• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

ARU calls on Rugby fans to suggest innovative experimental laws

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

[TEXTAREA]"Brive produced what was widely acclaimed as one of the finest club performances ever seen in a match in the northern hemisphere as they swept Leicester Tigers aside in a pulsating final that made sure the Heineken Cup stayed in France.

They followed up Toulouse's success in the inaugural final at the same ground by dashing Leicester hopes of an English club winning the European crown at the first time of asking following the belated entry of teams from England and Scotland.

Dean Richards' Leicester Tigers did take the lead in the 54th minute when John Liley kicked his third penalty goal, but they were already under enormous pressure and Brive, astutely directed by captain Alain Penaud, stormed to victory with a scintillating display."[/TEXTAREA]

Give it a chance, its not a highlights package!

Look, I agree with you regards 30 years ago, but even though the modern game has bigger, fitter, faster & stronger athletes than it had 20 years ago at the beginning of professional rugby, I still believe something has been lost from the game in the last few years. Super Rugby in the late 1990 was exhilarating; it was like the Rugby equivalent of Dutch soccer's "Total Football" under Rinus Michels. It was averaging nearly seven tries per game. Now it runs at about 4, and it would probably be lower but for one or two very weak teams boosting the stats.

IMO, defences are too easily able to shut down attacking teams behind the gain line. Especially, the offside Law at ruck and maul is not enforced rigidly enough, and defences have learned that they can have a player out in midfield rush up to cut off the outside pass without risking a gap in the inside back defensive line.

I would like to see several changes the the way the ruck/maul offside line works and a few innovations brought in to encourage defences to put a couple of players back, away from the front defensive line.

1. 2M offside line at ruck/maul - This idea was first suggested by South African test referee Freek Burger.
Push the defending offside line back to 2 metres behind the hind most foot. This is how it works in practice.
- When a tackle is made and a ruck forms, players must make a decision as to whether they wish to join the ruck, or stay and defend at the offside line (you're either bound to the ruck or you are back 2m)
- A player in the ruck may unbind from the ruck but must immediately either retire to the 2m offside line, or go back past the hindmost foot of his own ruck and rejoin behind or along side the hindmost foot.
- a player behind the 2M offside line may join the ruck but he must do so from directly behind the ruck - no loitering
- when a ruck ends, players in the ruck and players who were in the act of joining or rejoining the ruck may proceed directly to the next tackle or ruck (allows pick and drive which would otherwise be illegal)
- as is a line out or a scrum, the team in possession may advance as the half-back takes the ball from the scrum, giving them a little jump on the team not in possession.

This would get rid of those pesky "pillars" that hang around the ruck shutting down the inside channels. It would also make it much more difficult to execute the rush defence.

2. The 10-22 kick - steal the idea directly from RL
In General play, if a player kicks the ball from inside his own 10m line, into touch indirectly (i.e. by bouncing it or grubber kicking it) inside the opponent's 22m line, then his team gets the throw-in to the line-out

This would encourage teams to keep a defender or two back to guard against the opponent gaining a big territory and possession advantage.
It also might bring back the long-lost skill of the "wipers kick", as players become encourage to kick meaningfully, not aimlessly.

3. Mark inside the 10m instead of the 22m
Allow defenders to mark the ball inside their own 10m line. This will discourage aimless kicking, as teams in possesion in the middle of their own half who belt the ball aimlessly down the middle will gain nothing, but may find themselves contest for possesion in about the same place as they kicked it from.

NOTE: Both 2 & 3 would probably require the 10m line to be marked as a solid line rather than a dashed line.
 
I think the 2m rule could possibly be difficult to police, although I'd be willing to give it a chance. The others definitely sound like good ideas to test on a trial basis
 
I think the 2m rule could possibly be difficult to police, although I'd be willing to give it a chance. The others definitely sound like good ideas to test on a trial basis


I agree, but that is what AR's are for. They judge the HMF ruck/maul offside on the the other side from where the referee is standing, so why could they not judge it 2m back.

Also, the referee hardly ever stands on the HMF offside line, he's often 1 -2m behind it so, hey, he would be in a great position to judge,

Finally, ANY pushing back of the defensive line is a good thing.
 
Last edited:
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.




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

Those are exceptions to the norm though. To claim they are a portrayal of rugby at the time is fallacious at best.

Early super rugby was like basketball. It was high scoring and low tackling and lacking in intensity and commitment and as a result frequently quite boring.

Not saying it was rubbish or bad but it was never going to stay like that as the competition became more and more important.
 
I agree, but that is what AR's are for. They judge the HMF ruck/maul offside on the the other side from where the referee is standing, so why could they not judge it 2m back.

Also, the referee hardly ever stands on the HMF offside line, he's often 1 -2m behind it so, hey, he would be in a great position to judge,

Finally, ANY pushing back of the defensive line is a good thing.

It can certainly be enforced easy enough, but I think it will have a detrimental effect on the game.

5 metres on the scrum was supposed to create magic space but it's led to little more than a number 8 pick up or a midfield punch.

Much like the scrum if off side is reffed properly it will have a major impact on the game.
 
Last edited:
Sorry Cooky, I had edited my post to be a little clearer - obviously I did so as you were typing your reply. Might be a little more clear now - FWIW I don't think our opinions are that far removed from each other.

As to your law suggestions:

1. Nice in theory, but in practice I think it would be very difficult to enforce. It would take far too long for players to become accustomed to - I'm thinking over a year for it to become fluent.
And I think you'd need a two ref system to implement it - otherwise the ref is going to miss a hell of a lot at the breakdown, or the offside line.
I also think that the breakdown would make this prohibitively convoluted - it's not like in league where players have no need to join the ruck once the tackle is made - trying to officiate who is offside/part of the ruck whilst officiating at the breakdown is going to be an absolute nightmare.

2. I like 40-20's, they'd be a good addition... but could you imagine the **** we'd get from league? :lol:

3. Hasn't this been done in the Varsity cup...? I think it has, I'd be interested to see how it worked out.
 
Sorry Cooky, I had edited my post to be a little clearer - obviously I did so as you were typing your reply. Might be a little more clear now - FWIW I don't think our opinions are that far removed from each other.

As to your law suggestions:

1. Nice in theory, but in practice I think it would be very difficult to enforce. It would take far too long for players to become accustomed to - I'm thinking over a year for it to become fluent.
And I think you'd need a two ref system to implement it - otherwise the ref is going to miss a hell of a lot at the breakdown, or the offside line.
I also think that the breakdown would make this prohibitively convoluted - it's not like in league where players have no need to join the ruck once the tackle is made - trying to officiate who is offside/part of the ruck whilst officiating at the breakdown is going to be an absolute nightmare.

2. I like 40-20's, they'd be a good addition... but could you imagine the **** we'd get from league? :lol:

3. Hasn't this been done in the Varsity cup...? I think it has, I'd be interested to see how it worked out.

I think the 2/5 metre rule would be easy to enforce, if you look at official touch rugby you have two refs on the pitch, one refs the play the ball the other the offside line - i.e gets back onside and everyone in front of him is offside.

Now if you used your touch judges to ref the offside line instead of a second ref - he moves back two-three meters, players must be in alignment - make it the Touch Judge to the left so players always know who to align on.

Simple. but like i said i don't think it will lead to anything but teams getting over the gain line a bit quicker, it won't lead to open play - look at Rugby league with a 10 metre standoff, they play a punch pattern the majority of the time off early phases.

I like Number three, but the 40-20 style kick leaves me a bit cold. Tactical kicking is already a huge part of Union, i don't think getting the possession from open play with a kick will lead to anything other then a boot every time we hit the half way area.
 
Last edited:
Again though, as in League, in touch you don't have a contest for possession of the ball - there is no need for anyone to be ahead of the offside line so you can simply ping anyone and everyone in front of it.
In Union proper there is a legitimate reason for people to be there - and players will exploit that.

And as you say... I simply don't agree that it will do that much in reality.
 
Again though, as in League, in touch you don't have a contest for possession of the ball - there is no need for anyone to be ahead of the offside line so you can simply ping anyone and everyone in front of it.
In Union proper there is a legitimate reason for people to be there - and players will exploit that.

And as you say... I simply don't agree that it will do that much in reality.


totally agree!

Better solution is for Touch Judges/AR's to actually police the Offside line and have the power to call it - let them worry about all offside calls, let the Ref manage the breakdown.
 
Smartcooky...thanks for the informative posts. Nice to see some flesh added to the bone.

The fall in average no. of tries is not a surprise. For me the two biggest indicators of the drop in level of exciting open running Rugby (besides pros actually talking about it) are Australia and France...the first one the sport is dying to the point they're having question and answer sessions to posit suggestions to improve it, the second the sport is not recognisable to how they used to play and they have never been worse (us winning in Paris this year was a bit "meh").
 
Average number of tries scored is not a very good indicator of "good" rugby.

There were 22 tries scored in the Australia vs Namibia game in the 2003 RWC - one of two games in that tournament where a side scored more than 100 points and among several other very high scores.
Were they good games? **** no - a high number of tries is usually down to a deficient defence as much as it is down to an efficient attack.
You want to see proficiency in all areas, not just attack - as teams learn to defend more efficiently the laws of the game will change to redress the balance.
I'd expect the laws surrounding mauling to be altered slightly in the near future to account for the rise in choke tackles, for example.

The sport in Australia is in bad financial shape because of dreadful mismanagement in a highly competitive sporting environment. Experimental laws in domestic competitions are nothing new - they have been doing it in SA for years, and the sport is hardly "dying" there, is it? Confirmation bias on your part.

The French national team is playing badly because there is a clear coaching/management issue (as ever) and their players are disadvantaged by an exceptionally brutal calendar.

I find the fact that you use both Australia and France as examples of the sport's supposed bad health strange as you suggest that the game in it's current form is objectively boring and that it is causing the game to "die" in Australia, yet the sport is growing exponentially in France. Those are market forces at work my friend, not the result of a changing game.
 
Last edited:
The fall in average no. of tries is not a surprise. For me the two biggest indicators of the drop in level of exciting open running Rugby (besides pros actually talking about it) are Australia and France...the first one the sport is dying to the point they're having question and answer sessions to posit suggestions to improve it, the second the sport is not recognisable to how they used to play and they have never been worse (us winning in Paris this year was a bit "meh").

What an utterly ridicolous post.

average trys indicates nothing but the average number of trys scored - for example 10 boring pushover tries is still 10 boring pushover tries. so unless you have the data surrounding the trys and the process leading up to them being scored your Stat is nothing but a set of numbers.

A better indication of the intention to play running rugby is probably line breaks and passes made- both of those are on the up, but even they won't tell the true story.

Old pro's moaning about the state of the game generally is just that.
 
"growing exponentially in France"....given that a BBC article states that France failed to make any ground in pushing Rugby following the 07RWC, and that there has been minimal impact in Paris....where is this "exponential" growth?

The heartlands filled with purists will watch anything. It's the casual folk that won't. The game is dying in Australia because of it.
 
The annual Top14 attendance is 50% larger now than it was in 2007/08.

The game in Australia is struggling because they are financially screwed.
A situation which is almost entirely their own doing - they squandered huge sums of money they received from TV on player contracts instead of setting up their own domestic competition which would have put them on an equal footing with NZ and SA in terms of having their own source of revenue and player development outside of SR and the Championship.
Doing that in the extremely competitive and fickle Australian market was catastrophic.
 
Last edited:
Sorry Cooky, I had edited my post to be a little clearer - obviously I did so as you were typing your reply. Might be a little more clear now - FWIW I don't think our opinions are that far removed from each other.

No probs. I don't think so either

As to your law suggestions:

1. Nice in theory, but in practice I think it would be very difficult to enforce. It would take far too long for players to become accustomed to - I'm thinking over a year for it to become fluent.
And I think you'd need a two ref system to implement it - otherwise the ref is going to miss a hell of a lot at the breakdown, or the offside line.
I also think that the breakdown would make this prohibitively convoluted - it's not like in league where players have no need to join the ruck once the tackle is made - trying to officiate who is offside/part of the ruck whilst officiating at the breakdown is going to be an absolute nightmare.

Now I'm gong to surprise you, I think

When Freekk Burger first suggested this idea, a friend of mine who was then is still a current a referee, and another mutual friend who is a juniors rugby coach, got together and decided to try something. We got a bunch of school age kids and decided to have trial match to see if the 2m laws at ruck and maul would work. The teacher asked for volunteers among the rugby players (the prospect of a school day off to play rugby was a good sweetener).

First, we started with classroom session in the morning, explaining on a whiteboard how it worked, then later in the morning, we had them training rucks and mauls with pick and drives and short back movements. Finally, we divided the boys into two even teams and played a full game with 25 minute halves. Now, these were 13/14 year old kids, and they picked it up really quickly. By 15 minutes in, they were making decisions about joining rucks or standing back. They even worked out two tactics they could use...

► They worked out that, when they had possession at the ruck, they could time it between the SH and a couple of forwards to run forward as if they were going to join the ruck, and have the SH flick the ball up to one or the other just as the arrived, allowing them to break the gain line around the side of the ruck before the other team could react.

► They also worked out that, if the other team had possession at the ruck and there were only a couple of players in the ruck (the rest of the opposition were spread out along the 2m offside line, or backing away towards the 2m line) that several forwards could rush up to the ruck and join it "en masse" using their combined impetus to counter-ruck/drive their opponents off the ball.

Thing is, these kids were able to understand and play to a Law they have never played before in less than a day.
 
The thought process of those kids is different to that of professional players and coaches though - the issues we have with scrums aren't the same at schoolboy and amateur level as they are at the elite level.
 
The annual Top14 attendance is 50% larger now than it was in 2007/08.

The game in Australia is struggling because they are financially screwed.
A situation which is almost entirely their own doing - they squandered huge sums of money they received from TV on player contracts instead of setting up their own domestic competition which would have put them on an equal footing with NZ and SA in terms of having their own source of revenue and player development outside of SR and the Championship.
Doing that in the extremely competitive and fickle Australian market was catastrophic.

There was an article from former Reds and Bayonne lock Cam Treloar a couple years back talking about the differences between Australia and France (http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/cameron-treloar-where-weve-got-it-wrong/). Seemed to suggest that in Australian culture they go to watch like they would go to see a film at a cinema to be entertained, but in France they have more pride in the sides and go to see their home side win and create a lot better atmosphere. Obviously rugby has good and bad games, so the latter is clearly the safer system.
 
The thought process of those kids is different to that of professional players and coaches though - the issues we have with scrums aren't the same at schoolboy and amateur level as they are at the elite level.

Using the scrum example, the issue isn't adapting to the rules, the issue is teams adapting very cynically to them. My gut instinct/what cookie just said is you'll see a lot of teams using a rule like to have lots of one-off runners hammering the fringe - it's what the kids did, its what League does. That's pretty boring to watch if you ask me. Sure, the intention might be to have more space for teams to go wide, but the wider you go the less advantage you get from the gap. Crash straight up, its the obvious advantage.


*shrugs* The only worthwhile change to the rules I can see is something that makes the breakdown more sure for both teams

edit - Tell a lie, here's an idea

Holding onto the ball as the tackled player is now a free-kick offence, not a penalty offence.

Logic

1) Running the ball is a lot less dangerous
2) Going for the actual turnover is now better than just holding on and waiting for the ref
3) Less for the penalty kicker to do
4) Less influence that the ref can have.

Potential downside - players hang onto the ball more in rucks - don't see how they can possibly do it more than they do so already.
 
Last edited:
There was an article from former Reds and Bayonne lock Cam Treloar a couple years back talking about the differences between Australia and France (http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/cameron-treloar-where-weve-got-it-wrong/). Seemed to suggest that in Australian culture they go to watch like they would go to see a film at a cinema to be entertained, but in France they have more pride in the sides and go to see their home side win and create a lot better atmosphere. Obviously rugby has good and bad games, so the latter is clearly the safer system.

Tbh I think the French are as similarly demanding as the Aussies in wanting to see open exciting Rugby. I know this to be the case in football in that they demand flair and venerate the likes of Zidane and Platini. The hardcore will go week in week out regardless of what's on offer, especially that pocket in south west France. The difference I think is that Australia has a smaller number of hardcore fans, and what's happened over the last decade or so is the casual fans (who soon stop going if they ain't entertained) have lost interest and stopped going. Last summers Lions tour was a real eye opener...every post match the Aussie players being interviewed would make a point of stating to fans "please come again"..problem was the grounds were populated with a lot of supporters of the Lions.

The objective is to entice casual fans, and you ain't gonna do that with dull, boring, defensive dominated Rugby. France are turgid now. Union players for me are now almost too bulky..league players are trimmer, more flexible, and while I don't like the tackle aspect in league I do prefer their emphasis on running Rugby.
 

Latest posts

Top