Rugby Reform..Time for a Revolution??

toomevara

Recent IRB sponsored trials at Stellenbosch university have been fiddling around with some relatively radical law changes...these are seriously under consideration by the IRB at the moment...what do you lot reckon, good or bad...the major items are:

• Allowing the ball to be played with the hand at the breakdown
• Only foul play (Law 10) and offside resulting in penalty kicks - all other offences resulting in free kicks.
• Free kicks are taken by a tap kick or a scrum option only.
• Teams no longer have to match up numbers in the lineout.
• Bringing the maul to ground by the defending team

Definitely some interesting ideas.....anyone else got any suggestions re: the laws of the game....incidentally the first person to suggest uncontested scrums gets a dose of anthrax in the next post.....

prophetnz

Id like to see drop goals be worth 1 or 2 points, 3 points is alittle to high when a try is only worth 5.

I also think the truck and tralior move should be allowed.

Downtime

Already been a dicsussion on this here:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054901036&referrerid=59211

All in all it looks interesting.

toomevara

Downtime wrote:

Already been a dicsussion on this here:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054901036&referrerid=59211

All in all it looks interesting.

Doh, missed that one, reading through it now......cheers.....:o

toomevara

yep, that about covers all the bases....so well done to me for introducing a spurious, well mulled over thread...bugger.....flagellating self as I type. Was intrigued by the reference to the treatment of league in Vichy france at the end,can anyone fill me in????

Snivilian

A leading British doctor has called for dramatic changes to the laws governing rugby union in an attempt to lower the risk of injury that the game carries.

Doctor Jim Burke has shocked the rugby world with a new set of proposals which he believes should be adopted by the International Rugby Board.

The report follows hot on the heels of a plea from another doctor, James Bourke, no relation (see original news story), who recently called for an end to contested scrums in rugby union.

Burke, a consultant general surgeon at King’s Medical Centre in Nottingham, believes that rugby must change to protect young players from potentially suffering serious injury.

‘I realise there may be resistance to the proposals,’ said the doctor, who is an honorary medical office at a local rugby football club, ‘but we cannot continue to allow young men the free will to choose to play the sport they wish to play, in the manner they wish to do so. We must protect them from themselves.’

The full proposals, obtained by The East Terrace’s investigative team, are:

* Tackling to be replaced by new defensive rules. Defender now has to verbally request the attacker to halt his run. Defender has to be within three yards of ball carrier for ‘tackle’ to count.

* Lifting, jumping and throwing banned from lineout for safety reasons. Hooker to pretend to throw ball by carrying it above his head whilst making a ‘whooosh’ sound and placing it directly in the outstretched arms of chosen player.


* Mauling to be replaced by group hug and game of paper-scissors-stone (used to decide outcome of possession).


* Rucking to be replaced by two-a-side game of twister (officiated by referee) carried out over the ball.


* Tries no longer need to be grounded over goal line and now must be simply carried over the line; similar to touchdowns in American Football. This is to prevent injury from players diving to score a try (especially grass-burns on the knees, which has increased dramatically in professional age).


* All playing kit must be covered in four inches of cotton wool and two inches of bubble wrap.


* Rugby games only to be played if temperature is above fifteen degrees. This will lower the risk of nasty colds or coughs for both players and spectators. Similarly, games not to be played in direct sunshine due to risk of sunburn.


* Gradual reduction of players on each team over the coming fifteen years. Each year to see number of players allowed in a rugby team reduced by one.


* Ball to be replaced with soft sphere made from foam.


* Players no longer allowed to wear studded boots and must wear medically approved fluffy slippers.


‘It may seem dramatic,’ said Burke, ‘but we have to interfere here. We cannot assume that young men are aware of the risks associated with playing rugby. Because of a minute problem with serious spinal injuries - albeit an incredibly tragic problem - we must stop the fun for millions of players around the world.’

At press time, Burke had made no comment on whether or not motor-racing, sky-diving, boxing, rock-climbing, water sports, wrestling or martial arts should be banned or subject to legalinterference.

http://www.theeastterrace.com

Nice0ne

The law change trials in Stellenbosch seem to be creating a new version of Rugby League. What's the point of changing the laws in a sport that has a growing player-base and fan-base? Obviously people are choosing to follow the sport because they like it just the way it is.

However I would support changes that reduce the risk to players. Although there are only a few number of serious injuries each year, players at amateur level should not be subjected to those risks.


Nice0ne

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

toomevara

On ESPN last night showed the 1977, 5 nations clash between England and France, and fellas, let me tell you...while it was an extremely low scoring affair...4-3 France in the end, it was an absolutely cracking game...the players nowhere near the current genetically engineered supermen, but the honesty and endeaveour with which they approached the game was so refreshing...very little foul play, NO, yes NO cynical professionalism/ infringements,which we now take for granted, just the odd honest punch up...

2 replacements only...come hell or high water...fair contest for the ball on the floor....no lifting, genuine scrummaging...we've definitely lost something from the game...oh and no 'flat' passes either...

Nice0ne wrote:

However I would support changes that reduce the risk to players. Although there are only a few number of serious injuries each year, players at amateur level should not be subjected to those risks.


Nice0ne

Think this is a bit if a catch 22, because if players aren't scrummaging properly early on, its extremely dangerous to drop them in at the deep end against accomplished well drilled srummagers, once they pass some arbitrary age barrier....Not the mention the complete destruction of the srummaging culture of some nations...just look at Australia, their current predicament at international level is down, in large part, to their youth policy re: the scrum....

Life altering spinal injuries are appalling and nobody wants to see them.Thankfully they're increasingly rare BUT, and here's the rub, Rugby Union is the scrum...the entire game stems from it...if they scrap the contested scrum, or depower it any further, we may as well all sign up for league.

Nice0ne

Daveirl,

In truth I don't know how the law changes will impact the union game, but that was my first impression of the new laws when I saw a clip on Total Rugby about them a few months ago. The law changes seemed directed at making the game a greater spectator sport rather than improving it for the players was the message I got from the programme. Some of the changes listed below I'd welcome esp hands in the ruck and bringing a maul to ground, this would definitely eliminate my normal penalty count during a game.

toom,

I'm not just referring to scrums here and I'm not gonna suggest any solutions either, but recently heard about a young guy who broke his spine playing a game. Only he was still consious when the medic arrived and knew it was broken, he might have been moved braking the spinal cord and ended up paralysed for life.

toomevara

Nice0ne wrote:

toom,

I'm not just referring to scrums here

Fair dues Nice, I take your point, and indeed the incidence of spinal injuries in League is pretty much on a par with union...most of these, as far as I know, come in the tackle,particlularly the double tackle, where one guy wraps the legs and another tackler hits the trunk..this happens in union too of course but the double tackle is much more common in League given the nature of the game.

The trick is of course to hit that magical point where safety is maximised while the game remains as physical a contest as possible, lets face it thats why most of us play/played rugby in the first place.I played as a prop and I loved the grunt and the grind, but I was well coached and safety ALWAYS came first. Rugby is a tough demanding game, and unfortunately injuries always will be a factor...and while there's no acceptable level we've got to be realistic at the same time....

Lets not forget that, rugby is, in the round, as safe a game to play as most contact team sports...certainly no more dangerous than hurling...its just that the possibility of catastrophic injury is slightly higher in certain instances..look at Matt Hampson, the England U21 paralysed in training, on a scrum machine..you simply cannot legislate that out of the game....

bugler

toomevara wrote:

• Allowing the ball to be played with the hand at the breakdown - Great, even slower ball for the backs, an excellent idea to make rugby more boring.

• Teams no longer have to match up numbers in the lineout. - Defending team can take players out in order to further cramp midfield and reduce the space available to the attacking backs. Another wonderful idea.

• Bringing the maul to ground by the defending team - The extinction of mauls. Does anyone in the world think this is a good suggestion? Maybe teams with poor packs.

All in all, there are some excellent suggestions here; if the goal is to scar rugby.

The only things wrong with rugby right now are that a penalty is worth a point too much and the referees have no uniformity in regard to the breakdown.

toomevara

I would agree in the main Bugler, but I reckon the refereeing of scrums by southern hemsiphere refs is a disgrace at the moment. Kaplan let the aussies away with murder last week against the Kiwis and Honiss' refereeing of the scrum in the wallabies/Boks game was a travesty....

I'm still waiting for an explanation of how he came to penalise the Boks on that scrum just before the wallabies first try....The boks absolutely detroyed the wallaby scrum...sent them back on their arses, totally in the ascendancy and Honiss penalises the bok tight head for droppng his binding!!!!!! I mean that's nuts...totally indefensible from a ref of his stature...they know NOTHING about the goings on in the scrum which I find utterly unbelievable......I also want proper rucking back,real quick so this bloody lying on thats wrecking the game at breakdown is cut out....

RuggieBear

toomevara wrote:

Honiss' refereeing of the scrum in the wallabies/Boks game was a travesty....

I'm still waiting for an explanation of how he came to penalise the Boks on that scrum just before the wallabies first try....The boks absolutely detroyed the wallaby scrum...sent them back on their arses, totally in the ascendancy and Honiss penalises the bok tight head for droppng his binding!!!!!! I mean that's nuts...totally indefensible from a ref of his stature...t

Yep i totally agree....i saw that and just turned the tv off...i actually couldn't stomach watching any more. (Watched the highlights later).

Possibly the stupidest decsion i've seen this year

prophetnz

They were disgusted by an early scrum call when they were penalised despite driving back Australia several metres. From there, Australia got into position from a lineout to score through a driving maul. At the time, it appeared a very odd and unfair call, but Honiss yesterday explained it was for an early Springboks engagement and an illegal drive.

RuggieBear

prophetnz wrote:

They were disgusted by an early scrum call when they were penalised despite driving back Australia several metres. From there, Australia got into position from a lineout to score through a driving maul. At the time, it appeared a very odd and unfair call, but Honiss yesterday explained it was for an early Springboks engagement and an illegal drive.

But that didn't appear to be the reason he gave on the field (didn't he blame the SA tighthead for collapsing)....and isn't an early hit/engagement not a free kick offence.

Seems to me he's trying to back peddle/ justify his shocking decision.

toomevara

RuggieBear wrote:

But that didn't appear to be the reason he gave on the field (didn't he blame the SA tighthead for collapsing)....and isn't an early hit/engagement not a free kick offence.

Seems to me he's trying to back peddle/ justify his shocking decision.

Spot on...the Australians are currently playing a really cynical game where they'll do anything to avoid even the semblance of a decent scrum. Late engagements, not taking the hit square, driving up, pushing before the put in.. you name it they're at it and getting away with it..while they cant srummage for peanuts they've turned manipulating and hiding behind the ref into an art form.

Honiss is just flailing around for justification after the fact, he ain't kidding anyone and there is no way that any N. hemisphere ref would have given that decision. This doesnt bode well for the WC with two hugely different interpretations of the scrum doing the rounds...