Law Changes to Improve Rugby

Piliger

We have had a number of 'tinkering' efforts in recent years. None of them has really worked. The safety issues have improved somewhat from the changes in the rucking rules but the game is suffocating form scrummage problems, space problems, impact injuries, pointless kicking.

We need some fundamental rule changes and structural changes to fix these problems.

I have a few main suggestions to make:


1. Ban all protective gear other than bandaging:
This trend is encouraging harder and more damaging impacts. It is the arms race of rugby and contributing to more serious injury in both the professional and amateur game

2. The offside line at rucks needs to be 10 metres and not the back foot:
Attacking play is suffocated by a line of defence right up to the line of the ruck.

3. Remove the option to take quick throw ins from touch without a line out forming:
The art of strategic kicking is being destroyed by this law. It is also completely dependent on the stadium. Croke Park was a complete fiasco and destroyed Ireland's kicking game because the touchline was so far from the stands.

4. Reduce the number of players to 12, by reducing the number of forwards in the scum from 8 to 5:
I know this will be slated but after a lot of consideration over the last 10 years I believe this is essential for two reasons:
a) The modern game is being stifled by a total lack of space across the field where dense lines of players block all talented running. No tinkering can really fix this. We are producing Rugby League matches by stealth.
b) The enormous power in scrums coming from behind the front row is making scrummaging impossible. The front row are completely unable to bind or stay in place with this power. Also it is creating this crazy situation where props are being imported from specific nations that produce those enormous lumps of men. If you don't have them you lose. No rule tinkering can change that.

Sid_Justice

Wow, remove the entire back row?

phog

Sid_Justice wrote: »

Wow, remove the entire back row?

Whatever about the effects it would have on the game it would certainly reduce the wage bill for the IRFU.

Eoin

Piliger wrote:

2. The offside line at rucks needs to be 10 metres and not the back foot:

4. Reduce the number of players to 12, by reducing the number of forwards in the scum from 8 to 5:

And then you say:

Piliger wrote:

We are producing Rugby League matches by stealth.

Edit - can you post any links to back this up? What exactly are you referring to - shoulder pads and scrum caps? I presume that you wouldn't lump the likes of knee supports and gum shields in the ban as well?

Piliger wrote:

1. Ban all protective gear other than bandaging:
This trend is encouraging harder and more damaging impacts. It is the arms race of rugby and contributing to more serious injury in both the professional and amateur game

B0X

Piliger wrote: »

1. Ban all protective gear other than bandaging:
This trend is encouraging harder and more damaging impacts. It is the arms race of rugby and contributing to more serious injury in both the professional and amateur game

There could be an argument that players are becoming too big and leaving themselves open to injury that way but removing the protective equipment wont help that.

Piliger wrote: »

2. The offside line at rucks needs to be 10 metres and not the back foot:
Attacking play is suffocated by a line of defence right up to the line of the ruck.

How would you compete for the ball or would you just remove that completely?

Piliger wrote: »

3. Remove the option to take quick throw ins from touch without a line out forming:
The art of strategic kicking is being destroyed by this law. It is also completely dependent on the stadium. Croke Park was a complete fiasco and destroyed Ireland's kicking game because the touchline was so far from the stands.

You are complaining about attacking play being suffocated and yet want a great counter attacking oppertunity being removed?

Piliger wrote: »

4. Reduce the number of players to 12, by reducing the number of forwards in the scum from 8 to 5:
I know this will be slated but after a lot of consideration over the last 10 years I believe this is essential for two reasons:
a) The modern game is being stifled by a total lack of space across the field where dense lines of players block all talented running. No tinkering can really fix this. We are producing Rugby League matches by stealth.
b) The enormous power in scrums coming from behind the front row is making scrummaging impossible. The front row are completely unable to bind or stay in place with this power. Also it is creating this crazy situation where props are being imported from specific nations that produce those enormous lumps of men. If you don't have them you lose. No rule tinkering can change that.

The front rows cant stay up because there seems to be loads of pushing before the ball is actually put in.

Backrow players are arguable the most exciting of the forwards, scoring the most trys and making the most breaks. Removing them would detriment the game imo.

You should go watch Rugby League, sounds like your cup of tea.

toomevara

Piliger wrote: »

a) The modern game is being stifled by a total lack of space across the field where dense lines of players block all talented running. No tinkering can really fix this. We are producing Rugby League matches by stealth.

This is utter nonsense. RL is all about space and running/attacking rugby. That's why we removed two players from the field of play 100 years ago, a course of action which (I'm glad to see) you have just advocated in your OP. Well, you're a century off the pace but better late than never I guess. With all due respect, you quite clearly never watch the game of RL. and make the same kind of lazy generalisations which most people who have stereotypical and ill-informed perceptions of the 13 man game glibly make, time and time again.

You state that we are 'producing rugby league matches by stealth'? Let me assure you, you are not, indeed you should be so lucky. I watched 480 mins of rugby this weekend (I Know sad) 240 mins of league and 240 mins of union. By far the best game was the World club challenge between Wigan and Saint George Illawara, a game who's intensity, dynamism skill levels and speed knocked anything which the 6N has had to offer into a nicely cocked hat!

Rugby Union as its currently played is nothing like rugby league, so please stop comparing the two.

GiftofGab

Each of those points are absolutely ridiculous. The only aspect of the game that needs thinkering (before the world cup) is the scrum

Gracelessly Tom

Piliger wrote: »

We have had a number of 'tinkering' efforts in recent years. None of them has really worked. The safety issues have improved somewhat from the changes in the rucking rules but the game is suffocating form scrummage problems, space problems, impact injuries, pointless kicking.

We need some fundamental rule changes and structural changes to fix these problems.

I have a few main suggestions to make:


1. Ban all protective gear other than bandaging:
This trend is encouraging harder and more damaging impacts. It is the arms race of rugby and contributing to more serious injury in both the professional and amateur game

2. The offside line at rucks needs to be 10 metres and not the back foot:
Attacking play is suffocated by a line of defence right up to the line of the ruck.

3. Remove the option to take quick throw ins from touch without a line out forming:
The art of strategic kicking is being destroyed by this law. It is also completely dependent on the stadium. Croke Park was a complete fiasco and destroyed Ireland's kicking game because the touchline was so far from the stands.

4. Reduce the number of players to 12, by reducing the number of forwards in the scum from 8 to 5:
I know this will be slated but after a lot of consideration over the last 10 years I believe this is essential for two reasons:
a) The modern game is being stifled by a total lack of space across the field where dense lines of players block all talented running. No tinkering can really fix this. We are producing Rugby League matches by stealth.
b) The enormous power in scrums coming from behind the front row is making scrummaging impossible. The front row are completely unable to bind or stay in place with this power. Also it is creating this crazy situation where props are being imported from specific nations that produce those enormous lumps of men. If you don't have them you lose. No rule tinkering can change that.

I'm sorry but this is utter tripe.

1. How do gum shields and scrum caps encourage harder and more damaging hits? Who tackles with their head? The fact that protective gear in rugby is padded proves your point incorrect.

2. How do the opposition compete for the ball? It is no longer a ruck and you have turned the game into rugby league.... no stealth involved.

3. You want to encourage open field running and create space on the pitch yet you want to get rid of a very effective counter attacking oppurtunity??

4. This point is too ridiculous to comment on.

JustinDee

Laws are fine. Consistent refereeing at the breakdown is what drives the quality of the game primarily.

And don't get me started on that 'World' Club Challenge. Never rated it. I'll watch the Millennium weekends before that. Roll on NRL.

toomevara

JustinDee wrote: »

And don't get me started on that 'World' Club Challenge. Never rated it. I'll watch the Millennium weekends before that. Roll on NRL.

Did you actually watch the game on Sunday? I'm not a fan of either concept (millennium magic or WCC), but it was a superb game of rugby whichever way you cut it.

Piliger

Eoin wrote: »

What exactly are you referring to - shoulder pads and scrum caps? I presume that you wouldn't lump the likes of knee supports and gum shields in the ban as well?

I erred in inferring that gum shields should be banned. But everything else yes. Scrum caps are encouraging higher impacts and higher speed impacts. The same with shoulder and chest protection. They may be good for avoiding scrapes and knocks but they are contributing to the prevalence of far greater structural injuries.

Piliger

toomevara wrote: »

With all due respect, you quite clearly never watch the game of RL. and make the same kind of lazy generalisations which most people who have stereotypical and ill-informed perceptions of the 13 man game glibly make, time and time again.

Well having played the game for 10 years and coached in the middle leagues I beg to differ.

You state that we are 'producing rugby league matches by stealth'? Let me assure you, you are not, indeed you should be so lucky. I watched 480 mins of rugby this weekend (I Know sad) 240 mins of league and 240 mins of union. By far the best game was the World club challenge between Wigan and Saint George Illawara, a game who's intensity, dynamism skill levels and speed knocked anything which the 6N has had to offer into a nicely cocked hat!

Rugby Union as its currently played is nothing like rugby league, so please stop comparing the two.

You are as wrong about the game as you are about your dismissive presumption about my knowledge of it.

Rugby League is one of the most boring sports ever invented. Long lines of standard sized wing forward types strung across the field moving up and down the field in a static mind numbing way. Each tackle and they stop the match and restart without any contest.... jeeeez.

Alas Rugby Union is becoming more like RL every year. No room for open play running and individual running talent to flourish.

Piliger

Gracelessly Tom wrote: »

1. How do gum shields and scrum caps encourage harder and more damaging hits? Who tackles with their head? The fact that protective gear in rugby is padded proves your point incorrect.

You are right. I should have obviously exempted gum shields. But if you watch five minutes of any game now you will see that most runners lead with the head down when they go into the tackle. The padding is increasing the speed of impact and encouraging more structural injury because of it.

2. How do the opposition compete for the ball? It is no longer a ruck and you have turned the game into rugby league.... no stealth involved.

I made no suggestion of any change to the ruck. I have no idea what you are talking about.

3. You want to encourage open field running and create space on the pitch yet you want to get rid of a very effective counter attacking oppurtunity??

What counter attacking opportunity are you referring to ?

4. This point is too ridiculous to comment on.

Very persuasive.

irishbucsfan

I wear a scrum cap from time to time. When I don't I generally take knocks to the head far more often, and concussions are FAR more common without that protection.

I think the OP is fairly off on everything he said, bigger collisions are encouraged because the game is professional and players are now in the gym 24/7, and our modern wingers weigh more than props used to.

The other points were FAR worse though!#

2. The offside line at rucks needs to be 10 metres and not the back foot:
Attacking play is suffocated by a line of defence right up to the line of the ruck.

So in a tacke situation you expect the entire defense to retreat 10 yards? And what about players entering the ruck, which would be largely discouraged? This would completely slow the game down. Absolutely not.

3. Remove the option to take quick throw ins from touch without a line out forming:
The art of strategic kicking is being destroyed by this law. It is also completely dependent on the stadium. Croke Park was a complete fiasco and destroyed Ireland's kicking game because the touchline was so far from the stands.

Ha, you're trying to encourage an attacking game by increasing the value of kicking and decreasing the amount of time the ball is in play?

Removing the back row is the worst one though... for some pretty obvious reasons!

Eoin

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I wear a scrum cap from time to time. When I don't I generally take knocks to the head far more often, and concussions are FAR more common without that protection.

I'd recommend that you check that out again - I would be very surprised if a few mm of foam is going to prevent a concussion. They might take some of the sting out of a direct knock, and protect your scalp from scrapes etc, but I really wouldn't bank on it to stop a concussion.

If people think it does, then perhaps it does give a false sense of security that the OP might be referring to.

irishbucsfan

Eoin wrote: »

I'd recommend that you check that out again - I would be very surprised if a few mm of foam is going to prevent a concussion. They might take some of the sting out of a direct knock, and protect your scalp from scrapes etc, but I really wouldn't bank on it to stop a concussion.

If people think it does, then perhaps it does give a false sense of security that the OP might be referring to.

Well I'm no physio so I'd haven't a clue to be honest.

But scrum caps also protect against the little incidental things like accidental kicks to the head at the bottom of a ruck etc.



Thinking about it, since Petr Cech suffered that awful concussion in the soccer, he has worn a scrum cap. Someone at his club must think they're somewhat effective at protecting against them!

Eoin

A very quick google search would suggest that they do very little to prevent concussion, though I didn't see anything citing any scientific resources. I don't mean to go any further off topic, but I wouldn't count on it for anything other than protecting your scalp and ears.

But scrum caps also protect against the little incidental things like accidental kicks to the head at the bottom of a ruck etc.

As I said, it will take the sting out of a knock like that, but I reckon that's about it.

Edit - found this quote:

Q: What is the science behind Petr Cech's scrum cap? Considering that he suffered a skull fracture, would it be cynical to think of a small piece of padded material as just another sponsorship opportunity?

A:
...
But there is little evidence that headgear reduces the incidence of concussion and there is even debate as to whether it might increase it. Yes, it safeguards against cuts, but, with what amounts to no more than 1cm of padding, it could, it is argued, create an inappropriate feeling of invulnerability.

There may be positive psychological benefits important to those more hesitant to undertake contact sport, those recovering from a significant head injury or, even more rarely, neurosurgery, as in Cech's case. I for one will not be stopping my son wearing his new 'gear' this week, provided I can still afford it.

Dr Nicholas Peirce is the ECB's chief medical officer and a lead physician for the English Institute of Sport.

Teg Veece

Piliger wrote: »

2. The offside line at rucks needs to be 10 metres and not the back foot:
Attacking play is suffocated by a line of defence right up to the line of the ruck.

Whatever about the other changes you recommend but with this suggestion, what's to stop teams from just picking and driving the ball up into the empty space created by the 10 metre offside line, then recycling and repeating until they get to the opposition try line.

This is prevented from happening in RL by having a limited number of tackles before the ball has to be turned over. Are you suggesting Union adopts a similar approach?

toomevara

Piliger wrote: »

Well having played the game for 10 years and coached in the middle leagues I beg to differ.

You 'played it and coached it for ten years' but call it the most 'boring game' in the world..That's a lot of time and effort to expend on a game you don't like and don't seem to understand, despite your manful protestations to the contrary....lol. Hmmm you'll forgive me if I don't take any of that at face value....something niffs royally here.....

JustinDee

Piliger wrote: »

Well having played the game for 10 years and coached in the middle leagues I beg to differ

Which "middle leagues" exactly? Given what you wrote below, I'd be pretty sceptical of this claim. Me, I played CRL. Northern Rivers Leagues for Byron Bay. Played regional too.

Piliger wrote: »

You are as wrong about the game as you are about your dismissive presumption about my knowledge of it.
Rugby League is one of the most boring sports ever invented. Long lines of standard sized wing forward types strung across the field moving up and down the field in a static mind numbing way. Each tackle and they stop the match and restart without any contest.... jeeeez

Boring players and boring coaches can make RU like that too. In my experience its a great sport both to play and watch. Different sport to union with a lot more depth and skill to it than you would have anyone believe.

Piliger wrote: »

Alas Rugby Union is becoming more like RL every year. No room for open play running and individual running talent to flourish.

Gone are the days of half-time smokes and pre-match pints in rugby union. Its now an openly professional game.

Thats my 2000th post. As I said when registering here, 2000 posts is enough.
Anyone wants to keep in touch, I'm on Twitter '@justinirfu'

Gracelessly Tom

Piliger wrote: »

I made no suggestion of any change to the ruck. I have no idea what you are talking about.

What counter attacking opportunity are you referring to ?

Very persuasive.

You suggested the defensive line should be back 10 at rucks, thereby eliminating the ruck situation. You can't compete in a ruck if you have to be back 10! Now do you see what I'm talking about?

You claim to know about the game yet you wonder what counter attacking option is available through the use of a quick throw before a lineout forms?? Gimme a break, you obviously don't know as much as you may believe.

Your comment on dropping the scrum to 5 players and losing the backrow is not a change in the laws, it is a complete overhaul of the game and by doing so you no longer have rugby union being played but some new form of rugby. Persuasive enough?