Laws Proposals - Australia Supporters Vote

The Lost Sheep

Australian rugby fans have chance to vote on proposed law variations for upcoming National Rugby Championship.
Committee comprising Ewen McKenzie, Rod Kafer, Bob Dwyer and Wayne Erickson narrowed down over 600 submissions from fans to 12-point shortlist designed to make the game more entertaining. You can vote through the below link..

The final shortlist is:
1. Instead of four try bonus point, the winning team is awarded a bonus point for finishing three or more tries ahead of their opponents. Don't mind that and could be good to keep excitement even if result is decided
2. Reduced time limits for conversions and penalty kick attempts. As ref always within reason encourage players to hurry up the kicks...
3. After a successful or unsuccessful penalty goal attempt, play is restarted with a scrum to the non-kicking team at the place of the penalty. Terrible. If you want game more exciting why have way more scrums?
4. Time limit for both teams to form a scrum. Don't mind this.
5. No option to kick for goal from a scrum penalty (kick to touch allowed). If penalty becomes a ‘repeated infringement’ then kick at goal is allowed. Stupid stupid... Teams should be allowed to take advantage of a strength of theirs which is what occurs here.
6. Scrum-half of non-feeding team is compulsory, must stay within 1m of the scrum, and cannot move past the mid-line of the scrum. Ok with this.
7. If a yellow card is given for repeated team infringement (excluding dangerous play), the non- offending captain chooses the opposition player who is temporarily suspended for 10 mins. No No No No No. Penalise the player who commits the offence as otherwise it just gets messy.
8. Players arriving through the gate may ‘drive out’ opponents past the ruck, creating more space behind the ruck for attack. This just will cause hassle and needless confrontations.
9. If non-throwing team does not contest for the ball, the straightness of the throw is not considered. Terrible. Hooker may as well just pass the ball to his scrum half then
10. A mark can be awarded any place on the field. How does this improve the game? This will just slow the game down and cert not improve the game
11. After half-time and full-time, if awarded a Penalty Kick, you can kick to touch and play the lineout. Ok fair enough that's ok and allows teams get max benefit out of a penalty
12. Free Kick for kick-off infringements as per Sevens No thanks.
http://www.theroar.com.au/2014/06/06/fans-vote-law-variations-national-rugby-championship/

So any opinions?

awec

3, 5, 7, 9 and 10 seem to be just nuts.

Calling a mark anywhere on the field?

Tox56

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

5. No option to kick for goal from a scrum penalty (kick to touch allowed). If penalty becomes a ‘repeated infringement’ then kick at goal is allowed.

You'd know it was Australians suggesting this rule change anyway

matthew8

Scrum time limit I like. Bonus point idea is alright because under current system a team can get thrashed and pick up a bonus point with some soft late tries, like Glasgow and Cardiff away to Toulon. They do it in Top 14 and although teams can be negative it really helps keep the game alive. Anyone who saw Racing-Toulouse will have seen the merits of this BP. As a scrum half I love the new offside line at scrums idea. Lots of soft penalties given at the moment for a defending scrum half moving too quickly but sometimes they get away with murder. This should reduce the ambiguity.

Some of them are just awful though.

Swiwi.

awec wrote: »

Calling a mark anywhere on the field?

Would be taking rugby back to the 1930s or whenever that rule existed.

Seems a bit Aussie Rules like too.

Too much time wasted with reset scrums etc so maybe a laws adjustment there.

.ak

Isn't 8 already acceptable?

sullivlo

.ak wrote: »

Isn't 8 already acceptable?

I think I heard that discussed by BOD recently. Perhaps on his news talk interview. He said that the law has changed that you can't drive people off a ruck further than one metre and he had to change his game.

Davei141

.ak wrote: »

Isn't 8 already acceptable?

A proper clear out is fine but it was taken to stupid lengths by NZ especially just holding players who had no involvement in the ruck and tackling them out of the game. Chiefs player (I think) got a boot to the throat for it recently! It causes too many fights. I would like to see grabbing/holding players into a ruck an immediate penalty, i am sure it is against the laws but never enforced unless ridiculous obvious (Hines!).

Beery Eyed

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

5. No option to kick for goal from a scrum penalty (kick to touch allowed). If penalty becomes a ‘repeated infringement’ then kick at goal is allowed.

I actually fully agree with this one being looked at & I'm really glad to see that a different solution is being discussed eventually.

A scrum is a restart! It should not define or decide entire matches, as is currently the case, particularly in the northern hemisphere.

Having a strong scrum is an essential part of rugby and that's indisputable, but gaining solid, clean possession from your scrum on a consistent basis is a big enough reward in itself. In the end it should be the same as having a strong lineout over a weak one - you can guarantee possession & after that it's what you do with it that counts.

With this suggestion it still leaves the possibility to go for touch from a penalty as well, which again would be a major advantage in itself, since it provides field position.

pickarooney

Swiwi. wrote: »

Would be taking rugby back to the 1930s or whenever that rule existed.

Seems a bit Aussie Rules like too.

Too much time wasted with reset scrums etc so maybe a laws adjustment there.

AFAIK this rule is already being tested in SA college rugby.

Swiwi.

Beery Eyed wrote: »

I actually fully agree with this one being looked at & I'm really glad to see that a different solution is being discussed eventually.

A scrum is a restart! It should not define or decide entire matches, as is currently the case, particularly in the northern hemisphere.

Having a strong scrum is an essential part of rugby and that's indisputable, but gaining solid, clean possession from your scrum on a consistent basis is a big enough reward in itself. In the end it should be the same as having a strong lineout over a weak one - you can guarantee possession & after that it's what you do with it that counts.

With this suggestion it still leaves the possibility to go for touch from a penalty as well, which again would be a major advantage in itself, since it provides field position.

I'm not sure on this. What I don't like though is the way some refs (think poite) assume that if the dominant scrum is going forwards (and by definition the weak one backwards) that is automatically a penalty offence. You see it all the time: Scrum A drives scrum B back 1m, refs awards penalty. I see no law that says being driven backwards is a penalty offence. It means teams will keep the ball in the scrum to milk a penalty.

padser

Beery Eyed wrote: »

A scrum is a restart! It should not define or decide entire matches, as is currently the case, particularly in the northern hemisphere.

Having a strong scrum is an essential part of rugby and that's indisputable, but gaining solid, clean possession from your scrum on a consistent basis is a big enough reward in itself. In the end it should be the same as having a strong lineout over a weak one - you can guarantee possession & after that it's what you do with it that counts.

.

While I'm not sure about the specific proposal having thought about this point I agree with it.

As it stands, the penalty for being a weaker scrum is essentially that you lose the game. Basically if you can't hold the opposition scrum on their own put in, they will always end up getting a penalty. If you are giving away a penalty on every opposition put it, you will lose the game.

If you think about other aspects of the game a weaker team can always concede something still compete for the rest of the game

Line out: don't compete for it, set yourself up to defend the mail
Maul: don't engage in a maul and tackle the ball carrier
Re Start: Go for distance rather than contestable
Breakdown: Concede quick clean ball but add extra defenders into your line

In all the these aspects you are at a disadvantage (you lose territory, you concede clean possession etc) but you can still compete in the game. If you have an inferior scrum you are constantly giving away penalties which seems unfair.

Perhaps an option would be to actually allow teams not contest opposition scrums if they don't want to. Opposition gets clean ball. If it's your scrum you must contest or you cede possession.

danthefan

10. A mark can be awarded any place on the field. How does this improve the game? This will just slow the game down and cert not improve the game

I would assume the idea is to stop pointless kicking. I think there's merit to extending the mark to the 10 maybe, but the whole field seems a bit much.

Taco Corp

padser wrote: »

While I'm not sure about the specific proposal having thought about this point I agree with it.

As it stands, the penalty for being a weaker scrum is essentially that you lose the game. Basically if you can't hold the opposition scrum on their own put in, they will always end up getting a penalty. If you are giving away a penalty on every opposition put it, you will lose the game.

If you think about other aspects of the game a weaker team can always concede something still compete for the rest of the game

Line out: don't compete for it, set yourself up to defend the mail
Maul: don't engage in a maul and tackle the ball carrier
Re Start: Go for distance rather than contestable
Breakdown: Concede quick clean ball but add extra defenders into your line

In all the these aspects you are at a disadvantage (you lose territory, you concede clean possession etc) but you can still compete in the game. If you have an inferior scrum you are constantly giving away penalties which seems unfair.

Perhaps an option would be to actually allow teams not contest opposition scrums if they don't want to. Opposition gets clean ball. If it's your scrum you must contest or you cede possession.

if teams want to choose uncontested scrums then they can play league

Swiwi.

padser wrote: »

While I'm not sure about the specific proposal having thought about this point I agree with it.

As it stands, the penalty for being a weaker scrum is essentially that you lose the game. Basically if you can't hold the opposition scrum on their own put in, they will always end up getting a penalty. If you are giving away a penalty on every opposition put it, you will lose the game.

If you think about other aspects of the game a weaker team can always concede something still compete for the rest of the game

Line out: don't compete for it, set yourself up to defend the mail
Maul: don't engage in a maul and tackle the ball carrier
Re Start: Go for distance rather than contestable
Breakdown: Concede quick clean ball but add extra defenders into your line

In all the these aspects you are at a disadvantage (you lose territory, you concede clean possession etc) but you can still compete in the game. If you have an inferior scrum you are constantly giving away penalties which seems unfair.

Perhaps an option would be to actually allow teams not contest opposition scrums if they don't want to. Opposition gets clean ball. If it's your scrum you must contest or you cede possession.

I'm not sure this would ever go thru...especially if Aussie suggested it. But I do tend to agree: in all other areas if you are poor you lose possession, but if your scrum sucks you just cough up a constant string of 3-pointers. As the scrum is supposed to be primarily a way of restarting play, not a mechanism to exact penalties, it could be looked at a bit. I'd still favour penalties for things like deliberately collapsing etc, but there does seem to be a trend of just penalising a poor pack off the park for the sake of it, not necessarily because the lawbook has been infringed.

awec

Swiwi. wrote: »

I'm not sure this would ever go thru...especially if Aussie suggested it. But I do tend to agree: in all other areas if you are poor you lose possession, but if your scrum sucks you just cough up a constant string of 3-pointers. As the scrum is supposed to be primarily a way of restarting play, not a mechanism to exact penalties, it could be looked at a bit. I'd still favour penalties for things like deliberately collapsing etc, but there does seem to be a trend of just penalising a poor pack off the park for the sake of it, not necessarily because the lawbook has been infringed.

We often see penalties given when the ball is at the back of the scrum and available to play.

We see a lot of resets here too.

Is there merit in referees just telling teams to play on if the ball is available after a scrum collapses?

Swiwi.

awec wrote: »

We often see penalties given when the ball is at the back of the scrum and available to play.

We see a lot of resets here too.

Is there merit in referees just telling teams to play on if the ball is available after a scrum collapses?

Totally agree. But the lawbook says the refs are not supposed to let a collapsed scrum continue. The scrum still needs a lot of tweaking I reckon, but probably no changes until 2016 now I guess.