Changes to Rugby Laws

Forum for the discussion of other Teams and Clubs as well as General Rugby chat.

Moderator: moderators

Changes to Rugby Laws

Postby IanD » June 10th, 2015, 2:29 pm

I have had these ideas for a while and as it is silly season I decided to share them now.

People were talking during the season about how to improve rugby and speed it up. Ideas such as having 13 players were suggested. I am not in favour of this idea and have come up with some ideas of my own. They are aimed at increasing the time the ball is in play.

Basic premise of my ideas are

More running = tired players = more space.
Less recovery time = tired players = more space.



7 subs but you can only play 5.

Players have to be aerobically fitter and lighter to finish a match. Less massive bosh merchants and more rounded players lasting 80 mins.

Means less lightly to sub a whole front row so props have to be capable of playing full 80 mins. Frances Uini Atonio at 122kg might have to lighten up to play full games. As it stands he has 7 caps all off the bench. Also some subs used later in games to cover for injuries meaning players have to be fitter for longer.

Based this idea on an interview Keith Wood had on Off the Ball. He said one season at Harlequins he was 18 stone and could not finish 80 minutes. He was normally 16 and a half stone and once he went back down to this weight he could finish a match.



Reduce the time allowed for penalty kicks and conversations.

As it stands penaltys ‘‘must be taken within one minute from the time the player indicates the intention to kick at goal. The intention to kick is signalled by the arrival of the kicking tee or sand, or when the player makes a mark on the ground.’’ A conversion ‘‘within one minute and thirty seconds (ninety seconds) from the time a try has been awarded’’

Knock these in half and we have more running and less time for players to get their breath back. In our last match at Edinburgh 6 conversions and 3 penaltys. This meant up to 12 minutes out of 80 (15%) were for kicks and gave players chance to take on fluids and recover slightly.

If penalties are missed because of time pressure I believe we will see more kicks to the corner and hopefully more trys.



(Admittedly this is a little out there but)
Players in the Sin Bin must do physical activity.

While watching a match I often hear people say he gets a 10 min rest in the bin. To counter this player has to cycle or run a set distance on the side line. This could be gauged by average distances covered during 10 mins of play. So if the average distance is 7.2km (Google) that means .875km on threadmill or converted to a distance for an exercise bike.

Basically instead of sitting around having a rest you have to use up energy.



Rolling/throwing the ball away when a penalty is awarded.

This one is to speed up the game and increase number/opportunity of tap and go penalties/free kicks.

When a Ref makes a call the ball is immediately relinquished to the opposition. If this does not happen whatever distance the ball ends up from site of the infringement the restart is moved forward and the restart happens there.

For example

Team concedes a penalty from crossing. Players kicks ball in frustration. It lands 25 meters from the location of penalty so penalty is moved forward 25 meters.

Penalty at a scrum and No 8 runs back with ball in hand and places it on the ground 9 meters from the scrum thereby preventing a quick tap the ref moves penalty forward 9 meters.

Maybe the rule should be ball must be placed at ref feet. But either way restarts happen quicker and we have more running rugby.



Injuries treated off the pitch.

I have seen it many times where a scrum is called and there is a prop kneeling down with a sponge on his neck drinking water. Meanwhile the rest of the team are having a rest drinking water and having a chat. So if you are injured you are treated off the pitch and the game goes on with out you.

This idea came to me before I heard Brian O Driscoll on Off the Ball, it just reinforced the idea. BOD was talking about a call – Neds Dead – which meant one of the props was to fake an injury at scrum time so they could have a breather. He said Frankie Sheehan told him it was his calf that always needed treatment to get the same result for Munster.

BOD also said because you have a minute or two it was a chance to reorganise in defence and take some pressure off if things were not going well.

Stop the chance for a debate means more pressure on defending teams and hopefully more trys. Again come back to more running and less standing around.

A caveat to this is for serious injuries obviously player welfare comes first. So for serious/potentially serious injury game stops but once stabilised any further treatment happens pitch side similar to blood subs/concussion tests.



Breakdown

I am not 100% on the policing of this one but it is a bug bear of mine.

I hate seeing a scrum half positioning a ball with his foot to a better position inside a ruck before he picks it up.

I think feet should be the same as hands so if a srum half moves the ball backwards with his foot the ball is out. This would mean attacking teams have to commit more players to the ruck to clear out and defending teams commit players to rucks for chance of turn over. Result would be more space out wide.




The Elephant in the Room – The Scrum

We all know that we see lots of incomplete scrums and lots of time is wasted. Now I love watching scrums and don’t want them taken out of the game. If a team is technically superior great reward them with penalties all day long but something needs to happen to improve the spectacle. 2 ideas are

Hingeing.

‘’the practice of hinging, where a loosehead levers down from the waist deflecting the tighthead towards the ground. Officials see the tighthead on the floor, the loosehead still on his feet and penalise the tighthead, even though it is not his fault.’’ A Paul Ackford quote from the Telegraph.

When a player is penalised for Hingeing I think it should be a straight yellow card. As well as mucking up a scrum I think it is a deliberate attempt to blame opposition and con the Ref.


Scrum Feeds

I am totally robbing this one from football. The white spray in football should be used to draw a line at the location of a scrum. The ball must travel straight along this line between both front rows.

Makes scrums more competitive as ball is not thrown into second rows and easier to police for Touch Judge and Ref as they can see from a distance if the ball is on the line.

Also both hookers may need to be more agile to actually hook ball and so may not be as heavy/bigger meaning they can run more and thus speeding up the game.


Both my suggestions I believe would mean more time spent scrummaging in training working on technique and less time in the gym meaning fitter lighter and faster players.


I am sure that not all my ideas will meet with universal approval - idea at the breakdown - but I suppose I just want to start a constructive debate.
Treat life like a dog: If you can't eat it, play with it, or hump it, p1$$ on it and walk away!
User avatar
IanD
Official Mascot
 
Posts: 1469
Joined: May 2nd, 2006, 1:51 pm
Location: Wicklow Town

Re: Changes to Rugby Laws

Postby All Blacks nil » June 10th, 2015, 2:39 pm

IanD wrote:Reduce the time allowed for penalty kicks and conversations.

.


Classic predictive text/typo
All Blacks nil
Mullet
 
Posts: 1920
Joined: December 15th, 2013, 11:52 pm

Re: Changes to Rugby Laws

Postby ormond lad » June 10th, 2015, 4:20 pm

I don't see limiting the number of subs being used or working. You need 3 front rows on bench to help reduce likelihood of uncontested scrums occurring.

Reducing time for kicks isn't needed and certainly wont see more kicks to corner and more tries being scored.
I don't see any point in making players in the bin do physical activity it doesn't aid the game

On "Rolling/throwing the ball away when a penalty is awarded" within the existing laws the referee can move a penalty up 10 metres if the infringing team acts the b*****x so your proposal is already in place. Don't think any distance of moving a penalty should be allowed

Your proposal for the breakdown would be chaos and horrible to referee. It would be a mess and make breakdown harder to manage than it currently is. By making foot=hands you would have more penalties for in the side, disputes over whether ball is in/out etc and game management is more difficult
ormond lad
Knowledgeable
 
Posts: 487
Joined: September 30th, 2010, 5:04 pm

Re: Changes to Rugby Laws

Postby leinsterforever » June 10th, 2015, 4:39 pm

What they do in league is stop the clock after a minute when a kick is being taken so no more time is used up - seems sensible

I don't think this white spray to ensure straight scrum feeds thing would work because the tunnel won't necessarily be parallel to the goal-line
leinsterforever
Mullet
 
Posts: 1166
Joined: March 18th, 2015, 2:20 am

Re: Changes to Rugby Laws

Postby offshorerules » June 15th, 2015, 4:13 pm

leinsterforever wrote:What they do in league is stop the clock after a minute when a kick is being taken so no more time is used up - seems sensible



I agree.
"POC will not be going to Toulon" - All Blacks nil » May 27th, 2015, 12:18 am
User avatar
offshorerules
Isa Nacewa
 
Posts: 2200
Joined: October 19th, 2012, 1:51 pm
Location: The Beverly Hills of South County Dublin

Re: Changes to Rugby Laws

Postby munster#1 » June 15th, 2015, 5:16 pm

One aspect that I would love to get rid of is the mark. I think this is such a negative aspect in rugby. I would love to see teams being able to isolate a wing or fullback and send runners at him.

Imo this would create a much more attacking game, and you would see less kicking for touch.
User avatar
munster#1
Brian O'Driscoll
 
Posts: 3927
Joined: June 18th, 2009, 3:47 pm

Re: Changes to Rugby Laws

Postby LeRouxIsPHat » June 15th, 2015, 5:24 pm

Surely that would result in more kicking because the attacking team would send loads of chasers for garryowens so that they could destroy the defender when he caught it?

I think they could give more freedom for tap and gos not being from the mark, especially off scrums.

Anyway, some laws were clarified today: http://www.worldrugby.org/news/76048
User avatar
LeRouxIsPHat
Leo Cullen
 
Posts: 12992
Joined: January 22nd, 2009, 8:49 pm

Re: Changes to Rugby Laws

Postby munster#1 » June 15th, 2015, 8:46 pm

LeRouxIsPHat wrote:Surely that would result in more kicking because the attacking team would send loads of chasers for garryowens so that they could destroy the defender when he caught it?

I think they could give more freedom for tap and gos not being from the mark, especially off scrums.

Anyway, some laws were clarified today: http://www.worldrugby.org/news/76048


It would give extra power to the attacking team, and increase the flow in games.

How often do we see teams attacking, only for a kick to be over cooked and land in the hands of the only player left back. This player in turn wastes around a minute of play while waiting patiently for his team to get back to the 22.

The game of rugby has become so stop start that is has become the norm for a lot of people to record a match and watch it later so they can fast forward the numerous stops. An 80 minute game that takes 120 minutes not including the half time break is not a shock.

Imo the irb need to look at ways to increase the time that the ball stays in play and reduce the stoppages.

Imo the choke tackle needs to go too, I know munster and Ireland have benefited from this more than anyone, but again it is negative rugby, which favours the defending team.

The game of rugby should favour the attacking team in all facets of the game, which would force teams to play more positive rugby, and become smarter defenders.
User avatar
munster#1
Brian O'Driscoll
 
Posts: 3927
Joined: June 18th, 2009, 3:47 pm

Re: Changes to Rugby Laws

Postby enby » June 16th, 2015, 7:36 am

even though Ireland benefitted so much from it all season, I hate the box kick. I also cannot stand the kick tennis sessions that blight so many games. Teams should be actively discouraged from kicking possession away. I would therefore suggest 2 changes to the mark: extend its ambit from the defending 22 to the defending half and allow the catcher to kick straight into touch. Initially that would result in more stoppages in the game but eventually teams in possession would get the message. I suppose that a possible downside of this idea would be more congestion as the back 3 might not lie so deep but is it worth a shot?

I would also consider a rule change on missed drop goals/penalty kicks by awarding the defending team a scrum from the place the ball was kicked rather than making them return the ball to the opposition by a 22 drop out.

Finally, why not just stop the clock for place kicks?
enby
Graduate
 
Posts: 537
Joined: May 20th, 2011, 3:57 pm

Re: Changes to Rugby Laws

Postby LeRouxIsPHat » June 16th, 2015, 12:08 pm

I don't think that's the way to encourage people to keep the ball in hand. To do that I think World Rugby needs to do things like enforce the offside line and let the attacking team away with more at the breakdown e.g. Nigel Owens letting attacking teams come in from the side. Not sure how you police that tbh but you could certainly be harsher on defending teams not rolling away etc.

I don't actually think kick tennis is a massive issue these days but if you go back to 2007 when it was and the changes that were made in terms of not being able to pass back in to the 22 and then kick it straight out, it hasn't really encouraged teams to keep the ball in hand, just changed the nature of the kicking. IMO you don't want to have barriers to kicking, you want to be facilitated to run the ball, there's a difference.
User avatar
LeRouxIsPHat
Leo Cullen
 
Posts: 12992
Joined: January 22nd, 2009, 8:49 pm

Re: Changes to Rugby Laws

Postby Lamb of BOD » June 18th, 2015, 2:00 pm

How about widening the difference between a penalty and a try? It strikes me as a little silly that a couple of duff infringements on halfway can result in the concession of more points than an unconverted, well-worked try in the corner. If they want to keep it at 5 + 2 for a try, maybe drop a penalty goal to 2 points (i'd leave a drop goal at 3 as it's a more difficult, and less frequently completed/attempted skill). Or go 6 + 1 or 6+ 2 even for a try?

LeRouxIsPHat wrote:to encourage people to keep the ball in hand ... World Rugby needs to do things like enforce the offside line .

+1 to that. There can surely be nothing that stops attacking play more than offside defending. It's also extremely annoying as a spectator, particularly as it seems to me (although I'll admit a bias) that Irish teams are more respectful of the offside line than teams from France, New Zealand etc
User avatar
Lamb of BOD
Enlightened
 
Posts: 809
Joined: June 27th, 2012, 3:46 pm
Location: Caught Somewhere In Time

Re: Changes to Rugby Laws

Postby Dave Cahill » June 18th, 2015, 2:29 pm

Lamb of BOD wrote:How about widening the difference between a penalty and a try? It strikes me as a little silly that a couple of duff infringements on halfway can result in the concession of more points than an unconverted, well-worked try in the corner. If they want to keep it at 5 + 2 for a try, maybe drop a penalty goal to 2 points (i'd leave a drop goal at 3 as it's a more difficult, and less frequently completed/attempted skill). Or go 6 + 1 or 6+ 2 even for a try?


Then wheres the penalty for foul play? The penalty has to be significant enough to make discipline worthwhile. If you made the penalty less significant, then you'd have less good play and well worked tries as the defence would have less reason to interfere illicitly.
I have Bumbleflex
User avatar
Dave Cahill
Gordon D'Arcy
 
Posts: 22357
Joined: January 24th, 2006, 4:32 pm
Location: None of your damn business

Re: Changes to Rugby Laws

Postby Lamb of BOD » June 18th, 2015, 6:13 pm

Dave Cahill wrote:Then wheres the penalty for foul play? The penalty has to be significant enough to make discipline worthwhile. If you made the penalty less significant, then you'd have less good play and well worked tries as the defence would have less reason to interfere illicitly.

That is an absolutely valid argument. I guess I had in mind a 3 pointer given away in the instance that a player standing in front of a teammate who know a ball forward instinctively grabbing that ball. I also wouldn't consider a penal;ty for holding onto the ball on the ground to be worth half what a try is - in the greater scheme of things. Incidents of more excessive foul play carry other sanctions (yellow and red cards) - the departure of a player for 10 minutes would outweigh the loss of one of the three penalty points (imo)
User avatar
Lamb of BOD
Enlightened
 
Posts: 809
Joined: June 27th, 2012, 3:46 pm
Location: Caught Somewhere In Time

Re: Changes to Rugby Laws

Postby LeRouxIsPHat » June 18th, 2015, 6:28 pm

I'm not against the 6+1 idea but there might be a problem in that it could lead to a lot of draws.

As frustrating as it is and as much as it needs to be stamped out, I actually love cynical play sometimes. Really it can just be great defending. I'd love if it was possible for it to become a legitimate tactic like at the end of basketball games when players just keep fouling so that the winning team can't waste time. Can't think of a scenario where it would be plausible but a boy can dream.
User avatar
LeRouxIsPHat
Leo Cullen
 
Posts: 12992
Joined: January 22nd, 2009, 8:49 pm

Re: Changes to Rugby Laws

Postby Lamb of BOD » June 18th, 2015, 7:52 pm

LeRouxIsPHat wrote:I'm not against the 6+1 idea but there might be a problem in that it could lead to a lot of draws.

As frustrating as it is and as much as it needs to be stamped out, I actually love cynical play sometimes. Really it can just be great defending. I'd love if it was possible for it to become a legitimate tactic like at the end of basketball games when players just keep fouling so that the winning team can't waste time. Can't think of a scenario where it would be plausible but a boy can dream.

How many times to we see teams committing similar 'professional fouls' when under the cosh near their own line? Obviously the concession of a penalty is preferable to leaking a try. For the attacking side a shot at goal from under the sticks is tough to turn down, but maybe the more attacking option would be considered if the penalty was only worth 2. Just a thought. In the States, the NFL have just introduced a rule change to try to encourage more teams to eschew the point-after in favour of trying for a 2-point conversion
User avatar
Lamb of BOD
Enlightened
 
Posts: 809
Joined: June 27th, 2012, 3:46 pm
Location: Caught Somewhere In Time

Re: Changes to Rugby Laws

Postby LeRouxIsPHat » June 18th, 2015, 8:01 pm

Oh we see it all the time, I just meant that I think the guy who does that probably deserves a pat on the back for good defending as much as he deserves a slap in the face for ruining the game!
User avatar
LeRouxIsPHat
Leo Cullen
 
Posts: 12992
Joined: January 22nd, 2009, 8:49 pm

Re: Changes to Rugby Laws

Postby ormond lad » June 20th, 2015, 11:22 pm

munster#1 wrote:One aspect that I would love to get rid of is the mark. I think this is such a negative aspect in rugby. I would love to see teams being able to isolate a wing or fullback and send runners at him.

Imo this would create a much more attacking game, and you would see less kicking for touch.
I don't see how getting rid of the mark would create a more attacking game and it wouldn't see much less kicking for touch, it would see more kicking IMO. Isolated wingers/full backs will still be kicking to clear their lines especially if caught under pressure from several opposition
ormond lad
Knowledgeable
 
Posts: 487
Joined: September 30th, 2010, 5:04 pm

Re: Changes to Rugby Laws

Postby Ruckedtobits » September 1st, 2015, 11:07 pm

Interesting to see that 2nd level of Welsh League is to be allowed experiment with 6 point try and 2 points for all kicks from this weekend.

Wonder how that would have worked for last two 6Ns?

On the other hand, why bother even trying to figure it. The different scoring system would have created a different decision sequence, so that the scoring would probably not bbenthe same anyway.
Ruckedtobits
Shane Horgan
 
Posts: 4729
Joined: April 10th, 2011, 10:23 am


Return to General Rugby

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest