If you could change ONE rule tonight what would it be?

[smartcooky]

Law 22.8

[TEXTAREA]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 or attempted dropped goal, 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.[/TEXTAREA]

I would remove the bit highlighted in red.

The dropped goal can be a virtually risk-free way of scoring. Under the current Law, you can try one from 60m, and if it misses and goes dead, you have about a 50/50 chance of getting the ball back from the 22m drop out; effectively, you gain field position and might not lose possession.

My proposed law change adds some risk. If you have a dropped goal attempt, and it misses, and goes dead without the opposition touching it, the opposition would have the option of coming back for a scrum where you attempted from. The longer the range of the dropped goal attempt, the greater the risk that you WILL give up field position and possession.

 

[smartcooky]

I dont like the quick lineout anyway. It gives 100% control to the throwing team where one of rugbys fundamental codes is that both teams get to compete for every possession. Its even a rule, if there is a player from both teams in position a lineout is formed, until then a lineout isn't formed so technically how can they take a 'quick lineout'

Whether a quick throw in is taken is entirely in the hands of the kicking team. All they have to do to stop QTI's from being taken is to sacrifice some distance and kick the ball deep into the stands.

Also, earlier, you talk about lost time after tries are scored, well what about the lost time having a line-out every time the ball goes out?

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Ronan O'Gara would be brought out of retirement that is what would happen

And it would be glorious!

Law 22.8

[TEXTAREA]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 or attempted dropped goal, 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.[/TEXTAREA]

I would remove the bit highlighted in red.

The dropped goal can be a virtually risk-free way of scoring. Under the current Law, you can try one from 60m, and if it misses and goes dead, you have about a 50/50 chance of getting the ball back from the 22m drop out; effectively, you gain field position and might not lose possession.

My proposed law change adds some risk. If you have a dropped goal attempt, and it misses, and goes dead without the opposition touching it, the opposition would have the option of coming back for a scrum where you attempted from. The longer the range of the dropped goal attempt, the greater the risk that you WILL give up field position and possession.

There's a certain team that played the All Blacks at the weekend that could have taken advantage of this law! I agree with this change but no team is exposing it enough for the IRB to change it at the moment.

I'm not 100 percent sure what the ruling is here but I played a match yesterday where my team were constantly pinged for not releasing the tackled player before going for the ball even when there was a wrestle for the ball before the player was brought to ground, I think it was correct interpretation of the laws although when the other team did it we got done for holding on but that's what happens when an ex-pupil of the famous Blackrock acedemy for ***** referees a Blackrock game. Basically I think if you already have your hands on the ball when the player goes to ground you shouldn't have to release, if that's illegal anyway?

 

[UilamOsa]

Just for laughs and for one match only. I would remove the forward pass rule. Just anarchy...anarchy every where.

 

[LittleGuy]

Never liked the fact, that a player can catch a kicked ball with a foot in touch than it's ruled out by the kicking team and not the receiving team, if you touch the ball when your partly out of bounds you're the one who made the ball "out". Not a big deal though a minor issue.

One thing I'd like to see and I know smartcooky and Jayatron brought this up ages ago, but incredibly minor knock ons at the bases of rucks etc. that neither side gains an advantage from should just be ignored, let the game flow.

 

[Colombia]

Whether a quick throw in is taken is entirely in the hands of the kicking team. All they have to do to stop QTI's from being taken is to sacrifice some distance and kick the ball deep into the stands.

What good is it for the game if the kicking team sacrifices distance and ends up in a less threatening lineout position? We want teams putting pressure on each other, getting into each other's 22s so tries can be scored, not playing out the game on the halfway line after a quick lineout is used to boot the ball straight out again or kicking conservatively and ending up in that area of the field.

The dropped goal can be a virtually risk-free way of scoring. Under the current Law, you can try one from 60m, and if it misses and goes dead, you have about a 50/50 chance of getting the ball back from the 22m drop out; effectively, you gain field position and might not lose possession.

My proposed law change adds some risk. If you have a dropped goal attempt, and it misses, and goes dead without the opposition touching it, the opposition would have the option of coming back for a scrum where you attempted from. The longer the range of the dropped goal attempt, the greater the risk that you WILL give up field position and possession.

That would just reduce the already low number of drop-goal attempts. The drop-goal is a difficult skill and is actually one of the more entertaining (and often dramatic) ways to score points in rugby, particularly from long-distance. I don't see the value in this change.

 

[lucky number 7]

Like Hockey you could see guys duck it out but only after a penalty for dangerous play or unsportsmanlike conduct.

Say a bloke had his head taken off by a high tackle , he can stand up and throw down something from his pocket , at which point the opponent can decide if he wants to go too. A rejection of a scrap lands a 2 minute penalty to the offender but the call remains the same.
Scrap ends when a knee touches the floor , someone gives up or by knockout.

Make it happen

 

[smartcooky]

I'm not 100 percent sure what the ruling is here but I played a match yesterday where my team were constantly pinged for not releasing the tackled player before going for the ball even when there was a wrestle for the ball before the player was brought to ground, I think it was correct interpretation of the laws although when the other team did it we got done for holding on but that's what happens when an ex-pupil of the famous Blackrock acedemy for ***** referees a Blackrock game. Basically I think if you already have your hands on the ball when the player goes to ground you shouldn't have to release, if that's illegal anyway?

[TEXTAREA]LAW 15.3 BROUGHT TO THE GROUND DEFINED
(a) If the ball carrier has one knee or both knees on the ground, that player has been ‘brought
to ground’.
[/TEXTAREA]

During the wrestling, if either of the ball carrier's knees touch the ground, the tackle has been made and the tacklers have to release.

 

[lucky number 7]

[TEXTAREA]LAW 15.3 BROUGHT TO THE GROUND DEFINED
(a) If the ball carrier has one knee or both knees on the ground, that player has been 'brought
to ground'.
[/TEXTAREA]

During the wrestling, if either of the ball carrier's knees touch the ground, the tackle has been made and the tacklers have to release.

100%
This is not terribly well policed in Ireland , and this warms my heart as I consider moving back into flanker.

 

[InsaneAsylum]

I'd like to see two refs operating simultaneously. it might have it's opponents but seems to work well in AFL.

I think it would be effective at scrum time as each ref can stand on either side of the scrum. also in general play, ref 1 can police rucks while ref 2 keeps an eye on offside defensive lines.

 

[nickdnz]

I'd like to see two bars on the goal posts..

On a serious note I'd like to remove the current TMO system of two phases and focus just on grounding or from the last two passes. What we have now I can't stand, where they review everything.

 

[tenpm]

I can't remember to whom the credit should go, but I've read someone on the forum suggest having a specialist scrum referee. I'd like to see that happen.

 

[InsaneAsylum]

And it would be glorious!



There's a certain team that played the All Blacks at the weekend that could have taken advantage of this law! I agree with this change but no team is exposing it enough for the IRB to change it at the moment.

I'm not 100 percent sure what the ruling is here but I played a match yesterday where my team were constantly pinged for not releasing the tackled player before going for the ball even when there was a wrestle for the ball before the player was brought to ground, I think it was correct interpretation of the laws although when the other team did it we got done for holding on but that's what happens when an ex-pupil of the famous Blackrock acedemy for ***** referees a Blackrock game. Basically I think if you already have your hands on the ball when the player goes to ground you shouldn't have to release, if that's illegal anyway?

Were the other team wearing black jerseys and black shorts by any chance?

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

Allow opposition to tackle Dan Carter ;P

 

[Jer1cho]

Firstly, the 5m scrum going to the attacking team when the ball is held up over the tryline. This is a stupid rule, and doesn't reward good defense. A team can go through 20 phases, and thanks to stellar defense, the ball gets held up, and the attacking team has the nice pay-off of having a set piece 5m from the try line. I do not agree with this, and feel that when a player is held up, the ball must be turned over and the defending team should have a 5m scrum. Not the other way around. Too many times I have seen teams defending gallantly, only to have the opposition get a 5m set pice, and an easy route to the try line via a number 8 pick up.

Next, get rid of scrum penalties, unless they happen within 5m of the try line. For scrum infringements anywhere else on the field, only a short arm penalty. A team does not deserve to lose 3 points every time a scrum collapses, especially when the referees interpret this area wrong multiple times.

Lastly, get rid of the TMO interfering in general play. It slows down the game and stops momentum. If there are foul play incidents, flag them till after the game. I am getting sick of having play go on for 5 minutes, only to have everything over ruled because the linesman and TMO have ants in their pants.

 

[Big Ewis]

Firstly, the 5m scrum going to the attacking team when the ball is held up over the tryline. This is a stupid rule, and doesn't reward good defense. A team can go through 20 phases, and thanks to stellar defense, the ball gets held up, and the attacking team has the nice pay-off of having a set piece 5m from the try line. I do not agree with this, and feel that when a player is held up, the ball must be turned over and the defending team should have a 5m scrum. Not the other way around. Too many times I have seen teams defending gallantly, only to have the opposition get a 5m set pice, and an easy route to the try line via a number 8 pick up.

Next, get rid of scrum penalties, unless they happen within 5m of the try line. For scrum infringements anywhere else on the field, only a short arm penalty. A team does not deserve to lose 3 points every time a scrum collapses, especially when the referees interpret this area wrong multiple times.

Lastly, get rid of the TMO interfering in general play. It slows down the game and stops momentum. If there are foul play incidents, flag them till after the game. I am getting sick of having play go on for 5 minutes, only to have everything over ruled because the linesman and TMO have ants in their pants.

I semi-agree with the first point, but you certainly bring up an ambiguous rule. I see your point on the second about scrum penalties, but can't fully agree. And the TMO...mmm well, it slows down the game a bit, but it's still very necessary and dissipates potential controversy.

Basically my point is though Rugby rules and laws have evolved in a nice, consistent and logical way, there are rules that will be a bit 'ambiguous', but the two you mentioned, I don't think we could say are just plain wrong, or illogical.

 

[Jer1cho]

I semi-agree with the first point, but you certainly bring up an ambiguous rule. I see your point on the second about scrum penalties, but can't fully agree. And the TMO...mmm well, it slows down the game a bit, but it's still very necessary and dissipates potential controversy.

Basically my point is though Rugby rules and laws have evolved in a nice, consistent and logical way, there are rules that will be a bit 'ambiguous', but the two you mentioned, I don't think we could say are just plain wrong, or illogical.

At least changing the scrum laws would help against penalties conceded on the god awful Northern Hemishpere pitches. Regarding the TMO, I do not think they are necessary in general play. It's fine going a phase or two back to check passes and such, but otherwise it's a waste. The game is played and then you hear the TMO go 'possible foul play', after which the ref immediately stops the game and checks, then it's crap. Remember that Ireland vs SA slogfest in 1998? Imagine a TMO was there that day. HAHA!!! I can't believe a game like this even went down!

 

[dullonien]

Firstly, the 5m scrum going to the attacking team when the ball is held up over the tryline. This is a stupid rule, and doesn't reward good defense. A team can go through 20 phases, and thanks to stellar defense, the ball gets held up, and the attacking team has the nice pay-off of having a set piece 5m from the try line. I do not agree with this, and feel that when a player is held up, the ball must be turned over and the defending team should have a 5m scrum. Not the other way around. Too many times I have seen teams defending gallantly, only to have the opposition get a 5m set pice, and an easy route to the try line via a number 8 pick up.

I don't agree with this. Attacking side moving forwards = attacking side put-in just as it is anywhere else on the pitch.

The good defence is rewarded by stopping a try.

 

[smartcooky]

I don't agree with this. Attacking side moving forwards = attacking side put-in just as it is anywhere else on the pitch.

The good defence is rewarded by stopping a try.

Yep, I agree with this. Having a 5m scrum going against the team going forward is completely against what happens everywhere else on the pitch. If the defending team don't want to give up a 5m scrum, then push harder/commit more players so that you don't go backwards

Same applies when an attacking player is attempting to score a try. I'm sick of seeing defenders get away with doing things in these situations that they would be penalised for anywhere else in the field of play.

1. Playing the man/ball while off your feet just short of the line.

2. Tackler not releasing just short of the line

3. Tacklers shoulder-charging players as they dive for the line.

There was a great example of this in the first couple of minutes of the France v New Zealand match. Cory Jane dived for the line, and a defending player shoulder-charged him into touch. If he had tackled Jane like that anywhere else on the park, he would have been penalised. Strictly speaking, if the referee/AR/TMO had some stones, that should have been a penalty try (an act of foul play that prevented a probable try from being scored), and I don't buy the argument that it was desperation and there wasn't anything else the team could do to prevent the try... there was plenty

1. Don't be out of position, so that you can tackle the ball carrier earlier.
2. Dont miss the tackle that put the team under pressure in the first place.
3. Tackle properly, and back your technique to do the job.

 

[sigesige00]

I want to increase the points of Conversion from 2 to 3. This would make try more valuable.