[Law] Welsh Law Experiment

[Dickie E]

If defences are being careful not to infringe, how does that fail to improve attacking opportunities

I'm not commenting on attacking opportunities. I'm commenting on the "have a shot at goal, go and get the ball, set a scrum" trudge. The intent is to get on with what the punters have come to watch.

In any event, this will be an opportunity for you to see if a cheat's charter has been created and whether your 20 year old idea was worth hanging onto.

 

[Pegleg]

If defences are being careful not to infringe, how does that fail to improve attacking opportunities

If the game is slowed down and going back for the scrum will certainly do that, the game will slow even further.

This actual trial will see a lot of driving line outs for push over 6 point tries in the corner. I can hardly wait to watch that.

Do you know I don't even know when the RWC starts. I don't know the dates of any Wales games or the date of the final. A few years ago that would have been unbelieveable. The game is turgid and something needs to be done. I can't see this helping.

I asked the question earlier about the number for tries and, by inference, the effect on "attacking attrsactive" rugby produced in the past by the 3-4 and 4-5 point changes in scoring. both moves that were presumably intended to make the game more attractive. I wonder did those changes worked? And if they did why do we need to do it again?

Welcome to juggernaught packs trundling over from driving 5 mtr line outs. The brave new World is here?

 

[didds]

It just seems like a case of double jeopardy. How many times should a team be punished for one offense?

?? Its not one offense though - it is a PK for every offense. Don't offend, full stop.

WRT the scrummage strength situation I do have sympathies with what you allude to - but that is as much the modern prediliction for penalising a retreating scrum not because they have cheated willfully, but because the opposition's strengths have broken them in a manner that transgresses a law.

didds

 

[OB..]

I'm not commenting on attacking opportunities. I'm commenting on the "have a shot at goal, go and get the ball, set a scrum" trudge. The intent is to get on with what the punters have come to watch.

That can only happen if the defenders keep giving away penalties despite the disadvantages - and if they do it is then time for the referee to start awarding cards.

In any event, this will be an opportunity for you to see if a cheat's charter has been created and whether your 20 year old idea was worth hanging onto.

It will indeed be interesting to see what happens (but I see no reason to believe that my idea is no longer valid simply because it has, unsurprisingly, been ignored for so long). It may take a while for coaches to work out how best to capitalise on the changes.

 

[Dickie E]

Is this competition now up & running? Any feedback yet on the cheat's charter concern?

 

[Pegleg]

THe main effect has been an abundence of kick to the corner followed by catch and drives leading to penalty tries. I understand one team has picked up a PT in every game so far. Yellow cards going through the roof. True there are less PKs at goal. One side scored their first penalty if the season in game 7! Has is produced "running rugby". NO just kick to the corner and catch and drive. Boring as X factor!


All in all it's not working.

 

[crossref]

What change is it that makes a PT easier to get?

 

[Pegleg]

Instead of going for two points the kick to the corner is considered a better return try 6 points and 8 if converted. So the catch and drive is the preferred tactic. Especially as a PT is a straight 8 pointer.

 

[Phil E]

Has is produced "running rugby". NO just kick to the corner and catch and drive.

Sounds like rugby heaven to me. Your obviously not a forward :chin:

 

[Pegleg]

You're missing the point.

The idea of the trial is to increase running rugby and improve the spectacle. All it has produced is turgid catch and drive. If that was the idea then fair enough.

Personally, I played across the Front row. I enjoy a bit of forward muscle play but this is just dull. However, the power that be will probably agree its a great success because tries are being scored. For me it's another nail in the coffin of rugby as a game for all shapes and sizes

 

[crossref]

but is the problem caused by the 6-point try, or is it caused by the maul laws, so that a catch and drive is difficult to legally defend? (something we are seeing at the RWC).

 

[Pegleg]

It's both.

The increase in the value of the try and the devaluation of the PK means that it is more atractive to take the 5mtr driving maul from the line out. We all know driving line outs are near impossible to defend. So close to the goal line that problem is increased.

I've been saying for years that increasing the value of the try and lowering the value of the PG will increase the probability of defending sides taking illegal means to stop tries. So we have the insentive to avoid 6 or 8 and concede 2 instead. That coupled with the maul issue we have a a double whammy as sides go for the short range catch and drive that is so hard to defend.

We are seeing few "tap and goes". Why? Simple! the money ball is the maul.

 

[crossref]

hmmm..

In general it's a very wierd thing about rugby union,, that when you win a PK, often the most attractive and constructive attacking move you can do with it is .... kick the ball off the field.

People are so used to it they don't see it as at all odd -- but it is!
Many many sports include some sort of free kick / hit / pass awarded to the oppo after an offence. I can't think of any other sport where the popular option is to kick the ball off the pitch.

 

[Rushforth]

People are so used to it they don't see it as at all odd -- but it is!

Not really. Rugby, like many other sports, is a contest for points, but these are rewards for having the upper hand in territory and/or possession.

A PK has options for guaranteed possession (run it), committing defenders (scrum it) whilst likely keeping possession, and gaining territory at the expense of again a slightly lower chance of retaining possession (LO) all other things being equal, as well of course as to score three points if in range.

I find the LO much more attractive as an athletic contest than the scrum (despite having played all over the front row).

6+2/2/2 instead of 5+2/3/3 means that it becomes impossible to overtake the opposition with a single penalty or DG. As it is, in a close game, a late goal has 1/4 chance of breaking a draw, 1/2 of overtaking from 1 or 2 points behind, and 1/4 of equalizing. This becomes 50/50 for the first and last options.

 

[Pegleg]

Exactly Rushforth! A footballer kicking the ball off the field concedes the ball to the other side. Rugby is different.

 

[Camquin]

American Football you often run off the pitch with the ball to secure your yardage.
Question for OB - am I right in thinking that getting the throw after the penalty is relatively new.

The maul can be defended - cf England v Wales.
But more discussion of how the maul is refereed should proably be elsewhere.

 

[Pegleg]

I did not say you could not defend it at all. However, it is very difficult to do so. Much easier when the attacking side (cf England) are poor at executing the maul.

 

[pedr]

Can anyone think of ways to make more penalties into tap and go?

Perhaps require anyone who wasn't back 10m to go back that far before tackling/approaching ball carrier, even after ball carrier has run 5m? Or making penalised team go back 20m/wait until ball carrier has run 10m?

Line out will still be preferable if the penalty is close to the goal line, but perhaps an infringement within 15m resulting in a maul and a likely try (and tough conversion, if the defenders let it be scored rather than collapse) is a fair punishment.

 

[crossref]

Danny Care taps and goes a lot. It's an under used tactic in my opinion...

 

[buff]

"Or making penalised team go back 20m/wait until ball carrier has run 10m?"
A 20m run into contact risks getting a lot of people hurt.