YOUR experimental law variations.

[Epi]

Oh.. and once they do that they can BRING BACK RUCKING!

 

[Lee Grant]

all kicks two points.

Sounds good but it could have unintended consequences.

Now teams are cynically defending their goal lines and giving up 3 points to save 5 or 7. With a penalty worth only 2 points this practice will become more prevalent. Giving up 2 to save 5 or 7 will be so worthwhile that coaches will devote training time to it and to practise it in a way that will minimise the risk of being penalised.

The obvious rebuttal to that will be that more cards will be issued, but my experience is that referees under-use cards now and I expect that card-shyness will prevail.

 

[Lee Grant]

Oh.. and once they do that they can BRING BACK RUCKING!

Sounds good and all we ex-players would go for it - and it's good to thump the chest and write about it - but we know it's not going to happen, and for the reasons we have known about for yonks.

 

[Epi]

I know they won't but slowing the ball tears the fabric of the game unfortunately...

You actually still do see it from time to time - and I've noticed the refs have been turning a bit of a blind eye to it.

 

[Nusadan]

How about the breakaways being bound parallel next to the lock always?

Have been noticing lately these blokes twisting around and shoving into the props' hips at an almost right angles, it is a factor in these scrum collapses...also makes them to be too close to the back of the opposition scrum...

 

[TheNextBigThing]

How about the breakaways being bound parallel next to the lock always?

Have been noticing lately these blokes twisting around and shoving into the props' hips at an almost right angles, it is a factor in these scrum collapses...also makes them to be too close to the back of the opposition scrum...

Definitely agree, although the benefit of Breakaways swinging out is that they often protect the attacking 8 and 9 from the defending scrum half encroaching and stopping quick ball.

 

[terry j]

scrum feed then affirmed as straight by ref (ref actually shouts feed is straight),

good one, forgot about that! I love it when they get pinged for not putting in straight, happens too rarely.

I liked the one about marks all over the field too BTW

 

[H...]

This one kills me. I don't even know what the laws are at the moment regarding this but....

I hate players standing near the ruck (unbound) in that "guardian" role (attacking team). It's often directly between the 1st reciever and the most likely tackler. The only reason for it is to cause an obstruction.

Either get into the ruck or retreat.

 

[Lee Grant]

If a defending team doesn't contest a lineout it can't be called "not straight"

Sounds good and it's so bloody frustrating isn't it, when the referee blows his whistle when it's straight to the jumper's body (instead of at worst, inside shoulder) and no opponent has jumped.


As I mentioned earlier: we have to consider what coaches will have their players do. I foresee that they will have their players including the hooker rush to the lineout to get a legal skew throw in before opponents can get properly set up to jump. Teams that have hookers who throw inaccurately would probably have more chance of getting a positive lineout result - of getting the benefit of the doubt that a lineout had indeed formed and that nobody had made a credible attempt to contest the ball - than they would with a normal throw.


Maybe the fastest players, the wingers, could get to the lineout fastest and become the lineout throwers. This would be a delicious irony, because wingers used to throw the ball to the lineout in the olden time.


Of course, if defenders were wise to it and they had been coached to rush back quickly and get ready to counter a quick lineout (as compared to a quick throw), the lineout thrower could change tack.


Then you have to have to think: is this something else that the officials can get wrong? Would referees, who have followed a convention of allowing skew throws into the scrums even when there is a credible tunnel, get the credibility of the attempted contesting for the ball correct? If they got the scrum feed of less than a metre right I could be less cynical, but until they do my jury is well and truly out.


Referees have helped to destroy the competition of hooking for scrum ball and one wonders if the legislators will give licence to depreciate the contest for lineout ball also, by sanctioning the turning of a set piece into an unset piece, (as will be said.)


As soon as this ELV is discussed one could anticipate the moaning of NH and even SAffer pundits that it's another Aussie trick. The Kiwis, ever the pragmatists who have conformed to law changes through the rugby ages better than anybody else, with equanimity, wouldn't say boo.



On the other hand the ELV could have the merit of forcing a contest for the lineout and doing away with the ugly predictability of mauls from 5 metres out.


I'm not sure if it will be a good thing or not. But there are two things I am sure of:

1. It is worth having a go to see if nice theories for or against it are valid, or not.

2. That the implementation of the ELV will have unexpected consequences that could be either good, or not.
.

 

[EVERYFWDTHINKTHEYREA6OR7]

except for safety, if the ball is out and the front row collapses, LET IT GO.

maybe that is not new law, but a ref interpretation. well make it a guideline for refs

Never played front row i take it?

 

[EVERYFWDTHINKTHEYREA6OR7]

My ELV: If as a spectator you don't like rugby, simply switch the channel and watch league. Seriously. Every five minutes the scrum is a problem, the breakdown is a problem, penalties being worth three area problem, we need to 'fix' this and that. All the problems of rugby have been solved by the mungoes. Rugby isn''t perfect but that's what makes it what it is.

If people want a game with rules not laws, no ambiguity at the breakdown, minimal scrum re-sets and penalty goals worth only a little, guess what? It already exists.

Agreed. I love watching scrums, it's an important part of the game. Even if we as Aussies are not exactly very good at it.

 

[EVERYFWDTHINKTHEYREA6OR7]

I have to agree with the lineout not straight option. Provided the ball is not outside either teams outside shoulder it should be play on if a decent attempt at the ball is not made.

As for the scrum time for the 9. I feel that it should stay how it is. As someone who has played a bit of number 8 if you want to take a quick pick at the scrum and your 9 is obstructing them you tend to have to only palm off one the flankers to get a bit of a of a better pick. Otherwise you are dealing with flanker, 9 and 8 off the back of a scrum.

I say bring back unlimited players at the line out. This was a tactic i always loved but wasn't exploited when it was allowed. I did it with junior players (we werent the fastest team) but the boys had an absolute ball doing it and often scored from it.

I like the suggestion about taking a scrum from where the ball was kicked if it's a drop goal attempt. I feel that England may exploit this at the WC. We now see in our less intelligent of a cousin Rugby League teams are deliberately kicking it dead to force a 22 tap. Gives them time to set their defence as kick returns on or around the dead ball are returned around that area anyway. We could have a situation where attempts are made from a fair way out only to get the ball back from a 22 drop if they miss. It could become a plague, similar to the tactic to kicking it dead like South Africa did in 1995 (mind you i understand that was at altitude and the ball flies a lot further)

 

[terry j]

Never played front row i take it?

Haha, how did you know? Anyway, can you expand? What part did I miss?

Heck, as I made clear, I don't even know all the rules. Grew up in NSW so what game did I play as a youngster? Yep, league. Did not even know the other game existed. Not on the nightly news, not in the paper etc etc.

Which begs the question, WHY is league the popular game in nsw say? Most people would say 'because it is better' or somesuch.

Well it is far from better, boring one dimensional etc. No, I'd say it is more popular simply because it is what everyone knows, nothing more than that. I mean the leaguies don't even know the history of the game, that if DallyM had not gone over it would have folded.

I reckon it would make an interesting historical story, from the viewpoint of WHO backed league in the early days (engineered the switch by dallym)..the newspaper/media proprieters..and how then ALL we see from the media is leahue. THAT is what has led to it's greater popularity, not any intrinsic superiority of the game.

Oh, and just to address the point above, I too love the scrum, it is part of what makes a forward rather than a back (another difference from league...there is no such thing as 'forwards skills vs backs skills' in league, it is all a blanckmange of sameness. You don't have to know how to scrummage, know how to lineout, ruck or maul, you just have to know how to run and pout the ball on the ground and push it back with your foot....and even THEN how often do they fluff it? Such a simple 'skill' that is often not done well.)

Keep the scrums, just address any shortcomings so it CAN stay part of the game.

 

[EVERYFWDTHINKTHEYREA6OR7]

Terry J it's just obvious that you haven't put your head in there i could go on, just years around the game mate haha.

Safety must come first.

When i as a spectator watch it, it's a battle. Im normally yelling at the 9 to get it out quicker. Too much dilly dallying by 9's whilst the tight 5 are absolutely knackered from the effort put in at scrum time.

 

[Lee Grant]

1. I have to agree with the lineout not straight option. Provided the ball is not outside either teams outside shoulder it should be play on if a decent attempt at the ball is not made.


2. I say bring back unlimited players at the line out. This was a tactic i always loved but wasn't exploited when it was allowed. I did it with junior players (we werent the fastest team) but the boys had an absolute ball doing it and often scored from it.

1. That proviso is a very good idea. I have just remembered that there is a law which prohibits the thrower from deliberately throwing the ball in not straight; so that law could stay in. It would catch grossly skew throws after the lineout had formed, but defenders are not yet ready to oppose the throw, to backs running onto the ball and catching it 5 metres from the line of touch. Then the referees could have a convention that throws outside the line of the outside shoulder are deliberate, except on windy or wet days.

2. Agree. It was in the ARC and there were elegant arguments against it but in practice it seemed to work. It cut out the 'numbers' whistle blowing, which IMO was a law for the sake of a law. I am happy to see this ELV tested in pro rugby and have coaches use it or defend against it, then see if it has a good, bad, or no, effect.

I foresee that the rugby sky will not fall.

 

[Lee Grant]

Is that the law? I always see that [advantage] goes for well over one phase, or am I imagining things? It seems that if you cannot turn it into a break or such, they call it back. I can't recall it ever being only 'one phase'??

Advantage is minimal for an infringement such as a knock-on, which is penalised by a scrum to the non-offending team. Advantage from an infringement that is subject to a penalty kick is given for longer.

That isn't in the law book IIRR, it's just a convention that referees have use for yonks - one of the good ones.

 

[EVERYFWDTHINKTHEYREA6OR7]

1. That proviso is a very good idea. I have just remembered that there is a law which prohibits the thrower from deliberately throwing the ball in not straight; so that law could stay in. It would catch grossly skew throws after the lineout had formed, but defenders are not yet ready to oppose the throw, to backs running onto the ball and catching it 5 metres from the line of touch. Then the referees could have a convention that throws outside the line of the outside shoulder are deliberate, except on windy or wet days.

2. Agree. It was in the ARC and there were elegant arguments against it but in practice it seemed to work. It cut out the 'numbers' whistle blowing, which IMO was a law for the sake of a law. I am happy to see this ELV tested in pro rugby and have coaches use it or defend against it, then see if it has a good, bad, or no, effect.

I foresee that the rugby sky will not fall.

Thanks for the support there Lee. The referee's keep it simple already themeselves with regard to the lineout already on the throw. If you judge where the lineout jumper catches it, it's a fair indication of the validity of the throw.

In reference to the lineout numbers. If you are defending i feel that you should always match numbers, allowing as many defending players kills an even contest on a 'bring it down and drive' type lineout and will force the attacking team to send it to the fly half.

My point was more allowing more than 8 players in the lineout. It will bring in an element of confusion to the defending team. This was previously allowed not that long ago yet it was outlawed. We want to see more tries in Rugby don't we? It won't be flashy, but a bit more arsey. I can't think of a tactic that would be more Australian.

 

[Lee Grant]

The trouble is that folks in the NH are suspicious of things that are too Australian. They claim we want to dilute the set pieces which they are strong in because they have been used to playing in conditions that are horrible for 3 months every year whereas we play wide rugby which, in general, we are better at than they are.

I misread your earlier post and thought you were talking about the current "numbers" law being deleted. I would rather have the 'numbers law' go first and then look at unlimited numbers later. At least it will get rid of one reason to blow the whistle immediately. Refs wouldn't mind it either as all they would have to do is to see that there weren't more than 8 in either lineout.

I could be a logical stepping stone to unlimited numbers later on when the referee wouldn't have to count anybody. I would hate the numbers law to stay in if having more than 8 players in the lineout didn't work out and both ideas were dropped.

You're right: having unlimited numbers in the ARC didn't have much of an effect in my eyes but we have to consider that a selling job will have to be done to the blazer brigade up north. Unlimited numbers may be too hard for them first up.

Who knows - they may like it and have 10 man mauls from the 5 metre line.

 

[maxdacat]

Terry J it's just obvious that you haven't put your head in there i could go on, just years around the game mate haha.

Safety must come first.

When i as a spectator watch it, it's a battle. Im normally yelling at the 9 to get it out quicker. Too much dilly dallying by 9's whilst the tight 5 are absolutely knackered from the effort put in at scrum time.

So if the ball is out why call for a reset? Less time spent in scrums would appear to be safer no? Although I appreciate if the reset is not enforced the incentive for effective scrummaging is reduced.

 

[EVERYFWDTHINKTHEYREA6OR7]

So if the ball is out why call for a reset? Less time spent in scrums would appear to be safer no? Although I appreciate if the reset is not enforced the incentive for effective scrummaging is reduced.

The referee has to ensure the safety of the players. If the players have all their heads collapsed then the referee is not monitoring players getting back to their feet safely if play is continued.

I would be interested to see the results of a study into scrum collapses and the impact on various different surfaces as i feel that this seems to have an fair impact on it here in oz.