Focus for Changes

[BikingBud]

Given the recent spectacles of international rugby, SA v Lions being pretty dull and uninspiring and in the press for many of the wrong reasons and the Bedisloe Cup with excellent demonstrations of skill, speed, flair, risk taking and decision making what should WR do to get the game back to honest values and endeavour?

 

[Marc Wakeham]

How about this?
Try applying the existing laws for a few seasons to see if they work before chucking a new lot for the elite guys to pick and choose from before we start the whole process again.

 

[Camquin]

While not at international level, the Bristol v Quins semi and the Quins v Exeter final were games of beauty. The Exeter v Sale game was not bad either.

227 points and 30 tries over 300 minutes of rugby - Bristol v Quins went to extra time.

 

[Zebra1922]

The fact that some games are exciting, and most games have much more in play time that the Lions/SA tests suggests its not simply a problem with the laws. Some teams will always take things to the limit (and beyond) - but also if they don’t want to participate in a ‘good’ game of rugby there is little you can do to force them.

As Marc said, apply the existing laws. Reduce scrum resets by penalising at the first collapse - someone is doing something wrong, pick someone and penalise. Enforce the time people are allowed to form a scrum or line out. Just a couple.

There is a problem with too many injury stoppages in some games, unfortunately I don’t have a solution for that as you can’t run the risk of forcing a player to play on injured. Maybe apply a law like football where if a player needs treatment they must leave the field afterwards and come on during the next passage of play.

I would like the number of substitutes reduced - won’t solve the FR problems as you still need a full FR on the bench, but maybe reduce to 5 subs (incl the full FR)?

 

[belladonna]

Last time I saw the U20 6N it was so much more fun to watch than the grown-up version because they waste si little time at restarts and rucks are well, rucks - you know, players actually on their feet over the ball, shock horror.

 

[Jolly Roger]

How about this?
Try applying the existing laws for a few seasons to see if they work before chucking a new lot for the elite guys to pick and choose from before we start the whole process again.

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.
I have been involved in rugby as a player, coach and referee for over 40 years. I love the game and all that goes with it. I am a club man, referee and father of an 18 yo who is passionate about playing. He is not interested in watching rugby on the TV (other than Scotland and then would far rather be at Murrayfield)

I have watched two U20s club friendlies and a 7s tournament in the past 9 days and thoroughly enjoyed myself. I have seem some great rugby, seen some great friends (for the first time in a long time) and met lots of great people for the first time.

The Lions tour promised so much but any initiative or imagination was either removed from the team prior to the tests or suppressed by the Springbocks. The negativity was overwhelming.
HOWEVER this was allowed to happen. Time wasting, excessive delays in decisions, woeful video angles, coaches on the pitch, players receiving treatment causing delays, water every 2 mins, despicable behaviour of coaches between games.
What will World Rugby do? Pour them selves another f..ing gin and then look at tinkering with the laws, just to confuse everyone further.

.........and whilst I am at it...

......another thing.....

 

[SimonSmith]

Given the recent spectacles of international rugby, SA v Lions being pretty dull and uninspiring and in the press for many of the wrong reasons and the Bedisloe Cup with excellent demonstrations of skill, speed, flair, risk taking and decision making what should WR do to get the game back to honest values and endeavour?

Which Bledisloe were you watching? The last 20 were good; the last 40 acceptable. The first 40 was abject beyond words in every way.

 

[Dixpat]

Given the recent spectacles of international rugby, SA v Lions being pretty dull and uninspiring and in the press for many of the wrong reasons and the Bedisloe Cup with excellent demonstrations of skill, speed, flair, risk taking and decision making what should WR do to get the game back to honest values and endeavour?

Your taking the piss, surely?

 

[didds]

I saw something on twitter last nigght that may be worth breaking down - though it has one HUGE caveat...

Instead of PKs etc any failed scrum is a reset only. No PKs, No FKs. However - my 2p - to prevent the constant resets killing the clock, the clock is off from scrum award until ball played away. The caveat here though of course being we could end up with grid iron length games and we enter a woprld of live ball when it isnt etc.

I dont have a solution TBH.

Maybe another approach is to increase the scope of Fks which are toothless outsdie of one's own 22m on the whole. An FK award at a scrum typically just gets another scrum (notwithstanding the eventual PK for repeated but now we've spent 5 minutes not scrumming...). Make FKs kickable directly to touch but with conceding the throw (CF within 22m). There may at least be territorial gains available tactically.

All said and done though those are MORE law tweaking I fully accept.

Meanwhile we have scenarios like this now which is just ludicrous - what is the point of a scrummage any longer at these levels - except the obvious PK machine?

 

[Camquin]

Not wanting to sound like Brian Moore - though I will.

Intentionally not putting the ball in straight is a penalty. That is clear, obvious and material.

Not striking for the ball is a penalty. I cannot tell from that picture, but i am willing to bet the South African hooker did not need to strike.

Not binding correctly is also a penalty - which can be called after "bind".
i cannot quit see the binds, but I have seen very many illegal binds over the years that are not penalised.
Intentionally not binding is dangerous so can be a card on the first offence.

We do not need new laws, we need referees who will apply the current ones.

 

[didds]

Amen.

WRT Brian Morre, he's really been very quet omn the whole scrum feed thing for some while. Im guessign he had made his point, the PTB werent/arnt interested, so maybe he gave up bothering as otherwise its just shouting at a vacuum.

He is right of course wrt feeds and the end likely results.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

.



View attachment 4088

correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't there a requirement for SH to stand 1m from tunnel?

Attachment 4088

 

[KoolFork]

I saw something on twitter last nigght that may be worth breaking down - though it has one HUGE caveat...

Instead of PKs etc any failed scrum is a reset only. No PKs, No FKs. However - my 2p - to prevent the constant resets killing the clock, the clock is off from scrum award until ball played away. The caveat here though of course being we could end up with grid iron length games and we enter a woprld of live ball when it isnt etc.]

I just checked the Scrum law to see if the usual preamble was still in place. It is: "The purpose of a scrum is to restart play with a contest for possession after a minor infringement or stoppage."

Does anyone (other than Japan) really believe that any longer? Scrums are penalty opportunities - often very arbitrary.

 

[KoolFork]

It is all very well saying apply the laws as they are written, but it is very difficult. A scrum half has to throw the ball into the scrum. It mustn't hit the ground outside the tunnel , but front row players can't play it until it bounces. If these laws were adhered to, the ball would pop out the other side of the tunnel more often than not.

 

[Camquin]

dids, you obviously did not hear him on Private passions last month. Well worth a listen, especially for the no-rugby parts.
He was asked about scrums and he gave his rant.
But of course, it is clear World Rugby has told referees not to enforce this and therefore there is no need to have a hooker who can hook.
But they are not brave enough to ammend the law book.

Kollfork, practice, if you can hit your jumper fifteen metres away, you can roll the ball three metres.

I would also say that the scrum half cannot touch the ball while it is still in the ruck and cannot stand in front of the back feet. So they are offside at every caterpillar ruck.

 

[didds]

I just checked the Scrum law to see if the usual preamble was still in place. It is: "The purpose of a scrum is to restart play with a contest for possession after a minor infringement or stoppage."

Does anyone (other than Japan) really believe that any longer? Scrums are penalty opportunities - often very arbitrary.

At elite levels - no. scrums are penalty machines.

At community levels I still believe they are genuine contests for the ball. because the refs there blow the laws and dont allow #9s to stand at 45 degrees to the tunnel, with the ball presented inside the tunnel then shioved under the flanker's feet.

 

[dfobrien]

1. To eliminate the depressing plethora of box kicks, and reduce at least somewhat the number of aerial collisions, ban kicking from the base of a scrum or ruck, except inside your own 22.

2. To sort out the tackle issue and bring back offloading, no tackles above the chest/nipples, except …

3. When an opponent drives at you with their head below the normal level of their hips, all bets are off, and the defender can block you any way he can. There was a call in the second test when Mipimbi was pinged for no arms on Cowan-Dickie (I think) who drove at him about one foot above the ground and close to the Boks line. The only chance he had of (a) stopping him AND (b) wrapping his arms was if he had started off underground!

4. Stop ruck abuse (though it might die out anyway if we have banned box kicking). No late caterpillars, no blockers standing idly at the edge of the ruck, and (agree with an earlier poster) scrum half cannot use his foot or advance behind the hind foot of the ruck. Those in the ruck, feet only, those outside it hands only. As soon as scrum half has it in his hands, ruck over ball in play.

5. Yes, some of this is enforcing the existing laws. It was great to see Reynal rule the ball out as AWJ lounged carelessly against a ruck on one hand. He could have done the same a few other times, I felt. Penalise attacking ruckers consistently for going off their feet, and for taking defenders out past the back foot.

6. Not relevant to this series, and not relevant so much anymore at all, but an old bugbear of mine. A unsuccessful drop goal attempt that goes dead should be subject to scrum back as with any other kick that goes dead. Why should your reward for taking hopeful potshots at our goal be that we have to give the ball back to you so you can try again?

But world rugby has to do something. The international game is a mess, and NO-ONE wants to watch matches like the three we have just seen. When I was younger, I preferred (whisper it!) soccer to rugby. Then soccer became boring, defensive, with too much time-wasting and simulation, and contentious refereeing decisions became too influential on the results. Sound familiar? With no ill-will to Dan Biggar, thank goodness Finn Russell came on and changed things a bit on Saturday. The first ten minutes was shaping up to be another aerial snooze-fest like we endured the previous weekend.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

It is all very well saying apply the laws as they are written, but it is very difficult. A scrum half has to throw the ball into the scrum. It mustn't hit the ground outside the tunnel , but front row players can't play it until it bounces. If these laws were adhered to, the ball would pop out the other side of the tunnel more often than not.

The bit in bold it complete nonsense!

 

[BikingBud]

Really do need a like button for a lot of the comments. Applying the laws is key!

It seems show case game has diverged so much from grass roots and most of us want those elements to return to the professional game and not for the game to morph into something else. Competition at scrum, line out, ruck and maul are fundamental and should be none negotiable. Saying that players cannot is not tenable, all players should be able to pass (at professional level off both hands :redface, should be able to maintain depth in a running channel and should be able to hit a 2v1 with extremely high success rate; hookers should be able to throw in straight at line out and hook at scrums, why wouldn't you want fast channel 1 ball to attack with? Corrective therapy to address squint line outs and crooked feeds, the same as has been applied to high tackles and playing people in the air, is relatively straightforward. Will it be deemed to be ruining the game or bringing it back to the required standards?

Reducing replacements may be a priority as we try to ensure we do not go towards basketball or american football and return some benefits to the fitter not necessarily physically larger team.
Scrum penalties remain a lottery but maybe depowering the scrum and ensuring you have hooking again may reduce those.

Increasing the use of Free Kicks may be part of the answer but when the pundits refer to them as "short arm penalties" I keep thinking someone has been washing lined :frown:. Also the deliberate intent as we saw at the weekend of taking the kick away from the mark should have prompted a scrum :sad:

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.

Increasingly frustrating are the antics of the non-players, be they coaches with their thinly veiled and snide digs, water carriers, medical staff (SA physio in goal with a 5m scrum ). Resetting the acceptable bounds of behaviour has to be a significant part of work going forward and it will be interesting to see how the Waterboygate pans out!

I would also welcome authority being vested with the citing commissioner to review and reactively punish cynical play, perhaps via accrued points and then bans. That said Sale became quite adept at performing with reduced numbers, perhaps all yellow cards should also come with the 7 pts of a penalty try:shrug:

 

[Dickie E]

Also the deliberate intent as we saw at the weekend of taking the kick away from the mark should have prompted a scrum :sad:

agree with your sentiment however this quoted statement is not in accordance with law