5 Laws you'd like to see changed in rugby

[jgriffin]

Some examples of clean rugby before the game became over complicated.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwywUqBVAeI

Imagine how fast some of these guys would be now on modern pitches with modern footwear.

What is also impressive is the ball speed, absolute lightning, players running onto the ball. Defences don't seem good because they never had time to organise. Mrs G watched some of these matches when we had a million-channel TV and actually asked me how come the game was so slow now, and why kickers were so much better then!

[tigerburnie]

Woodward wouldn't score like that now, even the Scots have learnt how to tackle. Lots of forwards falling all over the ruck, just like the Not nots last week. Carlings try was good use of the outside, but poor French cover. Thing is nowadays all the forwards are lot faster than the likes of Andy Robinson, no fat boys that needing helping up( I'll let someone else tell coochie that mind). Bit like comparing boxers from different eras really, preferred the lineouts without the lifting though, locks are definitely getting softer these days.....................

[chipnchase]

I think someone has already answered that Bernie, the speed of the ball made available at the breakdown and the mind set to look for space and use the ball is the difference. It doesn't matter how fast your forwards are or how well you can tackle, if an attack gets you on the back foot you don't have time to get yourself set.

[TigerLad]

A controversial one from me before bedtime…

I'd change the knock-on rule TO if you drop the ball from a pass or kick (uncontested) the opposing team get a scrum. None of this, did the ball go back or not debate. Catching is a simple skill… if you can't do it you don't deserve possession IMO!

That pretty much happens anyway!

I'd like to see something to stop the more powerful scrummaging teams 'winning' penalties. Maybe the ref can shout "use it" when the ball is available similar to a ruck. Heresy, probably, for a Tigers fan, but I don't like watching teams get penalties simply by being better.

Couldn't disagree more to be honest. Scrummaging is one of the key parts of the game. Removing the idea of giving penalties from scrums essentially takes you one step closer to rugby league, and that's the last thing we want.

[4071]

The problem with making penalties only 2 points is that the defending side would be even more likely to give away penalties in their own 22 than give away a try

Maybe not if killing the ball - and a few similar offences - bought you 10 in the bin.

And 12 or 13 aside might give us a few more tries....

You are angling for 2-point penalties and 13 players on each side?

Um.... I don't know if anyone has told you this, but I think I know where you can find what you're looking for....

[4071]

2: Protect the maul, kill the choke tackle!

- Once a player is held up off the ground this is a maul and as long as it continues to move forward it is still a maul. Should the maul stop and the ball become trapped then the defending team receive the put in to the scrum. Should the maul collapse whilst moving forward then a penalty be awarded.

That's not protecting the maul - that's changing the definition of a maul. If that's the law you want to change, then suggest it.

A maul begins when a player carrying the ball is held by one or more opponents, and one or more of the ball carrier’s team mates bind on the ball carrier. A maul therefore consists, when it begins, of at least three players, all on their feet; the ball carrier and one player from each team.

[4071]

Ban all kicks in open play. Much better.

Less lineouts, so less stoppages and force teams to play out of their own 22.

Worst idea ever.

Kicks are not all about hoofing to touch - the fact of being able to kick means that defences have to spread into various zones of the pitch. Take kicks out of the equation and you have a suffocating 15-man defensive line stretched across the pitch because there is no need to cover the space behind.

The only way to tie in defences would be large rolling mauls being set up to try and create space. You'd end up with something that looks like the Eton Wall Game, but less spectator friendly.

[4071]

I hate the delay at line-outs

Agreed… fed up of the 'fly-half boots it out and the the forwards have a natter and an amble up the line when they fancy it'.

Austin Healey 'bless him he can talk some sense' also hates this and has suggested that the kicking team have 30 seconds from booting it out until a re-start.. if not, the other team take the line-out.

This can be covered by the existing law which says that teams must not delay forming a lineout. Then it doesn't have to be a law change - just a guideline to refs to be sharp on it and communicate to the teams what they will tolerate (30 seconds as an example). Delay results in a free-kick.

The issue there isn't the laws themselves - it's the officials.

[4071]

I agree - get rid of quick throws
I agree - wasting time at line outs and running clock down - penalty

So you want lineouts to be taken more quickly, and would also ban quick lineouts.

Okayyyy....



Opponents of the quick lineout: You know that one advantage of it is that it reduces the effectiveness of simple long clearance kicks, right? Taking away the quick lineout increases the desirability of fairly aimless long kicks. Not really in favour of anything that makes hoofing long with little direction (anywhere towards touch will do) a better option for teams.

[biffer]

Not so much a rule change, but look at the bonus point being introduced into the 6 Nations.

Nooooo
As old threads have said, this could potentially having one side top the table and another be Grand Slam winners. Unthinkable.

Absolutely. The 6Nations is a great competition, there is no need to change it.

[jgriffin]

Actually there is no reason to change almost anything, just enforce the ruddy laws, go back to rucking (now backed by virtually every commentator on the games and most fans over 40), stop penalising 'turn and rip', and penalise the 'choke' tacklers for killing the ball if they refuse to rip. Done.

[4071]

Actually there is no reason to change almost anything, just enforce the ruddy laws, go back to rucking (now backed by virtually every commentator on the games and most fans over 40), stop penalising 'turn and rip', and penalise the 'choke' tacklers for killing the ball if they refuse to rip. Done.

This would require a whole new law being written. Could you have a go at that? It's not just a case of saying 'penalise choke tacklers' as that's not something that will work - you need to describe what is meant by a choke tackle and ensure that it does not clash with existing laws.

[jgriffin]

Actually there is no reason to change almost anything, just enforce the ruddy laws, go back to rucking (now backed by virtually every commentator on the games and most fans over 40), stop penalising 'turn and rip', and penalise the 'choke' tacklers for killing the ball if they refuse to rip. Done.

This would require a whole new law being written. Could you have a go at that? It's not just a case of saying 'penalise choke tacklers' as that's not something that will work - you need to describe what is meant by a choke tackle and ensure that it does not clash with existing laws.

Agree, it is just an attempt to adapt and fill a gap, but as you say it will need a lot of thinking about - it may be that there is some jolly wrinkle that can be devised using existing laws. I am sick of spoiling, which is all of the game now, and just-so-want to stamp on the odd hand

[GETHIN EXILE]

I notice that to make the choke tackle effective a defender has to get on the wrong side of the ball, if once other players join the referee calls "maul" surely any player bound on the wrong side of the ball must release the ball as they are offside as they did not join the maul from behind the back foot. It would only take a few penalties for players to think twice about their positioning

[4071]

I notice that to make the choke tackle effective a defender has to get on the wrong side of the ball, if once other players join the referee calls "maul" surely any player bound on the wrong side of the ball must release the ball as they are offside as they did not join the maul from behind the back foot. It would only take a few penalties for players to think twice about their positioning

They didn't join the maul at all - the maul joined them. Therefore they have not committed an offence.