law change thought

[Dickie E]

an International referee told us today at a development meeting that if he could change 1 law, it would be that the referee fed the ball into the scrum. I have some sympathy with this idea. Thoughts?

 

[Marc Wakeham]

How does the referee watch everything he else (props / flankers etc) if he is bend down putting the ball in?


This one is not for me.

 

[BikingBud]

Too much to watch at scrums to have the ref doing other things.

Perhaps 5 m offside lines at rucks?

 

[Volun-selected]

an International referee told us today at a development meeting that if he could change 1 law, it would be that the referee fed the ball into the scrum. I have some sympathy with this idea. Thoughts?

Or they could, I dunno, just enforce the current law?

 

[Volun-selected]

For a new law - “No jumping for the ball on the field of play outside of the lineout or to keep the ball out of touch”. Takes care of a personal bugbear for me.

 

[crossref]

For unsuccessful mauls, give the ball to the team going forward

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Or they could, I dunno, just enforce the current law?

Now you are just being silly!

Learn the mantra. "ignore the law until they are changed"

 

[buff]

Too much to watch at scrums to have the ref doing other things.

Perhaps 5 m offside lines at rucks?

I hope not. Offside lines beyond the back foot are easy enough to manage at set pieces, but would be much more difficult in a more dynamic situation.

 

[BikingBud]

I hope not. Offside lines beyond the back foot are easy enough to manage at set pieces, but would be much more difficult in a more dynamic situation.

And because they are not managed in the dynamic situation it stifles attacking play.

So by moving them to a more obvious 5 meters then encroaching becomes more more obvious and goes the attacking team more scope for creative and attractive play.

Also will get rid of the abomination, the caterpillar.

 

[didds]

Too much to watch at scrums to have the ref doing other things.

Perhaps 5 m offside lines at rucks?

How do you then join a ruck that has formed?

 

[didds]

For unsuccessful mauls, give the ball to the team going forward

Like you used to do before June-ish 1992?

Radical

 

[didds]

And because they are not managed in the dynamic situation it stifles attacking play.

So by moving them to a more obvious 5 meters then encroaching becomes more more obvious and goes the attacking team more scope for creative and attractive play.

Also will get rid of the abomination, the caterpillar.

assuming people can join a ruck that has already formed, it wont.
If they cant join a ruck that has formed then all rucks are now 1 v 1 over the ball. Maybe that is an acceptable idea of course.

 

[tim White]

Said it before;- ignore unintentional fumbles that give no clear advantage (They almost always provide a disadvantage to the fumbler's team)

 

[crossref]

Said it before;- ignore unintentional fumbles that give no clear advantage (They almost always provide a disadvantage to the fumbler's team)

I would like to see that trialled
Law change would be that a knock on is not an offence, unless it causes the knocking on team to get an advantage (rare)

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

How does the referee watch everything he else (props / flankers etc) if he is bend down putting the ball in?


This one is not for me.

How about. Put the ball on the floor about 500mm from tunnel on loose head side. SHs round the other side. After CBS and stable. Ref sidefoots ball in?

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

Or drop ball and kick it in.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

How about. Put the ball on the floor about 500mm from tunnel on loose head side. SHs round the other side. After CBS and stable. Ref sidefoots ball in?

Sorry I thought you were serious for a moment.

 

[SimonSmith]

I would like to see that trialled
Law change would be that a knock on is not an offence, unless it causes the knocking on team to get an advantage (rare)

Blue 15 knocks on in the 22.
Goes to ground to recover.
A ruck forms over him.

Does that constitute an advantage? His team has recovered possession, but are under defensive pressure.

 

[crossref]

Blue 15 knocks on in the 22.
Goes to ground to recover.
A ruck forms over him.

Does that constitute an advantage? His team has recovered possession, but are under defensive pressure.

No, the fumble was to his disadvantage, play on.

 

[didds]

SH reaches into the ruck to grab the ball, knocks on while the ball is still "in" the ruck.

Oppo cant play it - ball in ruck.

SH hasn't been disadvantaged.

presumably that IS a KO?