Stop clock to speed up rugby

Discussion in 'General Rugby Union' started by snoopy snoopy dog dog, Feb 5, 2010.

  1. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
  2. Forum Ad Advertisement

  3. Bullitt

    Bullitt Guest

    Has John O'Neil given up changing the game into League and gone straight to Gridiron? It's no surprise that tosspot likes this idea.

    The problem we have is there are too many complexities already. Adding more won't fix it.

    Also, there's no mention of all the dead time in League (at every tackle), Soccer (free-kicks, substitutions, goal kicks, throw-ins... An endless list) and just about every other football sport.

    It's an article written by an idiot mesays.

    Edit: Apparently I'm not the only one to think that Greg Growden is a plank
  4. gingergenius

    gingergenius Guest

    The time idea isn't such a bad one, especially for scrums.

    Definitely don't agree with changing the points system.
  5. Olyy

    Olyy Guest

    I also agree with the time off for scrums, these days, with collapsing constantly, resetting does take time

    Also, he has a point about time off for penalties, just because if it's in the last few minutes people can stretch it out so that it ends the match (in the Sale/Saints match, i think it was, Saints took two minutes to take a kick for touch, just by umming and urring and wiping the ball etc)
  6. feicarsinn

    feicarsinn Guest

    Scrums are tiring as heck! Taking time off for them means the forwards are going to have to do even more work! Not cool!
  7. dullonien

    dullonien Guest

    I understand his gripes with scrums, endless collapses. But how will stopping the clock make the game flow? It will just mean that there's no pressure on refs to make a decision on scrums, and we may end up with even more collapses. Stopping the clock isn't the way forward, they just need to sort out the scrums so it doesn't collapse constantly, not sure how though! Maybe dishing out more yellows is a way forward. If the ref doesn't know who's in the wrong, just yellow both players.
  8. SmokeyMonkey

    SmokeyMonkey Guest

    Sigh, does nobody ever learn? Increasing the points for a try will lead to more penalties, not more tries. Make a penalty worth 10 points and you will see loads and loads of tries.... :p
  9. dullonien

    dullonien Guest

    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SmokeyMonkey @ Feb 6 2010, 11:52 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
    Not necessarily Smokey. As long as refs are strict with infringments and use the yellow card to discourage constant offenders, then increasing the points for a try should encourage the attacking team to attack. There needs to be a balance, and although I'm not keen on changing the rules constantly, increasing a try to 6 points may not be such a bad idea.

    There are more pressing needs to adress though. The constant kicking is hopefully fizzling out (if the HC is anything to go by), but the scrum is infuriating at the moment.
  10. An Tarbh

    An Tarbh Guest

    don't see the need to stop the clock when the ball goes out of play or until the ball is fed into a scrum or even when it collapses. He's looking to get more people interested in rugby, all it will lead to is turning the game into a marathon, we're already at a stage where some games last 100 minutes in real time, how long would they last if we had all these stoppages, you'd be bored out of your tree, if anything it would turn people off rugby, not bring more in.

    I don't agree with the sentiment behind increasing a try to 6, yes we all want to see more attacking play, but the point of a penalty is to penalise a team, give the incentive not to commit the offence in the first place, if a try is worth 6 points we'll see more sides committing more infringements as it will kill time, especially where a side is holding onto a lead at the end of a game.
  11. feicarsinn

    feicarsinn Guest

    LEAVE THE GAME ALONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  12. O'Rothlain

    O'Rothlain Guest

    Booooooooooo! :wall:
  13. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (dullonien @ Feb 6 2010, 11:25 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
    Going slightly off topic, Shaun Edwards had a suggestion a couple of years ago. He proposed "sequential engagement" of scrums. The frontrows come together first, followed by the 2nd rows and lastly the backrows on the referee's prompting. The speculated results is of less collapses due to a less forceful initial "hit". Another consequence was speculated to be less neck injuries to frontrow players.

    Some may argue that it depowers the scrum but it actually brings things more in line with now things were done pre-1995. "Winning the hit" is a modern phenomenon - just watch any game pre the South Africa World Cup and you won't see 16 players charge into one another.

    As for Growden's argument that the clock needs to be stopped - it's not practical. Nobody wants to watch 3+ hour games. Other solutions to time wasting should be found for issues like taking a lineout and collapsing scrums.
Enjoyed this thread? Register to post your reply - click here!

Share This Page