Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Rugby Union
General Rugby Union
Changing of the laws?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="smartcooky" data-source="post: 327497" data-attributes="member: 20605"><p>Be careful who you lump together with your gross generalisations!</p><p></p><p>► Rugby League does not even register on the radar in either South Africa or Argentina. Their main competition is with Wendyball, not Rugby League. Also, neither of these countries is likely to be wanting to see any diminishing of the importance of the scrum, far from it.</p><p></p><p>► New Zealand does not even have a professional Rugby league competition, and they have ONE professional team, the Warriors, playing in an Australian competition with a mostly Auckland fan base. I doubt that the All Blacks or anyone in NZ rugby want to see scrums de-powered either.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>As for what Rules I would introduce/change. Only three</p><p></p><p><strong>1. PROP'S JERSEYS AND BINDING</strong></p><p>I would not allow props to wear skin tight jerseys. Props should be made to wear loose-fitting jerseys with easily visible or coloured panels sewn into the two places on the back and side, as specified in Law 20.3 (c) and (d), where the opposing props must bind. If they don't bind with their hand grasping some part of the coloured panel? PING! If they drop their bind altogether? PING!</p><p></p><p>Also at most levels I would insist on long binding over the back of the opposing prop. On the Rugbyrefs forum we have had some lengthy and robust debates with former England international hooker Brian Moore (who is a forum member) on what makes a good stable scrum. While opinions vary, everyone is in agreement that a long bind is the best "foundation stone" for a stable scrum. Not only that, but it makes it much more difficult for props to disrupt the scrum. If the prop is bound to his opponent's back, they cannot; </p><p></p><p>► Get their and head below their hips very easily </p><p>► Pull their opponent down,</p><p>► Push their opponent up,</p><p>► Twist their opponent left or right (boring in is difficult if not impossible)</p><p></p><p>Also, a long bind helps to lock the scrum together as the only direction you are easily able to pull your opponent in is towards you.</p><p></p><p><strong>2. DROPPED GOALS</strong></p><p>I would amend Law 22.8</p><p></p><p><span style="color: RoyalBlue">22.8 BALL KICKED DEAD THROUGH IN-GOAL</span></p><p><span style="color: RoyalBlue">If a team kicks the ball through their opponents’ in-goal into touch-in-goal or on or over the dead ball line, except by an unsuccessful kick at goal<span style="color: Red"> or attempted dropped goal</span>, the defending team has two choices:</span></p><p><span style="color: RoyalBlue"></span></p><p><span style="color: RoyalBlue">To have a drop-out,</span></p><p><span style="color: RoyalBlue">or</span></p><p><span style="color: RoyalBlue">To have a scrum at the place where the ball was kicked and they throw in.</span></p><p><span style="color: RoyalBlue"></span></p><p></p><p>I would remove the bit in red. This would add an element of risk to an otherwise risk-free method of attempting to score. The further out you attempt from, the greater the risk of missing, and the bigger the chunk of territory you will lose. </p><p></p><p><strong>3. TACKLER and GATE</strong></p><p> At the tackle (Law 15) I would remove the tackler's right to play the ball from any direction. I would make him go through the gate like all other players. The referee would then not have to decide whether a player is a tackler or not as everyone at, or arriving at the tackle must play the ball from their own side.</p><p></p><p>I would also have the "tackle gate" actually defined and illustrated in Law 15, with a diagram similar to the one in IRB Rugby Ready publication.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="smartcooky, post: 327497, member: 20605"] Be careful who you lump together with your gross generalisations! ► Rugby League does not even register on the radar in either South Africa or Argentina. Their main competition is with Wendyball, not Rugby League. Also, neither of these countries is likely to be wanting to see any diminishing of the importance of the scrum, far from it. ► New Zealand does not even have a professional Rugby league competition, and they have ONE professional team, the Warriors, playing in an Australian competition with a mostly Auckland fan base. I doubt that the All Blacks or anyone in NZ rugby want to see scrums de-powered either. As for what Rules I would introduce/change. Only three [B]1. PROP'S JERSEYS AND BINDING[/B] I would not allow props to wear skin tight jerseys. Props should be made to wear loose-fitting jerseys with easily visible or coloured panels sewn into the two places on the back and side, as specified in Law 20.3 (c) and (d), where the opposing props must bind. If they don't bind with their hand grasping some part of the coloured panel? PING! If they drop their bind altogether? PING! Also at most levels I would insist on long binding over the back of the opposing prop. On the Rugbyrefs forum we have had some lengthy and robust debates with former England international hooker Brian Moore (who is a forum member) on what makes a good stable scrum. While opinions vary, everyone is in agreement that a long bind is the best "foundation stone" for a stable scrum. Not only that, but it makes it much more difficult for props to disrupt the scrum. If the prop is bound to his opponent's back, they cannot; ► Get their and head below their hips very easily ► Pull their opponent down, ► Push their opponent up, ► Twist their opponent left or right (boring in is difficult if not impossible) Also, a long bind helps to lock the scrum together as the only direction you are easily able to pull your opponent in is towards you. [B]2. DROPPED GOALS[/B] I would amend Law 22.8 [COLOR=RoyalBlue]22.8 BALL KICKED DEAD THROUGH IN-GOAL If a team kicks the ball through their opponents’ in-goal into touch-in-goal or on or over the dead ball line, except by an unsuccessful kick at goal[COLOR=Red] or attempted dropped goal[/COLOR], the defending team has two choices: To have a drop-out, or To have a scrum at the place where the ball was kicked and they throw in. [/COLOR] I would remove the bit in red. This would add an element of risk to an otherwise risk-free method of attempting to score. The further out you attempt from, the greater the risk of missing, and the bigger the chunk of territory you will lose. [B]3. TACKLER and GATE[/B] At the tackle (Law 15) I would remove the tackler's right to play the ball from any direction. I would make him go through the gate like all other players. The referee would then not have to decide whether a player is a tackler or not as everyone at, or arriving at the tackle must play the ball from their own side. I would also have the "tackle gate" actually defined and illustrated in Law 15, with a diagram similar to the one in IRB Rugby Ready publication. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rugby Union
General Rugby Union
Changing of the laws?
Top