32 replies to this topic

[ChayShaw]

I'm sure this topic has came up a few times over the past few months. But I thought I might just put my idea out there
for everyone.

Currently we know the game has became very focused on defence. Teams with the ball are afraid or unwilling to run
with the ball. So we get a lot of kicking and ping pong these days.
My Idea for a rule change would be if the team taking to ball into the contact can only have a free kick awarded against them
for anything other than fowl play. e.g. if you are caught holding on to the ball the other team would get a free kick not a penalty.

That way the defensive team does get an advantage by getting the ball & the Attacking team isn't punished so harshly as they
had the ball in the first place. This I would hope would encourage teams to counter attack a bit more and we could see some more
running rugby.
Thoughts and Ideas ????

[BartMan]

I don't think anyone should be playing with chickens anyway...

And don't really see that working, you're still going to lose the ball, have all your support players in front of you, so if the ball is turned over, or you concede a free kick, you're still stuffed.

[Enzs]

Well I hope they do change the rules as it stands now mediocre teams are now competitive and can even win just on defence alone.Maybe the NH dominated IRB has finally got what they always wanted teams with no flair and class that can compete with their SH rivals.
The game has come so defensive that teams now have 3 full backs ,wings safe under the high ball that can kick well.

Their ass about face rules that to many times disadvantage the team in possession ,so as they do simply kick it back to the opposition and wait for the mistake.

Rule changes, at the breakdown get rid of the gate any player can join from any direction as long its behind a imaginary line between the 2 teams.

off your feet rule got rid off defies the rules of physics for a start.

Straight arm penalties only for dangerous play and off side and deliberate obstruction,short arm for all others.

Resets for scrums only when the ball cannot be cleared.

[Crucial]

Game is to be played on your feet. You cannot bind on to a player on the ground. Once the ball has hit the ground no hands (even if you are McGod)

[Voltron]

ChayShaw said:

I'm sure this topic has came up a few times over the past few months. But I thought I might just put my idea out there
for everyone.

Currently we know the game has became very focused on defence. Teams with the ball are afraid or unwilling to run
with the ball. So we get a lot of kicking and ping pong these days.
My Idea for a rule change would be if the team taking to ball into the contact can only have a free kick awarded against them
for anything other than fowl play. e.g. if you are caught holding on to the ball the other team would get a free kick not a penalty.

That way the defensive team does get an advantage by getting the ball & the Attacking team isn't punished so harshly as they
had the ball in the first place. This I would hope would encourage teams to counter attack a bit more and we could see some more
running rugby.
Thoughts and Ideas ????

Didnt we have these rules for the last 2 years? Except the bit about the chickens
I agree with Crucial, once you are on the ground you are not in the game. So if you're on the ground in a ruck you're actually not there, i can go over you, round you, whatever - only people who are on their feet can impede my progress.

Hate to be a party pooper, though, but i'm pretty sure part of the IRB's rules thingumee is that there are no rules changes or experiments within 2 years of the WC, so we're stuck with the current bag of crap until after the next tournament at least.

[castle corner]

-making holding on a free kick and not a penalty that would at least get rid of those cheap 3 pointers

-be more strict on going off the feet, refs should watch the body positions of players entering the ruck.If you watch old games from the 90's you see players who entered the ruck were way more upright. nowadays players are trying to get so low to the ground that they always go off their feet

-Players in front of the kicker should be moving backwards to get onside and not just standing still waiting for others to put them onside

[Just]

How about getting rid of the no passing back into the 22 law, seems to my ever more unreliable memory, that if some one kicks the ball into touch it give the opposition control of the set piece allowing them to launch an attack from that point, which has to be preferable to the ball pinging back and forth between the backs while the pack hang around in the middle waiting for the ball to be knocked on or for a back to get so bored they try run the damn thing

[BartMan]

Quote

-making holding on a free kick and not a penalty that would at least get rid of those cheap 3 pointers

and increase the ref blowing the whistle.

Make any deliberate holding on etc in the 'red zone' a penalty and a yellow card. Maybe a 5 minute one for professional fouls, and a ten minute one for foul play...?

[Cyclops]

Just said:

How about getting rid of the no passing back into the 22 law, seems to my ever more unreliable memory, that if some one kicks the ball into touch it give the opposition control of the set piece allowing them to launch an attack from that point, which has to be preferable to the ball pinging back and forth between the backs while the pack hang around in the middle waiting for the ball to be knocked on or for a back to get so bored they try run the damn thing

Yeah, I agree. I understand what they were trying to do, but it clearly hasn't worked.

The other change I'd make is allow for rolling subs in the front row (and front row only) but only for injuries. Basically, it's an attempt to speed up the game. If any player is down injured (unless a stretcher is required) play should continue. If it's a front rower delaying a scrum put in, then he should either get up or get off - so your reserve prop comes on until the next break in play where he can be replaced if the coach so chooses. We obviously can't authorise refs to force injured props to get up for a scrum, but a law change like this would speed up the game imo (award a free kick if the replacement takes too long to take the field). If a stretcher is required, then take a leaf out of soccers book, and force them to leave the field.

Also, taking a leaf out of the sevens rule book, and allow the ref to award a free kick any time he thinks a side is time wasting - especially for kicking/throwing the ball away after knock ons (for penalties, advance it ten metres). Faster rugby means the big unfit players tire faster and become less valuable. I think we should have a serious crack down on pissing about.

[BartMan]

Quote

I think we should have a serious crack down on pissing about.

Yes agree on that one big time. and the injury thing for front rowers too, I like that.

[Plastic Patrick]

According to the BBC the IRB will consider rule changes at the weekend. Good news if true. There is a particular concern around the number of injuries and the amount of kicking.
I’d like to see any ball kicked from one half to the other caught on the full be awarded with a free kick from where the ball was kicked.
At the very least get rid of the pass back into the 22 ELV which clearly hasn't worked

[Kirwan]

Plastic Patrick said:

According to the BBC the IRB will consider rule changes at the weekend. Good news if true. There is a particular concern around the number of injuries and the amount of kicking.
I’d like to see any ball kicked from one half to the other caught on the full be awarded with a free kick from where the ball was kicked.
At the very least get rid of the pass back into the 22 ELV which clearly hasn't worked

Good news if true. I don't like your rule, going back to the 22 Law will be fine. Getting penalised by loss of territory should be enough to stop the aimless kicks. Especially in these days of 60m penalties.

[Just]

I'd also quite like to see the ball technology rolled back to the point where a 60 metre kick is the very occasional exception rather than the rule.
Either that or make it so that you can only kick a penalty for goal from within the 22 and anywhere outside has to be kicked for touch

[Kirwan]

Just said:

I'd also quite like to see the ball technology rolled back to the point where a 60 metre kick is the very occasional exception rather than the rule.
Either that or make it so that you can only kick a penalty for goal from within the 22 and anywhere outside has to be kicked for touch

That would encourage cheating IMO, just like the free kick ELVs did.

Agree about the ball though, time to add some weight or make it less aerodynamic.

[SimonAdd]

Enzs said:

Well I hope they do change the rules as it stands now mediocre teams are now competitive and can even win just on defence alone.Maybe the NH dominated IRB has finally got what they always wanted teams with no flair and class that can compete with their SH rivals.

What a pile of horseshit.

Crucial said:

Game is to be played on your feet. You cannot bind on to a player on the ground. Once the ball has hit the ground no hands (even if you are McGod)

Sounds like a recipe for Brumbie-ball to me, with defending teams being unable to compete for posession and basically left hoping for a knock-on (although admittedly I would say that - I'm an openside).

Cyclops said:

Just said:

How about getting rid of the no passing back into the 22 law, seems to my ever more unreliable memory, that if some one kicks the ball into touch it give the opposition control of the set piece allowing them to launch an attack from that point, which has to be preferable to the ball pinging back and forth between the backs while the pack hang around in the middle waiting for the ball to be knocked on or for a back to get so bored they try run the damn thing

Yeah, I agree. I understand what they were trying to do, but it clearly hasn't worked.

The other change I'd make is allow for rolling subs in the front row (and front row only) but only for injuries. Basically, it's an attempt to speed up the game. If any player is down injured (unless a stretcher is required) play should continue. If it's a front rower delaying a scrum put in, then he should either get up or get off - so your reserve prop comes on until the next break in play where he can be replaced if the coach so chooses. We obviously can't authorise refs to force injured props to get up for a scrum, but a law change like this would speed up the game imo (award a free kick if the replacement takes too long to take the field). If a stretcher is required, then take a leaf out of soccers book, and force them to leave the field.

Also, taking a leaf out of the sevens rule book, and allow the ref to award a free kick any time he thinks a side is time wasting - especially for kicking/throwing the ball away after knock ons (for penalties, advance it ten metres). Faster rugby means the big unfit players tire faster and become less valuable. I think we should have a serious crack down on pissing about.

This all sounds very sensible to me. IMO the biggest precipitator of the kick-tennis we're currently seeing is that f'ing stupid No Pass Into The 22 ELV.

[JC]

Cyclops said:

Also, taking a leaf out of the sevens rule book, and allow the ref to award a free kick any time he thinks a side is time wasting - especially for kicking/throwing the ball away after knock ons (for penalties, advance it ten metres). Faster rugby means the big unfit players tire faster and become less valuable. I think we should have a serious crack down on pissing about.

Yep, I'm with that one. It pisses me off no end to see a player carrying / throwing the ball away after a penalty has been awarded, then when the ball does get retrieved and a quick tap is attempted the ref makes it worse by calling the ball back and insisting the penalty is taken from the mark. It's just straight out cheating and I'd love someone to get carded for it, or alternatively an automatic 10m march.

I've got no time for the reduction in penalty for holding on though. The unequal contest that results from inconsistent application of the rules at the breakdown is a blight on the game IMO. If a ruck is formed and an oppo tackler would get pinged for playing the ball on the ground, then the ball carrier be shouldn't be in any more advantageous position. Holding on is playing the ball on the ground, it doesn't matter that you took it into the ruck, the rules should apply equally to everyone not on their feet and that includes you. Penalty all the way, or better yet let the oppo charge over the top of you in his long spikes and ruck the pill out.

[KiwiPie]

Just said:

How about getting rid of the no passing back into the 22 law, seems to my ever more unreliable memory, that if some one kicks the ball into touch it give the opposition control of the set piece allowing them to launch an attack from that point, which has to be preferable to the ball pinging back and forth between the backs while the pack hang around in the middle waiting for the ball to be knocked on or for a back to get so bored they try run the damn thing

The original idea of this ELV was to stop teams winning ball from a scrum or lineout close to half-way and doing 2 big passes back into the 22 for a big boot to kick it out. But as you say the result is the constant Eddie Wating oop and unders and South Africa have perfected in landing them just outside the opposition 22 with runners arriving to compete. The sight of forwards shuffling around on half-way waiting for some play to break out reminds me of the football game in Bedknobs and Broomsticks ....

[Duluth]

I complained loudly about the 22 rule before it came in xzxcool

If you want less kicks you make it easier to defend a poor kick. For a successful example of this look at the mid 90's when you didn't need to plant your feet on the ground to take a mark anymore.

KiwiPie said:

South Africa have perfected in landing them just outside the opposition 22 with runners arriving to compete.

Yeah but at least the kick just outside the 22 involves some skill and a committed chase. That would work under the old rules too

The default option of just kicking the ball high because it's the least risky option is what pisses me off, which usually has no chase because as you mentioned the forwards are stranded in no mans land. Which invariably is followed by a return kick. Yay xzxgood

[the_doctor]

Maybe an alternative is to allow players to pass the ball back into their 22 only if they catch a kick on the full (and from the immediately ensuing ruck/maul/tackle possibly) but not from set pieces, phase play or turnovers. This penalises poor kicking, rewards good play (catching high kicks) but doesn't have the drawback KP identified.

The only problem could be the increased complexity, giving refs yet another circumstance to think about.

[roatated]

I think introducing an offside rule would encourage a bit more attack in general play. There used to be one, don't know where it went... phased out with the ELVs or something.

[Kirwan]

the_doctor said:

Maybe an alternative is to allow players to pass the ball back into their 22 only if they catch a kick on the full (and from the immediately ensuing ruck/maul/tackle possibly) but not from set pieces, phase play or turnovers. This penalises poor kicking, rewards good play (catching high kicks) but doesn't have the drawback KP identified.

The only problem could be the increased complexity, giving refs yet another circumstance to think about.

A simplified version of that would be a good compromise, just allowing the pass back rule from open play only and not from scrums and lineouts. That would encourage more running from set piece and give an option to the defending team on how to handle the kicks. Be easier to ref.

[Enzs]

SimonAdd said:

Enzs said:

Well I hope they do change the rules as it stands now mediocre teams are now competitive and can even win just on defence alone.Maybe the NH dominated IRB has finally got what they always wanted teams with no flair and class that can compete with their SH rivals.

What a pile of horseshit.


Horseshit totally right that the game is now horseshit.
Horseshit that to change anything it has to be passed by a two third majority.
Horse shit that a mediocre team is now competitive but never got close at any time to scoring a try and their attacking flair was non existant.
Horseshit that the elvs were not fully emplemented ,My view that certain members of the IRB new that certain NH teams would fall further behind.
Horseshit are the IRB.

[Baldric]

It is also horseshit to referee. Look how the refs struggle with two assistants. Now imagine how a plonker manages when he has to do it on his own.

[SidBarret]

I think the problem with many of the ELVs were that they focussed on the attcking team (or at least the team in possession). Think about the free-kick sanction - the only difference between a free-kick and a penalty is the options available to the non-offending team. Same with the pass-back and maul rules. One the ELVs that was success was the quick-throw rules. Why? Because it give the team in possession more options. What the game needs in my opinion is more options available to the team in possession. If a team wants to kick the ball away that should be fine, what it should mean is that the team then posession should have more options.

So - pass-back rule should come back. I don't think it will stop the endless ping-pong though. Teams are kicking at the moment knowing that their defence can cope. What I did see in the TN was especially the ABs probing from their 22 only to be pulled up five meters outside of the 22. Suddenly they had no option but to kick it back from a weak position. Allowing them pass the ball back will mean that team can probe from inside without forfeiting the option to kick the ball out.


The other major problem area is the ruck, and related to this the scrum. What we are seeing at the moment are a lot of very messy rucks that should actually be called dead balls, scrum-to-the-team-going-forward, but refs know the scrum is a dogs breakfast so they let it go. I watched the 2000 Bledisloe earlier this year and was amazong to see how many times the ref said "thats a mess, lets have scrum" and the game went on. If ref tries to do that now we'll have twenty resets and before the finally seeing a penalty for some reason that the ref doesn't bother to explain.

The frontrow experts on here can explain this to me, but what does the hit actually add to the game. At the moment every scrum I see seems to be decided on who gets the best hit in, it just doesn't seem right to me. The other thing that gets on my tits is the media driven canpaign that the dominant scrum should get the rub from the referee. In theory that seems fine, but what is happening is that both scrums are trying like fuck to get geet an advantage through cheating.

As for cleaning up the ruck - first thing i would do is get of the McCaw-exception. Every player joing a tackle situation has to come in through the gate, EXCEPT the tackler. There is no good reason for this exception to exist, the only thing the tackle on the wrongside should be focussing on is getting the fuck onside.

[Just]

How about, bring the packs together, get the front rows bound to each other then push like fuck when the ref blows his whistle, if the 9 doesn't get the ball in he loses it, if the opposition have already pushed so far you're putting it in to their back row, tough.
Might make it more of a contest and indeed stop the incessant collapse where the props are fighting for a favourable bind (or trying to prevent their opposite number from binding at all)

[canefan]

[quote name='"SidBarret"
As for cleaning up the ruck - first thing i would do is get of the McCaw-exception. Every player joing a tackle situation has to come in through the gate, EXCEPT the tackler. There is no good reason for this exception to exist, the only thing the tackle on the wrongside should be focussing on is getting the fuck onside.[/quote']
Didn't the rule used to be "tackle and roll away??"

[SidBarret]

Just said:

How about, bring the packs together, get the front rows bound to each other then push like fuck when the ref blows his whistle, if the 9 doesn't get the ball in he loses it, if the opposition have already pushed so far you're putting it in to their back row, tough.
Might make it more of a contest and indeed stop the incessant collapse where the props are fighting for a favourable bind (or trying to prevent their opposite number from binding at all)

I would go for a three stage engagement. Teams come towgether like it is golden oldies, when evrybody is bound (correctly!!!) the ref says "take the weight", the contest begins when the ball is put in by the 9. Similar to your proposal but going with my new philosophy of giving the team in possession as many options as possible, let them decide when the contest should begin.

[SimonAdd]

Sorry Sid, I actually agree with most of your post but I'm going to focus on this bit because it's slightly inaccurate:

SidBarret said:

As for cleaning up the ruck - first thing i would do is get of the McCaw-exception. Every player joing a tackle situation has to come in through the gate, EXCEPT the tackler. There is no good reason for this exception to exist, the only thing the tackle on the wrongside should be focussing on is getting the fuck onside.

There's actually no "gate" at the tackle situation; any player can come in from anywhere to contest the ball so long as they're on their feet. The gate is only made when the ruck is formed - i.e. there are two players (one from each team) bound over the tackle.

One of the initial ELVs was to change this rule so that the offside line was formed at the moment of the tackle. It was catastrophic in its failure, because it meant that whenever an attacker made a half-break and offloaded in the tackle, the entire defensive line was offside and unable to tackle the player receiving the offload.

The problem that should be addressed is the ruck itself; the referees need to play to the letter of the law (how many times do we say that?) and call a ruck as formed as soon as there is a member of each team present. That means that if George Smith is on his feet over the tackle trying to play the ball, as soon as Keiran Read arrives and binds onto him, it is a ruck and Smith has to get his hands out. Too often you see the first man trying to play the ball while two, three or four opponents are trying to push him off it, and referees and commentators say "it's okay, he has a right to go for it, he's on his feet." Bollocks does he, it's a ruck, hands out. If he's able to snaffle the pill before any opponent arrives, then good on him, but currently referees are letting defenders keep their hands on the ball long after the ruck has been formed.

If this area was refereed properly it would keep the special skills of guys like McCaw and Brussow, but without giving the breakdown advantage to the defending team as is currently the case.

[Cumbrian]

SimonAdd said:

The problem that should be addressed is the ruck itself; the referees need to play to the letter of the law (how many times do we say that?) and call a ruck as formed as soon as there is a member of each team present. That means that if George Smith is on his feet over the tackle trying to play the ball, as soon as Keiran Read arrives and binds onto him, it is a ruck and Smith has to get his hands out. Too often you see the first man trying to play the ball while two, three or four opponents are trying to push him off it, and referees and commentators say "it's okay, he has a right to go for it, he's on his feet." Bollocks does he, it's a ruck, hands out. If he's able to snaffle the pill before any opponent arrives, then good on him, but currently referees are letting defenders keep their hands on the ball long after the ruck has been formed.

If this area was refereed properly it would keep the special skills of guys like McCaw and Brussow, but without giving the breakdown advantage to the defending team as is currently the case.

Speaking as a ref, I agree with what you are saying but in your hypothetical example, if G is on his feet and playing for the ball and he hasn't got it in his hands by the time K binds onto him, I'll wager the tackled player is probably holding on and will be liable for penalty (remembering that the tackled player has to release the ball immediately). Then no bugger will want to attack, as if he gets isolated, he'll get penalised - and then you get kick tennis.

If on the other hand, we go down this route, then the defending side will struggle to compete for the ball without a "hands on" penalty being the result. The net result of this is that defending sides, fearful of the penalty, will stop competing for the ball and fan 15 men across the park in defence - with the result that it is difficult for the attack to break down.

Again, speaking as a ref, I'm hugely fed up with the breakdown. I think, speaking from experience, that we, as refs are failing to achieve consistency as a group (manifesting itself in players doing things that were "allowed last week") - which leads to confusion from the players as to what they can and cannot do, leading to frustration and constant moaning and sniping as to what I am (or I am not) going to allow. Unfortunately, the reason that we're failing to achieve this consistency (in my view) is because the laws are not framed in a way that makes it easy to ref the breakdown. As I said, I'm hugely fed up of it.

Doubtless there's much here to disagree with - and I'm only one ref - but that is a view from the other side of the whistle. I'd imagine many refs will disagree with what I've said - and doubtless many players and spectators too. Just my opinion.

It's a broken record - but here it comes again - I think the only way to really clear the breakdown up will be to bring back rucking (i.e. the ability for boots to be put on bodies in a controlled way to achieve clean ball) and allow no-one to have hands on ball post tackle. People will not have their hands on or want to lie over the ball/offside if they're likely to get a few sprigs coming their way. As a result, fewer bodies should be in the way and refs can see more of what is going on - ball should also be reasonably quick.

Is this likely? eusa_whistle

[SidBarret]

SimonAdd said:

Sorry Sid, I actually agree with most of your post but I'm going to focus on this bit because it's slightly inaccurate:

SidBarret said:

As for cleaning up the ruck - first thing i would do is get of the McCaw-exception. Every player joing a tackle situation has to come in through the gate, EXCEPT the tackler. There is no good reason for this exception to exist, the only thing the tackle on the wrongside should be focussing on is getting the fuck onside.

There's actually no "gate" at the tackle situation; any player can come in from anywhere to contest the ball so long as they're on their feet. The gate is only made when the ruck is formed - i.e. there are two players (one from each team) bound over the tackle.

One of the initial ELVs was to change this rule so that the offside line was formed at the moment of the tackle. It was catastrophic in its failure, because it meant that whenever an attacker made a half-break and offloaded in the tackle, the entire defensive line was offside and unable to tackle the player receiving the offload.

The problem that should be addressed is the ruck itself; the referees need to play to the letter of the law (how many times do we say that?) and call a ruck as formed as soon as there is a member of each team present. That means that if George Smith is on his feet over the tackle trying to play the ball, as soon as Keiran Read arrives and binds onto him, it is a ruck and Smith has to get his hands out. Too often you see the first man trying to play the ball while two, three or four opponents are trying to push him off it, and referees and commentators say "it's okay, he has a right to go for it, he's on his feet." Bollocks does he, it's a ruck, hands out. If he's able to snaffle the pill before any opponent arrives, then good on him, but currently referees are letting defenders keep their hands on the ball long after the ruck has been formed.

If this area was refereed properly it would keep the special skills of guys like McCaw and Brussow, but without giving the breakdown advantage to the defending team as is currently the case.

Wrong on both counts - everybody except the tackler has to come in through the gate. The rule was changed shortly after the 1999 world cup. The refs are allowing the first man in to play the ball based on a directive issued just before the Lions tour this year. I actually agree with it. The defending player comes in the gets his hands on the ball before the support arrives, the support has to do more than simply bind over the player, they should be moving that man off the ball. And as cumbrian points out, if the defender gets his hands on the ball before the ruck is formed and he still has to wrestle for the ball, the attcker is probably holding on to the ball.