In rugby’s marriage to professionalism, big changes are needed

[snoopy snoopy dog dog]

I reas this article a couple of hours ago. It's not particularly well written but it takes a sideways view of the laws of the game which is something I'm always interested in:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

http://www.theroar.com.au/2009/03/04/rugby...something-blue/

Now I have been reading the Roar since about the end of 2007, and have noted the two issues that have raised their head the most are a domestic competition and the ELVs.

Today I want to talk about the rules, where rugby has come from, and where do we want it to go.

Now, before people start saying "if it ain't broke don't fix it", or "the ELVs are a JON conspiracy to make rugby competitive with other Aussie winter codes", pause a minute and hear me out as I think I am onto something.

What is it about rugby that makes it unique?

I would think that the very same aspects of rugby that make it unique also make it marketable, so wanting to make the game more marketable and treasuring the original aspects of the game are efforts that are well and truly on the same page.

Rugby is special for the fact that it is a game for all (fit) shapes and sizes, has competitive scrums, has lineouts, mauls and a contest at the breakdown.

The present ELVs are great in theory, but human nature (Sheek 2009) says that coaches and players will find a way to exploit the gaps and be bound to the loopholes more than embrace the even slightly risky opportunity.

What has now occurred with the ELVs is that there is a huge amount of errant lazy kicking in general play.

A large portion of the game has developed into 'force-em' backs, with players inclined to kick for territory and tackle the opposition into mistakes.

It seems that when a fullback runs back to retrieve a ball, he turns around to face a wall of defending backs and forwards and has no real choice but to boot the ball indiscriminantly back into the opposing half.

Players are now so fit and skilled that all kicks are well covered and rebutted, so the rules need to be revised to challenge and provide the best incentives for these players to attack.

So the first problem arises of how to attract forwards to the breakdown, thereby causing more space in backline for attack and counter attack.

Answer: The Maul (something old).

The IRB should swallow its pride and bring back the Maul and the rules that it can't be dragged down.

This would allow attacking teams to keep the ball of the ground (better) and drag in as many defenders as possible before sending to backs. Defending forwards would in turn have to stay closer to the ruck in order to counter even the threat of a maul, hence more space to attack).

The second problem is then that attacking backlines then kick away good ball, often kicking the ball down the throat of the opposing fullback, and vica versa.

Here, the attacking 10 is faced with no incentive to run the ball along his backline, instead kicking for territory rather than a contest and then hoping for a net gain.

Answer: where a player catches ANY kick in general play on the full, and calls "MARK", that player's team is entitled to a SHORT ARM FREE KICK from the point on the field where the ball was kicked, or if kicked from in goal, the corresponding point on 5m line (something new).

This would make attacking teams either kick along the ground to a contest OR require any kicks to space to be a whole lot better than what is currently predominantly being mindless kicked back in forth under current rules.

I also think the sight of the back three throwing themselves through the air to catch balls on the full would be incredible spectacular and add excitement to kicking duels. Also imagine player striving to mark a ball in a contest like where their is chip and chase or a bomb!

The THIRD problem as I see it which doesn't reward good attacking play is the capacity of the defending team to kick the ball out, thus gaining territory and breathing space until the next tirade.

The Answer: Should any player kick the ball out in general play, the non kicking team will be entitled to a lineout back from the point in the touchline that corresponds to the point from where the ball was kicked (something borrowed)

Here, attacking teams will have some incentive to attack, attack attack, and defending teams will have to MAUL their way out of trouble to the poiint where they can marshall the troops and either run it out OR kick to space (ensuring ball is not caught).

I think these three chnages would result in huge fatigue problems for players, thus encouraging open space and the kind attacking play that existed even ten years ago

So here you have it Roarers. Let me know what you think.[/b]

Some of these thoughts may seem radical but I think there is some merit to them. Banning the collapsing of mauls is necessary and I don't think many people could disagree with reimplementing the old laws. The third proposal of effectively banning kicks to touch is stupid in my opinion. Implementing this rule would lead to a monotonous game similar to the one which Harry Viljoen tried to get his Springbok team playing. Endless recycling of possession would lead to calls for a tackle count to be brought in and see Union move down the path of League.

The proposal I'm most intrigued by is is the ability to call a mark anywhere on the field, resulting in a free kick back where the ball was originally kicked. The Ireland v England game in Croke Park last weekend was a complete borefest which descended into a game of aerial ping pong. That is becoming more and more the norm. Bringing in the "mark" proposal would punish aimless kicking while also rewarding good fielders of the ball. Basically, bringing in such a law would banish much of the turgid fare which has blighted European rugby this year without radically changing the fabric of the game.

Am I looking at the "mark" proposal through rose tinted glasses or is there any merit to it?

 

[gingergenius]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (snoopy snoopy dog dog @ Mar 3 2009, 08:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

I reas this article a couple of hours ago. It's not particularly well written but it takes a sideways view of the laws of the game which is something I'm always interested in:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE

http://www.theroar.com.au/2009/03/04/rugby...something-blue/

Now I have been reading the Roar since about the end of 2007, and have noted the two issues that have raised their head the most are a domestic competition and the ELVs.

Today I want to talk about the rules, where rugby has come from, and where do we want it to go.

Now, before people start saying "if it ain't broke don't fix it", or "the ELVs are a JON conspiracy to make rugby competitive with other Aussie winter codes", pause a minute and hear me out as I think I am onto something.

What is it about rugby that makes it unique?

I would think that the very same aspects of rugby that make it unique also make it marketable, so wanting to make the game more marketable and treasuring the original aspects of the game are efforts that are well and truly on the same page.

Rugby is special for the fact that it is a game for all (fit) shapes and sizes, has competitive scrums, has lineouts, mauls and a contest at the breakdown.

The present ELVs are great in theory, but human nature (Sheek 2009) says that coaches and players will find a way to exploit the gaps and be bound to the loopholes more than embrace the even slightly risky opportunity.

What has now occurred with the ELVs is that there is a huge amount of errant lazy kicking in general play.

A large portion of the game has developed into 'force-em' backs, with players inclined to kick for territory and tackle the opposition into mistakes.

It seems that when a fullback runs back to retrieve a ball, he turns around to face a wall of defending backs and forwards and has no real choice but to boot the ball indiscriminantly back into the opposing half.

Players are now so fit and skilled that all kicks are well covered and rebutted, so the rules need to be revised to challenge and provide the best incentives for these players to attack.

So the first problem arises of how to attract forwards to the breakdown, thereby causing more space in backline for attack and counter attack.

Answer: The Maul (something old).

The IRB should swallow its pride and bring back the Maul and the rules that it can't be dragged down.

This would allow attacking teams to keep the ball of the ground (better) and drag in as many defenders as possible before sending to backs. Defending forwards would in turn have to stay closer to the ruck in order to counter even the threat of a maul, hence more space to attack).

The second problem is then that attacking backlines then kick away good ball, often kicking the ball down the throat of the opposing fullback, and vica versa.

Here, the attacking 10 is faced with no incentive to run the ball along his backline, instead kicking for territory rather than a contest and then hoping for a net gain.

Answer: where a player catches ANY kick in general play on the full, and calls "MARK", that player's team is entitled to a SHORT ARM FREE KICK from the point on the field where the ball was kicked, or if kicked from in goal, the corresponding point on 5m line (something new).

This would make attacking teams either kick along the ground to a contest OR require any kicks to space to be a whole lot better than what is currently predominantly being mindless kicked back in forth under current rules.

I also think the sight of the back three throwing themselves through the air to catch balls on the full would be incredible spectacular and add excitement to kicking duels. Also imagine player striving to mark a ball in a contest like where their is chip and chase or a bomb!

The THIRD problem as I see it which doesn't reward good attacking play is the capacity of the defending team to kick the ball out, thus gaining territory and breathing space until the next tirade.

The Answer: Should any player kick the ball out in general play, the non kicking team will be entitled to a lineout back from the point in the touchline that corresponds to the point from where the ball was kicked (something borrowed)

Here, attacking teams will have some incentive to attack, attack attack, and defending teams will have to MAUL their way out of trouble to the poiint where they can marshall the troops and either run it out OR kick to space (ensuring ball is not caught).

I think these three chnages would result in huge fatigue problems for players, thus encouraging open space and the kind attacking play that existed even ten years ago

So here you have it Roarers. Let me know what you think.[/b]

Some of these thoughts may seem radical but I think there is some merit to them. Banning the collapsing of mauls is necessary and I don't think many people could disagree with reimplementing the old laws. The third proposal of effectively banning kicks to touch is stupid in my opinion. Implementing this rule would lead to a monotonous game similar to the one which Harry Viljoen tried to get his Springbok team playing. Endless recycling of possession would lead to calls for a tackle count to be brought in and see Union move down the path of League.

The proposal I'm most intrigued by is is the ability to call a mark anywhere on the field, resulting in a free kick back where the ball was originally kicked. The Ireland v England game in Croke Park last weekend was a complete borefest which descended into a game of aerial ping pong. That is becoming more and more the norm. Bringing in the "mark" proposal would punish aimless kicking while also rewarding good fielders of the ball. Basically, bringing in such a law would banish much of the turgid fare which has blighted European rugby this year without radically changing the fabric of the game.

Am I looking at the "mark" proposal through rose tinted glasses or is there any merit to it?
[/b][/quote]

Like the idea of Marking anywhere on the field, that is if we have to stick with these ELVs.

But it cannot mean a free kick back where the ball was kicked from. It should simply mean a free kick from where the ball was caught. Because taking it from where the ball was kicked means no one will ever kick, and sometimes it is necessary.