"Hit the nail on the head.
Stop faffing about with the laws and impose them as they WERE written.
I still can’t find laws to back up known offences in the new law book."
Here, Here...Yes Yes Yes....quit messing with the laws...we have so many laws now that the game at most levels is incredible confusing.
Example: On one referee's forum there was a a posting of a photo of an SA player coming through to grab the ball from the Lions scrum- half. There are at present 72 comments about the incident......most in various degrees of agreement and disagreement, to complete disagreement. Look at this forum, we cant get an agreement better than 50% of the time
Increasing the use of Free Kicks may be part of the answer
Reducing or restricting the box kicks may lead to more ball in hand time but I don't feel the 50/22 or similar is the answer.
But that wasnt the intention of the 50/22 of course.
didds
Primary intention
To encourage the defensive team to put more players in the backfield, thereby creating more attacking space and reducing defensive line speed.
"Hit the nail on the head.
Stop faffing about with the laws and impose them as they WERE written.
I still can’t find laws to back up known offences in the new law book."
Here, Here...Yes Yes Yes....quit messing with the laws...we have so many laws now that the game at most levels is incredible confusing.
Example: On one referee's forum there was a a posting of a photo of an SA player coming through to grab the ball from the Lions scrum- half. There are at present 72 comments about the incident......most in various degrees of agreement and disagreement, to complete disagreement. Look at this forum, we cant get an agreement better than 50% of the time
Noone, I hope, is saying that every law is perfect. BUT if the elite game at least tried the laws we would fing out which laws don't work and which do. All we know at the moment "Law Lottery" does not work.
. There are at present 72 comments about the incident......most in various degrees of agreement and disagreement, to complete disagreement. Look at this forum, we cant get an agreement better than 50% of the time
The horse has exited the stable in Elite rugby - no point shutting the door now with regard to "enforce exisiting laws". The downstream ramifications of that would about kill the game as a tv spectacle - and we need the tv money.
Coaches don't want to lose - they study the stats and work out the best way to avoid that. If there is a X% chance of a try from turnover ball, they'll give the ball to the opposition in order to work their chances for a turnover.
Rucks ended up the way they did because no-one wanted to cough the ball at the breakdown. As a result, we're in a form of death spiral where WR has to come up with 'fixes' to what the coaches and players are doing, and we end up with move and countermove.
"Scrum not working - OK, we'll introduce THIS"
Coaches work out THIS and start to take advantage of it.
"Scrum still not working? Let's try THAT"
Elite referees have to admit their historic complicity in the game ending up where it has, no doubt encouraged by their Lords and Masters.
Very very few of the issues at the Elite level exist lower down the match pyramid. Maybe it's time we admit that we have two types of game, and have two different types of laws.
i think it kind of was
But changes would "kill the game as a TV spectacle"? Surely that's already happened/happening..
this is the problem when you try and make sport into entertainment.
When I step onto a stage I am there to entertain as my primary motivation.
When I step(ped!) onto a rugby/cricket/football/hockey pitch my primary motivation is playing the game - hopefully winning (amateur obvs). It wasnt to ensure that anybody watching got maximum entertainment. When you ally people's livelihood into the outcome of that sport that increases that dichotomy.
Sport cannot be primarily entertainment. its a real problem when it is then acting as if it is.
didds
Look at rugby from CVR point of view -- CVR are the money in rugby.
They don't care about who wins and who loses.
They care about the quality of the game,to play and to watch .
I'm pretty sure CVC care about winning
I suppose both want to make money?Their definition of a win may not coincide with the views of the teams.
I'm pretty sure CVC care about winning