Proposed changes to rugby laws

[Andronicus]

Changes I'd like to see:

The law on head high and tackles in the air be scrapped. There are many times when these tackles are technically illegal (a player tackled when about 3cms in the air, for example). Simply have a law that bans dangerous tackles and allow referees to have discretion.

Make a dropout be made from under the posts. I see no sense in a team gaining a 22m advantage simply by grounding the ball behind the goal line.

Change the offside line from the hindmost feet to 10m back from a ruck or maul. This would open the game up considerably.

 

[ZeFrenchy]

Here's an idea: instead of rucks, we should just award six tackles to the team in possession, and the defence must go back ten metres. Alo, we coul stop contesting scrums and do without line-outs altogether. And remove flankers, they're turning into too good defenders and they're just slowing the game down.

 

[William18]

Yeah, so let's play league. The 10m rule works in league because you have limited tackles - we don't have that in rugby.

 

[Andronicus]

Yeah, so let's play league. The 10m rule works in league because you have limited tackles - we don't have that in rugby.

Sorry, I don't get the connection. The 10m rule would give the side in possession more room. Wouldn't that help open the game up and encourage open play?

 

[Andronicus]

Here's an idea: instead of rucks, we should just award six tackles to the team in possession, and the defence must go back ten metres. Alo, we coul stop contesting scrums and do without line-outs altogether. And remove flankers, they're turning into too good defenders and they're just slowing the game down.

I've got an even better idea. Next time give me a thoughtful, intelligent response rather than snide sarcasm. Otherwise please don't bother.

 

[ZeFrenchy]

You're new here. We've had a lot of threads of this sort, most (if not all) of them trying to turn union into league. You won't get many serious replies.

 

[Andronicus]

You're new here. We've had a lot of threads of this sort, most (if not all) of them trying to turn union into league. You won't get many serious replies.

Changing a couple of laws doesn't turn rugby into league. That's absurd. But there are things both sports can learn from each other, neither game is perfect.

 

[InsaneAsylum]

how do you know when you can join a ruck or you have to drop back 10 metres?

 

[Rich Taff]

how do you know when you can join a ruck or you have to drop back 10 metres?

The ref could call it - set!.....run!......ruck! The players would have to ensure they're 10m back at 'set', then they could head towards the ruck on 'run'. Anyone arriving after 'ruck!' is called concedes a penalty. (Of course, Richie McCaw would only have to stand 5m back, and be immune from the late arrival rule)

 

[Tony Manx]

The law on head high and tackles in the air be scrapped. There are many times when these tackles are technically illegal (a player tackled when about 3cms in the air, for example). Simply have a law that bans dangerous tackles and allow referees to have discretion.

I agree and also a yellow for anyone play acting when hit..............they are getting like footballers!

Interesting....speaking of which and probably the wrong thread, but Laporte is asking for the French crowds to stop booing Delon "The Idiot" Arrmitage whenever he gets the ball!!!

 

[Andronicus]

I agree and also a yellow for anyone play acting when hit..............they are getting like footballers!

Interesting....speaking of which and probably the wrong thread, but Laporte is asking for the French crowds to stop booing Delon "The Idiot" Arrmitage whenever he gets the ball!!!

Agree that Hollywoods should be punished.

 

[William18]

Sorry, I don't get the connection. The 10m rule would give the side in possession more room. Wouldn't that help open the game up and encourage open play?

Probably not. Rugby league already had a limited tackle rule before the ruck rule was extended to 10 metres. The problem is that with the 10m rule teams will be able make easy yardage. A team that holds the ball for 10 phases can go from their own endzone to the other end of the field. That just makes it too easy to make metres.

You say your rule is a only a minor change but it really isn't. Think of the negative side effects.
- Teams will no longer kick the ball. Why would you when you get easily make 10 metres on each play. You might think no kicking is a good thing? Well no kicking means no counterattacking. It also means no lineouts. I can't see any incentive to ever kick for the sideline under your proposal. Therefore the locks will change. Teams will effectively field 5 loose forwards.
- There is no incentive to spread the ball either. Think about it. If you can make a guaranteed 10m on each play by hit ups why spread it? Spreading it would be counterproductive. Since you can make guaranteed metres on each play the attacking emphasis will be on keeping the ball close, ensuring that you are able to keep possession.
- We would see continual mauls. Since the defence is 10m back. The attackers have plenty of time to form a rolling maul. Continual rollling mauls are basically impossible to stop so close to the line.

There are other problems too of course. League allows two players within the 10 metres. How many would be allowed in union? If someone is 10m back then it is hard for the defence to pile into a ruck if there is a turnover. I think your change would make the ruck less competitive.

Since the defence is so close at the moment you have to be strong, or creative to get over the advantage line. That's what I like the close, physical in close battle. You would never see a physical clash like South Africa vs New Zealand under your new rules.

You can't just change something so major and then claim it is only a little thing. You see this type of thing a lot in public policy - as soon as you change incentives you make people behave in a completely different way.

 

[j'nuh]

The only change I can think of that I'd really like to see is to stop the knock-on ending the half/match. I think the winning team should earn the right to end the half/match by kicking it out, not by making a mistake such as dropping the ball. I'd like to see a rule change so that after the end of normal and added time, the team that would gain possession after a knock-on are allowed to choose between the scrum and the free kick. If you're winning, you can use the free kick to boot it out and end the game, if you're losing or going for a TBP then you can take the scrum.

 

[BeastieBoy]

My Proposed changes to the rules to reduce, stoppages, no of scrums, penalties and to open the game up to enterprise include: drop outs from the try line, no kick out on the full from the 22any more. 40/20s as in league. Indirect free kicks from scrum infringements only. Penalties and field goals reduced to 2 points. Except where kicked from outside the 50m then 3 points. Kickers can opt to take the kick that far back in order to get the 3 points. Quick taps allowed. Maximum 50 sec for a conversion with a shot clock. If not complete in time then lose he opportunity.captain can challenge the refs decision at any time in a half until he gets it wrong.no knockons for half backs at the base of a scrum or ruck. Can't have a try from a pushover scrum, ruck or maule. Must be 2 passes from a scrum ruck or maule to score a try. What I propose I believe enhances the spirit of rugby and showcases the players skills for the spectator. In a competitive environments ingest sporting codes like Australia we need changes like these.

 

[BeastieBoy]

You're new here. We've had a lot of threads of this sort, most (if not all) of them trying to turn union into league. You won't get many serious replies.

Frenchy that is a silly thing to say. The recently professional game of rugby, has a lot to learn from those sports that have been professional for a hundred years or more. They over a long period of time have framed their rules in order to attract spectators while at the same time maintaining the essence of their sport. Our rules are still more focused on the player rather than the spectator. You may get away with that in international matches, because of what's at stake. But if you want to grow it in other markets where you compete with other codes then you have a problem. The use of the scrum by teams in the British isles to create a penalty, so you have one stoppage creating another is a blight on the game for instance. The rules need changing.

 

[Feicarsinn]

Frenchy that is a silly thing to say. The recently professional game of rugby, has a lot to learn from those sports that have been professional for a hundred years or more. They over a long period of time have framed their rules in order to attract spectators while at the same time maintaining the essence of their sport. Our rules are still more focused on the player rather than the spectator. You may get away with that in international matches, because of what's at stake. But if you want to grow it in other markets where you compete with other codes then you have a problem. The use of the scrum by teams in the British isles to create a penalty, so you have one stoppage creating another is a blight on the game for instance. The rules need changing.

You're right. Union must change to be more like league, as the latter is obviously a lot more popular.

 

[Draggs]

Let's play 'Is he Australian?'

-in favour of nonsensical law changes?
-wants to reduce the value of a scrum?
-overall, get rid of powerful forwards?

Computer says yes!

 

[BeastieBoy]

It's not that popular in Australia. I would guess soccer is more popular in the British isles. You can be content with that or you can be proactive and do something.

 

[BeastieBoy]

Mate crappy reply. Stick to the issues and I won't talk about world cup wins.

 

[lynam1104]

Heres the thing, if you want to make drastic changes to a sport you might as well make a whole new one. The 10m rule your proposing is on the same level as let s pick the ball up rather than kick it. In order to open the game up so it's more of a "spectacle" fine tweaking on certain laws is what should be done rather then changing two major areas of the game almost completely.

Also I thought people banging on about a 10 year old world cup was bad!