Proposed rule changes... prepare yourselves

Forum for the discussion of all International Rugby

Moderator: moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
jezzer
Rob Kearney
Posts: 8010
Joined: February 1st, 2006, 11:41 am

Proposed rule changes... prepare yourselves

Post by jezzer »

Don't know if you've seen this. There's a thread going on Munsterfans about it... It's not all terrible stuff but some of the key suggesitons are... well.... :shock: :shock: :cry:


IRB plans to 'revolutionise' rules of rugby
By Peter Bills
Published: 10 March 2006
Rugby union will be transformed if a set of radical rule changes proposed by a specialist group of the International Rugby Board, the sport's governing body, is accepted.

The laws study group was asked to suggest changes aimed at speeding up the game and drastically reducing the influence of penalty-kicks. It has responded with a range of proposed law changes including a plan to allow penalties for only two offences in the entire game, foul play and offside. Any other offences would only be penalised by a free-kick or the award of a scrum.

The key proposals concern the breakdown, the most contentious area of the game. In essence, the suggested new rules are an attempt to force players to be more positive, by keeping the ball alive in the tackle, and to reduce the inclination to become involved in a free-for-all at the breakdown.

The proposals would allow players to go to ground at the tackle and after it, and to use their hands at the subsequent breakdown. If the ball became unplayable, the tacklers' team would receive a free-kick. The only offences at the breakdown would be offside and not entering through the "rear gate", with referees to be encouraged to be rigid in their policing of the latter.

The changes to the breakdown laws are just part of a radical package of proposals from a group which includes the Australian World Cup winning coach Rod Macqueen, the former South Africa coach Ian McIntosh, the former France coach Pierre Villepreux and Richie Dixon, a former coach of Scotland.

The IRB supervised a week of testing for the new rules in Stellenbosch, South Africa, and those involved in the trial were astonished by the results.

The average number of tries scored in games increased dramatically, although this would be likely to fall once teams adapted defensively.

Similarly turnovers, which at present average seven a game, rose to 24 in one match before averaging out at between 11 and 15. This answers critics who point out that it has become almost impossible to win the ball against a side in possession that does not make mistakes.

The award of penalty-kicks, by contrast, went down considerably.

Paddy O'Brien, the former Test referee from New Zealand who is now the IRB's referee manager, was closely involved in the South African experiment, and he said: "I am really excited by these proposals. It is still very early days and a lot more work needs to be done on the ideas.

"But I believe it could be a major step forward for the game with the potential, literally, to make it a game of the 21st century. It could revolutionise rugby football," O'Brien suggested.

None of the proposed changes would occur prior to the World Cup in France in September 2007, and O'Brien added: "It is at an embryonic stage."

Part of the reason for the radical extent of these proposals, which will be submitted to the IRB council in due course, is that those asked to undertake the exercise did not include current coaches, thus freeing the group to think "outside the box", as it were.

"Everyone recognises there is a problem at the breakdown," O'Brien said. "All we have done in the past is put an Elastoplast on the wound to cover the problem.

"This time it has been seriously addressed. Our attitude to this and other areas of difficulty was, 'Let's get rid of the cannots, let's deal in can-dos'.

"These proposals are intended in part to help people to understand the game. We are trying to attract a new audience to rugby, yet most people [who watch the game] do not know why the referee blows his whistle so much.

"These ideas are intended to let the players win games, rather than referees, whilst ensuring it remains a game for all shapes and sizes," O'Brien said.

The proposed rule changes

* Defending players will be allowed to collapse a rolling maul, hitherto virtually impossible by legal means. Truck and trailer would no longer be an offence.

* If the ball is passed back into a team's 22-metre area, kicks directly into touch will result in a line-out from where the ball was kicked.

* Touch judges will be charged with specifically policing offside in the threequarters. They will attract the referee's attention to an offence by raising their flag in the direction of the errant team.

* Quick line-out throw-ins need no longer be straight. The ball can be thrown backwards, like a pass.

* The technical infringement of "numbers in a line-out" will be abolished. There will be no limitations on the numbers either side can put into this phase.

* Corner posts will be abolished. Disallowing a try because a player touched the flag before touching down is seen as a disincentive to the desire for more tries.

Rugby union will be transformed if a set of radical rule changes proposed by a specialist group of the International Rugby Board, the sport's governing body, is accepted.

The laws study group was asked to suggest changes aimed at speeding up the game and drastically reducing the influence of penalty-kicks. It has responded with a range of proposed law changes including a plan to allow penalties for only two offences in the entire game, foul play and offside. Any other offences would only be penalised by a free-kick or the award of a scrum.

The key proposals concern the breakdown, the most contentious area of the game. In essence, the suggested new rules are an attempt to force players to be more positive, by keeping the ball alive in the tackle, and to reduce the inclination to become involved in a free-for-all at the breakdown.

The proposals would allow players to go to ground at the tackle and after it, and to use their hands at the subsequent breakdown. If the ball became unplayable, the tacklers' team would receive a free-kick. The only offences at the breakdown would be offside and not entering through the "rear gate", with referees to be encouraged to be rigid in their policing of the latter.

The changes to the breakdown laws are just part of a radical package of proposals from a group which includes the Australian World Cup winning coach Rod Macqueen, the former South Africa coach Ian McIntosh, the former France coach Pierre Villepreux and Richie Dixon, a former coach of Scotland.

The IRB supervised a week of testing for the new rules in Stellenbosch, South Africa, and those involved in the trial were astonished by the results.

The average number of tries scored in games increased dramatically, although this would be likely to fall once teams adapted defensively.

Similarly turnovers, which at present average seven a game, rose to 24 in one match before averaging out at between 11 and 15. This answers critics who point out that it has become almost impossible to win the ball against a side in possession that does not make mistakes.

The award of penalty-kicks, by contrast, went down considerably.

Paddy O'Brien, the former Test referee from New Zealand who is now the IRB's referee manager, was closely involved in the South African experiment, and he said: "I am really excited by these proposals. It is still very early days and a lot more work needs to be done on the ideas.

"But I believe it could be a major step forward for the game with the potential, literally, to make it a game of the 21st century. It could revolutionise rugby football," O'Brien suggested.

None of the proposed changes would occur prior to the World Cup in France in September 2007, and O'Brien added: "It is at an embryonic stage."

Part of the reason for the radical extent of these proposals, which will be submitted to the IRB council in due course, is that those asked to undertake the exercise did not include current coaches, thus freeing the group to think "outside the box", as it were.

"Everyone recognises there is a problem at the breakdown," O'Brien said. "All we have done in the past is put an Elastoplast on the wound to cover the problem.

"This time it has been seriously addressed. Our attitude to this and other areas of difficulty was, 'Let's get rid of the cannots, let's deal in can-dos'.

"These proposals are intended in part to help people to understand the game. We are trying to attract a new audience to rugby, yet most people [who watch the game] do not know why the referee blows his whistle so much.

"These ideas are intended to let the players win games, rather than referees, whilst ensuring it remains a game for all shapes and sizes," O'Brien said.

The proposed rule changes

* Defending players will be allowed to collapse a rolling maul, hitherto virtually impossible by legal means. Truck and trailer would no longer be an offence.

* If the ball is passed back into a team's 22-metre area, kicks directly into touch will result in a line-out from where the ball was kicked.

* Touch judges will be charged with specifically policing offside in the threequarters. They will attract the referee's attention to an offence by raising their flag in the direction of the errant team.

* Quick line-out throw-ins need no longer be straight. The ball can be thrown backwards, like a pass.

* The technical infringement of "numbers in a line-out" will be abolished. There will be no limitations on the numbers either side can put into this phase.

* Corner posts will be abolished. Disallowing a try because a player touched the flag before touching down is seen as a disincentive to the desire for more tries.
User avatar
StuF
Mullet
Posts: 1783
Joined: January 26th, 2006, 1:33 pm
Location: South Park
Contact:

Post by StuF »

yep - this article was in the New Zealand Herald a week or so ago. At the end of the day, these proposals are just being tested at the moment. They will go through a lot of revision in the testing and then a many of the ideas won't make the final cut.
Uncle Mort
Shane Horgan
Posts: 4247
Joined: February 15th, 2006, 2:56 pm
Location: Blue Square Conference

Post by Uncle Mort »

A lot of the ideas are actually quite sensible of you think about it. OK there will be some revision but on the face of it they're not bad ideas. The allowing of collapsing the rolling maul and reducing of the number of penalty offences are both good ideas. For a team like ours (Leinster) that can score tries at will if we can get the ball it will be a positive boon. Teams that rely on sticking it up the jumper and rumbling over from 22 metres will have to think again mind you.
"I don't think Edinburgh is the place it used to be"
User avatar
StuF
Mullet
Posts: 1783
Joined: January 26th, 2006, 1:33 pm
Location: South Park
Contact:

Post by StuF »

Folow up in some rag today...

RUGBY UNION is to be transformed into a sport for the 21st century by the sweeping away of a whole raft of draconian laws that will simplify the game.

Proposals being suggested to the International Board, could lead to one of the biggest changes of the rule book in the sport's history.

The IRB is looking at introducing major changes aimed at speeding up the game and drastically reducing the influence of penalty kicks. The effect would be to revolutionise the sport.

A laws study group, which spent a week testing the new rules in Stellenbosch, South Africa, has come up with some startling proposals.

Chief among them is the plan to allow penalties for only two offences in the entire game, foul play and offside. This would greatly alter the status quo that has allowed players like Jonny Wilkinson to win matches for their country solely through their boot. Any other offences would only be penalised by a free kick or the award of a scrum.

The Board's advisers, who include former Australian World Cup winning coach Rod Macqueen, former South African coach Ian McIntosh, ex-French coach Pierre Villepreux and Richie Dixon, a former coach of Scotland, have at long last tackled the most contentious area of the game, the breakdown. What they have proposed is completely radical, aimed at finally sorting out the mess that area of the game has become.

In essence, the proposals are an attempt to force players to be more positive, to keep the ball alive, off-load in the tackle and reduce the inclination to become involved in a free-for-all at the breakdown.

The effects of the trial matches played in South Africa under the new laws, astonished IRB officials.

In particular, there was a five-fold increase in tries from two to 10, while penalty kicks decreased significantly and turnovers nearly doubled.

The stats for the core issue of turnovers answers the critics who point out that it has become almost impossible to win the ball against a side in possession that does not make mistakes.

None of the proposed changes would occur prior to the World Cup in France, in September 2007.
User avatar
Flash Gordon
Leo Cullen
Posts: 11690
Joined: February 7th, 2006, 3:31 pm

Post by Flash Gordon »

Uncle Mort wrote:A lot of the ideas are actually quite sensible of you think about it. OK there will be some revision but on the face of it they're not bad ideas. The allowing of collapsing the rolling maul and reducing of the number of penalty offences are both good ideas. For a team like ours (Leinster) that can score tries at will if we can get the ball it will be a positive boon. Teams that rely on sticking it up the jumper and rumbling over from 22 metres will have to think again mind you.
Would be the death of Turnipstan rugby.......hard to imagine no more maulling at TP!!! Not that I'm complaining.....
Flash ahhhh ahhh, he'll save every one of us
Uncle Mort
Shane Horgan
Posts: 4247
Joined: February 15th, 2006, 2:56 pm
Location: Blue Square Conference

Post by Uncle Mort »

Flash Gordon wrote:.......hard to imagine no more maulling at TP!!! Not that I'm complaining.....
It would not be at all hard to imagine no more mauling at TP - it's very easy and it's like an early spring morning with the sun about to come out and blossom on the trees. Delightful.

Truth to tell the rolling maul is probably the worst thing in rugby at the moment and there's no legal way to stop it and more times than not it results in penalties not tries. They're never, ever refereed properly either - as it's ok to come in from the side when you're the attacking team but not for the defending team.

If our near neighbours had to change their plans and actually learn to play some rugby they might actually win the HEC one day (though hopefully not before us). Their problem is take them out of TP put them up against a team that can play rugby and they run around lost, not knowing what to do.
"I don't think Edinburgh is the place it used to be"
sewa
Mullet
Posts: 1748
Joined: February 8th, 2006, 12:20 pm
Location: Munster

Post by sewa »

Uncle Mort wrote:
Flash Gordon wrote:.......hard to imagine no more maulling at TP!!! Not that I'm complaining.....
It would not be at all hard to imagine no more mauling at TP - it's very easy and it's like an early spring morning with the sun about to come out and blossom on the trees. Delightful.

Truth to tell the rolling maul is probably the worst thing in rugby at the moment and there's no legal way to stop it and more times than not it results in penalties not tries. They're never, ever refereed properly either - as it's ok to come in from the side when you're the attacking team but not for the defending team.

If our near neighbours had to change their plans and actually learn to play some rugby they might actually win the HEC one day (though hopefully not before us). Their problem is take them out of TP put them up against a team that can play rugby and they run around lost, not knowing what to do.
Typical of the nonsense posted here. Without Munster players Ireland would have no pack and no half backs. If you wish to believe thats all down to the mall then thats fine.
User avatar
Flash Gordon
Leo Cullen
Posts: 11690
Joined: February 7th, 2006, 3:31 pm

Post by Flash Gordon »

sewa wrote:
Uncle Mort wrote:
Flash Gordon wrote:.......hard to imagine no more maulling at TP!!! Not that I'm complaining.....
It would not be at all hard to imagine no more mauling at TP - it's very easy and it's like an early spring morning with the sun about to come out and blossom on the trees. Delightful.

Truth to tell the rolling maul is probably the worst thing in rugby at the moment and there's no legal way to stop it and more times than not it results in penalties not tries. They're never, ever refereed properly either - as it's ok to come in from the side when you're the attacking team but not for the defending team.

If our near neighbours had to change their plans and actually learn to play some rugby they might actually win the HEC one day (though hopefully not before us). Their problem is take them out of TP put them up against a team that can play rugby and they run around lost, not knowing what to do.
Typical of the nonsense posted here. Without Munster players Ireland would have no pack and no half backs. If you wish to believe thats all down to the mall then thats fine.
In case you haven't noticed we don't have any half backs!!!!! :cry:

And I think Uncle is right here - for too long Turnipstan have been too one dimensional. The turnip up the jumper style play is ok at home in the first rounds, but it's limitations against the very best teams have probably cost you an European Cup.
Flash ahhhh ahhh, he'll save every one of us
Big Deep Blue
Bookworm
Posts: 147
Joined: February 10th, 2006, 4:07 pm
Location: Dublin 4. No Really.

Post by Big Deep Blue »

I'm I the only one in Leinster who enjoys the maul? Or are there to many washed up backs around?

BTW Was'nt Leinsters first try against Munster on New Years Eve the product of such play.
Where the blind leadeth the blind.....Get out of the way.
Uncle Mort
Shane Horgan
Posts: 4247
Joined: February 15th, 2006, 2:56 pm
Location: Blue Square Conference

Post by Uncle Mort »

Sewa, what you have to realise is that these law changes will happen, the maul will become collapsable, the penalty offence will be removed. Ok rugby will change and time will see if its for the better or worse - however, these changes strike at the very heart of the Munster gameplan.
"I don't think Edinburgh is the place it used to be"
sewa
Mullet
Posts: 1748
Joined: February 8th, 2006, 12:20 pm
Location: Munster

Post by sewa »

Uncle Mort wrote:Sewa, what you have to realise is that these law changes will happen, the maul will become collapsable, the penalty offence will be removed. Ok rugby will change and time will see if its for the better or worse - however, these changes strike at the very heart of the Munster gameplan.
They may happen. If there is no mall we will adapt. Not a big deal as our management team would adjust the tactics as required. Strangely when Leicester and Wasps mall no one comments on it. Neil back scored dozens of tries off the mall.
User avatar
Flash Gordon
Leo Cullen
Posts: 11690
Joined: February 7th, 2006, 3:31 pm

Post by Flash Gordon »

sewa wrote:
Uncle Mort wrote:Sewa, what you have to realise is that these law changes will happen, the maul will become collapsable, the penalty offence will be removed. Ok rugby will change and time will see if its for the better or worse - however, these changes strike at the very heart of the Munster gameplan.
They may happen. If there is no mall we will adapt. Not a big deal as our management team would adjust the tactics as required. Strangely when Leicester and Wasps mall no one comments on it. Neil back scored dozens of tries off the mall.
Nobody is knocking the Munster maul....my experience is that its mostly spoken about as a Turnipstan strength - almost virtuous. However, it has limited Munster somewhat in my view because when you try to wi na match by maulling alone when you're playing Toulouse, Wasps, Stade, BO, Tigers etc you tend to have the limitation exposed.
Flash ahhhh ahhh, he'll save every one of us
sewa
Mullet
Posts: 1748
Joined: February 8th, 2006, 12:20 pm
Location: Munster

Post by sewa »

Flash Gordon wrote:
sewa wrote:
Uncle Mort wrote:Sewa, what you have to realise is that these law changes will happen, the maul will become collapsable, the penalty offence will be removed. Ok rugby will change and time will see if its for the better or worse - however, these changes strike at the very heart of the Munster gameplan.
They may happen. If there is no mall we will adapt. Not a big deal as our management team would adjust the tactics as required. Strangely when Leicester and Wasps mall no one comments on it. Neil back scored dozens of tries off the mall.
Nobody is knocking the Munster maul....my experience is that its mostly spoken about as a Turnipstan strength - almost virtuous. However, it has limited Munster somewhat in my view because when you try to wi na match by maulling alone when you're playing Toulouse, Wasps, Stade, BO, Tigers etc you tend to have the limitation exposed.
We played that way for a reason. Our back 5 while defensively excellent didnt do enough going forward. This was partly due to not producing enough good backs, partly down to Gaffneys reluctance to give young players a chance ahead of established players and also partly down to injuries to two top class backs in Cullen and John O Neill. Thankfully DK will change this around.
Post Reply