Rugby Rules "Stellenbosched"

Discussion in 'General Rugby Union' started by Prestwick, Dec 7, 2006.

  1. Prestwick

    Prestwick Guest

    During the Great War, one British General was so outpaced by the events on the Western Front and the advances in millitary technology that he retired and asked to be sent home, citing stress, disorientation and the onset of dementia. As this same General spent his better years bashing Afrikaaners during the Boer War, many of his peer jokingly said that he had been "Stellenbosched!" by the whole experience.

    The same could be said of the average Rugby fan after reading the antics that the Stellenbosch University.

    Some of the major rule changes being experimented on are thus:
    • Downgrading most penalty offences to free-kicks.
    • Allowing handling in the ruck.
    • Backs must be 5m behind rear foot at scrum.
    • Removing corner flags.
    • Permitting defending teams to collapse rolling maul.
    • Ball cannot be passed back into 22 and kicked out on the full.
    What are your thoughts on these wacky ideas? Revolutionary and a boon, or annoying and meaning that Rugby will be "Stellenbosched"?
     
  2. Forum Ad Advertisement

  3. BokMagic

    BokMagic Guest

    Most of those are actually proposed IRB law changes in the near future- the IRB wants to experiment in the Scottish Cup next year with the 5m behind last line of feet at scrum offside rule, not kicking directly into touch from a pass into the 22(unless there is a ruck or tackle 1st).

    Also, the IRB has already stated its intentions to allow for collapsing of the rolling maul(for safety reasons- a heap of crap rule-change IMO) and allowing hands in the ruck in the near future.

    As we all know, the IRB likes to change a heap of rules every couple of years, why only they would know. Stellenbosch is merely doing what it has always done- keep 1 step ahead of the rest. Ah, Dok Craven must be smiling at his old alma mater being used to try out some of these idiotic IRB rule changes. But it certainly makes sense to try them out at the biggest rugby club(in playing numbers) in the world, ie Stellenbosch!
     
  4. Prestwick

    Prestwick Guest

    Yeah I know what the iRB want to do, I wouldn't have started this thread otherwise! :)

    The iRB have been experiementing in South Africa with the rules for ages now. Stellenbosch is merely acting as one of many. The great and good of refereeing have been chewing the fat over what they want to change and do.

    When they've finished beta testing the rules in SA they'll test them elsewhere.

    Most of the rules are quite innovative and radical but....backs keeping 5m behind the scrum? Nice one, thats yet another thing that the referee has to remember, y'know because he hasn't got enough already on his plate like making sure the ball goes in straight, checking to see if the scrum is koshier in about five different areas. If he has to remember two imaginary lines on top of all that, that is way too much for a ref to officiate over.

    Also, who the hell thought of the idea to collapse mauls?! I know, lets make sure scrums are that much safer.....and then make mauls a total death-trap! Yes nice one iRB, expect to see quite a negative reaction against that one.

    Also, removing corner flags, what the hell is all that about? That'll just make try decisions all the more controversial.
     
  5. BokMagic

    BokMagic Guest

    Cheers Prestwick- yes, I also think that collapsing the maul will actually make it a helluva lot more dangerous- a death-trap, as you put. Now, wrt the scrum rule change, exactly how will "crouch, touch, pause, engage" prevent injuries, only the bright sparks at the IRB will know. Most scrum-related injuries does not occur because of the "hit", but because of the collapse. IMO, all that the scrum rule will actually achieve is to bring the great game of union all the more closer to "diet rugby" (also known as league!) with their uncontested scrums.

    Now the scrum gets made safer(supposedly), but the maul becomes a helluva mess, more career-threatening injuries etc. If the IRB were really serious about safety of the players, they should rather have looked at changing the clean-out rule at the rucks- now there is an area that definately needs a policy shake-up.

    By the way, I wonder what mr. William Webb-Ellis, the inventor of the greatest game on earth, think about all of these rule changes- after all, he found the few rules of football so limiting and frustrating that he changed it!
     
  6. Shosholoza

    Shosholoza Guest

    Funny how the iRB reckons that the rule changes are a way of enticing new countries to the sport. Haven't they wondered why Sevens is so popular amongst smaller Rugby nations as compared to the poor support for the 15-man game? Sevens isn't as bogged down by all the rules and regulations as the fuller version of the game is. Adding more rules to the pot is going against their intended mission IMO.

    I sit struggling to explain all the whistle blows to my other half during games...and half the time even i don't know what's cooking! I mean, even cricket is simpler to understand than Rugby nowadays.

    Please very soon we'll be going the American Gridiron football way with referees explaining every single whistle blow to the audience over microphones...

    5 metre's behind the scrum? Geez like. Wonder which bright spark came up with that one...and the reasoning behind it. Can just imagine all those junior scrum halves at school trying to pass the ball and it landing in the middle of no where. :cryy:
     
  7. Dumbo

    Dumbo Guest

    All good points guys, I too strugle to tell people whats going on when watching a game if they don't know the rules... collapsing the maul? safer?

    One day mark my words, someone's just pickup the ball and run... or one day you woun't be able to even touch the ball with your hands... for mine I'd prefer to see better policing from the refs with the current rules before any changes are made.
     
  8. Prestwick

    Prestwick Guest

    Definetly agree mate. It stinks of "change for the sake of change" in some areas rather than well thought out evolution.

    One unintended side effect will be increased pressure on refs. If this 5 meter line at the scrum rule goes ahead, thats going to be a whole lot more of a workload on the ref to keep track of. If he screws up, he could come in for some stick for it and refs really don't need that.
     
Enjoyed this thread? Register to post your reply - click here!

Share This Page