The differences between RU 15s and 7s

[sigesige00]

There are important differences between RU 15s and 7s.

1st, place-kick is not allowed and PG/Conversion must be taken by drop-kick in 7s.

I think that this rule should be abolished and place-kick should be allowed in 7s. The reason for this rule might be place-kick takes a long-time. However, this problem can be solved by stopping time while place-kick is being prepared. Also, the same thing (stopping time while place-kick is being prepared) should be done in 15s.

2nd, the side of kick-off after scoring is different.

In 15s, the side who conceded points take kick-off. In 7s, this is reverse. The reason is explained that territory is more important in 15s, while ball possession is more important in 7s. This difference can be solved in this way: "The side who conceded points can choose which side takes kick-off." There will be no problem by this. There will be an occasion in which the side who conceded points choose kick-off by the opponent team in 15s. For example, in the case of turnaround in the last minute. The side who conceded points might consider that their kick-off would be catched by the opponent team and kicked out, and the game would be over. In this case, the side who conceded points might choose the opponent team's kick-off and try to possess the ball.

3rd, in 7s, a team cannot use all substitutes (only 3 of 5).

I think that this rule should be changed and using all 5 substitutes must be allowed in 7s.

There are other minor differences, but all important points can be solved in these ways.

And, about the time of game. Now the game time is 7mins half or 10mins half in 7s. I think that this should be changed to 8mins half. 8mins is good because that is 1/5 of 15s.

[Little Guy]

These are thankfully less ridiculous than your usual proposals. While I'm not in a hurry to adopt any of them, these might actually be worthy of some disscussion.

[Feicarsinn]

Cool story brah.

[TRF_Draggs]

Oh, how I have missed the Sigesige turn Rugby into Leg threads.

[sigesige00]

These are thankfully less ridiculous than your usual proposals. While I'm not in a hurry to adopt any of them, these might actually be worthy of some disscussion.

After watching many RU and RL games, I changed many ideas you call ridiculous. I asked the admin to delete my old threads.
However, I still have some "ridiculous" ideas, such as moving goal from goal-line/try-line to dead-ball line.

[BZHopenside]

I think that this rule should be abolished and place-kick should be allowed in 7s.

I'd favor the exact opposite. Get rid of the place-kick in 15s. Drop kick only. Without the option of a place kick, we'd see fewer penalty attempts in 15s and more tap-and-goes and lineouts. While there would still be a few players who could slot a kick from 50m out, there would not be as many, making the game more exciting. Another plus: we wouldn't see anymore of those Toulon-style RC car gimmicks.

[sigesige00]

I'd favor the exact opposite. Get rid of the place-kick in 15s. Drop kick only. Without the option of a place kick, we'd see fewer penalty attempts in 15s and more tap-and-goes and lineouts. While there would still be a few players who could slot a kick from 50m out, there would not be as many, making the game more exciting. Another plus: we wouldn't see anymore of those Toulon-style RC car gimmicks.

On this point, I have a different opinion. Allow place-kick, but change the points.
Now all PGs are 3 points in RU. However, reduce the points of PGs to 2 points in the case of fouls in ruck/maul. (PGs in other cases should remain 3 points.)
It is RU's shortcoming that there are too many PGs from dense plays, unlike RL.

[ZeFrenchy]

After watching many RU and RL games, I changed many ideas you call ridiculous. I asked the admin to delete my old threads.
However, I still have some "ridiculous" ideas, such as moving goal from goal-line/try-line to dead-ball line.

I actually like that idea. Although the problem is that at amateur level the size of the in-goal area varies a lot, so it would mean that the posts would be always in a different position depending on the pitch.

[Twebby]

I actually like that idea. Although the problem is that at amateur level the size of the in-goal area varies a lot, so it would mean that the posts would be always in a different position depending on the pitch.

And at Murrayfield the posts would be about another 20 metres further away. What would actually be the purpose of moving the posts?

[ZeFrenchy]

And at Murrayfield the posts would be about another 20 metres further away. What would actually be the purpose of moving the posts?

Reduce attempts at goal, especially far off drop goals and such.

[Twebby]

Reduce attempts at goal, especially far off drop goals and such.

Could just ban kicking the ball altogether. Be a lot simpler and nobody would have anything to moan about any more.

[TNT88]

Reduce attempts at goal, especially far off drop goals and such.

In that case we should adopt my idea of completely getting rid of a goalposts and putting a massive, constantly rotating game-show like spinning wheel in the in-goal. And whatever part of the board the kicker hits, he scores/wins/loses. The options will be:

3 points
2 points
1 point
-1 point
-2 points
-3 points

Bullseye = penalty try

And there will also be a section of the spinning wheel called "bonus round", where the kicker will get 2 points plus another shot. (can only be used once). So that a team 4 points down after 80 minutes can still win a game. Might add some excitement.

Not to mention teams can drop kick at the board anytime they like.

Personally, I think this will reduce the number of penalty shots taken because coaches wont want their players risking 3 points. But it will make conversions a hell of a lot more exciting.

How am I doing sige?

[TRF_SelimNiai]

In that case we should adopt my idea of completely getting rid of a goalposts and putting a massive, constantly rotating game-show like spinning wheel in the in-goal. And whatever part of the board the kicker hits, he scores/wins/loses. The options will be:

3 points
2 points
1 point
-1 point
-2 points
-3 points

Bullseye = penalty try

And there will also be a section of the spinning wheel called "bonus round", where the kicker will get 2 points plus another shot. (can only be used once). So that a team 4 points down after 80 minutes can still win a game. Might add some excitement.

Not to mention teams can drop kick at the board anytime they like.

Personally I think this will reduce the number of penalty shots taken because coaches wont want their players risking losing 3 points. But it will make conversions a hell of a lot more exciting.

How am I doing sige?

And the winner gets a speedboat

[stormer2010]

Lessening the value of a penalty goal makes it just too tempting to use spoiling tactics by the defending team. It's allready rife, why encourage it? You want to give advantage to the attacking team ala 2010.

If anything, increase the value of a penalty goal and the game will be more exciting as defending teams will be more weary of being offside, slowing the ball down etc. The only issue would be getting the implementation right as a ref has more of an impact on the points in that case.

[ZeFrenchy]

Lessening the value of a penalty goal makes it just too tempting to use spoiling tactics by the defending team. It's allready rife, why encourage it? You want to give advantage to the attacking team ala 2010.

If anything, increase the value of a penalty goal and the game will be more exciting as defending teams will be more weary of being offside, slowing the ball down etc. The only issue would be getting the implementation right as a ref has more of an impact on the points in that case.

Could just ban kicking the ball altogether. Be a lot simpler and nobody would have anything to moan about any more.

At first glance I thought it would increase the incentive for running while inducing less negative tactics then reducing points. It's an impracticable idea anyway, so there's no point discussing about it.

In that case we should adopt my idea of completely getting rid of a goalposts and putting a massive, constantly rotating game-show like spinning wheel in the in-goal. And whatever part of the board the kicker hits, he scores/wins/loses. The options will be:

3 points
2 points
1 point
-1 point
-2 points
-3 points

Bullseye = penalty try

And there will also be a section of the spinning wheel called "bonus round", where the kicker will get 2 points plus another shot. (can only be used once). So that a team 4 points down after 80 minutes can still win a game. Might add some excitement.

Not to mention teams can drop kick at the board anytime they like.

Personally, I think this will reduce the number of penalty shots taken because coaches wont want their players risking 3 points. But it will make conversions a hell of a lot more exciting.

How am I doing sige?

You have just out-sigesige00'ed sigesige00. Congratulations!

[Icemn]

Lessening the value of a penalty goal makes it just too tempting to use spoiling tactics by the defending team. It's allready rife, why encourage it? You want to give advantage to the attacking team ala 2010.

If anything, increase the value of a penalty goal and the game will be more exciting as defending teams will be more weary of being offside, slowing the ball down etc. The only issue would be getting the implementation right as a ref has more of an impact on the points in that case.

Agree!!!

or they can increase the points value of the tries, make it 7 points a try, conversion maybe 3.... or a try 6 points and conversion 3

[sigesige00]

Agree!!!

or they can increase the points value of the tries, make it 7 points a try, conversion maybe 3.... or a try 6 points and conversion 3

I don't agree. The fact that there are too many PGs from maul/ruck in RU is a clear shortcoming in comparison with RL. So, we should decrease the value of PGs from the fouls in maul/ruck.

And as for the dead-ball line, my idea is to change the field-size to that of football -- 68m*105m (field of play -- 93m, ingoal -- 6m*2)

[TNT88]

Why should we use rugby league as a guide as to whether or not our penalty system works? Why the **** wouldn't you just watch rugby league for that kind of game? (rather than changing rugby union laws to rugby league laws...)

[Feicarsinn]

The fatal understanding here seems to be that sigesige00 seems to think that Rugby League is a good sport. It is not. If rugby league is so much more watch able and exciting than Union why is it only played by criminals and northerners?

[TRF_Ezequiel]

The fatal understanding here seems to be that sigesige00 seems to think that Rugby League is a good sport. It is not. If rugby league is so much more watch able and exciting than Union why is it only played by criminals and northerners?

And why is it only played in Australia and England?

[BZHopenside]

I personally love rucks and mauls. There may be problems, but I think you have to take the bad with the good if you want to preserve one of the best elements of rugby, which is that it doesn't stop as the result of a tackle.

[admartian]

In that case we should adopt my idea of completely getting rid of a goalposts and putting a massive, constantly rotating game-show like spinning wheel in the in-goal. And whatever part of the board the kicker hits, he scores/wins/loses. The options will be:

3 points
2 points
1 point
-1 point
-2 points
-3 points

Bullseye = penalty try

And there will also be a section of the spinning wheel called "bonus round", where the kicker will get 2 points plus another shot. (can only be used once). So that a team 4 points down after 80 minutes can still win a game. Might add some excitement.

Not to mention teams can drop kick at the board anytime they like.

Personally, I think this will reduce the number of penalty shots taken because coaches wont want their players risking 3 points. But it will make conversions a hell of a lot more exciting.

How am I doing sige?

Implement this now.

I personally love rucks and mauls. There may be problems, but I think you have to take the bad with the good if you want to preserve one of the best elements of rugby, which is that it doesn't stop as the result of a tackle.

That's what I hate about Rugby League; a game can finish on a tackle which is stupid if it's a close game. Why not just have it when the ball is out of play/penalty?

Ridiculous.

[sigesige00]

I personally love rucks and mauls. There may be problems, but I think you have to take the bad with the good if you want to preserve one of the best elements of rugby, which is that it doesn't stop as the result of a tackle.

I am not saying that ruck/maul should be abolished in RU. They are RU's features distinct from RL. What I said is there are too many PGs from ruck/maul in RU, so reducing the value of PGs from ruck/maul from 3 to 2.

[TNT88]

I am not saying that ruck/maul should be abolished in RU. They are RU's features distinct from RL. What I said is there are too many PGs from ruck/maul in RU, so reducing the value of PGs from ruck/maul from 3 to 2.

Why bother changing the PG score from 3 to 2, when you can just make it so that any team who misses a penalty goal loses 1 point? Surely that will cut the number of shots down, while not encouraging the defensive team to infringe more in the red zone, (which is what will happen with your idea....)