Print Page | Close Window

Boring Rugby

Printed From: Scarlet Fever Llanelli Rugby Sport Wales Tickets
Category: RUGBY
Forum Name: GENERAL RUGBY
Forum Description: Other rugby chat
URL: https://www.scarletfever.org/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=46180
Printed Date: 23 October 2021 at 12:12am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Boring Rugby
Posted By: dyniol53
Subject: Boring Rugby
Date Posted: 18 January 2021 at 11:53pm
Since the pandemic there have been lots of rugby commentators saying the game is becoming boring - too much kicking, too many big blokes running directly into other big blokes, scrums taking too long, too many mauls, the caterpillar ruck, Exeter pick and going from 5m out even when there’s an overlap outside etc

I’m wondering what fans on this forum think is the actual problem and what changes (if any) the law-makers should amend to create a more entertaining game


-------------
https://twitter.com/exile_podcast?lang=en



Replies:
Posted By: SA14
Date Posted: 19 January 2021 at 12:13am
Games in the English premiership are more entertaining and they use the same laws. 


Posted By: Gate12
Date Posted: 19 January 2021 at 7:45am
Good question, rugby should always look to improve.

First thing I'd do would be to clamp down on offsides, that's all we seem to hear lately is the ref shouting at players to stand still from kicks and coaching them at breakdowns so they need to start penalising them off the back of assistant ref's input (the main ref shouldn't need to be watching it, the officials need to work much better as a team). Players will soon get used to it and that should free up a bit of space.

Downgrade blocking/crossing etc. type offences to free kicks instead of pens, teams are more likely to run or kick to space from free kicks and I don't think a poorly timed dummy line should potentially result in 3 points against a team.

Somehow reduce the opportunities for jackals, that may sound a bit odd but the fear of being turned over is too high, I think that's catered for in the current rules but refs need to be much stricter on ensuring only the first person arriving can go for a turnover, too often it's the second/third player going for the ball.

Reduce subs to 6 players, 3 frontrow and the rest up to the teams, having 8 fresh players coming on every game is too much.

Trial having 14 players starting to see how it goes, leave the teams decide whether they want to drop a flanker or centre/wing which may lead to different approaches and a more interesting/open game.


Posted By: ladram
Date Posted: 19 January 2021 at 7:50am
if the ref tells a scrum half to use it he should use it instead of lining up the so obvious box kick,penalise them straight away.


Posted By: dr_martinov
Date Posted: 19 January 2021 at 8:00am
Two early posts mention the ref communication. I do like this aspect of the sport in some ways but a player and their team should know if they're offside or not. If they are, the ref should give a penalty. You can get rid of all of this coaching business by the ref and teams would get a lot more honest more quickly. It shifts responsibility for adhering to the laws onto the players themselves and not the ref for making the players, which really shouldn't be their role. 

I fully agree there are shades of grey at the breakdown and scrums that needs careful officiating (and explaining to viewers) but things like offside, nah. Players should not be listening to the ref to know they're offside or even illegally holding on at the breakdown. It just encourages players to break the rules until the ref asks them to stop, with no penalty.


Posted By: Fscarlet
Date Posted: 19 January 2021 at 8:14am
Make it that once a ruck is secure no more players can join the ruck thus reducing the caterpillar of protection that the scrum half gets.


Posted By: dr_martinov
Date Posted: 19 January 2021 at 8:24am
Originally posted by Fscarlet Fscarlet wrote:

Make it that once a ruck is secure no more players can join the ruck thus reducing the caterpillar of protection that the scrum half gets.

How would you define "secure" though? Again, too much on the ref to decide for me. Limit numbers of players in ruck to two or three each side? 

Many of our suggestions are looking league esque I notice. 


Posted By: Fscarlet
Date Posted: 19 January 2021 at 8:34am
Originally posted by dr_martinov dr_martinov wrote:

Originally posted by Fscarlet Fscarlet wrote:

Make it that once a ruck is secure no more players can join the ruck thus reducing the caterpillar of protection that the scrum half gets.

How would you define "secure" though? Again, too much on the ref to decide for me. Limit numbers of players in ruck to two or three each side? 

Many of our suggestions are looking league esque I notice. 

I don't know but I am getting bored of a scrum half waving players over to join the ruck to give him a extra yard or two for his box kick.


Posted By: GPR - Rochester
Date Posted: 19 January 2021 at 8:43am
Originally posted by Fscarlet Fscarlet wrote:

Originally posted by dr_martinov dr_martinov wrote:

Originally posted by Fscarlet Fscarlet wrote:

Make it that once a ruck is secure no more players can join the ruck thus reducing the caterpillar of protection that the scrum half gets.

How would you define "secure" though? Again, too much on the ref to decide for me. Limit numbers of players in ruck to two or three each side? 

Many of our suggestions are looking league esque I notice. 

I don't know but I am getting bored of a scrum half waving players over to join the ruck to give him a extra yard or two for his box kick.

Yes that is a very annoying part of rugby at the moment as is the protection created. Something needs to be done to encourage 9's to get on with the game - once the ball is available, even if it as the feet of player in the ruck, then it should be deemed to be in play and available not only to the 9 but the opposition. 


Posted By: dr_martinov
Date Posted: 19 January 2021 at 9:10am
Originally posted by GPR - Rochester GPR - Rochester wrote:

Originally posted by Fscarlet Fscarlet wrote:

Originally posted by dr_martinov dr_martinov wrote:

Originally posted by Fscarlet Fscarlet wrote:

Make it that once a ruck is secure no more players can join the ruck thus reducing the caterpillar of protection that the scrum half gets.

How would you define "secure" though? Again, too much on the ref to decide for me. Limit numbers of players in ruck to two or three each side? 

Many of our suggestions are looking league esque I notice. 

I don't know but I am getting bored of a scrum half waving players over to join the ruck to give him a extra yard or two for his box kick.

Yes that is a very annoying part of rugby at the moment as is the protection created. Something needs to be done to encourage 9's to get on with the game - once the ball is available, even if it as the feet of player in the ruck, then it should be deemed to be in play and available not only to the 9 but the opposition. 

The caterpillar, a term I love BTW, is a really good example of whatever rules you have, teams will find a way to slow it down and be safe when needed. The issue is this is now most of the time because playing it quickly is deemed to risky unless you are in their 22. If you outlawed the caterpillar I bet they'd just find some other way to do a very similar thing. I'd love to read input from Super rugby watchers on many of these comments. I still think the offside line is where to look as rush defences have neutralised the tactical 10 and pushed much of the pressure-relieving kicking onto box kicks from 9, and so caterpillar for protection and depth.


Posted By: GPR - Rochester
Date Posted: 19 January 2021 at 9:17am
Originally posted by dr_martinov dr_martinov wrote:

Originally posted by GPR - Rochester GPR - Rochester wrote:

Originally posted by Fscarlet Fscarlet wrote:

Originally posted by dr_martinov dr_martinov wrote:

Originally posted by Fscarlet Fscarlet wrote:

Make it that once a ruck is secure no more players can join the ruck thus reducing the caterpillar of protection that the scrum half gets.

How would you define "secure" though? Again, too much on the ref to decide for me. Limit numbers of players in ruck to two or three each side? 

Many of our suggestions are looking league esque I notice. 

I don't know but I am getting bored of a scrum half waving players over to join the ruck to give him a extra yard or two for his box kick.

Yes that is a very annoying part of rugby at the moment as is the protection created. Something needs to be done to encourage 9's to get on with the game - once the ball is available, even if it as the feet of player in the ruck, then it should be deemed to be in play and available not only to the 9 but the opposition. 

The caterpillar, a term I love BTW, is a really good example of whatever rules you have, teams will find a way to slow it down and be safe when needed. The issue is this is now most of the time because playing it quickly is deemed to risky unless you are in their 22. If you outlawed the caterpillar I bet they'd just find some other way to do a very similar thing. I'd love to read input from Super rugby watchers on many of these comments. I still think the offside line is where to look as rush defences have neutralised the tactical 10 and pushed much of the pressure-relieving kicking onto box kicks from 9, and so caterpillar for protection and depth.

Yes Dr M - the offside line, with the rush defensive system stifles much attacking intent. The way to beat it of course is to give yourself further depth but when you attack you must do so with pace. Why not add another 5 metres to the offside line and get ARs to police it rigorously - that would open up more time.


Posted By: Fscarlet
Date Posted: 19 January 2021 at 9:19am
Originally posted by GPR - Rochester GPR - Rochester wrote:

Originally posted by dr_martinov dr_martinov wrote:

Originally posted by GPR - Rochester GPR - Rochester wrote:

Originally posted by Fscarlet Fscarlet wrote:

Originally posted by dr_martinov dr_martinov wrote:

Originally posted by Fscarlet Fscarlet wrote:

Make it that once a ruck is secure no more players can join the ruck thus reducing the caterpillar of protection that the scrum half gets.

How would you define "secure" though? Again, too much on the ref to decide for me. Limit numbers of players in ruck to two or three each side? 

Many of our suggestions are looking league esque I notice. 

I don't know but I am getting bored of a scrum half waving players over to join the ruck to give him a extra yard or two for his box kick.

Yes that is a very annoying part of rugby at the moment as is the protection created. Something needs to be done to encourage 9's to get on with the game - once the ball is available, even if it as the feet of player in the ruck, then it should be deemed to be in play and available not only to the 9 but the opposition. 

The caterpillar, a term I love BTW, is a really good example of whatever rules you have, teams will find a way to slow it down and be safe when needed. The issue is this is now most of the time because playing it quickly is deemed to risky unless you are in their 22. If you outlawed the caterpillar I bet they'd just find some other way to do a very similar thing. I'd love to read input from Super rugby watchers on many of these comments. I still think the offside line is where to look as rush defences have neutralised the tactical 10 and pushed much of the pressure-relieving kicking onto box kicks from 9, and so caterpillar for protection and depth.

Yes Dr M - the offside line, with the rush defensive system stifles much attacking intent. The way to beat it of course is to give yourself further depth but when you attack you must do so with pace. Why not add another 5 metres to the offside line and get ARs to police it rigorously - that would open up more time.

I think that would mean teams would just dead ruck everything, i.e. not put any players in there & have 14 (15 if the tackler gets up quickly) players back in the defensive line.



Posted By: Jones2004
Date Posted: 19 January 2021 at 9:41am
There’s a few laws that I’d like to see changed. Firstly with the rucks, when the ref says ‘use it’ the scrum half should have two seconds to use rather than the current five. Trying to set up a caterpillar ruck in two seconds would be hard for any scrum half. I’d also like to see the scrum option from free kicks removed - perhaps it would encourage the refs to use it more, especially with crooked feeds. 
Another thing I’d change is to get rid of the penalty if a scrum is out-powered. The reward for the stronger team should be a front foot ball / turnover of possession and not to milk a penalty out of it. I’d also strictly penalise the rule that says players should bind onto another when joining the rucks, reducing the risk to jacklers. 
Lastly I’d put a limit of three subs per game (excluding HIA). Teams would be allowed 6 or 7 players on their bench to reduce chances of uncontested scrums but only three of them could come on. This should force players (especially tight 5 forwards) to lose a bit of size, therefore reducing the size of hits and number of subsequent injuries. It should also allow more space to develop in the last twenty minutes, making the games more exciting. 


Posted By: dyniol53
Date Posted: 19 January 2021 at 11:14am
Originally posted by Jones2004 Jones2004 wrote:

Firstly with the rucks, when the ref says ‘use it’ the scrum half should have two seconds to use rather than the current five. Trying to set up a caterpillar ruck in two seconds would be hard for any scrum half. 

I agree as others above - Caterpillar should be sped up. I agree timing could be shortened to 3 seconds OR I’ve felt refs could start the count to 5 earlier - I.e. as soon as the 9 touches the ball with his feet to start rolling it back. Not waiting to call “use it!” when it’s already at the back of the ruck.

Originally posted by Jones2004 Jones2004 wrote:

I’d also like to see the scrum option from free kicks removed - perhaps it would encourage the refs to use it more, especially with crooked feeds.
 

I agree that feeding is now the norm, which I think means Hookers do less hooking, which means teams with powerful scrums have less incentive to get the ball OUT because they try to get the shove on instead (which is the point you make below) 

Originally posted by Jones2004 Jones2004 wrote:

Another thing I’d change is to get rid of the penalty if a scrum is out-powered. The reward for the stronger team should be a front foot ball / turnover of possession and not to milk a penalty out of it. 

Agree with this somewhat - but the Scrum is so integral to getting a platform i don’t think you can reduce the stakes of the contest without devaluing the roles of the props etc 

Originally posted by Jones2004 Jones2004 wrote:

I’d also strictly penalise the rule that says players should bind onto another when joining the rucks, reducing the risk to jacklers.
 

It’s interesting how rules like this have been forgotten

Originally posted by Jones2004 Jones2004 wrote:

Lastly I’d put a limit of three subs per game (excluding HIA). Teams would be allowed 6 or 7 players on their bench to reduce chances of uncontested scrums but only three of them could come on. This should force players (especially tight 5 forwards) to lose a bit of size, therefore reducing the size of hits and number of subsequent injuries. It should also allow more space to develop in the last twenty minutes, making the games more exciting. 

I agree reducing the number of subs would be a good thing but the issue is how not to incentivise another “blood gate” where a team could confer a massive advantage in big games from faking injuries. 

I think they should try and reduce the subs to 3 - we should expect props to be able to play Tight head and loose head.
We already see some modern hookers are able to play 8, 2nd rows on the flank, 9s at 10, 10 at 12 etc etc. 

I think the game would benefit from a little less specialisation and thus more fatigue in the final 20 minutes.


-------------
https://twitter.com/exile_podcast?lang=en


Posted By: dyniol53
Date Posted: 19 January 2021 at 11:27am
Originally posted by Gate12 Gate12 wrote:

Good question, rugby should always look to improve.

First thing I'd do would be to clamp down on offsides, that's all we seem to hear lately is the ref shouting at players to stand still from kicks and coaching them at breakdowns so they need to start penalising them off the back of assistant ref's input (the main ref shouldn't need to be watching it, the officials need to work much better as a team). Players will soon get used to it and that should free up a bit of space.

Interesting, I hadn’t thought Offsides / Rush defences might be at the root cause of all this. You do see great 10s like Ntmack using chip kicks in attack quite well because of it. 

But yes, start by penalising the offsides - perhaps even bringing the TMO in to call infringements of this to ensure sides know they’ll be caught if they’re not onside. 

A more radical rule might be that each defensive player must be stood behind the back foot of their inside player in the defensive line. In essence the offside like is not parallel but angles backwards- meaning there is more time/space out wide.

Originally posted by Gate12 Gate12 wrote:

Downgrade blocking/crossing etc. type offences to free kicks instead of pens, teams are more likely to run or kick to space from free kicks and I don't think a poorly timed dummy line should potentially result in 3 points against a team.


Interesting, would like to see how this changed incentives - blocking of chasing runners irritates me a lot!

Originally posted by Gate12 Gate12 wrote:


Somehow reduce the opportunities for jackals, that may sound a bit odd but the fear of being turned over is too high, I think that's catered for in the current rules but refs need to be much stricter on ensuring only the first person arriving can go for a turnover, too often it's the second/third player going for the ball.

Agree, the price of turnover is very high which means teams don’t risk players making half breaks and also don’t release the ball when they are being turned over.

Agree the rules about 2nd/3rd player. 

Originally posted by Gate12 Gate12 wrote:

Reduce subs to 6 players, 3 frontrow and the rest up to the teams, having 8 fresh players coming on every game is too much.


As I’ve said above - ideally reduce subs down so that more players become utility players. 

Originally posted by Gate12 Gate12 wrote:

Trial having 14 players starting to see how it goes, leave the teams decide whether they want to drop a flanker or centre/wing which may lead to different approaches and a more interesting/open game.

Again, would be interesting - but I don’t like the idea of fiddling with core concepts like that.


-------------
https://twitter.com/exile_podcast?lang=en


Posted By: dyniol53
Date Posted: 19 January 2021 at 11:50am
Originally posted by dr_martinov dr_martinov wrote:

I'd love to read input from Super rugby watchers on many of these comments. I still think the offside line is where to look as rush defences have neutralised the tactical 10 and pushed much of the pressure-relieving kicking onto box kicks from 9, and so caterpillar for protection and depth.

Yes, it would be interesting to hear if SH fans are having the same dreary arguments. 

Some have argued for Rugby to turn into a Summer Sport - or perhaps create more indoor arenas like Millennium, Dunedin or La Defance in Paris.

But i’m not sure I’d be able to say Wales home games are more exciting than anyone else’s.. Racing are exciting but not just because they play indoors. Then I don’t watch the Highlanders much so couldn’t say.


-------------
https://twitter.com/exile_podcast?lang=en


Posted By: Jones2004
Date Posted: 19 January 2021 at 11:57am
Originally posted by dyniol53 dyniol53 wrote:

Originally posted by dr_martinov dr_martinov wrote:

I'd love to read input from Super rugby watchers on many of these comments. I still think the offside line is where to look as rush defences have neutralised the tactical 10 and pushed much of the pressure-relieving kicking onto box kicks from 9, and so caterpillar for protection and depth.

Yes, it would be interesting to hear if SH fans are having the same dreary arguments. 

Some have argued for Rugby to turn into a Summer Sport - or perhaps create more indoor arenas like Millennium, Dunedin or La Defance in Paris.

But i’m not sure I’d be able to say Wales home games are more exciting than anyone else’s.. Racing are exciting but not just because they play indoors. Then I don’t watch the Highlanders much so couldn’t say.
We all talk about New Zealand rugby as the most exciting even though their teams kick a lot more than the global average and their weather isn’t exactly great! The difference is their kicks are attacking kicks, not necessarily chip kicks but well thought and executed kicks, and their basic skills are superb. If the Welsh teams came close to emulating that then the games would become a lot more interesting without needing to wait for any law changes.


Posted By: GPR - Rochester
Date Posted: 19 January 2021 at 12:09pm
Well we in the Northern Hemisphere ( notable exceptions aside like all French teams) seem pretty incapable of clear attacking thought. How many clear overlaps have we wasted this season? The commentators were getting excited when Edinburgh made the most of a man in the bin and used the overlap to score last Saturday. This was after they had butchered an earlier chance when throwing a long miss pass which allowed the defender to drift & stop the try.

Very rarely do you see NZ or Australia for that matter make such mistakes when given nailed on try scoring chances. Are our players less naturally skillful - I don't think so; are they being coached to be risk free - too right with the result that even when a risk is not needed they play safety first. 


Posted By: dyniol53
Date Posted: 19 January 2021 at 12:44pm
So would the two previous posters say there’s nothing wrong with the game per-se, just the way teams are coached in Northern Hemisphere?

-------------
https://twitter.com/exile_podcast?lang=en


Posted By: SA14
Date Posted: 19 January 2021 at 12:56pm
No kicking. LOL


Posted By: Eastern outpost
Date Posted: 19 January 2021 at 12:59pm
Some very good thinking on this thread. If only we could get some introduced.

Enforcing existing rules is easiest and would cure lack of space caused by offside, for example.

How about someone timing on the side whether the caterpillar has taken too long and they blow up, eg if ref has said use it, or doing it separately from the ref.

Giving the players the hurry up would soon get the message over and improve the game.


-------------
In a world where you can be anything – Be Kind.


Posted By: GPR - Rochester
Date Posted: 19 January 2021 at 1:13pm
Originally posted by dyniol53 dyniol53 wrote:

So would the two previous posters say there’s nothing wrong with the game per-se, just the way teams are coached in Northern Hemisphere?

No I wouldn't say there's nothing wrong with the game. The breakdown battle has become far too important in my view. We are talking specifically here about making the game more entertaining and not safer - that is another thread. For greater entertainment most of us want to see running open pacey rugby with skillful players being rewarded. More time and space should equal more open rugby but players have to have an attacking mindset when they enter the arena. Perhaps we should look at what the rewards are for scoring. Make all kicks 2 points, tries from within 10 metres of the opposition  line 4 points, from within the opponents half 5 points, from your own half 7 points. 


Posted By: Jones2004
Date Posted: 19 January 2021 at 1:13pm
Originally posted by dyniol53 dyniol53 wrote:

So would the two previous posters say there’s nothing wrong with the game per-se, just the way teams are coached in Northern Hemisphere?
No, I’d say it’s a combination of the two. My opinion is the game could be better if the players were coached differently, but rule changes could and probably should be introduced to make rugby more exciting (and hopefully safer.) But it’s a fine line between keeping the essence of the game, and making it a better spectacle to watch.


Posted By: dyniol53
Date Posted: 19 January 2021 at 2:45pm
Originally posted by GPR - Rochester GPR - Rochester wrote:

Originally posted by dyniol53 dyniol53 wrote:

So would the two previous posters say there’s nothing wrong with the game per-se, just the way teams are coached in Northern Hemisphere?

No I wouldn't say there's nothing wrong with the game. The breakdown battle has become far too important in my view. We are talking specifically here about making the game more entertaining and not safer - that is another thread. For greater entertainment most of us want to see running open pacey rugby with skillful players being rewarded. More time and space should equal more open rugby but players have to have an attacking mindset when they enter the arena. Perhaps we should look at what the rewards are for scoring. Make all kicks 2 points, tries from within 10 metres of the opposition  line 4 points, from within the opponents half 5 points, from your own half 7 points. 

FWIW I agree that there seems to be a mindset issue with Northern Hemisphere rugby “must not lose” & “no mistakes” attitude vs go out and try and play the game at high tempo.

Though I think Scotland tried the latter during the last WC cycle and what it meant was they would inevitably score try of the tournament but come 5th in the 6N and lost 2/3 Autumn Intls.

I find twisting the scoring perverts incentives - if you make a penalty worth less then defences infringe more because it’s less costly. 

Though I think you could trial a way where a conversion is worth 3 if the try is scored from outside the 22 etc


-------------
https://twitter.com/exile_podcast?lang=en


Posted By: dyniol53
Date Posted: 19 January 2021 at 2:51pm
Originally posted by Jones2004 Jones2004 wrote:

Originally posted by dyniol53 dyniol53 wrote:

So would the two previous posters say there’s nothing wrong with the game per-se, just the way teams are coached in Northern Hemisphere?
No, I’d say it’s a combination of the two. My opinion is the game could be better if the players were coached differently, but rule changes could and probably should be introduced to make rugby more exciting (and hopefully safer.) But it’s a fine line between keeping the essence of the game, and making it a better spectacle to watch.

Agree with all points, I suppose the purpose of this thread would be to try and tweak the laws or change the way the laws are enforced so that coaches are incentivised to coach more positive rugby.

The thing I like about lowering subs is that it means the same players have to run that “rush” defence for 80 minutes - which means more fatigue, less intense defence, so hopefully more gaps space and opportunities for mismatches. 

Another alternative is to make the game 90 minutes (perhaps with 2 quarter times to keep the advertisers happy LOL )


-------------
https://twitter.com/exile_podcast?lang=en


Posted By: Dic Penderyn
Date Posted: 22 January 2021 at 8:48am
Much of the problem lies with the coaches,and not the law-makers.For instance,no fly-half today has to contend with flankers breaking early from the scrum and flying up on him,as they did in Benny's day.Likewise with the lineout and the change to the offside line there.In spite of these  positive changes,coaches have failed to respond by encouraging attacking play at 10 .At the break-down,players are coached to win the penalty rather than win/provide the ball:this has become a massive part of flanker play,contributing to the attrtitional nature of the position,and is,I would argue,to the detriment of the game.There's an interview with Cipriani on Walesonline today(culled from the Mail)where he offers some interesting,sensible thoughts in relation to England.


Posted By: Fscarlet
Date Posted: 22 January 2021 at 8:56am
Originally posted by Dic Penderyn Dic Penderyn wrote:

Much of the problem lies with the coaches,and not the law-makers.For instance,no fly-half today has to contend with flankers breaking early from the scrum and flying up on him,as they did in Benny's day.Likewise with the lineout and the change to the offside line there.In spite of these  positive changes,coaches have failed to respond by encouraging attacking play at 10 .At the break-down,players are coached to win the penalty rather than win/provide the ball:this has become a massive part of flanker play,contributing to the attrtitional nature of the position,and is,I would argue,to the detriment of the game.There's an interview with Cipriani on Walesonline today(culled from the Mail)where he offers some interesting,sensible thoughts in relation to England.

True, this is because they know they will have a kick to touch/goal rather than turn the ball over, have one phase & potentially lose it from a knock on. I don't know what the answer is but if you look at lower league, we have less subs (yes I know its not even close to being on the same level as the pro game but still) & I feel the game is better for it. 


Posted By: GPR - Rochester
Date Posted: 22 January 2021 at 9:05am
Originally posted by Dic Penderyn Dic Penderyn wrote:

Much of the problem lies with the coaches,and not the law-makers.For instance,no fly-half today has to contend with flankers breaking early from the scrum and flying up on him,as they did in Benny's day.Likewise with the lineout and the change to the offside line there.In spite of these  positive changes,coaches have failed to respond by encouraging attacking play at 10 .At the break-down,players are coached to win the penalty rather than win/provide the ball:this has become a massive part of flanker play,contributing to the attrtitional nature of the position,and is,I would argue,to the detriment of the game.There's an interview with Cipriani on Walesonline today(culled from the Mail)where he offers some interesting,sensible thoughts in relation to England.

The breakdown area needs a complete overhaul. It is a recipe for negative rugby as well as being an area of lots of injuries in general including head. A rule limiting the number allowed to be involved in the ruck would be a start, only players on their feet, counter rucking ok with again limited numbers, no judo style clear outs, straight red card for anyone entering the ruck off their feet.


Posted By: Dic Penderyn
Date Posted: 22 January 2021 at 9:09am
Originally posted by Fscarlet Fscarlet wrote:

Originally posted by Dic Penderyn Dic Penderyn wrote:

Much of the problem lies with the coaches,and not the law-makers.For instance,no fly-half today has to contend with flankers breaking early from the scrum and flying up on him,as they did in Benny's day.Likewise with the lineout and the change to the offside line there.In spite of these  positive changes,coaches have failed to respond by encouraging attacking play at 10 .At the break-down,players are coached to win the penalty rather than win/provide the ball:this has become a massive part of flanker play,contributing to the attrtitional nature of the position,and is,I would argue,to the detriment of the game.There's an interview with Cipriani on Walesonline today(culled from the Mail)where he offers some interesting,sensible thoughts in relation to England.

True, this is because they know they will have a kick to touch/goal rather than turn the ball over, have one phase & potentially lose it from a knock on. I don't know what the answer is but if you look at lower league, we have less subs (yes I know its not even close to being on the same level as the pro game but still) & I feel the game is better for it. 
The mind-set is depressing,and it's logical conclusion is to avoid passing/handling/running with the ball.I do think there's a valid argument re.subs.


Posted By: Fscarlet
Date Posted: 22 January 2021 at 9:11am
Originally posted by Dic Penderyn Dic Penderyn wrote:

The mind-set is depressing,and it's logical conclusion is to avoid passing/handling/running with the ball.I do think there's a valid argument re.subs.

It is very depressing. I never thought I wouldn't be incredibly excited about the 6 nations but I am not feeling it this year as I know that the sides are now preferring to kick the ball away & prey on mistakes from the oppostion.

The interview with Cips says that Eddie doesn't want England to have the ball but in all truth with the 2 flankers & backs they have got they are capable of playing a very attractive style of rugby.


Posted By: Dic Penderyn
Date Posted: 22 January 2021 at 9:21am
Originally posted by Fscarlet Fscarlet wrote:

Originally posted by Dic Penderyn Dic Penderyn wrote:

The mind-set is depressing,and it's logical conclusion is to avoid passing/handling/running with the ball.I do think there's a valid argument re.subs.

It is very depressing. I never thought I wouldn't be incredibly excited about the 6 nations but I am not feeling it this year as I know that the sides are now preferring to kick the ball away & prey on mistakes from the oppostion.

The interview with Cips says that Eddie doesn't want England to have the ball but in all truth with the 2 flankers & backs they have got they are capable of playing a very attractive style of rugby.

...but not,I'd say,with the slow,mechanical,pre-programmed play-makers they persist in picking.Always been a bit of an Anglo-Saxon trait,it could be argued,but one which spread throughout European rugby with professionalism.Fortunately,the French seem to be returning to some of their traditional values-I'd like to see Wales do the same.I'd argue that much of Gatland's success in 6 Nations was achieved at the expense of a French side that had lost its way.


Posted By: GPR - Rochester
Date Posted: 22 January 2021 at 9:21am
Yes interesting comments from Cipriani. Would I pay more to travel to watch a team with Cipriani playing 10 and allowed to play what was in front him over watching Farrell continually kick - for sure. The defensive negative tactics employed by most in the game will mean that England will always be there or thereabouts in competitions. However, as South Africa proved, no plan B = defeat when plan A doesn't work. 

When they come up against a side they cannot bully, who meet them head on the gainline and compete just as hard at set pieces they are going to need more. They may well come unstuck this season against France for that very reason. 


Posted By: Fscarlet
Date Posted: 22 January 2021 at 9:24am
I just feel that coaches don't have the confidence in players handling skills now.

If you look at what Wales did under Gatland, incredible defence aside, Wales handling skills were very good & they did the basics right. How many times now do we see a prop or hooker as first receiver & there's a little fumble? 


Posted By: scarletnut
Date Posted: 22 January 2021 at 9:37am
Originally posted by GPR - Rochester GPR - Rochester wrote:

Yes interesting comments from Cipriani. Would I pay more to travel to watch a team with Cipriani playing 10 and allowed to play what was in front him over watching Farrell continually kick - for sure. The defensive negative tactics employed by most in the game will mean that England will always be there or thereabouts in competitions. However, as South Africa proved, no plan B = defeat when plan A doesn't work. 

When they come up against a side they cannot bully, who meet them head on the gainline and compete just as hard at set pieces they are going to need more. They may well come unstuck this season against France for that very reason. 
I love watching Cipriani play when he’s at his best but he’s like a sieve in defence 

-------------
I still wake up late at night and think of what might have been when tim stimpson hit that jammy penalty1


Posted By: dr_martinov
Date Posted: 22 January 2021 at 9:40am
Originally posted by Fscarlet Fscarlet wrote:

Originally posted by Dic Penderyn Dic Penderyn wrote:

The mind-set is depressing,and it's logical conclusion is to avoid passing/handling/running with the ball.I do think there's a valid argument re.subs.

It is very depressing. I never thought I wouldn't be incredibly excited about the 6 nations but I am not feeling it this year as I know that the sides are now preferring to kick the ball away & prey on mistakes from the oppostion.

The interview with Cips says that Eddie doesn't want England to have the ball but in all truth with the 2 flankers & backs they have got they are capable of playing a very attractive style of rugby.

When many teams actively don't want the ball I think the sport has an issue. Dic's comment about the breakdown being about winning the penalty and not the ball is also very insightful. We could also look at changing the points for tries, conversion, penalties again, either increasing a try to 6 points or decreasing a penalty to 2. There would still be a lot of penalties kicked deep for lineouts but then at least there's options from that: catch and drive, ruck, out quick to backs.

The downside of course would possibly be teams cynically giving away more penalties if there's a lower er... penalty but if you then bring in cards for cynical stuff that could address that. I still think my point that refs should not be expected to explain the law constantly to both sides as some sort of running coach-commentator. If someone does something wrong, ping them and then explain why. They are professional rugby players who should know the laws. The ref's interpretation will always play a large part in the game I know but refs having to say "there's the offside line" or "no, you can't go in from that angle" or even "no, don't touch it" when a player is about to catch a ball in an offside position is silly when you compare it to other sports and it means players play the ref, not the actual laws. 


Posted By: Eastern outpost
Date Posted: 22 January 2021 at 2:19pm
Originally posted by scarletnut scarletnut wrote:

Originally posted by GPR - Rochester GPR - Rochester wrote:

Yes interesting comments from Cipriani. Would I pay more to travel to watch a team with Cipriani playing 10 and allowed to play what was in front him over watching Farrell continually kick - for sure. The defensive negative tactics employed by most in the game will mean that England will always be there or thereabouts in competitions. However, as South Africa proved, no plan B = defeat when plan A doesn't work. 

When they come up against a side they cannot bully, who meet them head on the gainline and compete just as hard at set pieces they are going to need more. They may well come unstuck this season against France for that very reason. 
I love watching Cipriani play when he’s at his best but he’s like a sieve in defence 
Shame he never played on the same side as Sivivatu. Wink

-------------
In a world where you can be anything – Be Kind.


Posted By: dyniol53
Date Posted: 25 January 2021 at 12:07pm
Originally posted by Dic Penderyn Dic Penderyn wrote:

Originally posted by Fscarlet Fscarlet wrote:

Originally posted by Dic Penderyn Dic Penderyn wrote:

Much of the problem lies with the coaches,and not the law-makers.

I don't know what the answer is but if you look at lower league, we have less subs (yes I know its not even close to being on the same level as the pro game but still) & I feel the game is better for it. 
The mind-set is depressing,and it's logical conclusion is to avoid passing/handling/running with the ball.I do think there's a valid argument re.subs.

Just reading an interview with a recently retired Irish centre who “didn’t fulfil his potential” in Leinster or Ireland; here’s what he says about coaching

Joe Schmidt came in as Leinster boss in 2010 and Macken admits “it wouldn’t take a rocket scientist to realise I didn’t get on particularly well with Joe.” There was no hostility, Macken stresses, but he never felt Schmidt backed him to be the player he wanted to be.

“He wanted me to be crash, bang, and wallop, which wasn’t how I played. I liked using my pass but I was told not to throw miss passes.”

https://www.the42.ie/brendan-macken-leinster-retirement-5332536-Jan2021/" rel="nofollow - https://www.the42.ie/brendan-macken-leinster-retirement-5332536-Jan2021/


Certainly is depressing to see that - when you read the article you hear that this kid was expected to go far but the Irish system didn’t suit how he wanted to play so essentially spat him out.

I think about Bierne and how incredible he was for us - and how the Irish system hasn’t fully managed to let him blossom. 

Then of  think how many of these incredibly skilful players is rugby spitting out because they’re “not heavy enough, not powerful enough” etc



-------------
https://twitter.com/exile_podcast?lang=en


Posted By: dyniol53
Date Posted: 28 February 2021 at 5:36pm
3 weeks into the 6Nations, has anyone changed their minds?

-------------
https://twitter.com/exile_podcast?lang=en


Posted By: SA14
Date Posted: 28 February 2021 at 5:52pm
If the Lions tour goes ahead I’d be a worried Gatland. 


Posted By: greypower1
Date Posted: 28 February 2021 at 5:57pm
The forming of long caterpillars to protect the scrum half has got to be the most boring aspect of the modern game closely followed by the crouch, set, engage, collapse and start all over again routine of the time consuming scrum.  Whilst I'm at it, the "meeting" before the lineout followed by the slow walk to form the lineout.  I'm sure I've missed a few more boring aspects. 

-------------
Keep the faith


Posted By: Fscarlet
Date Posted: 28 February 2021 at 6:00pm
Originally posted by greypower1 greypower1 wrote:

The forming of long caterpillars to protect the scrum half has got to be the most boring aspect of the modern game closely followed by the crouch, set, engage, collapse and start all over again routine of the time consuming scrum.  Whilst I'm at it, the "meeting" before the lineout followed by the slow walk to form the lineout.  I'm sure I've missed a few more boring aspects. 

I’ll give the ref his dues, when a scrum went down yesterday he told the 9 to use it if it was available rather than reset it. 


Posted By: scarletnut
Date Posted: 28 February 2021 at 6:17pm
Originally posted by SA14 SA14 wrote:

If the Lions tour goes ahead I’d be a worried Gatland. 
South Africa haven’t played since the 2019 RWC final.

-------------
I still wake up late at night and think of what might have been when tim stimpson hit that jammy penalty1


Posted By: ap sior
Date Posted: 28 February 2021 at 6:23pm
1. Players must get to the line out quicker, failure, sanction free kick.

2. Refs must apply the 5 second rule at ruck time after they've called 'ball available', or change rules to make the charge down of SH's kick a free kick offence. This will reduce the caterpillar or make it defunct.

3. Change the law so that teams cannot choose a penalty scrum, unless it's an attacking 5m scrum.

Those are my recommendations for change. 

Feel free to criticise. 


Posted By: aber-fan
Date Posted: 28 February 2021 at 6:25pm
Originally posted by greypower1 greypower1 wrote:

The forming of long caterpillars to protect the scrum half has got to be the most boring aspect of the modern game closely followed by the crouch, set, engage, collapse and start all over again routine of the time consuming scrum.  Whilst I'm at it, the "meeting" before the lineout followed by the slow walk to form the lineout.  I'm sure I've missed a few more boring aspects. 

Quite right - we need a lot more of this.

The rugby these last few weeks is nowhere near the standard of boringness we have been used to, and to which we have an absolute right!

Come on, players!


-------------
“You cannot reason a man out of what he never reasoned himself into.” (Jonathan Swift)


Posted By: SA14
Date Posted: 28 February 2021 at 6:50pm
Originally posted by scarletnut scarletnut wrote:

Originally posted by SA14 SA14 wrote:

If the Lions tour goes ahead I’d be a worried Gatland. 
South Africa haven’t played since the 2019 RWC final.

The Lions haven’t played since 2017. 


Posted By: dyniol53
Date Posted: 19 March 2021 at 2:55pm
Major League Rugby (American) are trialling some tweaks to the laws:

https://www.majorleague.rugby/news/arc-law-variations-2/" rel="nofollow - https://www.majorleague.rugby/news/arc-law-variations-2/

In addition to the enhanced communications for the referees MLR will be trialing new law variations which the referees will be implementing as the 2021 season begins March 20.

• Kickers will have 60 seconds as opposed 90 seconds for any kick (conversion/penalty) and will have a kick clock to help guide them.

• Seven points will be automatically awarded for any try scored directly under the posts and no conversion will be necessary.

• Referees will work with stricter protocols that will limit the number of scrums to two per incident – the original plus one reset for a collapse, penalty, or freekick.

• The offside line will be the feed line/channel of the scrum to allow for unimpeded access to the ball at the back of the scrum for the attacking team.

• No longer will a red card mean a team plays a man down for the remainder of the match. Under the new law a red card would lead to a player being sent off and the team goes down to 14 players for 20 minutes. After 20 minutes, the player can be replaced with another player on the bench. The red carded players cannot return to the field in any event and will go through subsequent disciplinary procedures.

“Our goal is to continue to offer fans and teams fast paced, competitive rugby that is safe and balanced.” said Jonathan Kaplan, Match Official Director. “We believe these new laws will enhance our on-field product while staying true to the spirit of rugby.”



-------------
https://twitter.com/exile_podcast?lang=en


Posted By: dyniol53
Date Posted: 19 March 2021 at 3:17pm
Originally posted by me me wrote:

Originally posted by Jones2004 Jones2004 wrote:

Lastly I’d put a limit of three subs per game (excluding HIA). Teams would be allowed 6 or 7 players on their bench to reduce chances of uncontested scrums but only three of them could come on. This should force players (especially tight 5 forwards) to lose a bit of size, therefore reducing the size of hits and number of subsequent injuries. It should also allow more space to develop in the last twenty minutes, making the games more exciting. 

I agree reducing the number of subs would be a good thing but the issue is how not to incentivise another “blood gate” where a team could confer a massive advantage in big games from faking injuries. 

I think they should try and reduce the subs to 3 - we should expect props to be able to play Tight head and loose head.
We already see some modern hookers are able to play 8, 2nd rows on the flank, 9s at 10, 10 at 12 etc etc. 

I think the game would benefit from a little less specialisation and thus more fatigue in the final 20 minutes.

Interestingly the Aussie Rules League is introducing injury subs in response to concussion guidelines. But fans have pointed out that teams are likely to abuse it. They are suggesting that any player who comes off as an injury sub has to miss the next fixture (any game in the following 10 days). 

I think a similar thing could be useful in rugby. 3 normal subs allowed and up to 8 injury subs but an inj subbed off player has to miss a game.


-------------
https://twitter.com/exile_podcast?lang=en


Posted By: Mrfwon
Date Posted: 19 March 2021 at 3:20pm
Originally posted by dyniol53 dyniol53 wrote:

Since the pandemic there have been lots of rugby commentators saying the game is becoming boring - too much kicking, too many big blokes running directly into other big blokes, scrums taking too long, too many mauls, the caterpillar ruck, Exeter pick and going from 5m out even when there’s an overlap outside etc

I’m wondering what fans on this forum think is the actual problem and what changes (if any) the law-makers should amend to create a more entertaining game

Run everything, ban kicking LOLLOLLOLStarStarStar


-------------
New Season, New Start


Posted By: Fscarlet
Date Posted: 19 March 2021 at 3:32pm
Originally posted by Mrfwon Mrfwon wrote:

Originally posted by dyniol53 dyniol53 wrote:

Since the pandemic there have been lots of rugby commentators saying the game is becoming boring - too much kicking, too many big blokes running directly into other big blokes, scrums taking too long, too many mauls, the caterpillar ruck, Exeter pick and going from 5m out even when there’s an overlap outside etc

I’m wondering what fans on this forum think is the actual problem and what changes (if any) the law-makers should amend to create a more entertaining game

Run everything, ban kicking LOLLOLLOLStarStarStar

As a paid up member of the front row union, I object!!!LOLLOLLOL


Posted By: reesytheexile
Date Posted: 19 March 2021 at 4:59pm
Originally posted by Fscarlet Fscarlet wrote:

Originally posted by Mrfwon Mrfwon wrote:

Originally posted by dyniol53 dyniol53 wrote:

Since the pandemic there have been lots of rugby commentators saying the game is becoming boring - too much kicking, too many big blokes running directly into other big blokes, scrums taking too long, too many mauls, the caterpillar ruck, Exeter pick and going from 5m out even when there’s an overlap outside etc

I’m wondering what fans on this forum think is the actual problem and what changes (if any) the law-makers should amend to create a more entertaining game

Run everything, ban kicking LOLLOLLOLStarStarStar

As a paid up member of the front row union, I object!!!LOLLOLLOL
Bigger pitches 😉

-------------
"I'd rather have been a judge than a miner.Being a miner,as soon as you are too old and tired and sick and stupid to do the job properly,you have to go.The very opposite applies with judges!"P.Cook


Posted By: N14
Date Posted: 19 March 2021 at 5:20pm
Originally posted by dyniol53 dyniol53 wrote:

Major League Rugby (American) are trialling some tweaks to the laws:

https://www.majorleague.rugby/news/arc-law-variations-2/" rel="nofollow - https://www.majorleague.rugby/news/arc-law-variations-2/

In addition to the enhanced communications for the referees MLR will be trialing new law variations which the referees will be implementing as the 2021 season begins March 20.

• Kickers will have 60 seconds as opposed 90 seconds for any kick (conversion/penalty) and will have a kick clock to help guide them.

• Seven points will be automatically awarded for any try scored directly under the posts and no conversion will be necessary.

• Referees will work with stricter protocols that will limit the number of scrums to two per incident – the original plus one reset for a collapse, penalty, or freekick.

• The offside line will be the feed line/channel of the scrum to allow for unimpeded access to the ball at the back of the scrum for the attacking team.

• No longer will a red card mean a team plays a man down for the remainder of the match. Under the new law a red card would lead to a player being sent off and the team goes down to 14 players for 20 minutes. After 20 minutes, the player can be replaced with another player on the bench. The red carded players cannot return to the field in any event and will go through subsequent disciplinary procedures.

“Our goal is to continue to offer fans and teams fast paced, competitive rugby that is safe and balanced.” said Jonathan Kaplan, Match Official Director. “We believe these new laws will enhance our on-field product while staying true to the spirit of rugby.”


They're interesting, I don't like the last one though. Games often open up with there being more gaps in the defence when a team goes down to 14, leading to a greater chance of tries/exciting attacking play. Also only being down to 14 men for 20 minutes makes a more lenient punishment for potential dangerous play etc.


Posted By: ladram
Date Posted: 19 March 2021 at 5:23pm
Originally posted by Mrfwon Mrfwon wrote:

Originally posted by dyniol53 dyniol53 wrote:

Since the pandemic there have been lots of rugby commentators saying the game is becoming boring - too much kicking, too many big blokes running directly into other big blokes, scrums taking too long, too many mauls, the caterpillar ruck, Exeter pick and going from 5m out even when there’s an overlap outside etc

I’m wondering what fans on this forum think is the actual problem and what changes (if any) the law-makers should amend to create a more entertaining game

Run everything, ban kicking LOLLOLLOLStarStarStar
that's our coaches out of work LOLLOL


Posted By: Scarlet Emperor
Date Posted: 20 March 2021 at 11:30am
Originally posted by dyniol53 dyniol53 wrote:

Major League Rugby (American) are trialling some tweaks to the laws:

https://www.majorleague.rugby/news/arc-law-variations-2/" rel="nofollow - https://www.majorleague.rugby/news/arc-law-variations-2/

In addition to the enhanced communications for the referees MLR will be trialing new law variations which the referees will be implementing as the 2021 season begins March 20.

• Kickers will have 60 seconds as opposed 90 seconds for any kick (conversion/penalty) and will have a kick clock to help guide them.

• Seven points will be automatically awarded for any try scored directly under the posts and no conversion will be necessary.

• Referees will work with stricter protocols that will limit the number of scrums to two per incident – the original plus one reset for a collapse, penalty, or freekick.

• The offside line will be the feed line/channel of the scrum to allow for unimpeded access to the ball at the back of the scrum for the attacking team.

• No longer will a red card mean a team plays a man down for the remainder of the match. Under the new law a red card would lead to a player being sent off and the team goes down to 14 players for 20 minutes. After 20 minutes, the player can be replaced with another player on the bench. The red carded players cannot return to the field in any event and will go through subsequent disciplinary procedures.

“Our goal is to continue to offer fans and teams fast paced, competitive rugby that is safe and balanced.” said Jonathan Kaplan, Match Official Director. “We believe these new laws will enhance our on-field product while staying true to the spirit of rugby.”

Red cards can kill off games completely. Wales struggled to get wins over Ireland and Scotland after reds. Teams just clam up even more. Whomever gets sent off it’s always the winger that makes way when a team plays with 14. Therefore it stunts their attack out wide with that team becoming more forward oriented. Maybe a forced sub and a 10 min bin would keep the game fluid. Longer bans for foul play could be brought in to put off players having temper tantrums on the pitch. Would like to see the rugby league 60/20 rule trialled in union as well. It would force defending wingers to sit further back and create a bit of space out wide for attacking teams.


Posted By: Jones2004
Date Posted: 20 March 2021 at 11:49am
Originally posted by Scarlet Emperor Scarlet Emperor wrote:

Originally posted by dyniol53 dyniol53 wrote:

Major League Rugby (American) are trialling some tweaks to the laws:

https://www.majorleague.rugby/news/arc-law-variations-2/" rel="nofollow - https://www.majorleague.rugby/news/arc-law-variations-2/

In addition to the enhanced communications for the referees MLR will be trialing new law variations which the referees will be implementing as the 2021 season begins March 20.

• Kickers will have 60 seconds as opposed 90 seconds for any kick (conversion/penalty) and will have a kick clock to help guide them.

• Seven points will be automatically awarded for any try scored directly under the posts and no conversion will be necessary.

• Referees will work with stricter protocols that will limit the number of scrums to two per incident – the original plus one reset for a collapse, penalty, or freekick.

• The offside line will be the feed line/channel of the scrum to allow for unimpeded access to the ball at the back of the scrum for the attacking team.

• No longer will a red card mean a team plays a man down for the remainder of the match. Under the new law a red card would lead to a player being sent off and the team goes down to 14 players for 20 minutes. After 20 minutes, the player can be replaced with another player on the bench. The red carded players cannot return to the field in any event and will go through subsequent disciplinary procedures.

“Our goal is to continue to offer fans and teams fast paced, competitive rugby that is safe and balanced.” said Jonathan Kaplan, Match Official Director. “We believe these new laws will enhance our on-field product while staying true to the spirit of rugby.”

Red cards can kill off games completely. Wales struggled to get wins over Ireland and Scotland after reds. Teams just clam up even more. Whomever gets sent off it’s always the winger that makes way when a team plays with 14. Therefore it stunts their attack out wide with that team becoming more forward oriented. Maybe a forced sub and a 10 min bin would keep the game fluid. Longer bans for foul play could be brought in to put off players having temper tantrums on the pitch. Would like to see the rugby league 60/20 rule trialled in union as well. It would force defending wingers to sit further back and create a bit of space out wide for attacking teams.
I don’t agree with you re the red cards. The only time red cards spoil games IMO is when one team is already substantially stronger and a red for the opposing team can result in an absolute hammering. Otherwise I don’t see red cards making games boring - the games against Scotland and Ireland were quite exciting (the game against Ireland was by no means a classic admittedly). Added to that our games against Benetton and Leinster a few seasons ago were incredibly exciting despite our red cards. And also I do believe the punishments have to remain severe to clamp down on dirty and dangerous play and allowing a sub on after 20 minutes reduces that.


Posted By: Eastern outpost
Date Posted: 20 March 2021 at 12:29pm
Originally posted by Jones2004 Jones2004 wrote:

Originally posted by Scarlet Emperor Scarlet Emperor wrote:

Originally posted by dyniol53 dyniol53 wrote:

Major League Rugby (American) are trialling some tweaks to the laws:

https://www.majorleague.rugby/news/arc-law-variations-2/" rel="nofollow - https://www.majorleague.rugby/news/arc-law-variations-2/

In addition to the enhanced communications for the referees MLR will be trialing new law variations which the referees will be implementing as the 2021 season begins March 20.

• Kickers will have 60 seconds as opposed 90 seconds for any kick (conversion/penalty) and will have a kick clock to help guide them.

• Seven points will be automatically awarded for any try scored directly under the posts and no conversion will be necessary.

• Referees will work with stricter protocols that will limit the number of scrums to two per incident – the original plus one reset for a collapse, penalty, or freekick.

• The offside line will be the feed line/channel of the scrum to allow for unimpeded access to the ball at the back of the scrum for the attacking team.

• No longer will a red card mean a team plays a man down for the remainder of the match. Under the new law a red card would lead to a player being sent off and the team goes down to 14 players for 20 minutes. After 20 minutes, the player can be replaced with another player on the bench. The red carded players cannot return to the field in any event and will go through subsequent disciplinary procedures.

“Our goal is to continue to offer fans and teams fast paced, competitive rugby that is safe and balanced.” said Jonathan Kaplan, Match Official Director. “We believe these new laws will enhance our on-field product while staying true to the spirit of rugby.”

Red cards can kill off games completely. Wales struggled to get wins over Ireland and Scotland after reds. Teams just clam up even more. Whomever gets sent off it’s always the winger that makes way when a team plays with 14. Therefore it stunts their attack out wide with that team becoming more forward oriented. Maybe a forced sub and a 10 min bin would keep the game fluid. Longer bans for foul play could be brought in to put off players having temper tantrums on the pitch. Would like to see the rugby league 60/20 rule trialled in union as well. It would force defending wingers to sit further back and create a bit of space out wide for attacking teams.
I don’t agree with you re the red cards. The only time red cards spoil games IMO is when one team is already substantially stronger and a red for the opposing team can result in an absolute hammering. Otherwise I don’t see red cards making games boring - the games against Scotland and Ireland were quite exciting (the game against Ireland was by no means a classic admittedly). Added to that our games against Benetton and Leinster a few seasons ago were incredibly exciting despite our red cards. And also I do believe the punishments have to remain severe to clamp down on dirty and dangerous play and allowing a sub on after 20 minutes reduces that.
Agreed.

What other sport has a red card that doesn’t mean the rest of the game? Why should, say Ireland be allowed to get back to full strength after POM’s assault on a defenceless player?

By all means, bring in some flexibility on length of yellow cards but I’m not for changing the duration or seriousness of a red. 


-------------
In a world where you can be anything – Be Kind.


Posted By: dyniol53
Date Posted: 09 August 2021 at 6:17pm
Having watched the Lions vs South Africa, many pundits are saying the rugby was dire, despite some of the best players in the world on show.

However, Australia v France, Australia v New Zealand and Harlequins in general have proved rugby doesn’t have to be boring. 

Do you think that rugby has a problem or do you think it’s just the Saffas and a Gatland coached lions that’s at fault?


-------------
https://twitter.com/exile_podcast?lang=en


Posted By: dyniol53
Date Posted: 09 August 2021 at 7:00pm
As I’ve said on the Lion’s thread I think there opportunities to stop time wasting in certain situations

I.e. this rule in the MLR

 • Kickers will have 60 seconds as opposed 90 seconds for any kick (conversion/penalty) and will have a kick clock to help guide them.

It would be good if broadcasters/TMOs had a “shot clock” like they do in snooker/pool for these sorts of things. 

It would be useful at penalty kicks, scrums, line-outs and when the ref’s shout “use it”. It should then be enforced by TMO if they see an infringement. 

Existing rules are: 

Penalty: The kicking team must indicate their intention to kick for goal without delay.

You could put a 15 second limit to make “without delay” more concrete.

The kick must be taken within 60 seconds (playing time) from the time the team indicated their intention to do so, even if the ball rolls over and has to be placed again. Sanction: Kick is disallowed and a scrum is awarded.

Perhaps the 15seconds of “without delay” could eat into the 60 second shot clock, so in effect the kicker has 60s from when the penalty is awarded vs when they opt for goal.

Scrums: Teams must be ready to form the scrum within 30 seconds of the mark being made. Sanction: Free-kick.

Again, South Africa took the piss here and teams have always used scrums as a way to take time out of the game. The broadcasters/TMO should have the 30s clock up counting down and if they’re not ready actually penalise them.

If a scrummaging player is receiving treatment/drinking water when the 30s is up it should be an immediate free kick to opposing team. It should also be shorter e.g. 15s for any re-sets. 

Line-out: Teams form the lineout without delay. Sanction: Free-kick.

They should make this a metric e.g. 15 seconds from ball being available.

Rucks: When the ball has been clearly won by a team at the ruck, and is available to be played, the referee calls “use it”, after which the ball must be played away from the ruck within five seconds. Sanction: Scrum.

They should have a shot clock here and TMOs should inform the ref when a scrum half hasn’t got it out within the 5s.

It might seem like there would be a lot more shot clock on screen but I think it’s necessary to stop teams cynically wasting time.


-------------
https://twitter.com/exile_podcast?lang=en


Posted By: GPR - Rochester
Date Posted: 10 August 2021 at 7:30am
Rather than introduce a new raft of timed rules why not just instruct the ref to penalise slow play after giving a formal warning. Both the Lions and Boks were slow to engage at lineouts. Nothing to do with time wasting but I am beyond fed up of refs not policing the crooked feed in the scrums. The Boks scrum half took it to new levels last weekend not far off feeding direct to the No 8!!!!!

As for the rugby served up it was frankly awful. Gatland knew what was coming from the Boks - supposedly picked a squad to counter it - instead his teams became a poorer copy of the Boks. Lets face it he has had huge success with Wales by doing almost the same as the Boks - fiery defence, aerial efficiency and strong packs. It is not in his DNA to take quick tap and goes from 9 or to have a 10 who looks for the outside channels with his hands and not his feet. 


Posted By: Fscarlet
Date Posted: 10 August 2021 at 9:10am
The law changes coming into the game this season should help to create a better game in the attacking sense, particularly the 50/22 as it will make teams think about having 3 players in the back field to combat this. This should in theory create more gaps in the defensive line, until the attacking team get deeper into the oppositions half anyway. 

We will have hardly any scrums now which should also see a bit more pace in the game, though forward pass & not straight at the lineout will be a tap & pass but the defenders have to be given time to get 10m back.


Posted By: GPR - Rochester
Date Posted: 10 August 2021 at 9:52am
Originally posted by Fscarlet Fscarlet wrote:

The law changes coming into the game this season should help to create a better game in the attacking sense, particularly the 50/22 as it will make teams think about having 3 players in the back field to combat this. This should in theory create more gaps in the defensive line, until the attacking team get deeper into the oppositions half anyway. 

We will have hardly any scrums now which should also see a bit more pace in the game, though forward pass & not straight at the lineout will be a tap & pass but the defenders have to be given time to get 10m back.

I await with interest to see how these changes will affect the game. I am not convinced. I see most tap & go free kicks ending up in the air as they would have done from a free kick nowadays. This will not really speed up the game or make it more entertaining just more opportunity for kicking. 


Posted By: reesytheexile
Date Posted: 10 August 2021 at 10:05am
Can we have a tap and go restart for a simple knock on please ( no right to kick until at least one pass after the tap start) . This would avoid a painful protracted scrum and get play quickly resuming. 

-------------
"I'd rather have been a judge than a miner.Being a miner,as soon as you are too old and tired and sick and stupid to do the job properly,you have to go.The very opposite applies with judges!"P.Cook


Posted By: Fscarlet
Date Posted: 10 August 2021 at 10:17am
Originally posted by reesytheexile reesytheexile wrote:

Can we have a tap and go restart for a simple knock on please ( no right to kick until at least one pass after the tap start) . This would avoid a painful protracted scrum and get play quickly resuming. 

Scrums are now only happening for a knock on, all other incidents that would have resulted in a scrum are now tap & pass. 


Posted By: dyniol53
Date Posted: 10 August 2021 at 10:47am
Originally posted by GPR - Rochester GPR - Rochester wrote:

Rather than introduce a new raft of timed rules why not just instruct the ref to penalise slow play after giving a formal warning.

I don’t think it would be too invasive as most of them already are timed rules, penalties, scrums and “use it”. I just think they need a way to make it easier for the referees to ping teams when they do actually go over time

A shot clock like they have in  http://youtu.be/qzp_Wr0CbG4" rel="nofollow - pool isn’t too invasive and would actually mean teams were penalised for slowing the game down 


-------------
https://twitter.com/exile_podcast?lang=en


Posted By: reesytheexile
Date Posted: 10 August 2021 at 12:02pm
Originally posted by Fscarlet Fscarlet wrote:

Originally posted by reesytheexile reesytheexile wrote:

Can we have a tap and go restart for a simple knock on please ( no right to kick until at least one pass after the tap start) . This would avoid a painful protracted scrum and get play quickly resuming. 

Scrums are now only happening for a knock on, all other incidents that would have resulted in a scrum are now tap & pass. 
And ball held up in mauls ? Re scrums what about only allowing scrums outside 22 metres mark which are less likely to tactically collapse and banning them inside 22 metres ( where tactiCal collapsing is more likely)  but subsisting a tap and go ? Scrums are killing the game . 

-------------
"I'd rather have been a judge than a miner.Being a miner,as soon as you are too old and tired and sick and stupid to do the job properly,you have to go.The very opposite applies with judges!"P.Cook


Posted By: dyniol53
Date Posted: 10 August 2021 at 12:46pm
I don’t like the denigration of scrums as a contest. They’re a crucial part of the game and what makes rugby Union distinct from league. 

The value competitive, contestible scums bring is they mean teams require 2 extra distinct body types on the pitch. 

If you take away the importance of props and a scrummaging hooker you’ll have 6 players with the physique of back rowers on the pitch, meaning there will be less space for attackers and less value for the small players and running fullback who target the 120kg props to create gaps in defence.

Rugby Unions charm is in having a place for a Shane Williams and a Uini Antonio and Antoine DuPont and a Samson Lee, you don’t get such variety in Rugby League


-------------
https://twitter.com/exile_podcast?lang=en


Posted By: GPR - Rochester
Date Posted: 10 August 2021 at 12:53pm
Originally posted by dyniol53 dyniol53 wrote:

I don’t like the denigration of scrums as a contest. They’re a crucial part of the game and what makes rugby Union distinct from league. 

The value competitive, contestible scums bring is they mean teams require 2 extra distinct body types on the pitch. 

If you take away the importance of props and a scrummaging hooker you’ll have 6 players with the physique of back rowers on the pitch, meaning there will be less space for attackers and less value for the small players and running fullback who target the 120kg props to create gaps in defence.

Rugby Unions charm is in having a place for a Shane Williams and a Uini Antonio and Antoine DuPont and a Samson Lee, you don’t get such variety in Rugby League

That is very true. Wyn Jones' value to his teams will decrease because in all honesty refs cannot be entrusted on using the current rulebook to get it right. 


Posted By: aber-fan
Date Posted: 10 August 2021 at 2:20pm
Originally posted by dyniol53 dyniol53 wrote:

I don’t like the denigration of scrums as a contest. They’re a crucial part of the game and what makes rugby Union distinct from league. 

The value competitive, contestible scums bring is they mean teams require 2 extra distinct body types on the pitch. 

If you take away the importance of props and a scrummaging hooker you’ll have 6 players with the physique of back rowers on the pitch, meaning there will be less space for attackers and less value for the small players and running fullback who target the 120kg props to create gaps in defence.

Rugby Unions charm is in having a place for a Shane Williams and a Uini Antonio and Antoine DuPont and a Samson Lee, you don’t get such variety in Rugby League

I agree - BUT THE SA 9 was allowed to BLATANTLY put the ball into the second row, right in front of the ref. It certainly isn't a 'fair contest' if refs allow that - it was very poor indeed.


-------------
“You cannot reason a man out of what he never reasoned himself into.” (Jonathan Swift)


Posted By: Fscarlet
Date Posted: 10 August 2021 at 2:46pm
Originally posted by aber-fan aber-fan wrote:

Originally posted by dyniol53 dyniol53 wrote:

I don’t like the denigration of scrums as a contest. They’re a crucial part of the game and what makes rugby Union distinct from league. 

The value competitive, contestible scums bring is they mean teams require 2 extra distinct body types on the pitch. 

If you take away the importance of props and a scrummaging hooker you’ll have 6 players with the physique of back rowers on the pitch, meaning there will be less space for attackers and less value for the small players and running fullback who target the 120kg props to create gaps in defence.

Rugby Unions charm is in having a place for a Shane Williams and a Uini Antonio and Antoine DuPont and a Samson Lee, you don’t get such variety in Rugby League

I agree - BUT THE SA 9 was allowed to BLATANTLY put the ball into the second row, right in front of the ref. It certainly isn't a 'fair contest' if refs allow that - it was very poor indeed.

Greenwood asked Nigel what he thought & he agreed that more needs to be done about it but Nige also said the ref's are focussing on lots at scrum time so I am not sure what can be done.


Posted By: Kentexile
Date Posted: 11 August 2021 at 8:14am
Agree completely just another attempt to turn union into league .scrums line  outs and before that old style contested rucks and mauls keep forwards out of the defensive line as well as tiring them out which creates space.
The changes on tap and go will have the opposite effect
How long after these law changes to dropping two forwards to create a bit more room on the pitch?


Posted By: aber-fan
Date Posted: 11 August 2021 at 11:00am
Originally posted by Fscarlet Fscarlet wrote:

Originally posted by aber-fan aber-fan wrote:

Originally posted by dyniol53 dyniol53 wrote:

I don’t like the denigration of scrums as a contest. They’re a crucial part of the game and what makes rugby Union distinct from league. 

The value competitive, contestible scums bring is they mean teams require 2 extra distinct body types on the pitch. 

If you take away the importance of props and a scrummaging hooker you’ll have 6 players with the physique of back rowers on the pitch, meaning there will be less space for attackers and less value for the small players and running fullback who target the 120kg props to create gaps in defence.

Rugby Unions charm is in having a place for a Shane Williams and a Uini Antonio and Antoine DuPont and a Samson Lee, you don’t get such variety in Rugby League

I agree - BUT THE SA 9 was allowed to BLATANTLY put the ball into the second row, right in front of the ref. It certainly isn't a 'fair contest' if refs allow that - it was very poor indeed.

Greenwood asked Nigel what he thought & he agreed that more needs to be done about it but Nige also said the ref's are focussing on lots at scrum time so I am not sure what can be done.

Maybe so, but the SA 9 was doing the most blatant feeding I have seen for a long time... I suspect that, if the ref had awarded a free kick against him early on, he'd have been more careful from then on.


-------------
“You cannot reason a man out of what he never reasoned himself into.” (Jonathan Swift)


Posted By: Mundoscarlet
Date Posted: 11 August 2021 at 11:53am
I wohkd say,the way to stop.it,would be 2 video refs,1 specific to focus on offsides and put in at scrum and also throwing in straight.these are areas where I think lots of things are getting missed,giving teams unfair advantages 


Posted By: John
Date Posted: 11 August 2021 at 1:42pm
Originally posted by aber-fan aber-fan wrote:

Originally posted by Fscarlet Fscarlet wrote:

Originally posted by aber-fan aber-fan wrote:

Originally posted by dyniol53 dyniol53 wrote:

I don’t like the denigration of scrums as a contest. They’re a crucial part of the game and what makes rugby Union distinct from league. 

The value competitive, contestible scums bring is they mean teams require 2 extra distinct body types on the pitch. 

If you take away the importance of props and a scrummaging hooker you’ll have 6 players with the physique of back rowers on the pitch, meaning there will be less space for attackers and less value for the small players and running fullback who target the 120kg props to create gaps in defence.

Rugby Unions charm is in having a place for a Shane Williams and a Uini Antonio and Antoine DuPont and a Samson Lee, you don’t get such variety in Rugby League

I agree - BUT THE SA 9 was allowed to BLATANTLY put the ball into the second row, right in front of the ref. It certainly isn't a 'fair contest' if refs allow that - it was very poor indeed.

Greenwood asked Nigel what he thought & he agreed that more needs to be done about it but Nige also said the ref's are focussing on lots at scrum time so I am not sure what can be done.

Maybe so, but the SA 9 was doing the most blatant feeding I have seen for a long time... I suspect that, if the ref had awarded a free kick against him early on, he'd have been more careful from then on.

The rule, admittedly 2-3 seasons ago, was that the scrum half had to have the point of his left shoulder in line with the centre of the front row channel. He then had to put the ball in straight. The saffer 9s were barely abiding by the first part of this and absolutely weren't putting the ball in straight. 

What is needed is a return to 70s scrums where the front rows just folded into their binds, sometimes before the players on the ground had stood up. But getting that to happen is not going to be easy. 


Posted By: RR1972
Date Posted: 12 August 2021 at 4:34pm
Could go either way this. If you got a strong driving line out maul and a good kicker from hamd you can easily make a game plan out of this



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2021 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net