C
Caledfwlch
Guest
yea, i dont like the maul and scrum rulings. its bloody dangeruos, and takes the 7 out of the game and i'm a 7!
-
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
B
Buceph
Guest
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..
Fantastic, they're basically re-introducing the charging they got rid of at tap penalties a few years backs.
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.
Wayhey! \o/ Lets have five times as many scrums as the ball is never coming out of a ruck. Add to that a five time increase in broken fingers and hands.
Maul:
Collapsing the maul is allowed.
I know what'll really bring the sport to the fore, abolishing one of the most key and impressive parts of foward's games! I want a pat on the back and a promotion for this one please IRB.
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.
Hrmm, interesting idea. I'd like to see it trialled in full internationals and not under 19's though.
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.
Again, this in theory sounds really good. However we're going to see a lot of people abusing it in slowing down play knowing that they're not giving up huge field position with a boot to touch. If refs can be aware of professional cynicism then this is a worker.
Corner Flags:
Will either be rid of or wont count as out if you touch the flag.
This will get rid of the amazing dives to the corner and mid-air tackles to take someone out. One of the most impressive aspects of the game, and apart from lineouts probably the area that's given the most amount of impressive photographs. I'd like to hear some top-level backs opinions on it though. And will this also mean that the posts no longer count as the try line?
[/b]
J
Josao
Guest
Agree with Buceph's views, the rules are just too radical for me, hands in the rucks would be awful and collapsing the mauls is just idiotic.
M
mannu
Guest
Collapsing the maul with the "new" hands in the maul scenario is no big deal - injuries hardly occur from it because of the closeness of the players, speed and force cannot be generated - not like the taking out rule in operation at the moment.
Huge players take part in ki-o-rahi where the hands in the maul type of plays have been around for centuries! No one gets injured in these mauls - theres a method to them that works.
I'm just wondering what "new" rules will be added after this lot, considering rugby is moving more and more to being ki-o-rahi!
checkout: http://hubpages.com/hub/Dynamic_Ki-o-Rahi_...gby_union_again
I don't know why the rugby union lawmakers don't just come out into the open and just call rugby 'Ki-o-Rugby' - why the facade???
We're all amused about the blatant way in which rugby unions pinch our ki-o-rahi rules - will they abolish practically all kicking next?
Huge players take part in ki-o-rahi where the hands in the maul type of plays have been around for centuries! No one gets injured in these mauls - theres a method to them that works.
I'm just wondering what "new" rules will be added after this lot, considering rugby is moving more and more to being ki-o-rahi!
checkout: http://hubpages.com/hub/Dynamic_Ki-o-Rahi_...gby_union_again
I don't know why the rugby union lawmakers don't just come out into the open and just call rugby 'Ki-o-Rugby' - why the facade???
We're all amused about the blatant way in which rugby unions pinch our ki-o-rahi rules - will they abolish practically all kicking next?
1
#13
Guest
don't want to see mauls being collapsed, as a hooker I'm in the middle of them rolling over the line to score. If someone is allowed to collapse it, I'm more likely to break my neck than score a try!
P
prolate_spheroid
Guest
The Maul rule is a real shocker and needs to be dropped. Collapsing a maul is a pain, and provides an easy out for a weak pack who don't want the concede the psychological defeat of being shoved over. Winning a penalty try does not compensate for the deprivation of satisfaction.
I agree that the backs should be able to come up to the hind-most foot. What will 7s have to live for if not the chance to smash the fly-half at the break?
I agree that the backs should be able to come up to the hind-most foot. What will 7s have to live for if not the chance to smash the fly-half at the break?
D
darwin_23
Guest
My thoughts on the rules:
Kicking out on the full from inside the 22:
Just to clarify - you can not kick the ball out on the full from inside your 22 if the ball has been passed back from outside the 22 - this situation happens rarely in a game so will have very little affect at all. Most of the time when a ball is retrieved from a kick the player recieving the ball is inside his 22, or if they are outside their 22 their is not someone behind them to pass it to so they will either run or kick it so that it will not go out on the full. The only situation where this will have any real affect is when there is a scrum/lineout between the 22 and the 10 metre line and the halfback passes the ball back inside the 22 for the kicker to kick it out.
Corner Flag:
Main reason they are going is to make it much easier to adjudicate whether a try has been scored.
Collapsing Mauls:
Not sure, but I'd suggest it is to add some variety as to how teams attempt to score tries when awarded penalties close to the line. Currently all teams do is kick into the corner and try to maul for the try 9/10. Making this mauling more difficult (but not impossible as some seem to think) would likely lead to more attacking rugby
Penalties:
By the sounds of it only offside and foul play will result in penalties. This should mean less games are decided on contentious penalties. It should be effective as long as the refs are harsh on repeat offenses, otherwise this rule could be abused by teams.
Scrum
I definitely agree with this law. Will mean there will be more attack from scrums as their is more room, whereas at the moment their is little attack from scrums, with most teams just crashing the ball up with one of their centres, and then attacking from their.
Breakdown Laws
Should speed up the game - I can see McGod (aka McCaw/ that bloody cheat [depending on where you are from]) loving this new law.
Ok I've finished for now... maybe time for me to have a nap...
Kicking out on the full from inside the 22:
Just to clarify - you can not kick the ball out on the full from inside your 22 if the ball has been passed back from outside the 22 - this situation happens rarely in a game so will have very little affect at all. Most of the time when a ball is retrieved from a kick the player recieving the ball is inside his 22, or if they are outside their 22 their is not someone behind them to pass it to so they will either run or kick it so that it will not go out on the full. The only situation where this will have any real affect is when there is a scrum/lineout between the 22 and the 10 metre line and the halfback passes the ball back inside the 22 for the kicker to kick it out.
Corner Flag:
Main reason they are going is to make it much easier to adjudicate whether a try has been scored.
Collapsing Mauls:
Not sure, but I'd suggest it is to add some variety as to how teams attempt to score tries when awarded penalties close to the line. Currently all teams do is kick into the corner and try to maul for the try 9/10. Making this mauling more difficult (but not impossible as some seem to think) would likely lead to more attacking rugby
Penalties:
By the sounds of it only offside and foul play will result in penalties. This should mean less games are decided on contentious penalties. It should be effective as long as the refs are harsh on repeat offenses, otherwise this rule could be abused by teams.
Scrum
I definitely agree with this law. Will mean there will be more attack from scrums as their is more room, whereas at the moment their is little attack from scrums, with most teams just crashing the ball up with one of their centres, and then attacking from their.
Breakdown Laws
Should speed up the game - I can see McGod (aka McCaw/ that bloody cheat [depending on where you are from]) loving this new law.
Ok I've finished for now... maybe time for me to have a nap...
C
Caledfwlch
Guest
there are little injuries due to collapsed mauls cause collapsing mauls are not encouraged. therefore fewer people do it. resulting in less injuries. if the legalise collapsing it then any tom dick or haryy will collapse it and break someone's neck.
E
elk jimenez
Guest
Hi!
I'm new in the Rugby World, can you recommend any literature so I can learn the rules?
cheers
I'm new in the Rugby World, can you recommend any literature so I can learn the rules?
cheers
C
Caledfwlch
Guest
just go to www.irb.com and look up the rules
E
esoj
Guest
watched a bit of the arc with these rules and well it's a bit of a shambles really. there are just bodies all over the place at rucks now and I think the new rules here have actually made it worse than better. some of the penalites that are now free kicks are just plain stupid and should not have been changed. several times in the games I watched players infringe right out in front of the posts and instead of a penalty it is a free kick. the ball might be in play longer but huge pile ups at rucks and teams infringing knowing it won't be a penalty has made the arc very hard to watch. there is now rarely any quick attacking ball for the attacking team now with teams putting even more players in at the rucks or infringing to concede the free kick. because of this there is now more ball just being bashed up by the forwards and it seems almost league like with how teams attack with them. bash it up and bash it up and then maybe once in 20 phases actually go wide to the backs. perhaps this is a bit of an exaggeration but watching the arc seems like a very unatural game of rugby
K
kbourke88
Guest
watched a bit of the arc with these rules and well it's a bit of a shambles really. there are just bodies all over the place at rucks now and I think the new rules here have actually made it worse than better. some of the penalites that are now free kicks are just plain stupid and should not have been changed. several times in the games I watched players infringe right out in front of the posts and instead of a penalty it is a free kick. the ball might be in play longer but huge pile ups at rucks and teams infringing knowing it won't be a penalty has made the arc very hard to watch. there is now rarely any quick attacking ball for the attacking team now with teams putting even more players in at the rucks or infringing to concede the free kick. because of this there is now more ball just being bashed up by the forwards and it seems almost league like with how teams attack with them. bash it up and bash it up and then maybe once in 20 phases actually go wide to the backs. perhaps this is a bit of an exaggeration but watching the arc seems like a very unatural game of rugby [/b]
I guess thats the best part about this forum.. finding people that think the exact opposite of what you think...
I totally think the opposite of that.. I've really enjoyed watching the ARC because of the new rules.. the rucks are awesome.. the ball needs to get out of there very quick because hands in the ruck allows the other team to pinch it if it just sits there for too long, and i love the fact that there is a quick tap every couple of plays rather than a straight arm.. Its exhausting to watch, and i think the scrappiness will get out of the game as the players get more used to the rules.. i think its a much more exciting game to watch tho..
F
Fushitsusha
Guest
[/b][/quote]<div class='quotemain'>
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.
Wayhey! \o/ Lets have five times as many scrums as the ball is never coming out of a ruck. Add to that a five time increase in broken fingers and hands.
[/b]
INCORRECT.
If the ball doesn't come out of the ruck it's a free kick to the other team.
R
rugby_roots
Guest
I really don't believe the I.R.B will change any of the Laws unless they are tested at the International level...the I.R.B has to test the laws at the International level because that is where these laws matter....Its when Nations battle for the Rugby WORLD Cup that these laws really matter.
All the Rugby Nations have to preview these Laws at the International level before these laws can be passed.
All the Rugby Nations have to preview these Laws at the International level before these laws can be passed.
S
steam train
Guest
the new laws are good for the game with two exceptions
1) Collapsing the maul
2) not having to match numbers in the line-out
One of the basic principles of rugby is that it is a game for all shapes and sizes, allowing the maul to be collapsed removes the big men from the game and removes some tactical depth and one of the defining contests of forwards play.
Not having to match numbers removes tactical depth from the line-out. If its part of an attempt to make the game more appealing to spectators then its miss-guided, the line out is consistently rated one of the most appealing aspects of the game and removing the possibility for 5 man, 3 man and even 2 man line outs deprives spectators of seeing the moves that are possible when you give a couple of loose forwards space in the framework of the line out.
1) Collapsing the maul
2) not having to match numbers in the line-out
One of the basic principles of rugby is that it is a game for all shapes and sizes, allowing the maul to be collapsed removes the big men from the game and removes some tactical depth and one of the defining contests of forwards play.
Not having to match numbers removes tactical depth from the line-out. If its part of an attempt to make the game more appealing to spectators then its miss-guided, the line out is consistently rated one of the most appealing aspects of the game and removing the possibility for 5 man, 3 man and even 2 man line outs deprives spectators of seeing the moves that are possible when you give a couple of loose forwards space in the framework of the line out.
S
Substitute
Guest
I have no problem with Rugby League, I enjoy watching it, but I'm concerned at the extent Union is slowly being turned into another Rugby League.
The thing that makes Union truly unique is the variation it includes. I you've got a team of big, fat men you can still win. Other than a tag-team verson of darts, I can't see another sport where this could be remotely possible. And yet they keep trying to take this game back to an end-to-end runnig fest.
Mauls shouldn't be allowed to be collapsed. Another sides have stopped Mauls legally to mean that if done illegally it should be penalised. Lineouts should be even to. I don't like the idea of penalties being downgraded to. This just takes further away from the fat men and limits the variety of ways you can score. Hands in the ruck I don't agree with either.
The kicking rule I can agree with.
What really annoys me though is that they've brouht these rules about for the spectator, not really for the players - especially the fat guys. Rugby Union is a game for the players and if it's too boring to watch, then simply don't watch it. Watch League, watch Equestrian for all I care. I've seen some boring Union games but I haven't stopped likeing the sport. I find golf mind-numbingly boring to watch (and I'm not alone) yet you don't see them using minefields for greens like I want. Of all the sports is only Union that keeps meddling. Why went it's more popular than ever do we need to change the game.
Besides you can't favour the backs. If you do the side with simplly the best backs wil win. I think the balance now is right. Wales backs will overcome their poor forwards and win them few games. Englands forwards will bully a few packs, and despite our shite backs, will win us a few. I'm a back but I'd hate to see the forwards become useless.
The thing that makes Union truly unique is the variation it includes. I you've got a team of big, fat men you can still win. Other than a tag-team verson of darts, I can't see another sport where this could be remotely possible. And yet they keep trying to take this game back to an end-to-end runnig fest.
Mauls shouldn't be allowed to be collapsed. Another sides have stopped Mauls legally to mean that if done illegally it should be penalised. Lineouts should be even to. I don't like the idea of penalties being downgraded to. This just takes further away from the fat men and limits the variety of ways you can score. Hands in the ruck I don't agree with either.
The kicking rule I can agree with.
What really annoys me though is that they've brouht these rules about for the spectator, not really for the players - especially the fat guys. Rugby Union is a game for the players and if it's too boring to watch, then simply don't watch it. Watch League, watch Equestrian for all I care. I've seen some boring Union games but I haven't stopped likeing the sport. I find golf mind-numbingly boring to watch (and I'm not alone) yet you don't see them using minefields for greens like I want. Of all the sports is only Union that keeps meddling. Why went it's more popular than ever do we need to change the game.
Besides you can't favour the backs. If you do the side with simplly the best backs wil win. I think the balance now is right. Wales backs will overcome their poor forwards and win them few games. Englands forwards will bully a few packs, and despite our shite backs, will win us a few. I'm a back but I'd hate to see the forwards become useless.
S
scuubasteve
Guest
I'm very much liking the new ELV's and believe the great game of rugby will definitely become better if the majority of these changes are implemented.
Rugby, in terms of professional sport, is still only very young (12 years in fact) and it is enevitable that the tweaking of the game (similar to what rugby league underwent many years ago) would come about with the changes that full-time athletes and huge revenue investment bring to sport.
Sport these days is part of a very competitive entertainment marketplace. Every game is vying for the attention of the masses and the money they bring. So the game has constantly tried to leverage off the facets that made it traditionally attractive to watch, with new changes that will attract new fans.
And that is what is at the heart of these changes, and the debate that surrounds them. Trying to keep the ties with what made the old game great, and to make it more entertaining to entice new interest.
On the side of increased entertainment, I believe that all of the changes have been succesful. But in keeping with what made the amateur game so good I think some concessions will have to be made.
As others have rightfully suggested, getting rid of the taller and...wider guys is not a good path to take. The increase in free kicks and running play will reduce the effect these guys have on the game somewhat, but I don't think they will disappear. One of the tragedies of the 'modern' game of rugby has been the slow disappearance of the little guys. Welcome to the rugby world of massive halfbacks like Mike Phillips. While the game will quicken with the new laws, its more likely to make the giants of now get smaller (making it more playable to the smaller guys, like it used to) than to get rid of the Tight5 group.
The rule for pulling down mauls will do too much damage to the traditional roots of the game (and not offer enough increased return on entertainment value) to be implemented.
Lineouts though appear to have changed very little, other than less frustrating penalties for numbers.
The breakdown appears to be settling down (in the televised ARC comp) and the confussion of when a tackle becomes a ruck and when you have rights vs. when you're infringing has been removed. In its place however, has been an increase in deliberate infringments/ professional fouls to slow play down. This requires very good refereeing. So while the refs still has a strong bearing on the game outcome , from how he refs the breakdown, it isn't as prevalent as the current rules format.
Corner posts being moved is simply a change that must have been forgoten about 10 years ago, as it is so obviously needed and is without negatives.
Not being able to kick out after passing back into the 22 has lead to some tedious kicking back and forth, a bit like watching tennis from center court. But this rule is generally an improvement.
So I see the new game becoming alot more entertaining. Comments from the players (in the aussie comp) suggest that they are enjoying the game more and more as teams come to terms with the new rules, particularly the beakdown. Obviously teams are encountering far higher fatigue levels, this obviously throws into question the current setup of bench players. I'm wary that if players are becoming too tired then more changes might be forced on the way substitutions are used. I wouldn't like to see rugby go down the American Football style of having massive squads in a game, nor would I like to see the Rugby League rotating bench system. Like Substitue has said above, I certainly don't want Rugby turned into a League clone. But I do see most of these changes being for the better.
One interesting bonus that I see from these changes is in improving the competitiveness of asian teams. Genitically these guys tend to be slighter in build and whilst being strong and fast they can't realistically compete with Pacific Island and European genetic for height and size.
Due to these reasons I have never seen Japan having the posibility to compete with the big unions, but now...
These changes might just level the playing field in favour of different body types for good rather than bad. And then rugby can possibly become a truely competitive game where everyone has a more even chance to compete.
Rugby, in terms of professional sport, is still only very young (12 years in fact) and it is enevitable that the tweaking of the game (similar to what rugby league underwent many years ago) would come about with the changes that full-time athletes and huge revenue investment bring to sport.
Sport these days is part of a very competitive entertainment marketplace. Every game is vying for the attention of the masses and the money they bring. So the game has constantly tried to leverage off the facets that made it traditionally attractive to watch, with new changes that will attract new fans.
And that is what is at the heart of these changes, and the debate that surrounds them. Trying to keep the ties with what made the old game great, and to make it more entertaining to entice new interest.
On the side of increased entertainment, I believe that all of the changes have been succesful. But in keeping with what made the amateur game so good I think some concessions will have to be made.
As others have rightfully suggested, getting rid of the taller and...wider guys is not a good path to take. The increase in free kicks and running play will reduce the effect these guys have on the game somewhat, but I don't think they will disappear. One of the tragedies of the 'modern' game of rugby has been the slow disappearance of the little guys. Welcome to the rugby world of massive halfbacks like Mike Phillips. While the game will quicken with the new laws, its more likely to make the giants of now get smaller (making it more playable to the smaller guys, like it used to) than to get rid of the Tight5 group.
The rule for pulling down mauls will do too much damage to the traditional roots of the game (and not offer enough increased return on entertainment value) to be implemented.
Lineouts though appear to have changed very little, other than less frustrating penalties for numbers.
The breakdown appears to be settling down (in the televised ARC comp) and the confussion of when a tackle becomes a ruck and when you have rights vs. when you're infringing has been removed. In its place however, has been an increase in deliberate infringments/ professional fouls to slow play down. This requires very good refereeing. So while the refs still has a strong bearing on the game outcome , from how he refs the breakdown, it isn't as prevalent as the current rules format.
Corner posts being moved is simply a change that must have been forgoten about 10 years ago, as it is so obviously needed and is without negatives.
Not being able to kick out after passing back into the 22 has lead to some tedious kicking back and forth, a bit like watching tennis from center court. But this rule is generally an improvement.
So I see the new game becoming alot more entertaining. Comments from the players (in the aussie comp) suggest that they are enjoying the game more and more as teams come to terms with the new rules, particularly the beakdown. Obviously teams are encountering far higher fatigue levels, this obviously throws into question the current setup of bench players. I'm wary that if players are becoming too tired then more changes might be forced on the way substitutions are used. I wouldn't like to see rugby go down the American Football style of having massive squads in a game, nor would I like to see the Rugby League rotating bench system. Like Substitue has said above, I certainly don't want Rugby turned into a League clone. But I do see most of these changes being for the better.
One interesting bonus that I see from these changes is in improving the competitiveness of asian teams. Genitically these guys tend to be slighter in build and whilst being strong and fast they can't realistically compete with Pacific Island and European genetic for height and size.
Due to these reasons I have never seen Japan having the posibility to compete with the big unions, but now...
These changes might just level the playing field in favour of different body types for good rather than bad. And then rugby can possibly become a truely competitive game where everyone has a more even chance to compete.
K
kbourke88
Guest
What really annoys me though is that they've brouht these rules about for the spectator, not really for the players - especially the fat guys. Rugby Union is a game for the players and if it's too boring to watch, then simply don't watch it. Watch League, watch Equestrian for all I care. I've seen some boring Union games but I haven't stopped likeing the sport. I find golf mind-numbingly boring to watch (and I'm not alone) yet you don't see them using minefields for greens like I want. Of all the sports is only Union that keeps meddling. Why went it's more popular than ever do we need to change the game.
Besides you can't favour the backs. If you do the side with simplly the best backs wil win. I think the balance now is right. Wales backs will overcome their poor forwards and win them few games. Englands forwards will bully a few packs, and despite our shite backs, will win us a few. I'm a back but I'd hate to see the forwards become useless. [/b]
You would think that the rules take the big men out of the game.. In terms of the mauling, i couldnt agree with you more, and i think the general consensus on this thread is that everyone thinks thats a SHITE new rule..
But otherwise, the new rules dont really take them out.. I mean sure, there is usually a prop subsitution at 50 mins now, but in terms of around the paddock, the big men are still there.. If you get a chance to watch any of this ARC you will see that the tight five are everywhere.. and if you watch the West Syd Rams forward pack dominate, you see how the forwards are still a major part of the game..
Since professionalism hit union, there hasnt really been space for tiny guys... And if this is the new evolution, then what this pushes out of the game is unfit guys, and that is all that these new laws expose.. guys who arent as fit as they should be to play top level footy.. but you look at Tatafu Polota-nau, and you see that guy is short and stocky, but he is massively active.. a guy like Beale, who is tiny, can run rampant.. Van Humphries from the Rams is about 10 foot tall and built, but he is everywhere on the paddock getting involved.. Its all about fitness in this new game.. And from what i sense from the past match interviews of the players, they are really enjoying the speed fo the game...
B
Buceph
Guest
My thoughts on the rules: Which I think you've got all wrong, sorry mate.
Kicking out on the full from inside the 22:
Just to clarify - you can not kick the ball out on the full from inside your 22 if the ball has been passed back from outside the 22 - this situation happens rarely in a game so will have very little affect at all. Most of the time when a ball is retrieved from a kick the player recieving the ball is inside his 22, or if they are outside their 22 their is not someone behind them to pass it to so they will either run or kick it so that it will not go out on the full. The only situation where this will have any real affect is when there is a scrum/lineout between the 22 and the 10 metre line and the halfback passes the ball back inside the 22 for the kicker to kick it out.
A huge amount of the game is played between the 22 and 10 metre line. If they can't use a clearing kick it'll mean that lesser teams will have less options in defense. Slightly better teams will dominate more, and I think it'll take away from the aspect of rugby where you have to battle for a win.
Corner Flag:
Main reason they are going is to make it much easier to adjudicate whether a try has been scored.
This only happens when a player touches the flag and touches the ball down at the same time. A similar event will happen when a player touches the ground with their foot.
Collapsing Mauls:
Not sure, but I'd suggest it is to add some variety as to how teams attempt to score tries when awarded penalties close to the line. Currently all teams do is kick into the corner and try to maul for the try 9/10. Making this mauling more difficult (but not impossible as some seem to think) would likely lead to more attacking rugby
That's a terrible reason to hold in favour of it. Mauls are hugely important in attacking play. The benefit given to a backline when they play off a maul going forward is immense. Defense is on the back foot, the defense has to decide how many players to put into the maul creating gaps in the backline. How many players to leave around the edge of the maul, the attacking team could break off and drive straight up, it could go to the out half spot. No, the maul adds huge tactical options, it'd be stupid to allow it to be collapsed.
Penalties:
By the sounds of it only offside and foul play will result in penalties. This should mean less games are decided on contentious penalties. It should be effective as long as the refs are harsh on repeat offenses, otherwise this rule could be abused by teams.
Surely it's going to be even more difficult to establish when it's getting to the stage of cynical professional fouls, and not simple mistakes. No, penalties have the right balance at the moment, and they're a punishment, unlike free kicks.
Scrum
I definitely agree with this law. Will mean there will be more attack from scrums as their is more room, whereas at the moment their is little attack from scrums, with most teams just crashing the ball up with one of their centres, and then attacking from their.
Crashing the ball up the centre is exactly what this will result in. You're allowing more space between the two sides so a player can get up a head of steam. As well as the fact that players will be able to run from deep onto the ball and have established their stride before encountering the opposition.
Breakdown Laws
Should speed up the game - I can see McGod (aka McCaw/ that bloody cheat [depending on where you are from]) loving this new law.
Have you ever seen what happens when two forwards of equal size get their hands on the ball? Nothing, nothing happens at all. They try and rip it off each with neither winning it, a maul forming around them and the team going forward gets a scrum. But of course, the end result of a maul under the new laws is that it becomes a ruck, and we already have a ruck because they're playing the ball on the ground.
Ok I've finished for now... maybe time for me to have a nap...
Ok I've finished for now... definitely time for me to have a smoke...
[/b]
S
scuubasteve
Guest
Watched an interesting program lastnight on the Rugby Channel by Paddy O'Brien (IRB Referees Rep and one of the guys behind the ELV's) on the aims of the new laws and the outcomes so far.
The most interesting thing was how this whole thing is described as 'the experiment' or words of that nature. The show gave you the perspective of this whole thing being some kind of science experiment with set aims, hypothesis and that it will generate results that can then be concluded.
This bodes well for people who may not like certain aspects of the proposed laws, because it appears they are happy to not accept every change for the sake of it. They appear to be taking an impartial point of view (as much as they can) so things are more likely to be genuinely for the good of the game, rather than proving their own opinions right.
The aims were:
1. Making the game more enjoyable to watch.
2. Retaining the traditional facets of the game that make rugby unique (ie, line-outs, mauls, scrums).
3. Ensuring the game is still suited to all the different body shapes.
4. Reducing the amount of dead ball (similar to No.1)
5. Taking the subjectivity out of refereeing.
6. Making bad referees call less important on the games outcome.
In the same sense as other experiments, they are recording massive amounts of statistics (from the Scottish, Australian, South African and NZ rugby comps in this case) to compare against the normal rules.
Results so far have been taken from the Scottish Cup, the 6 Nations and the Super 14.
The new laws were averaging the same number of lineouts and scrums. But the were averaging 9 tries per game, compared to around 4-5 for current rules. The time the ball was in play also increased significantly with the new rules, from around 35-45minutes to nearly 60mins.
So they said they were quite happy so far.
He said that using more free kicks meant that teams won't get the opportunity to kick penalty goals from a dubious call by the ref at the breakdown. Which seems valid.
There are now only 3 main ways to get penalised.
1. Offside (now including offside at the tackle)
2. Not entering through the gate.
3. Foul play
But he said that refs will also give penalties if players continue to cheat (mainly in slowing the ball down at rucks). This can therefore warrant a penalty also.
In regard to the pulling down of mauls (which personally is the only experimental law I see as failing) he said that their stats were showing it to be safer if players are expecting the maul to be pulled down rather than if their aren't. He also said that they were mainly trying to get rid of the tactic of kicking out to gain a 5m lineout. But I'm not sure why they see this as being beneficial, because I still find this aspect to be an entertaining part to the game which suits player of all bodies sizes. So I see that experiment as failing.
But in the whole, the experiment officially appears to be a resounding success so far.
Most importantly on the topic, the experiments will run through to the end of this year. The data will then be collated by the unions and the test organisers and delivered to the IRB. A meeting will take place in April 2008 where the unions and the council will decide on the conclusions of the ELV experiment and will decide what to do with these options.
So law change will not take place world-wide until May 2008 at the earliest. This means that Super14 and 6nations 2008 will not be affected unfortunately. But on the brightside, it appears the IRB i really dedicated to making sure the right choices are made, and changes are not made just for the sake of change.
The most interesting thing was how this whole thing is described as 'the experiment' or words of that nature. The show gave you the perspective of this whole thing being some kind of science experiment with set aims, hypothesis and that it will generate results that can then be concluded.
This bodes well for people who may not like certain aspects of the proposed laws, because it appears they are happy to not accept every change for the sake of it. They appear to be taking an impartial point of view (as much as they can) so things are more likely to be genuinely for the good of the game, rather than proving their own opinions right.
The aims were:
1. Making the game more enjoyable to watch.
2. Retaining the traditional facets of the game that make rugby unique (ie, line-outs, mauls, scrums).
3. Ensuring the game is still suited to all the different body shapes.
4. Reducing the amount of dead ball (similar to No.1)
5. Taking the subjectivity out of refereeing.
6. Making bad referees call less important on the games outcome.
In the same sense as other experiments, they are recording massive amounts of statistics (from the Scottish, Australian, South African and NZ rugby comps in this case) to compare against the normal rules.
Results so far have been taken from the Scottish Cup, the 6 Nations and the Super 14.
The new laws were averaging the same number of lineouts and scrums. But the were averaging 9 tries per game, compared to around 4-5 for current rules. The time the ball was in play also increased significantly with the new rules, from around 35-45minutes to nearly 60mins.
So they said they were quite happy so far.
He said that using more free kicks meant that teams won't get the opportunity to kick penalty goals from a dubious call by the ref at the breakdown. Which seems valid.
There are now only 3 main ways to get penalised.
1. Offside (now including offside at the tackle)
2. Not entering through the gate.
3. Foul play
But he said that refs will also give penalties if players continue to cheat (mainly in slowing the ball down at rucks). This can therefore warrant a penalty also.
In regard to the pulling down of mauls (which personally is the only experimental law I see as failing) he said that their stats were showing it to be safer if players are expecting the maul to be pulled down rather than if their aren't. He also said that they were mainly trying to get rid of the tactic of kicking out to gain a 5m lineout. But I'm not sure why they see this as being beneficial, because I still find this aspect to be an entertaining part to the game which suits player of all bodies sizes. So I see that experiment as failing.
But in the whole, the experiment officially appears to be a resounding success so far.
Most importantly on the topic, the experiments will run through to the end of this year. The data will then be collated by the unions and the test organisers and delivered to the IRB. A meeting will take place in April 2008 where the unions and the council will decide on the conclusions of the ELV experiment and will decide what to do with these options.
So law change will not take place world-wide until May 2008 at the earliest. This means that Super14 and 6nations 2008 will not be affected unfortunately. But on the brightside, it appears the IRB i really dedicated to making sure the right choices are made, and changes are not made just for the sake of change.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 1
- Views
- 289
