Has the game been ruined?

[didds]

"There's no rucks. There's no mauls. The tackle laws, the line-out laws."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/63834165

welll.. there IS/ARE.

BUT=

At the elite end in particular the LAWS need to be blown as written.
When you permit bodies to fly around at ruck time an end up everywhere then you get the mess that are modern elite ruck with people off their feet, leading to head clashes because defenders have no target to get under "at" to drive attacking supporters away. "Supporting your own weight" (SOW)is now almost meaningless as full time athletes can train to be able to create a stable position with shoulders below hips (SBH) - so maybe SBH should be the criteria rather than SOW ?

I really don't see his issue with lineouts - lifting his a far cleaner procedure and gives eg props something positive to do... back in the day my job was to twat an opponent/barge the oppose jumper if his blockers weren't quick enough to step in then twat ME. I don't see these issues when I go an watch Devizes play at L6. Maybe its me and you guys see the same as level 1 down at level 12?

 

[didds]

What laws would he like to reverse? Or improve?
Complaining is easy; providing answers and solutions is far more difficult.

Aghree entirely - see my post #21. I share some of PT's frustrations - but hes very long on whinge and very short of detail. Maybe he's watched too much Dab biggar?

 

[Phil E]

The best games of International rugby I've seen in the last few years have been the Women's World Cup. The games with the most ball in play? Go on, guess....

And add negative points for penalties awarded against you.

Totally agree about the Women's game.

negative points for penalties would be hilarious in the weeds. Final score Old Bogtonians -23 v Old Farts -14

 

[RedCapRef]

negative points for penalties would be hilarious in the weeds. Final score Old Bogtonians -23 v Old Farts -14

In league points it would have merit. More than 10 penalties against you in a game and lose one league point.

Could still have a team end the season on minus points though.

 

[Phil E]

In league points it would have merit. More than 10 penalties against you in a game and lose one league point.

Could still have a team end the season on minus points though.

Would also involve the referee having to note down every penalty, which would effectively stop quick penalties.

 

[crossref]

we could tot up and penalise YC - but I wouldn't be in favour that. I wouldn't like to think that me giving a YC cost a team league points.

 

[didds]

particularly when you later find out the bloke you YCd for not rolling away ended up in hospital with concussion, as he was actually unconscious post tackle...

 

[Phil E]

particularly when you later find out the bloke you YCd for not rolling away ended up in hospital with concussion, as he was actually unconscious post tackle...

Poor excuse

 

[crossref]

seriously though, a YC can sometime be the perfect management tool and total appropriate for that game -- but you might think twice if if the totting up could cost a team league points and relegation/promotion

Also there is a lot of inconsistency amongst refs. Teams could lose out/benefit from the refs they happen to get

 

[SimonSmith]

In league points it would have merit. More than 10 penalties against you in a game and lose one league point.

Could still have a team end the season on minus points though.

Yeah, that was more what I was thinking of. Bonus points, negative BPs

 

[SimonSmith]

we could tot up and penalise YC - but I wouldn't be in favour that. I wouldn't like to think that me giving a YC cost a team league points.

It might be necessary.

As you incentiviuze teams to score tries, you necessarily are creating an incentive for teams to stop tries being scored. How do kill that incentive? Well, by measuring PKS - or YCs, which is a good amendment - and allowing them to carry a BP penalty. Every XX of them means -1 BPs.

 

[Balones]

Okay, one solution to scrums.
If scrum goes down, reset. Next scrum that goes down, reset and go uncontested - the ground is obviously unstable and making it dangerous. At the highest levels send the guilty parties off for ten minutes and try with new people. If this fails, revert to solution one. Put the onus on the players to keep it up.
If a scrum pops up I have in the past always recommended penalising the side going forward. This usually keeps it down.
Too radical?

 

[crossref]

I dunno .. do we end up with both sides saying "we wanted to contest, but referee stopped it"

(Even though one of them probably didn't )

 

[Balones]

I dunno .. do we end up with both sides saying "we wanted to contest, but referee stopped it"

(Even though one of them probably didn't )

You can still contest. It just has to be done legally. I.e. by pushing and not trying to gain a penalty by collapsing, driving up. Driving in can still be penalised with a penalty but that would be the onlh offence. What I am suggesting I believe make them actually contest legally and both sets of front row would work hard to keep his opposite number up or down so it is all about pushing and nothing else to grt dominance and create a contest. It is up to the players and nobody can say the ref is stopping it.

 

[crossref]

Okay, one solution to scrums.
If scrum goes down, reset. Next scrum that goes down, reset and go uncontested - the ground is obviously unstable and making it dangerous.

That bit though..

 

[Dickie E]

I'd drop the number of players to 13. In this day of huge mobile players there is just too much human flesh on the field. The obvious candidates would be the flankers. Their main role is to disrupt the opposition attack as much as possible and with 4 of them doing it, makes for a lot of mess.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

I would ditch this mockery of one set of laws for everyone, and have a professional set of laws for TV rugby and another set for real rugby.

I've been calling for that for years.

 

[Jarrod Burton]

I'd drop the number of players to 13. In this day of huge mobile players there is just too much human flesh on the field. The obvious candidates would be the flankers. Their main role is to disrupt the opposition attack as much as possible and with 4 of them doing it, makes for a lot of mess.

Flankers would just move to the centres and disrupt from there.

 

[SimonSmith]

I'd drop the number of players to 13. In this day of huge mobile players there is just too much human flesh on the field. The obvious candidates would be the flankers. Their main role is to disrupt the opposition attack as much as possible and with 4 of them doing it, makes for a lot of mess.

I think this is driven by only have two, three max, in the breakdown when in Olden Times five, or seven, would be committed. BIG difference.

 

[Dickie E]

The jackler, in my opinion, has just fucked the game. It makes the ruck non contestable,

I don't see how that makes sense. The jackler is the one & only way that the non ball-carrying team can contest the breakdown/ruck. Without a jackler a half decent ball-carrying team would just endlessly recycle until they score or win a PK.

What the law makers want is for the ball-carrying team to maintain possession at the breakdown 80% of the time. Less than that, they'll play the percentages and have a propensity to kick. More than that, and the defending team won't bother committing at the breakdown and will clog up the backline.