What rule would you change?

Eoin

Sorry if this has been done before, but if you could pick a rule (or two) that you could change, what would it be?

As a prop I would change the rule about being penalised for "popping up" in the scrum. 99% of the time a front-rower has to do this as the opposing guy is driving upwards forcing the chin into the chest and it is dangerous not to pop up. Most referees don't have a clue how to referee the scrum, in particular the front row, as you really have to have played there to know what is going on.

One of the things I hate about union is that a team gets rewarded for putting the ball out of play (by kicking upfield) - it just doesn't seem right! Don't really know how I would change it though...

Any more ideas?

Eoin

De Deraco

i can't think of that many changes but a clearer refen of the breakdown would be great, instead of being different rule for each referee.

Teg Veece

They have this thing in American football when once per match the captain of each team is allowed question the call of a ref. Another ref is used for a second opinion.
I would be interesting to see that introduced in rugby where the captain can force the ref to go to the video ref once in the game.
One disadvantage though would be that it would undermine the ref's authority, and on the pitch, that could be dangerous.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

NUTLEY BOY

I suggest a new LAW.

By the way, no rules in rugy please as that is for soccer types !

I think that parents should be banned from attending schools rugby matches, especially the friendlies, as they are the worst dissenters from refereeing decisions.

Also, it is very hard to order off or red card parents

Snickers Man

I would reduce the value of a try to three points.
I would increase the value of a dropped goal to four points.
I would make the ball heavier and less aerodynamic.

Turning the clock back? Yep. Sure is.
But if you look at the way scores accumulated back in the 1930s and 1940s, you will find that tries were a much more important means of scoring way back then.

Ireland won the Grand Slam in 1948 without kicking a single penalty goal. Could you imagine that happening today?

All the new changes have done is to make the game look like rugby league. A boring one dimensional game with 13 interchangeable players, any of whom could play anywhere. Where's the variety? Where's the notion that a man of any physcical makeup could find soemthing to do in Rugby?

The old ways were better. Bring them back.

Eoin

Snickers Man wrote:

I would reduce the value of a try to three points.
I would increase the value of a dropped goal to four points.
I would make the ball heavier and less aerodynamic.

Turning the clock back? Yep. Sure is.
But if you look at the way scores accumulated back in the 1930s and 1940s, you will find that tries were a much more important means of scoring way back then.

But if the tries are worth less, why would they become more important than scoring penalties? Tries are getting hard enough to score these days with the defensive game getting so much more professional, that teams won't even bother trying to score - it will just turn into a battle of the dropgoal. England may have won the world cup by doing this, but it was awful stuff to watch

Steffano2002

Snickers Man wrote:

I would reduce the value of a try to three points.
I would increase the value of a dropped goal to four points.
I would make the ball heavier and less aerodynamic.

Turning the clock back? Yep. Sure is.
But if you look at the way scores accumulated back in the 1930s and 1940s, you will find that tries were a much more important means of scoring way back then.

Ireland won the Grand Slam in 1948 without kicking a single penalty goal. Could you imagine that happening today?

All the new changes have done is to make the game look like rugby league. A boring one dimensional game with 13 interchangeable players, any of whom could play anywhere. Where's the variety? Where's the notion that a man of any physcical makeup could find soemthing to do in Rugby?

The old ways were better. Bring them back.

I couldn't disagree more! :eek:

Devaluating a try to 3 points will not make it a "more important means of scoring" at all! Why bother scoring tries if a penalty is worth the same and a drop goal is worth 4 points? That would kill the game in my opinion...

I would reduce the value of a penalty to 2 points though... I'm fed up with England always winning games (although that hasn't happened in 2 years now...) whilst being impossible to score a single try!

To be truthfully honest, I wouldn't change a single rugby law. Rugby is "logical" and no law in particular aggravates/irritates me (only referees do sometimes! ).

randomname2005

I would change the law regarding what the video ref can or cant do. As it currently stands the tvmo can only rule regarding events in touch and goal and successful kicks. I think it should be extended so any infringements in the phase of play leading up to a try can be questioned so any forward passes/knock ons would rule out a try.

Of course I would hate this if it meant Ireland winning try in the WC2007 final was disallowed (wishful thinking!!)

Steffano2002

randomname2005 wrote:

I would change the law regarding what the video ref can or cant do. As it currently stands the tvmo can only rule regarding events in touch and goal and successful kicks. I think it should be extended so any infringements in the phase of play leading up to a try can be questioned so any forward passes/knock ons would rule out a try.

Of course I would hate this if it meant Ireland winning try in the WC2007 final was disallowed (wishful thinking!!)

I fully agree with the above. Good point randomname2005

electric69

I would penalise players for handing-off in the throat...its seriously dangerous as someone could break another players windpipe.

Downtime

I would penalise players for handing-off in the throat...its seriously dangerous as someone could break another players windpipe.

Hand-offs to the face and throat are noramlly penalised anyway as it is considered dangerous play.

Eoin

Downtime wrote:

Hand-offs to the face and throat are noramlly penalised anyway as it is considered dangerous play.

I think you only get penalised if it is a closed fist or a punching motion, otherwise you can hand off to the face and throat.

electric69

Downtime wrote:

Hand-offs to the face and throat are noramlly penalised anyway as it is considered dangerous play.

No, it is actually allowed under the rules of the game. I couldn't quite believe it so i asked 2 different leinster branch referees and they both said it was legal. Very dangerous imo.

Steffano2002

eoin_s wrote:

I think you only get penalised if it is a closed fist or a punching motion, otherwise you can hand off to the face and throat.

When I hand-off I try to connect with the chest but it does happen that I connect with the face/throat. I never got penalised for it... And more importantly, I never injured anyone (except for their pride ).

I guess it's because I always have my hand open and my arm extended before I touch the opposing player.

Maccattack

Make it illegal to kick for touch every time you get the ball.

electric69

Maccattack wrote:

Make it illegal to kick for touch every time you get the ball.

Lol....it would be impossible for the refree to keep tabs of that.an extra match official would be needed for that realistically.And also if your team is under constant pressure and in your own '22' i dont think that it is a realistic option to run the ball from there.

Eoin

electric69 wrote:

Lol....it would be impossible for the refree to keep tabs of that.an extra match official would be needed for that realistically.And also if your team is under constant pressure and in your own '22' i dont think that it is a realistic option to run the ball from there.

Strangely enough, he seems to post mainly in the Rugby League Ireland forum, but I do agree to a point.

Maybe something like if you are outside your 22 and you kick to touch the lineout is from where you kicked it (as if you kicked it out on the full).

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

electric69

..yea it is..and always has been the rule.dont think he really thought that one through

Eoin

electric69 wrote:

..yea it is..and always has been the rule.dont think he really thought that one through

Yes I did - you just didn't read my post properly.

eoin_s wrote:

Maybe something like if you are outside your 22 and you kick to touch the lineout is from where you kicked it (as if you kicked it out on the full).

To clarify even if the ball bounces BEFORE it goes out.

Steffano2002

eoin_s wrote:

To clarify even if the ball bounces BEFORE it goes out.

That's what I understood first time around...

Downtime

Maybe if you are the defending side this could be appplied

outside your 22 and you kick to touch the lineout is from where you kicked it

but if you were the attacking side let the law stand as is as the defending side get the lineout anyway (so the advantage is somewhat with them)

Mungaman

I'd like to see the ref in all matches to dictate when the ball should be feed to the set scrum. I know that the current law states the ball must be feed to the scrum as soon as it is set but this as we all know does not happen. You would def see quicker re starts and hopefully asn end to scrum halfes trying to constantly milk penalties. I don't think you need to look to far to find a scrumhalf who plays for Cork Con, Munster and Ireland who would need to change his game