ARU calls on Rugby fans to suggest innovative experimental laws

[OCrampeasy]

You can only go for the posts, drop goal or penalty if the scores are within 7 points.

 

[SimonG]

Can I ask what your motivations for posting on a RU forum are? ...because frankly you don't seem to even like the sport.

It seems strange to me that you'd spend so much time (even signing up) discussing a sport that you have, at best, a passing interest in.

A 'passing interest' is possibly not an unfair label (i prefer casual fan). Perhaps it's the lack of being open to change (which seem to be the vast majority of hardcore Rugby fans) that I can't relate to as a casual fan of the game. Aussies want exciting open running Rugby and a less set piece forward orientated dominated game...which I would concur with. I can't fathom why some wouldn't want a return to the running Rugby of old. The game maybe more professional, but at the cost of free running Rugby. Rugby is becoming too structured (rigid), and players bulked up more than ever before.

 

[smartcooky]

That's not really true... The game is still really confined mostly to Sydney and Brisbane. Outside of those heartlands it really only has a smattering of support and usually has it's games played on delayed telecast if there's the prospect it might conflict with the AFL.

Yep, I think it is something that many outside of Australia do not understand. In Victoria, you simply could not find enough players to make the Rebels anywhere near competitive if you were only picking Victorian born and raised players from their local club competition. Same applies to the Force and Western Australia.

How many Rebel players born and raised in Victoria?
How many Force players born and raised in Western Australia,

Now do the same stats for the Waratahs and NSW, or the Reds and Queensland.

How many players born and raised in Victoria, South Australia or Western Australia or Tasmania have ever played for the Wallabies? Not many I'll bet

 

[Colombia]

The longer the distance you attempt a drop kick from, the more chance you will miss, the more risk you will end up coming back for an opposition scrum where you kicked from.

What's the point in that? We'd no longer have all those breath-taking long-distance drop goals. In fact, since drop-goals aren't successful most of the time you'd risk deleting it from the game altogether.

 

[smartcooky]

What's the point in that? We'd no longer have all those breath-taking long-distance drop goals. In fact, since drop-goals aren't successful most of the time you'd risk deleting it from the game altogether.

Good!

 

[Frankly My Dear]

scrums - arrgghh!!

There's really only one aspect of the game crying out for reform - There's way too much faffing around with the scrums (albeit some marginal improvement since the ref's four calls have been trimmed to three, etc.) - With some games, it gets to the point when I'm actually dreading the next knock-on or forward pass, because of the turgid spectacle that's likely to follow it - Invariably an immediate switch-off for any casual viewer who may be with me, too (which isn't helping interest in the game to spread). While there must be some element of 'contestability' retained (as this is in the spirit of union), some move towards the no-nonsense approach to re-starts, as in league, is surely now inevitable.
Fortunately, there is a successful precedent in union to call upon - ie, the introduction of the 5-second 'use it!' in rucks. The same principle must now be applied to scrums. This could be achieved through three simple additions to the laws: 1) Clock stopped when a scrum called, and re-started when ref calls 'set'; 2) From the call of 'set', putting-in team has 5 seconds to put the ball in (assuming no infringements from other side); 3) From when the ball goes in, putting-in team has 5 seconds to get the ball out again (assuming no infringements from other side). Simples.

 

[ratsapprentice]

A 'passing interest' is possibly not an unfair label (i prefer casual fan). Perhaps it's the lack of being open to change (which seem to be the vast majority of hardcore Rugby fans) that I can't relate to as a casual fan of the game. Aussies want exciting open running Rugby and a less set piece forward orientated dominated game...which I would concur with. I can't fathom why some wouldn't want a return to the running Rugby of old. The game maybe more professional, but at the cost of free running Rugby. Rugby is becoming too structured (rigid), and players bulked up more than ever before.

You have to find a balance between attack and defence otherwise it becomes basketball. That's not meant to be a slur on Basketball - it's just not what the game is about.
The more you de-power defence the less meaningful attacking becomes.

The "running Rugby of old" is a complete myth, frankly. The game had less continuity than it does now - the only difference is that restarts were over and done with faster.
The number of minutes in play is significantly higher now than it ever has been.

You say the sport isn't open to change whilst simultaneously saying it should be like it was 20+ years ago.

 

[Colombia]

Good!

As bad as the Aussies with the scrum, if you can't do it, petition to get rid of it. It would all have been different if the Kiwi 10s didn't choke their droppies in '07, oh yes.

Post is in jest!

 

[SimonG]

You say the sport isn't open to change whilst simultaneously saying it should be like it was 20+ years ago.

Take the basketball point...back and forth back and forth, meaningless p*ss easy scores..yawn. I'm not advocating that though. Just a more open running game which no longer exists. Change does not preclude reverting to an old style. Defences are tighter, players are much bulkier, games are more structured/rigid and defensive tactics suffocate open running Rugby. Clive Woodward was the Jose Mourinho of Rugby. Woodward isn't to blame for boring Rugby btw but he's one of the major protagonists.

 

[ratsapprentice]

Woodward is a ***. He's a contrarian who is paid to be controversial.
He was very successful with England - but I think that's more down to his work as a manager and the talent available to him rather than him being a notable rugby brain.

I don't think the running game you're thinking of ever really existed though.
It would be helpful if you could provide an example of a game that typifies what you're talking about.

 

[goodNumber10]

Woodward is a ***. He's a contrarian who is paid to be controversial.
He was very successful with England - but I think that's more down to his work as a manager and the talent available to him rather than him being a notable rugby brain.

I don't think the running game you're thinking of ever really existed though.
It would be helpful if you could provide an example of a game that typifies what you're talking about.

I don't think Woodward ever portrayed himself as anything other than a manager that brought a huge amount of attention to detail to a winning game plan.

I don't think it's fair to say England developed boring rugby under Woodward. People only seem to remember the 2003 world cup and forget how attacking minded England were throughout his reign.*

*not aimed at you rats.

 

[goodNumber10]

Good!

Then NZ would never need lose a Quarter final again.

 

[SimonG]

I'm in my early 30s so can recall before the pro era..and there is no question there was more open running Rugby. The aspects of the game today (bigger bulk, defensive emphasis, overly tactical) is nothing like it was. You only need to look at France, who have adopted the "stodgy" defensive game from other teams, to see the difference.

 

[ratsapprentice]

Show me a video of it.

Rugby from 30 years ago was played at a significantly slower pace, with lower skill levels by players who did very little to refine their natural athleticism.
It's pretty dull to watch to be honest.

Show me a pre-proffesional game with anywhere near as much skill, athleticism, pace and drama as last year's NZ vs Boks test in SA.

Yes the scrums take too long now - but pretty much everything else is done far more quickly, and the total amount of ball in play time is greatly improved.

If you want to watch the style of rugby you're talking about then you're better off going to watch schoolboy rugby.

 

[dasNdanger]

I don't get this at all. Either you want to play rugby union, or you don't. Changing the point system, changing scrum laws, changing where and how kicks or restarts are made - anything like that could have a negative effect on the game as a whole. I think the only ones who should be experimenting with laws is the IRB. It's the only way everyone will be on the same page.

That said, I do think some things can be changed within the game without meddling with the laws. Improving the running game, better goal kicking, developing more strategic plays, perfecting the scrum - all of these things can benefit the game without meddling with the laws. But it takes discipline (both individually and team-wise), better coaching, and better consistency (everyone on the same page instead of egos butting heads).

If anything, I'd say the one thing Australian rugby needs is better morale - both from the players, and from the fans. But it starts with the team - the players and the coaching staff. Love the game, show enthusiasm for the game, and stop the whining. That would be my suggestion.


das

 

[goodNumber10]

Show me a video of it.

Rugby from 30 years ago was played at a significantly slower pace, with lower skill levels by players who did very little to refine their natural athleticism.
It's pretty dull to watch to be honest.

Show me a pre-proffesional game with anywhere near as much skill, athleticism, pace and drama as last year's NZ vs Boks test in SA.

Yes the scrums take too long now - but pretty much everything else is done far more quickly, and the total amount of ball in play time is greatly improved.

If you want to watch the style of rugby you're talking about then you're better off going to watch schoolboy rugby.

Very much this.

Its tosh that the game has got less running rugby. If anything it is far more, if people think the 80's and 70's was full of flowing rugby they are deluded.

People hold up THAT try as some beacon of proof that every game was length of the field stuff but that was the exception to the norm.

 

[SimonG]

Nah...you only need to look at France now and the fact they have copied the dull "stodgy" game of other teams. France vs NZ in the '99 semi is a different sport to what's on show nowadays. The flair players of that era all lament what's served up today.

 

[Big Ewis]

eh, as long as we have the Malzieu, Huget, Médard, Fall, Bonneval, Trinh-Duc, Pélissié, O'Connor, Guitoune, Fofana, Dulin, Buttin...etc...we have the potential to play fun Rugby. It's just the current coach that's a problem. France still were an excellent attacking team throughout the Laporte years, and even under Lièvremont we could score pretty tries when France felt like showing up.
Looking at the 2012 November tests, I thought our form was back but it really was just an isolated chunk of our history, and 2013 turned out to be the horrible year nobody expected. PSA is a coach who preaches pragmatism, chose Talès as our 10, wants (and has achieved, mostly) ultra-tight defense, all that "boring" stuff.

The Top 14 style isn't boring though if you watch teams at the top from Clermont to Toulon to an on-form Toulouse, moving to a Montpellier or Castres, and then sides like Bayonne or Bordeaux, there's some real showmanship on display and some fantastic movements and teams aren't afraid to have intent. It's NOT French flair, and it's not Super Rugby. That much is clear. But the former is impossible in today's game, and the latter just isn't the style in the NH.
My point:
when we get rid of motherfckng backs "coach" Lagisquet and better yet Phillipe Saint-André, we've got the material, and more, to get our backs play and attacking really going. I'm not afraid of that one bit.

 

[smartcooky]

Show me a video of it.

Rugby from 30 years ago was played at a significantly slower pace, with lower skill levels by players who did very little to refine their natural athleticism.
It's pretty dull to watch to be honest.

Perhaps 30 years ago, yes, but the first years of Super Rugby (1996-99) were outstanding spectacles of running rugby. Then, the iRB started mucking about with the Laws in 2000 to slow the pace of the game down.

Show me a pre-professional game with anywhere near as much skill, athleticism, pace and drama as last year's NZ vs Boks test in SA.

How about...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89h49kubZI4

or the greatest Ranfurly Shield match of all time. Canterbury v Auckland 1985

or just inside the professional era, the 1997 Heineken Cup final, Brive v Leicester. (which I rate as the best European rugby match I have seen)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6k5GZCtW4g


To be fair regards last year's NZ vs Boks test in SA, that was a unique situation in which South Africa required a win and a 4 try bonus point to win the Rugby Championship, while New Zealand just needed any bonus point (four try or losing) to secure the Championship for themselves. That created a situation where both teams had to play style of rugby that was not usual for them. NZ just has to win, or lose by no more than 7 or score 4 tries. For South Africa, grinding out a win was not an option, but when they started scoring tries, NZ had to change their game plan

 

[ratsapprentice]

I'm not sure what flair you're talking about in that 99 RWC semi... it barely gets beyond phase one before either side kicks or gives away a penalty for most of the game.

The ball spends more time on the floor than in players hands in that BaBaas game.

The HC game isn't very far removed from what you see today, albeit with the same difference in tempo.

Nowadays the periods of downtime are longer, but the periods where ball is in play is generally more fluent and significantly faster.