What can be done to improve the game

[Tahfan]

So here we are then end of another World Cup. I think the improvement of the so called minnow teams has been excellent and long may it continue. Sure there have been a couple of pastings but by and large most have exceeded expectations.

The downside, way too many penalties and not enough tries when the "big boys" meet. So what can we do to start to see a better quality of rugby played (and scrum penalty > 3 points is NOT quality rugby!)

The ELV's were an OK attempt but were always going to fail as they were designed for when the SH plays and their conditions rather then a winter NH game.

So a simple 3 point plan to improve the game:

1) Change the laws about when people can kick for goal.
Don't change the offences, and no interpretation. Simply change the law so that if the offence is outside the 22 then no kick at goal can be taken. Sure you will get some "professional" fouls being committed but that's what yellow cards are for and the change this would bring would be a lot more attacking play inside the 22 and stop the reward for iffy penalties on the 10 meter line when ref's are guessing at scrum time

2) Switch the points awarded for a conversion and a drop goal
Kick after try worth 3 and DG worth 2 should encourage people to run the ball more and reward those who do.

3) Get rid of Paddy O'Brien and replace him with someone a lot less egocentric.
POB seems to be determined to make the referees center of attention and the game more about the laws then the players. Lets get someone in there who will work with the players to address the major issues and have some consistency from one year to the next on how not only how both hemispheres are refereeing the game but what they are told to referee.

Unfortunately the IRB are change-o-phobes and none of this is likely to happen but man if it did I think it would lead to a lot more attacking rugby and marginalise the technical infringements that give too many cheap points away.

 

[Schadenfreude]

No.
No.
YES!!!

 

[DPK]

WE have several threads already dedicated to this subject.

Also, fixing scrum penalities should probably involve fixing scrums.

 

[louie]

boo!!!

 

[mackaboi]

yeh penalties i reckon should be worth 2 points as the more deserving team is the one that runs the ball.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

As lee, I think, points out this only lessens the incentive not to offend in your own half


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Bowside]

I think the game is mostly fine and no major changes need to be made apart from a consistent ref interpretation of the breakdown, reintroduction of rucking to ensure quickball and lastly a new set of scrum rules. I think we had scrums right 15 years ago when the packs formed themselves without any referee intervention. Let them form and get a good bind on and then feed the ball. If one team is pushing before the ball is in then penalise them. Also think pre game each teams props should meet and approve the other props jersey for binding. If it is too tight the opposing prop can simply refuse and the other prop must wear a size larger.

I think the OP's idea about kicks has some merit, but again you have to consider the fact that this will lead to more cynical play close to the line in order to concede a penalty rather than a try. Increased breakdown discipline will both improve the spectacle and lead to more trys.

I know many may disagree, but I love a good drop goal, so if we are looking to mix it up a bit I think making drop goals kicked on or behind the 10 metre line worth 3 and those kicked in front worth 2 is the way to go.

 

[Country Kid]

Never thought about it before - but the idea of a conversion worth 3 should? would provide greater incentive to score 8 points rather than three for a penaty - you would think.

At least a team that scores two converted tries could beat a team that kicks five penalty goals: 16-15

Taking the 'hit' out of the scrum would be a big plus

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Never thought about it before - but the idea of a conversion worth 3 should? would provide greater incentive to score 8 points rather than three for a penaty - you would think.

At least a team that scores two converted tries could beat a team that kicks five penalty goals: 16-15

Taking the 'hit' out of the scrum would be a big plus

Taking the hit out would be see as pandering to Australia.
Conversion idea is a good one. Von,y problem I see is that the encouragement not to kick for goal would be dependent on whether you thought you could score up the middle or only wide out


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Blue]

yeh penalties i reckon should be worth 2 points as the more deserving team is the one that runs the ball.

Why?

In this little world here in Sydney because of League fucking obsession and the need to prove that "our game is more exciting than yours", but on planet earth, no.

Get rid of Paddy. Experiment with the breakdown to balance things out but leave the game the heck alone.

I like big booming kicks from 55 out and if you don't have a guy in your team that can win a game like that then find one.

PS. So if penalties were 2 points and drop goals one, would the Wallabies have had a better attack in this World Cup? I think not.

 

[Blue]

Never thought about it before - but the idea of a conversion worth 3 should? would provide greater incentive to score 8 points rather than three for a penaty - you would think.

At least a team that scores two converted tries could beat a team that kicks five penalty goals: 16-15

Taking the 'hit' out of the scrum would be a big plus

Taking the hit out of the scrum will turn it into a farce. There is a team called the Raiders in your town. There's no hit. Go watch them fuck around to get the ball back with no competition.

 

[Blue]

I know many may disagree, but I love a good drop goal, so if we are looking to mix it up a bit I think making drop goals kicked on or behind the 10 metre line worth 3 and those kicked in front worth 2 is the way to go.

Now there's a plan. Good idea.

 

[Dam0]

Taking the hit out of the scrum will turn it into a farce. There is a team called the Raiders in your town. There's no hit. Go watch them fuck around to get the ball back with no competition.

Don't know about that actually. What if you had to engage basically passively, and wait for the ball to go in before pushing. If the ball had to be made to go in straight and there were no restrictions on screwing the scrum I reckon you could still have a scrum that was relevant and competitive. Watching old footage from the 60's and 70's there was no hit and yet the scrum was actually more important, and had a bigger bearing on the result than it does now.

 

[Bowside]

Taking the hit out of the scrum will turn it into a farce. There is a team called the Raiders in your town. There's no hit. Go watch them fuck around to get the ball back with no competition.

Was the scrum a farce 15 years ago? What we have now is a farce, too many resets, too many ambiguous penalties. Let the props sort it out themselves, make sure no one pushes till the ball is in, mandate a straight feed and then watch scrummaging at its best.

 

[Utility Back]

Why?

In this little world here in Sydney because of League fucking obsession and the need to prove that "our game is more exciting than yours", but on planet earth, no.

Get rid of Paddy. Experiment with the breakdown to balance things out but leave the game the heck alone.

I like big booming kicks from 55 out and if you don't have a guy in your team that can win a game like that then find one.

PS. So if penalties were 2 points and drop goals one, would the Wallabies have had a better attack in this World Cup? I think not.

I like the idea blue, not because it would make australia better, not because it would make it more appealing to leaguey's or the wider audience, but because it would make the GAME more exciting for me.

Not necessarily to you, but to me mate, watching games dominated with heaps of penalty goals, and scrum resets can be pretty shit. I love forward play, scrums, line outs, rucks (but not mauls), and a team that dominates these.

But, I also love to see set moves, offloads, cut out passes, loops and wraps, decoy runners and perfect running lines and teams willing to give it a fucking good crack, cause that to me is awesome to watch.

For me if you're infringeing at the breakdown, the attacking team should be able get reward for it, just not 3 points, that's to much i feel. If the other team is infringing to much as a result of incentive to keep them from scoring, blow em off the park, yellow cards, hopefully that will be enough to let the dominating team win, cant say for sure cause i haven't seen the result.

I know it seems like its only Australians whinging about it, but i think if you asked anyone about their favourite matches (other than there own teams greatest achievements) they would generally be ones dominated or decided by tries. Exciting open matches with lots of running, because generally the team with dominating forwards still wins these games, the all blacks are a great example of this.

I dont expect you to agree mate, but saying just bugger off and watch league doesn't sit with me because union is way more interesting with much more complexity. And that interest is taken away when there are far to many penalties and scrum resets. I like union way more, doesnt mean it cant be adjusted in some parts for improvement (just depends on what the majority's idea of 'improvement' is)

But just so i'm clear, i think penalties should be two points (why should they be worth more than conversions?) and DG 2 as well (its still a worth skill, but not 3 points worthy, yet more than 1).

Just my take on things mate.

Just my opinion on what would make Union more appealing to me.

 

[Reddy!]

Too much emphasis on defense these days. The knock out rounds of the WC showed this I think.

 

[naza]

But, I also love to see set moves, offloads, cut out passes, loops and wraps, decoy runners and perfect running lines and teams willing to give it a fucking good crack, cause that to me is awesome to watch.

Its says a lot about the sport that the box kick is still a highly effective option. Why ? Because so called professional footballers can't catch the bloody thing half the time. Execution of basic catch and pass skills is a debacle.

 

[DPK]

In this little world here in Sydney because of League fucking obsession and the need to prove that "our game is more exciting than yours", but on planet earth, no.

I agree with you that the League influence is negative, but the scrums have got to be fixed. They are an absolute farce. If this means removing the power hit and enforcing the no pushing before the ball is in rule, then let's give it a shot.

 

[Sully]

Is it just me or are a RL and Rugby union tackles different beasts these days.

 

[Sandpit Fan]

Is it just me or are a RL and Rugby union tackles different beasts these days.

Not just you Sully... It's all about keeping the player upright in the tackle these days. This is an interesting link from the SMH