What law changes would you like?

[Ian_Cook]

It is not a team offence - it was committed by one of the players.
The idea of punishing a player who has committed no offence is totally abhorrent.

All three FR players collapse the scrum simultaneously.... who are you going to PK for collapsing?

Scrum wheels due to THP pulling back and LHP walking around... who are you going to PK for wheeling?

Four players in the midfield, all blatantly offside... who are you going to PK for offside?

Three players ahead of a kick do not retire under the 10m Law... who are you going to PK for offside?

Two players take out a jumper at a line-out... who are you going to PK for dangerous play?

A team illegally forms a maul with four players in front of the ball carrier... who are you going to PK for obstruction?

 

[SimonSmith]

But every single one of those has committed an offence.

OB is arguing that you can't send a player who is innocent of any wrongdoing at all.

 

[Browner]

Sorry I was so wrapped up at getting my dig in, I forgot PK=2

All water off a ducks back, northern lad ......

No hands on the face ...... http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?17721-Chance-to-Suggest-New-Laws&highlight=face+contact

 

[Dickie E]

It is not a team offence - it was committed by one of the players.
The idea of punishing a player who has committed no offence is totally abhorrent.

http://www.theroar.com.au/2014/07/16/nrc-law-variations-looking-trial/

See #7 in the attached.

Not sure which, if any, of these will be adopted.

 

[Dickie E]

But every single one of those has committed an offence.

OB is arguing that you can't send a player who is innocent of any wrongdoing at all.

My main concern would be for competitions where YCs are cumulative and may result in suspension.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/r...980988151?nk=508036267e73c084ae065ec4a16b67fb

A captain may pick player X because he knows that player X has already had several YCs in the season and this one will tip him over.

 

[Guyseep]

I would like to see touch adjudicated the same as it is in basketball.

Agree with this! the way out of bounds is determined in basketball is logical and intuitive. I believe league does it the same way. Union's touch laws are a mess and difficult enough for refs to figure out, I can't imagine the casual fan figuring out.

Also I would remove in most cases the ability for captains to choose an option at an infringement.
For example: at a penalty the captain may choose a scrum. Assuming his team has a dominant scrum they will scrummage until the other team gives up another penalty and after a few repeats of this a player is YC'd. This could take up 5-10 minutes of game time and slow down the game considerably. A penalty kick should be a kick of some sort (for goal, to touch, or tap and go).
Another example: For a not straight lineout, the captain almost always takes the scrum. Very rarely do they take the lineout. Getting rid of these options would speed the game up.

 

[Dickie E]

In Aussie Rules the ball is out of bounds when all of it crosses the line irrespective of whether in the air, in hand or on the ground. This would be consistent with how we view ball in-goal, in 22, over 10 metre line, etc

 

[Phil E]

The fact that we have regular "discussions" about the laws proves that there are problems.

The laws need to be tidied up for the benefit of the referees. They are the ones who have to make the tricky decisions, not the players.

You could have the most basic set of solid black and white laws, and people would still argue or discuss decision.

 

[Dan_A]

More "far out" there changes:
Team infringement: non-offending captain determines who goes off for 10min. (team offence, team suffer)
Repeated scrum offences: non-offending captain determines which forward serves the time. (pack offence, pack suffer)

I like this, doesn't matter which All Black infringes, we can still get McCaw yellow carded... :biggrin:

 

[crossref]

I like this, doesn't matter which All Black infringes, we can still get McCaw yellow carded... :biggrin:

or you were losing the scrums, you might choose a their replacement prop and cause uncontested scrums... not sure that is really what we would want.

 

[OB..]

You could have the most basic set of solid black and white laws, and people would still argue or discuss decision.

The better the laws are, the less scope there is for discussion. At present they are nowhere near good enough. There is plenty of scope for improvement even without looking at game-changing proposals.

 

[FlipFlop]

But every single one of those has committed an offence.

OB is arguing that you can't send a player who is innocent of any wrongdoing at all.

I see my idea as more: PK against (say) Gold 3. It is a TEAM repeat offence (not individual repeat offence). Referee Yellow Cards Gold 3 (it is against his name), but White Captain can instead have Gold 7 serve the 10min in the bin, and Gold 3 stays on the field.

Rugby is a team game. You win and lose as a team.

This is to solve the issue of: At T/R/Ms offences, refs will very quickly go to the pocket. But a FR can give away PK after PK, and they won't be carded, as the refs don't want uncontested scrums (and might even think 1 team is trying to get uncontested scrums).

Think of it as an alternative to the "man-off" rule.

 

[ChrisR]

"Also I would remove in most cases the ability for captains to choose an option at an infringement.
For example: at a penalty the captain may choose a scrum. Assuming his team has a dominant scrum they will scrummage until the other team gives up another penalty and after a few repeats of this a player is YC'd. This could take up 5-10 minutes of game time and slow down the game considerably. A penalty kick should be a kick of some sort (for goal, to touch, or tap and go).
Another example: For a not straight lineout, the captain almost always takes the scrum. Very rarely do they take the lineout. Getting rid of these options would speed the game up."

Totally disagree with this. Options on sanctions adds a subtle level to the game. Speed it up? Play 7s.

 

[OB..]

I see my idea as more: PK against (say) Gold 3. It is a TEAM repeat offence (not individual repeat offence). Referee Yellow Cards Gold 3 (it is against his name), but White Captain can instead have Gold 7 serve the 10min in the bin, and Gold 3 stays on the field.

I find this idea totally abhorrent. In this scenario Gold 7 has done nothing wrong at all.

What happened to natural justice, fairness, equity, and common sense?

Rugby is a team game. You win and lose as a team.

Irrelevant consideration.

Think of it as an alternative to the "man-off" rule.

Nowhere near. In "man off" the offedning team chooses the player to leave.

 

[lawsons]

My law change would be to ban the shielding of the catcher of all kicks. It is a clear policy now for retreating players to run in a direct line in front of the catcher and to then arrive 2 metres in front of him as he is about to catch. This creates a clear shield in front of him to enable him to choose which side to move and avoid the approaching tackler. It happens in every game you will see on tv without penalty.