New Stellenbosch Laws - Good or Bad?

Discussion in 'General Rugby Union' started by kbourke88, Jul 11, 2007.

  1. kbourke88

    kbourke88 Guest

    So I'm sure most of you will have heard about the new Stellenbosche laws that are being trialled at Shute Shield level here in Australia, and a few other comps around the world, and there is a big push for the laws to be implemented sooner rather than later at the highest level here...



    So i think a few of the laws are a step in the right direction, and a few im still on the fence about. Thought I'd open it up to my learned colleagues on the forum for a bit of discussion...



    In case you dont know what the laws are:



    At the Scrum:

    the Stellenbosch laws require the backs to be at least 5m behind - rather than level with - the hindmost foot of the scrum. This goes for attacking and defending teams..



    At the Breakdown:

    Players - so long as they're onside, have entered from the back and are on their feet - can play the ball with their hands.



    Maul:

    Collapsing the maul is allowed.



    Kicking:

    Cannot pass the ball back into the 22m to kick it out on the full. If the ball is passed back it must bounce before touch.



    Penalties:

    A lot of minor/technical offences will now become short arm penalties - eg, breaking off from the scrum

    This is to stop refs deciding matches by giving 3 point opportunities.



    Corner Flags:

    Will either be rid of or wont count as out if you touch the flag.



    So thats the gist of it... i like the rucking rules - its been a mess there for a while, and spectators and players are a bit miffed at a lot of decisions... I think the kicking is good too.. will encourage running and counter attack. Corner flag, im totally indifferent.

    Penalties, some will say good, some will say bad, i am thoroughly on the fence on that one.

    The Maul rule is crap. Its just about the best way that forwards can demonstrate their dominance, and i for one as a dedicated piggie hate that rule and hope it gets scrapped. I guess the only positive thing about it is that you would have to get the ball right to the back faster, and probably your mauling technique would become much better...

    The 5m back at the scrum rule, well i personally think that the backs have enough space and time as it is at the scrum, and it will take openside flankers right out of the contest for smashing the fly half... tahts the best part of the game for me, putting the massive blindsider on a pretty boy fly half...



    Opinions all: Yay or Nay and why....
     
  2. Forum Ad Advertisement

  3. Tin

    Tin Guest

    the kicking rule i like as i dont mind a kicking game but i prefer watching players run the ball out, as for penalties it'll just mean i give away more free kicks instead of penalties :p,
    collapsing the maul i plain disagree with,
    1- safety, no matter what they say trapped under a pile of say 18stone forwards is never good just think if its on the neck,
    2-mauls are an important part of the game and are fine the way they are

    on cornerflags not really bothered with them.

    scrums= more time to attack and more time on the ball, shame considering im a 7 :S
     
  4. kbourke88

    kbourke88 Guest

    There are threads that i have started where i seriously thought there would be no-one interested enough to reply.. then there are ones that i have started where i thought it would have a lot of traffic.. This thread is one of the latter ones, and TRF peoples... WTF!!?!?!?!?! how is there only one response to this? does no one care that they want to change the rules of the game????
    hehe...
    Look at my rant about channel 7.. i expected no responses really, but got heaps..
     
  5. melon

    melon Guest

    I like the majority of the Stellenbosche laws. I've seen them in action and it certainly makes for a more enjoyable spectacle.
     
  6. kbourke88

    kbourke88 Guest



    yeah, i watched Shute Shield Easts vs Uni on saturday.. there were heaps of short-arms, which made for a more exciting game cuz there was just a quick play on.. there was also a much better contest in the rucks for the ball cuz they arent afraid of giving the full arm penalty anymore..



    yet to see the mauling rule in effect, but after chats with the boys on saturday, i only believe more strongly that collapsing a maul can only be dangerous and bad...
     
  7. DC

    DC Guest

    hands in the ruck might be pretty interesting, but it sorta takes away from good technical rucking forewards to guys who can just go in there and cheat the ball away... will make the scrum halves job easier i suppose though so i dont mind!

    scrum i play at the scrum anyhow so it wont affect me greatly, but like you said the openside is outta the question because of it, i think they should scrap that one and leave it how it is, i always feel if its not broken dont fix it..

    collapsing the maul is dangerous im not sure about it, the only plus side to that is it will finally make the GP matches somewhat watchable :lol:

    i agree with most of the smaller offenses now being free kicks, means more attacking rugby, but i hope they dont go overboard on what becomes a free kick and what deserves 3 points

    i think the kicking rule is bullshit, it will lead to the demise of the great tactical kickers like stephen larkham.. bullshit.
     
  8. melon

    melon Guest

    Yep, the collapsing of the maul is the thing that worries me the most. If you're stuck in the middle of it, you often have no say in where you go.
     
  9. DC

    DC Guest

    yep or where your body parts go for the matter of that
     
  10. mj44

    mj44 Guest

    i think the kicking rule is bullshit, it will lead to the demise of the great tactical kickers like stephen larkham.. bullshit.

    You're joking right? If anything it'll making kicking skill more important since if you kick you'll have to be more precise. The idea is to force counter-attack or high quality tactical kicking, instead of the easy "pass back and boot it out". Good rule.

    I like reducing the number of full penalties, making for better attacking rugby and make tries a little bit more important. Drop goals should become more important as well, unfortunate that they're still 3 points.

    I think allowing a collapse of the maul is pretty bad, not just for safety but it takes away a strong weapon of a dominant pack, and the many strategies are what makes rugby such a great game.
     
  11. DC

    DC Guest

    What makes larkham so effective is his ability to get the wallabies out of trouble using his huge boot. Whether it be straight out on the full or bounce and out. I think this rule will lead to a whole new evolution of fly halves, ones with decent kicking skills (enough to get the ball a distance and out on the bounce) but ridiculous running skills to go with power. Todays fly halves arent the quickest backs on the field, but the new breed of fly halves under these rules will probably be up there with the outside center in terms of speed and power because of the need to counter attack in the running game rather than the kicking game.
     
  12. esoj

    esoj Guest

    scrum rule is just crap. it means a bad scrum can now survive a lot easier knowing the opposition has further to go to get to them and that the flankers are basically out of the picture altogether. the scrum is a highly contested area and it should remain so and you should be punished with a bad scrum not rewarded for it.

    the maul rule is just stupid much like the crouch touch pause rule in the scrums at the moment

    the penalites becoming free kicks will be very interesting and has to be done very carefully. often teams give away a penalty instead of the try taking away the penalty in some situations will make the game worse not better.

    kicking rule I don't like really. tactical kicking is a vital part of the game and I think a team deserves to be able to relieve pressure by having the choice to pass back into the 22 to kick it out on the full. I think this could also potentially be bad for the game causing kicking duels because both teams are too scared to kick the ball in case it goes out on the full.

    a good kick from inside the 22 should be rewarded for the defending team just like a bad one rewards the attacking team. I think this rule changes this too much and gives the defensive team very little option except to play areail ping pong which is the very reason this rule was brought in to try and stop.

    so I guess overall I don't like most of these new laws as they change the game to much and could defintely change the game for the worse instead of improving it
     
  13. The thing is, the IRB believe that just because the All Blacks, Welsh and Wallabies play that sort of game style, forcing others to play like it will increase the popularity of the sport worldwide (and would also make the likes of England better). Looking at the laws objectively, yes it may bring more viewers to the game as it looks fast paced, action packed and exciting. But, despite that, its ruining the game for us who have been brought up with the game, us, the ones gazing subjectively.

    I find the majority (if not all) the laws ludicrous.

    Unnecessary. Don't see the reasoning behind it. It won't bother me if it was taken out.
     
  14. Prestwick

    Prestwick Guest

    Actually, this would be quite beneficial for England. Think about it, our kicking from hand under pressure has never really been that good, even with from the likes of Wilko. If you watch every game that England have played since 1999 and you see every clearing kick by the Full Back or the Fly Half, I'll put £10 that they only find touch or get England out of a hole in 2 out of every ten times. The other eight out of ten times, the ball always lands in the arm of either a very angry opposition back who proceeds to make an excellent break and/or an attempts/succeeds at making a drop goal attempt.

    On that basis, the iRB are probably developing this rule specifically for England's own good. Other teams will rue the day when this rule came into effect, as it shuts off an easy stream of points that can be scored against England. Francois Steyn will be crying into his pillow tonight as it will mean no more easy DGs from the half way line.

    At the end of the day, some of these rules are logical in basis, some are a bit dodgy or will make no difference (like the removal of the corner flags) and some are just plain dangerous (like allowing people to collapse the scrum). I honestly cannot believe the iRB can harp on about making the game safer...and then allow such a dangerous rule change as that. Crazy.
     
  15. O'Rothlain

    O'Rothlain Guest

    Collapsing of the Maul is shite! Outside of that, everything seems cool...but don't f___ with the maul.
    [​IMG]
    This is where power and force come into play. Yes, we all like fast attacking rugby (at least I think), but who doesn't love a big pack pushing the ball forward as the crowd shouts "heave"? Don't collapse it, try to defend against it.
     
  16. Now, thinking back, you're actually right. England do tend to kick a lot (which was what I was trying to get across) but yeah, nine times out of ten, it doesn't quite go into touch and grants the likes of Steyn and the All Blacks backline a half break. Nevertheless, would England learn from this? Well, we'd have to wait and see.

    As for the maul fiasco, whoever thought up of the idea clearly hasn't played rugby before. Nor does he/she think of the consequences of any action her/himself takes. I'm astonished that it was actually projected. Wouldn't be all surprised if someone actually died in a maul (under the proposed law).
     
  17. Prestwick

    Prestwick Guest

    Now, thinking back, you're actually right. England do tend to kick a lot (which was what I was trying to get across) but yeah, nine times out of ten, it doesn't quite go into touch and grants the likes of Steyn and the All Blacks backline a half break. Nevertheless, would England learn from this? Well, we'd have to wait and see.[/b][/quote]

    I doubt it. If the laws do get implemented at all levels of rugby, four years down the line and you'll see the England full back of the day being pinged for trying to clear in his 22 yet again. Like I said, its for their own good!

    Actually, because I don't think the full backs of England would quite get what the iRB are trying to tell them through this ban on clearing from your 22, they'd just try and get out of the 22 then kick which would mean exactly the same situation, only the All Black back is catching the ball halfway inside his own half instead of on the halfway line.
     
  18. onslaught

    onslaught Guest

    i think the new laws are generally good they may be a bit tough to learn but they seriously need to reconsider the current new( uh huh) scrum engagement laws. On the topic of collapsing mauls, in the region i play rugby (southeast asia) the referees are crap so those never get caught anyway, but mayb at the highest international level when every1 is huge it might be quite dangerous.
     
  19. ospreys1987

    ospreys1987 Guest

    Collapsing the maul law is f***ing ridiculous, there are gonna be so many more players forced to retire early due to neck injuries etc... Its just plain ol' dumb
     
  20. Muse_Cubed

    Muse_Cubed Guest

    The collapsing maul scares me to death. I'm a little underweight. We maul about half of our lineout takes. My lifters are both ~18st. I would die.

    The 5m behind the breakdown law is going to kill forwards play. No longer will we see those satisfying 20 phase drives because all it's going to be is running rugby. As I keep saying...try these laws in the depths of winter at Sixways. It'd make for a truly shite game of rugby because it's not a ground where you can play running rugby. All it's doing is undercutting the northern hemisphere teams who rely on the forwards games like this. Sure, intricate back play is great but you've got to have a balance. And these laws tip it way too far.
     
  21. Glad those bloody corner flags are going. Did they ever have a purpose in the first place? Very strange there is an "out" rule for 99.999% of the sidelines except where the tryline is.

    Perhps they are a throw back to when TV cameras angles where not so good and scoring tries in the corner was about as easy as telling which forward out of collapsed maul over the line scored the try.

    No need for them any more. Red card them.
     
Enjoyed this thread? Register to post your reply - click here!

Share This Page