Thoughts on a Possible Law Change

[Scoey]

A mate of mine and I often discuss Rugby, where it's headed and how to make it better. How do we show the masses what they are missing? How do we show them how great our beloved sport is?

We are both very passionate about Rugby and both agree that the product we have already is very close to being spot on, but my mate has put some thought into what he thinks could be changed to make the game that little bit better. He's not a member here and is worried that if he joins he will spend every waking moment here, so he has asked that I post it up on his behalf so see what the other like minded folk think.

I've been thinking about what we are potentially facing by keeping Deans on for another couple of years. I just don’t think rugby in Australia deserves or can afford to go through a couple more years of Deans style of defensive rugby. Its just not pretty and it certainly is not going to attract any new fans or new sponsors and therefore any chance of increasing player salaries and warding off foreign raiders. A talent like Gill should and deserves to have a wallabies contract plain and simple. So to me the truth is that the games problems stems from the fact that rugby is at times wayyyy to inconsistent.

To grow the game, rugby needs to eliminate the concept of, its better to play without the ball than with it. This is the crux of the problem as a punter turning up to watch a rugby match should reasonably be able to expect if they are going to be paying money for 1. kick-a-thon or 2. ball in hand scintillating rugby. The years between 2005 and 2009 where horrendous to be a rugby fan. Defence had become so organised that every player on the field had the pilfering and rucking ability of a specialist number 7. This in effect removed all contest from the ruck and heavily favoured the defending side and was not in the spirit of the game. Negative rugby was the best way to play the game and force them back was all rugby fans were able to see. The introduction of the ELV's was the first sign that the contest needed to return to rugby. However I do believe this was an extreme step to improve the rugby spectacle. Evidence of good law making is the recent laws requiring tacklers to release the player to allow the attacking side a better chance to play the ball. This slight change has been a revelation for super rugby. We now have all the top teams at super level well rounded rugby sides that enjoy holding and working the ball instead of kicking it. Even the Waratahs have shown what running rugby is about and can win games with ball in hand. So the change is there and super rugby has certainly become a spectacle again and you know what type of rugby the top teams will work into their game plan. This adds to consistency which rugby fans want to see. A genuine contest with the ball in play is a far greater spectacle than rugby league, afl or soccer. If we attract new fans to the market that know they will get good rugby, sponsors and money will flow onto our game and allow us to retain players and maybe even attract big name internationals.

While super rugby is doing well, it’s the Wallabies which are the face of rugby to the new Australian market. As our only free to air product, the wallabies need to be showing rugby for what it truly is. A contest of whoever holds the ball and scores the points should win. A game were it doesn't matter if your team is on the attack or staunchly hanging on in defence… the ball is always alive and at any moment your team can be back in control. That’s what makes the game so good and will bring in the new fans. But there is this inherent problem with test match rugby that continues to allow a coach to decide on a negative game plan and hope the other team makes more mistakes than you do. This is not in the spirit of the game and so I believe rugby needs some further tweaking to increase its consistency for teams to want to hold the ball to win the game.

The rules behind controlling the ruck is a genuine contest at the moment. So this is not the problem (we finally have specialist 7's again). The problem is….. teams deliberately slowing down ruck ball and allowing well drilled defences to have time to reset and therefore allowing teams to use this tactic as the foundation of their game plan. I believe to finally return the game to a consistent spectacle, penalty goals need to be reduced to one point. To balance this, negative play that may be considered to increase as a result of reduced penalty points, will have greater consequences by have a sin binning of 2mins. Refs will only give a team one warning for a type of infringement and a repeated infringement by the team is 2min in the bin. Negative play is not in the spirit of the game and should have consequences accordingly to benefit the team playing rugby. The 2mins will not start until the player is off the field. A separate stopwatch will be held by an official to control this aspect. This will allow the game to play on and prevent players dawdling off the field. The attempt is to increase the pace of a penalty and the resulting advantage to the team. The speed and model may be something like you see in ice hockey. An extra player off the field and no longer being able to take 3 points will encourage teams to recycle the ball and kick for the corner or pack a scrum. Just look at the Reds vs Brumbies game in Brisbane, it had desperation on both the offensive and defensive side of the ball because the reds continued to play the ball…. And the fans were going ape over it. And everyone came out of the match praising the defensive staunchness of the Brumbies. All fans took something out of that match and rugby was the better for it. The ball in play is what gets the spine tingling whether you’re on attack or in defence. To attract new fans to the game rugby needs to eliminate negative rugby and make the game the consistent spectacle that teams playing in the spirit of the game deliver. The money will flow and a new rugby market will emerge because rugby truly is the greatest sport to watch on its day. The rugby ball in play is what creates the contest.

 

[Bullrush]

I like how the game is right now. Sometimes you get boring games and sometimes you get absolute beauties - it doesn't matter what the sport is or how much you love it, that's just the nature of sport.

I don't believe that delibertely trying to slow down opposition ball is against the spirit of the game either. It's good play. If it's illegal then it's up to the ref to call it but sometimes there is less than a second difference between something being a great play and it being illegal.

I don't think changes like this will make more punters turn over to rugby either. Winning probably will though. Beat the ABs a few times and watch the punters come back. As much as I love the All Black dominance, having NZ hold the Bledisloe for the last 10yrs has probably hurt Aussie rugby more than most NZers realise.

I actually hope you guys do win it back.......maybe next year

 

[Mank]

I agree with the sentiment of Bullrush's post, if not the letter. I think my view is somewhere in the balance between the original post and Bullrush. I fully believe that certain teams *ahem* are coached on the art of illegally slowing and spoiling opposition ball and not getting caught. In fact, most teams probably are, some *ahem* are just much better at it. It would be nice for the balance to swing away from spoiling.

I would like it if referees were constantly updated and coached on the latest tactics that teams are using, and look out for it. We, the fans can spot it, they should be able to too. Then I would go a step further than the OP and bump up those 2 minute sin-bins to 5 minutes. 2 minutes in rugby is nothing, and it'll be annoying for a fan to see players going on and off. 5 minutes yellow card, 10 minutes amber card. Red card incidents to *always* be referred to the TMO, who should be very very consistent across games. Use the 5 minute yellow card liberally for slowing down opposition ball.

However, that said, will we then just see a lot of pick and drive to retain the ball hoping to force an indiscretion from the opposition and a sin-binning? I'm not sure endless pick and drive is any better than a tactical kicking game.

 

[Rassie]

Tri nations tries scored

2005 - 26
2006 - 42
2007 - 19
2008 - 43
2009 - 27

After 2003 almost every team followed Englands example and went out to get a rugby league defensive coach

Then law changes came every time SA won something.

 

[Aussie D]

I think the current laws are fine (though the scrums should be brought closer together prior to the hit and the ball fed into the centre of the tunnel) the problem IMHO is the adjudicating and lack of yellow cards. If I were to change any law it would be to have players able to receive multiple yellows in a match, hopefully encouraging refs to dig into their pockets more often.

 

[FrankLind]

Then law changes came every time SA won something.

Really?

 

[Dan54]

I not too sure I want to see any major changes to laws of game. I love the game as it is, amd quite happy to see tweaks for scrums etc, but please no more major changes. I don't want to see laws that guarantee you win the ball in contact, if I did, I would watch League. I want to see players scrapping for the ball a bit, it's one of the beauties of our game, otherwise we will have even more of the 'allow the player to go to ground and let everyone just line up in defense' mode that we have a lot of now. I think we have to remember rugby is played all over the world, not just Australia, and I actually think most of these new laws are thought about to combat league,which I understand has a hold here , but usually make the game more like it. Think another thing we all need to remember, the vast majority see only what they want to see when watching rugby (especially when team loses)as is proved on here, and you can't keep changing laws so every team wins!!

 

[rugbysmartarse]

Scoey, I think if your mate was a GAGR forum reader he would have different view of the Reds Brumbies game, and the punters' view of it. IIRC, the reds were accused of being to pig headed in their search for a knock out, and the brumbies were accused of cheating to kill the play.

 

[rugbysmartarse]

In the end my view is that no matter how you change the laws, you will still get teams pushing the boundary to gain an advantage. I think at this stage of the game the only thing that needs to be sorted out is the scrum, and this looks to be going the right way with the proposed changes (although again I'd like to see it operate at the highest level to see how props cheat gain advantage using the new rules). There is already sentiment that there are too frequent law changes, and I don't know that messing with the scoring system will be to the benefit of the game

 

[Scoey]

Yeah rugbysmartarse he isn't a member but he is an avid reader of these forums and from what I remember his opinion on that game was in line with the status quo here after the game but since, his (as has a lot of people's) thoughts on that particular game have relaxed a little. I was actually hoping that a few people dissecting his idea may draw him out of the shadows and see him signing up but to date he has resisted.

I see where he is headed with it and to be honest I am 'happy enough' with how the game is run currently. I do like some of the ideas and see the merit of them (particularly the 5 min bin) but would be reluctant to continue to tinker with the game as I see it as a potential risk with the potential reward being not as great. The game is very close to where it needs to be and that is good enough for me. Yes we will see the occasional dog of a game but I would prefer that to a state of play that sees the same level of expectation week in, week out. That is what league offers. I guess, to take it to a purely philosophical level, the bad games add the contrast that is needed to appreciate the sublime games. We need contrast.

 

[Dam0]

I wouldn't like to see automatic sin bins for infringements, but I would like to see the referee get the option of putting someone in the bin for a much shorter time than 10 minutes. Perhaps something along the lines of (the lessor of) 3 minutes or the other team scoring a try.

I say this because I often feel like I see a player do something cynical and I'd like to put them in the bin, but 10 minutes is simply a disproportionate punishment for the crime. If you were to give me the choice of a shorter sin bin I would go to my pocket a heck of a lot more.

Other than that, I reckon the game is as good as it has been for years. There is a really good balance between attack and defence at the breakdown, we've seen multiple styles of play being successful, and even the scrums aren't as big of a mess as they were in the past.

 

[Scoey]

I wouldn't like to see automatic sin bins for infringements, but I would like to see the referee get the option of putting someone in the bin for a much shorter time than 10 minutes. Perhaps something along the lines of (the lessor of) 3 minutes or the other team scoring a try.

That was one of the things we discussed actually. Shorter bins with the player able to rejoin play sooner if a try is scored. This would need to go hand in hand with the ability to receive multiple "short" sin bins per match without the auto red.

One possible application could be when a prop is sin binned for collapsing on a defensive 5m scrum. The attacking team chooses another scrum and scores. The prop could then return to the game and the game can continue relatively unaffected. The attacking team got reward for their efforts and the defending team paid a penalty for the prop's indiscretion. Having a further 8-9mins of 14 on 15 would be overkill for the offence. Which may be why some referees will allow countless resets and penalties in a 5m scrum situation before going to the pocket.

 

[Nusadan]

That was one of the things we discussed actually. Shorter bins with the player able to rejoin play sooner if a try is scored. This would need to go hand in hand with the ability to receive multiple "short" sin bins per match without the auto red.

One possible application could be when a prop is sin binned for collapsing on a defensive 5m scrum. The attacking team chooses another scrum and scores. The prop could then return to the game and the game can continue relatively unaffected. The attacking team got reward for their efforts and the defending team paid a penalty for the prop's indiscretion. Having a further 8-9mins of 14 on 15 would be overkill for the offence. Which may be why some referees will allow countless resets and penalties in a 5m scrum situation before going to the pocket.

As a referee myself and pretty much on my own on the field without AR's and TMO's etc...it'd be hard for me to keep giving yellow cards as per other threads just above as it would be too much to for me to handle what with differing minutes for certain YC awardings with the constant checking of my watch being necessary.

But I think it's a good idea to have a prop returning to the field after a try is scored as per quote, akin to water polo where a player returns to the pool when the opposition scores a goal after he is sent to the penalty box for a maximum 2 minutes.

 

[Hairy Test Eagle]

That was one of the things we discussed actually. Shorter bins with the player able to rejoin play sooner if a try is scored. This would need to go hand in hand with the ability to receive multiple "short" sin bins per match without the auto red.

One possible application could be when a prop is sin binned for collapsing on a defensive 5m scrum. The attacking team chooses another scrum and scores. The prop could then return to the game and the game can continue relatively unaffected. The attacking team got reward for their efforts and the defending team paid a penalty for the prop's indiscretion. Having a further 8-9mins of 14 on 15 would be overkill for the offence. Which may be why some referees will allow countless resets and penalties in a 5m scrum situation before going to the pocket.

10 minutes in the bin acts as a pretty good deterrent for foul play and repeat infringements. I get the feeling that with shorter time on the sidelines could encourage players to just take the chance of getting a small period off the field

 

[Dam0]

10 minutes in the bin acts as a pretty good deterrent for foul play and repeat infringements. I get the feeling that with shorter time on the sidelines could encourage players to just take the chance of getting a small period off the field

Except that it doesn't really act as a deterrent because refs don't want to do it. You can demand that the refs use it more often if you like, but I'll bet many refs agree with me and think that 10 mins is too long for the crime and simply won't. Hence the suggestion to give refs more flexibility in assessing punishment.

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

Players don't seem to be slowing the ball down much at that level. Super15 and Test matches are by far the fastest version of rugby besides 7s on the planet.

If you want to encourage teams to run the ball out of their own half, do what rugby league does and guarantee them possession of the ball for at least 5 phases. But then you might as well go and play rugby league.

 

[Scoey]

Players don't seem to be slowing the ball down much at that level. Super15 and Test matches are by far the fastest version of rugby besides 7s on the planet.

If you want to encourage teams to run the ball out of their own half, do what rugby league does and guarantee them possession of the ball for at least 5 phases. But then you might as well go and play rugby league.

S15 games can be very fast but a fast free flowing test match is a rare beast indeed.

As for running it out of your own half, I don't think that was his point and I'm not sure that was even mentioned. He also didn't want possession guaranteed. The foundation for the thoughts were facilitating quick ball and eliminating defences slowing the ball down. Increasing the contest.

 

[Bullrush]

Who wants to see more yellow cards and players being sent off?? Not me.

Sure, you can start putting more people in the sin-bin for slowing the ball down but then you may as well take the contest for possession out of the game. Who really wants to risk playing good rugby (slowing the opposition ball is good rugby) or getting possession back if you could end up spending time on the side-line??

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

But if you don't like kicking duels, you need an incentive to run it. At the moment, no matter how you score rugby union games, the most likely place to score from is the opposition 22. The territory duels will continue regardless.

The problem with the Reds vs Brumbies game was not that the sin bin was too long to justify sending 2 or 3 Brumbies players. It was just that you've got a guy reffing the game without the appropriate experience dealing with these issues. But that is a trade off you have with player refs moving into the system (something I fully support), and the coaches/captains should have adjusted their tactics at the time.

What you are essentially proposing is similar to what touch rugby uses as a system. Where you can force sub a player giving the opposition temporary advantage. Personally I can't see this having much of an impact in 15s, in fact I think it's positive impacts on touch are questionable.

 

[elementfreak]

Except that it doesn't really act as a deterrent because refs don't want to do it. You can demand that the refs use it more often if you like, but I'll bet many refs agree with me and think that 10 mins is too long for the crime and simply won't. Hence the suggestion to give refs more flexibility in assessing punishment.

The length of a sin bin plays no part in my decision to send someone to the bin. If they have done something to warrant getting sent to the bin then they are going, it's pretty simple really.