Decrease kicking percentages

[gsv]

Latest Autumn Internationals - as well as the Tri-Nations - are showing that rugby is becoming something like Aussie rules with rucks and scrums. Since Rugby World Cup 2007 the game has taken continous steps backward in terms of ball playing. If the ELV's could mask a little bit this trend, now it is becoming clearer and clearer: kicking teams win; the game of rugby loses.

I thought about a couple of things that may come useful in battling the tendency. Let's think about those Frans Steyn's 60m kicks that sunk New Zealand in Hamilton: would he choose to kick if, did he miss them, his team would have been taken back to the kicking point with an opponent scrum?

The rule would be like that: if the ball is kicked in the goal area and it gets touched down by a defending player (or it goes off the field), the defending team has the right to choose from either taking a 22m drop out or TAKING A SCRUM FROM WHERE THE BALL WAS KICKED. No matter if it is a drop-goal attempt, a penalty attempt or just a simple kick, I have the right to choose a scrum from where you kicked it. If it is too near, then I would go for the 22m drop-out anyway and nothing would change; but if you just kicked me back from your half, then I'll punish you with a scrum back there. So, you wanna go for goal from 60m out? Ok, go on, but if you miss it, it'll be a scrum back, and not just a 22 giving you the ball again. I mean, you can always try, if you're 2 points down with time kicking away, but otherwise, you'd better go for the touchline or play it.

The rule should increase the ball-in-hand style of rugby we all love. It would also increase the number of scrums played, and while some could be happy, others may rise eyebrows. Most of the scrums nowadays don't even get played: the whistle blows one way or the other and end of story. One other thing, in fact, could be introduced to take out some of the penalties given in the scrums: rule the scrum with a ELV approach. Short-arm penalties are given, unless the ref doesn't spot clearly dangerous play, cinycal and repeated collapses and things like that. In this case, it could be a full-harm penalty or a yellow card.
I know there is the fact that scrum collapses are considered dangerous play nowadays, but I guess this could be overlooked in many cases.

These are just suggestions, but I'd like someone to feedback on theese and see if they could work, maybe with adjustments and correction. Anybody, please, speak out your mind.

 

[monkeypigeon]

Yeah, the problem is that it would be like giving advantage right back to the team that was penalised if the kicker messed up so teams may end up picking kicking outhalfs who're more likely to make their kicks than players who can contol a backline. And whatta you know....kicking out of hand increases.

However I can see where you're coming from. And it's not a particularly bad idea as these things go.

I'd still like to see an increased offside zone around the player catching the ball. Maybe up to 20metres instead of 10. Give him more time to run with the ball instead of being hit by a tackler when he touches it.

 

[candybum]

instead of trying to think of ways/rules to minimize kicking, why not think of ways/rules to entice running/passing? Hard to think of many without the game becoming more like either code of League and Aussie rules. Increase width of the field? more space to run? or more space to kick?

 

[Nickdnz]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (candybum @ Nov 15 2009, 02:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

instead of trying to think of ways/rules to minimize kicking, why not think of ways/rules to entice running/passing? Hard to think of many without the game becoming more like either code of League and Aussie rules. Increase width of the field? more space to run? or more space to kick?[/b]

Increased field size would be good, but I'd imagine very expensinve, and the stadium that NZ vs Italy just played in, didn't meet field width regulations as it is. I like the idea of just increasing a try from 5 points to say seven, and a conversion worth 3 points, that way teams could do more with one try then 3 penalties. The other idea I liked was the choice of a 22m drop out or a scrum, which I though was a very good idea. As it wouldn't encourage cheating becuse they would just have to go for a line out close to the opposition line, which again would encourage scoring tries.

The other suggestion was lowering the value of Penalties, which Graham Henry insists upon. The argument against this is that it could encourage cheating.

Anything to make the game more of a running game I would love to be honest. Rugby has become so boring that it is all most too boring to watch. Long gone seems the days where a player like Rokocoko or Cullen could score whole field tries. I also think that there must be a way to make more people have to enter the rucks, as it seems that only 4-5 players are now entering the rucks max, and the rest go on defence, which again means a running game becomes harder.

 

[QLD]

Bring back rucking, get rid of the rule where if you pass into your 22 you cant kick out on the full, 1 max reset for scrums, only half arm penalties for scrum infringements and maybe a few half arms in the breakdown

 

[QLD]

Does anyone remember what year was the final year stomping/rucking of players was allowed?

 

[gsv]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Monkeypigeon @ Nov 14 2009, 07:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Yeah, the problem is that it would be like giving advantage right back to the team that was penalised if the kicker messed up so teams may end up picking kicking outhalfs who're more likely to make their kicks than players who can contol a backline. And whatta you know....kicking out of hand increases.

However I can see where you're coming from. And it's not a particularly bad idea as these things go.

I'd still like to see an increased offside zone around the player catching the ball. Maybe up to 20metres instead of 10. Give him more time to run with the ball instead of being hit by a tackler when he touches it.[/b]

Good pick, Monkeypigeon, but I think that if long-range kicks are discouraged, then you should just need an average goalkicker who spots the within-forty-metres-kicks, not an even better one (if the kick is close and goes wrong, then a 22m drop-out should be still preferred).

About the 20m offside, again, could be another good idea. Just brainstorming, but what about giving a 10m safe-area for catchers? I mean that you can't pressure the catcher, you'd have to go back from the receiver and once the ball touches the ground (or the player), you can charge him. This would dicrease the up-and-unders and even take out the dangerous tackles-in-the-air. Maybe this could apply only outside one's own defensive 22m (where should you retreat if you kick goes wrong?).

I'm just putting up ideas and see wether they can work or not. Commentate and give your views and correction (maybe 5m?).
We could even send our proposal to the IRB, if we get somewhere. Eh eh eh!