Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Rugby Union
General Rugby Union
World Rugby approves law trials to reduce coronavirus risk
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
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
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Leinster Fan" data-source="post: 996450" data-attributes="member: 76349"><p>I don't feel that strongly about most of these, but does anyone actually think that constantly changing the laws is good for the game? I swear every time I watch a game with a more casual fan I have to explain the five rules they've needlessly tweaked since the last time they watched a game. Rugby has more than enough finicky rules that are confusing to anyone other than hardcore fans without altering them slightly every other year.</p><p></p><p>No way this is anything other than using the virus as a cover to get a bunch of rule changes they know will be controversial through with minimum resistance. If they genuinely thought scrums were too much of a risk they'd do away with them entirely for the duration of the virus instead of just eliminating resets and half the other changes barely have anything to do with infection risk at all. </p><p></p><p>At the end of the day there's not a hope you can make rugby significant safer infection wise, it's still going to be a full contact game with a major gathering of several people in close proximity on the ground every few seconds. That said, if they actually just started enforcing 'use it' calls instead of cutting the time to 3 seconds like is suggested here it would improve the game, although I doubt it'd make much difference to infection rates.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Leinster Fan, post: 996450, member: 76349"] I don't feel that strongly about most of these, but does anyone actually think that constantly changing the laws is good for the game? I swear every time I watch a game with a more casual fan I have to explain the five rules they've needlessly tweaked since the last time they watched a game. Rugby has more than enough finicky rules that are confusing to anyone other than hardcore fans without altering them slightly every other year. No way this is anything other than using the virus as a cover to get a bunch of rule changes they know will be controversial through with minimum resistance. If they genuinely thought scrums were too much of a risk they'd do away with them entirely for the duration of the virus instead of just eliminating resets and half the other changes barely have anything to do with infection risk at all. At the end of the day there's not a hope you can make rugby significant safer infection wise, it's still going to be a full contact game with a major gathering of several people in close proximity on the ground every few seconds. That said, if they actually just started enforcing 'use it' calls instead of cutting the time to 3 seconds like is suggested here it would improve the game, although I doubt it'd make much difference to infection rates. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rugby Union
General Rugby Union
World Rugby approves law trials to reduce coronavirus risk
Top