IRB and Unions sanction global Law trials

[BZHopenside]

On the topic of rule changes, I think that the best thing for the game would be to get rid of kicking tees and make everyone do dropkicks. They're more interesting and we wouldn't have all these guys who can knock a kick over from the touch line at midfield. More running and line outs and fewer kicked penalties.

 

[Aedaphon]

On the topic of rule changes, I think that the best thing for the game would be to get rid of kicking tees and make everyone do dropkicks. They're more interesting and we wouldn't have all these guys who can knock a kick over from the touch line at midfield. More running and line outs and fewer kicked penalties.

Not as crazy as I first thought... But it's got a snow ball's chance in hell of happening.

I'm biased as I can't kick off a tee to save my life though :lol:

 

[TRF_Cymro]

You're right, I don't play in the front row at present. The new law may be slightly better than what currently exists but it's no different really to the "crouch and hold....engage" sequence of the recent past. The scrum was a problem then too. I don't want slight improvement, I want the blight eradicated. Go to 3:30 of this clip:

A scrum is awarded. There's no pushing before the ball is put in. 25 seconds later, the ball is out. In the modern game, that would take 2 minutes+, there'd be at least one reset and a 50:50 chance of a penalty being awarded. The scrum is sucking the life out of the game. Time to fix it properly and not put a band aid on it every year or two.

See when you say there is no difference, its because you have no experience playing there. Take out the long pause and shorten the sequence will help the front row guessing the engage and stop the constant re-sets. It might not solve all the problems but its a step in the right direction.

 

[donmcdazzle]

One thing that has always bugged me is:

when an attacker kicks a ball into touch downfield, all his own players are automatically onside so a quick lineout counter-attack can be snuffed out by your own players who are upfield near where it went out. They should change it so it is like the normal kicking onside rules; you have to stay still until you've been "put onside" by a legitimate chaser.

It would open up a lot of counter attacking opportunities and also incentivise people to run it back rather than kicking. Or if they are kicking they'd have to put it in the stands therefore not gain as much distance thereby removing another incentive to kick.

 

[admartian]

I like the changes. Especially the 8-man bench.



And some would ahve you believe that it is only a NZ jersey you can't grab.

Those look pretty tight bro...



And these...

 

[Cave Dweller]

You have watched old rugby from the early 90's and before I'm assuming? rucks were cesspits of handling and debauchery on the floor.

And also shoe pie is not exactly a great deterrent to someone wanting to slow down the ball , in fact it's rather brilliant at making someone a tad more determined.



I like baggy jerseys for looking classy and posh at a barbeque or another such social gathering.


For playing rugby I don't like them , too easy to get scragged and or spin a guy around a few times and **** him face first into the ground..

Actually no. I saw matches in the 2000's as well where we had a period of fast ball and Australian runners all over the place. Same fast ball where Dougie Howlett scored some tries from fast 2nd fase ball. Suddenly trys dried up and the ball slowed up at every ruck. All you do now is you hold your hand on the ball at the bottom of the ruck where the referee cannot see and they cannot do anything to free it up otherwise they will get pinged for hands in the ruck. Yes there were some mountaineering but that was foul play. But you spoiling ball got something for your troubles. There were more faster ball and less infringements.

Other thing is it seems to me people do not know why they take a while at time to pass the ball at a ruck. Well it is simple. At a tackle, the attacking team usually has to commit more players than the defenders need to.

The attacking team has to commit a cleaner to secure the ball, and two guards on either side of the tackle. They also need a scrumhalf to clear the ball. The defenders need commit only the tackler and the rest can fan out in the backline.

This means that there are 10 attacking players left in the backline, but for the defensive team, there will 14 men on defence in the backline. Now 10 men will hardly ever beat 14 men and so often the attackers will slow things down, moving players out of the tackle/ruck and into the backline to gain more numbers in the backs. Then they can attack with greater numbers and have enough players to secure the ball at the next tackle.

 

[lucky number 7]

Actually no. I saw matches in the 2000's as well where we had a period of fast ball and Australian runners all over the place. Same fast ball where Dougie Howlett scored some tries from fast 2nd fase ball. Suddenly trys dried up and the ball slowed up at every ruck. All you do now is you hold your hand on the ball at the bottom of the ruck where the referee cannot see and they cannot do anything to free it up otherwise they will get pinged for hands in the ruck. Yes there were some mountaineering but that was foul play. But you spoiling ball got something for your troubles. There were more faster ball and less infringements.

Other thing is it seems to me people do not know why they take a while at time to pass the ball at a ruck. Well it is simple. At a tackle, the attacking team usually has to commit more players than the defenders need to.

The attacking team has to commit a cleaner to secure the ball, and two guards on either side of the tackle. They also need a scrumhalf to clear the ball. The defenders need commit only the tackler and the rest can fan out in the backline.

This means that there are 10 attacking players left in the backline, but for the defensive team, there will 14 men on defence in the backline. Now 10 men will hardly ever beat 14 men and so often the attackers will slow things down, moving players out of the tackle/ruck and into the backline to gain more numbers in the backs. Then they can attack with greater numbers and have enough players to secure the ball at the next tackle.

If that were the case there would be plenty of tries through the middle where there is no ruck of which to speak.

Yes Dougie Scored loads of tries ...so did plenty of players before him and plenty after.. I don't see the initial point

 

[Cave Dweller]

If that were the case there would be plenty of tries through the middle where there is no ruck of which to speak.

What are you referring there? I am talking about slow ball and how easy it is to slow it up and the attacking team can do didly sqaud about it. You do know what 2nd phase ball is do you? You have to pull in defenders somehow to create space. But if you manage to do that you need to recycle quick. Slow ball and the defenders are fanned out again

 

[lucky number 7]

What are you referring there? I am talking about slow ball and how easy it is to slow it up and the attacking team can do didly sqaud about it. You do know what 2nd phase ball is do you? You have to pull in defenders somehow to create space. But if you manage to do that you need to recycle quick. Slow ball and the defenders are fanned out again

Yes you're explaining the basic principles of attaching rugby..

You were saying it takes one man the tackler to defend a ruck , which is incorrect in the majority of cases

 

[Cave Dweller]

Yes you're explaining the basic principles of attaching rugby..

You were saying it takes one man the tackler to defend a ruck , which is incorrect in the majority of cases

No I said the defending team only has to commit 1 player to the tackle. Big difference.

 

[lucky number 7]

No I said the defending team only has to commit 1 player to the tackle. Big difference.

You said the rest could fan out in the backline..same thing.

 

[Cave Dweller]

You said the rest could fan out in the backline..same thing.

No. To get one guy of the ball 2 players are needed. I player is not going to get another forward pushed of the ball quick. Plus your scrumhalf collects the ball. That is 4 you had to commit.

Tell me how many players did the Reds commit here to win that ball after the tackle?

Here the ball is available count the players

 

[lucky number 7]

No. To get one guy of the ball 2 players are needed. I player is not going to get another forward pushed of the ball quick. Plus your scrumhalf collects the ball. That is 4 you had to commit.

Tell me how many players did the Reds commit here to win that ball after the tackle?

Here the ball is available count the players

Too many.


Citing an instance where a team over commits to a ruck proves nothing.

A try off the top of my head



two men are perfectly able to clean out the opposing two.

No need for the conga line ruck.

TRY

 

[Cave Dweller]

Too many.


Citing an instance where a team over commits to a ruck proves nothing.

A try off the top of my head



two men are perfectly able to clean out the opposing two.

No need for the conga line ruck.

TRY

You are confusing bad defense with the principle why they take a bit of time before passing the ball. Two clear out two. Still the tackler and the scrummie had to be comited. It was poor defensive patern to go commit two players and they payed for it. Your clip shows my point as well.

This is what happens when only 1 guy go in to clear the ruck. You lose possesion

 

[admartian]

Yep, the conga-line ruck is kinda annoyin. It's fine when they're all bound to it either way. I think it can get in the way of the defence if they choose to pick and go.


OFF TOPIC, those look pretty high res. Where are those taken from?

 

[Cave Dweller]

Yep, the conga-line ruck is kinda annoyin. It's fine when they're all bound to it either way. I think it can get in the way of the defence if they choose to pick and go.


OFF TOPIC, those look pretty high res. Where are those taken from?

I did not notice the Conga rucking but he confused my statement. This has nothing to do with rucking but why they take their time sometimes before they pass the ball.

Other thing is it seems to me people do not know why they take a while at time to pass the ball at a ruck. Well it is simple. At a tackle, the attacking team usually has to commit more players than the defenders need to.

The attacking team has to commit a cleaner to secure the ball, and two guards on either side of the tackle. They also need a scrumhalf to clear the ball. The defenders need commit only the tackler and the rest can fan out in the backline.

This means that there are 10 attacking players left in the backline, but for the defensive team, there will 14 men on defence in the backline. Now 10 men will hardly ever beat 14 men and so often the attackers will slow things down, moving players out of the tackle/ruck and into the backline to gain more numbers in the backs. Then they can attack with greater numbers and have enough players to secure the ball at the next tackle

.

OFF TOPIC: I used VLC player and the take snapshot option

 

[lucky number 7]

You are confusing bad defense with the principle why they take a bit of time before passing the ball. Two clear out two. Still the tackler and the scrummie had to be comited. It was poor defensive patern to go commit two players and they payed for it. Your clip shows my point as well.

This is what happens when only 1 guy go in to clear the ruck. You lose possesion

That's what happens when a player gets isolated , and when the late support gets blocked and there is a player already packed down for the turnover.
Easily the most beautiful sight to see as a past flanker..that was possibly the easiest turnover ever made simply because there was nobody there to stop him.. nothing to do with undercommiting at the rucks.


I've seen plenty of rucks held perfectly by one man if you have a good scrumhalf and the ball is played quickly...if you want to keep it there for a few seconds with one man securing you will get ****ed..Common sense and not maths wins a ruck.

 

[admartian]

I did not notice the Conga rucking but he confused my statement. This has nothing to do with rucking but why they take their time sometimes before they pass the ball.

.

OFF TOPIC: I used VLC player and the take snapshot option

Did you record it via DVR or was it 'acquired' elsewhere?

 

[dullonien]

I'm not quite sure what it is you're trying to argue Cave Dweller. Are you arguing that it's ok for scrum-halves to take an age to get the ball out because the team are re-organising their attack? That's all well and good, but 5 seconds is still enough time for a group of forwards to get in position for the next drive if needs be. This rule is all about speeding the game up, and to stop the blatant time wasting that goes on at the end of games.

If defences fan out and only commit one to the ruck, then the attacking team should play the fringes. Your example of the reds v crusaders match above is crying out for a few forwards to rumble down the middle there, then maybe the 'saders won't be so keen on fanning out across the park. Good attacking sides shouldn't need more than 5 seconds from when the ball's available, because the quicker the ball is used, the less time the defence has to re-organise.

I don't see one negative aspect of this particular proposed law-change.

 

[admartian]

I'd liek there to be a time limit too, but maybe 7 or 8 seconds is more appropriate. At least this way, the refs have can call "time wasting" without it being too short.