalty goal...

"But refs are going to be tougher!"

Uh, then just make that the directive......

 

[boyo]

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

The referees don't cause the infringements.

Here's a crazy thought - how about players not infringe as much.

 

[Druid]

As opposed to changing the points system, I would have liked to have seen a rule change which removes the option for a penalty goal from outside the 22 metre line. Hence teams are still penalised the same amount for infringing within the red zone, but outside the 22 metre zone encourages teams to go for the try.

 

[Braveheart81]

As opposed to changing the points system, I would have liked to have seen a rule change which removes the option for a penalty goal from outside the 22 metre line. Hence teams are still penalised the same amount for infringing within the red zone, but outside the 22 metre zone encourages teams to go for the try.

Surely that also incentivises teams to push the laws harder when they're outside their 22.

All these options have consequences.

 

[Eyes and Ears]

Interesting post from one of the South African boys over at 'The Rugby Forum' on the points change:




That's a bit of a promising comment really. But I actually really like the idea of the challenge. I wonder why that wasn't considered?

This would not have been considered as there is only a TMO in the Thursday televised game.

 

[Eyes and Ears]

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.

IMO the Varsity Cup is unlikely to be a good indicator on what will happen in the NRC. Firstly there are many more professional players in this competition and players are both competing to win the NRC and more importantly competing for continuing or first time professional contracts. As a result, they will rigthfully push the laws to the limits and beyond. Secondly the Australian style of rugby is a more on the ball breakdown style with most teams requiring their 7 and at least 1 other forward to be on that ball all day. For mine, the South African approach is more physically confronting. I believe we will see a greater increase than 11%.

Having said that, I am happy to give the 2 point PK a go but I would have preferred many other try combinations than 5+3 points (eg 6+1 or 6+2). I would rather see more points for the team action of scoring a try versus the individual action of kicking a goal.

 

[TahDan]

This would not have been considered as there is only a TMO in the Thursday televised game.

Ah yes of course. Not a bad idea for Super Rugby though - or even for the NRL really. Excessive use of the Video review system really does kill the action, and this would be a clever way of limiting it.

 

[Omar Comin']

The referees don't cause the infringements.

Here's a crazy thought - how about players not infringe as much.

Yeah lets have 10 point penalty goals then, that'll stop the infringing. Then teams will be so afraid to have the ball in their own half we can watch forcings back for 80 minutes.

As Braveheart mentioned, rugby would be a boring game without infringements. For there to be no infringements teams would basically have to stop competing for the ball. Physically competing for the ball is messy. There are always going to be players going off their feet, for example, without necessarily meaning to. And there are always going to be different interpretations around when a ruck is and isn't formed, what is through the gate etc.

It's my opinion that penalty goals are a boring, crappy way of dealing with this.

 

[Omar Comin']

There also seems to be a cognitive dissonance between being upset that referees give penalties that result in points as being a bad thing but then suggesting that they need to give out more yellow cards.

Surely giving out a yellow card is a decision by the referee that ultimately leads to more points than giving a penalty where a shot at goal can be taken.

The difference is that yellow cards do not directly lead to points, unless there's a penalty goal kicked from the penalty. Tries still have to be scored, and the defence have it in their own hands to try and legally stop them from being scored, even if a man down. Same with drop goals.

And again, did I mention that penalty goals are boring? This is the number 1 issue. They take up over a minute of game play every single time. There's no element of competition to them. The whole game just stands still and it interrupts the flow.

Also, the yellow cards will only occur if teams infringe cynically. It's as simple as that. Don't infringe cynically when the other team is on attack and you won't get yellow carded.

 

[boyo]

Yeah lets have 10 point penalty goals then, that'll stop the infringing. Then teams will be so afraid to have the ball in their own half we can watch forcings back for 80 minutes.

As Braveheart mentioned, rugby would be a boring game without infringements. For there to be no infringements teams would basically have to stop competing for the ball.

Try again, then have a proper go.

 

[TOCC]

After the first week i think the rule changes/interpretations have had the desired effect.

Whilst only one match was broadcast the reports have indicated that there hasn't been any massive increase in cynical fouls, and teams are obviously boycotting penalty goals to go for tries instead.

The importance of kicking hasn't been lost with the Canberra Vikings losing to the Spirit despite scoring the same amount of tries. Having a 3 point conversion has ensured that kickers are still a vital piece of the team.

I didn't see any time wasting at the scrums or taking shot for goals in the Brisbane City vs Sydney Stars game, what about the rest of the games?

 

[RugbyReg]

The observation of Pfitzy is an interesting one. The Brisbane game seemed to finish earlier than traditional games. Less time wasting (no penalty shots) etc. Anyone pick that with the other games?

 

[It is what it is]

So far so good.
It will be interesting to see whether any coaches find a loophole in the new laws and exploit it.
Maybe they have already and we and other coaches haven't picked it up as yet.

 

[TOCC]

The statistic which i want to see is the statistic of how long the ball is in play for compared to Super Rugby and Test Rugby. It should in theory be statistically higher due to the shot clock on the scrum and penalty kicks, as well as the reduced number of penalty goals.

In terms of providing bang for buck, the longer the ball is in play then the better it is for the fans and viewers.