Rugby Law Updates
-
just saying, but banning the box kick takes care of basically all these dramas
-
@mariner4life so are you banning them form the base of a scrum/ruck/maul, what if the 10 sends up a bomb from a pass, which is largely same.
-
1 pass (or run) before kicking, that's very easy to police.
And i don't see the bomb from 10 as being the same, as the timing is way different for all chasers, and there is more jeopardy with chasers coming through.
-
I only have a problem with the slow box kicks. The attack runs out of options and it become the default choice.. almost another set piece.
A stricter ruck time limit makes it harder to set up and execute and therefore less attractive
My problem with a blanket ban is removing quality options in general play. During the NPC Funaki had some great box kicks late in games. Super quick rucks and a small kick over the top before the defence is set. It can can be a good attacking option, even immediately after a turnover
-
I only have a problem with halfbacks fucking around with the ball at the ruck - what they do afterwards doesn't bother me, once we/teams combat the kick from the base then it becomes less useful (like how we combatted SA's high kicks after 2009).
But, halfbacks pushing the ball back with their hands does my head in.
Just make it halfback touches the ball (hands/feet - players in the ruck can still use feet) and it's fair game.
-
@Duluth said in Rugby Law Updates:
I only have a problem with the slow box kicks. The attack runs out of options and it become the default choice.. almost another set piece.
A stricter ruck time limit makes it harder to set up and execute and therefore less attractive
My problem with a blanket ban is removing quality options in general play. During the NPC Funaki had some great box kicks late in games. Super quick rucks and a small kick over the top before the defence is set. It can can be a good attacking option, even immediately after a turnover
Yeah I agree, halfbacks need to still be allowed to kick for those creative opportunities. I think the law changes just need to shift the risk/reward of the high box kick so they don't happen all the fucking time. Having to do them faster helps, and shifting the contest odds in favour of the defender - even going as far as attacking players not being allowed to compete in the air at all would be better than wiping out the kick option for me.
-
@reprobate said in Rugby Law Updates:
even going as far as attacking players not being allowed to compete in the air at all would be better than wiping out the kick option for me.
I have no issue with that - but I like the 'if you go up one handed and knock it on, that's a penalty'. Discourages it - but doesn't eliminate it.
-
@nzzp said in Rugby Law Updates:
I have no issue with that - but I like the 'if you go up one handed and knock it on, that's a penalty'. Discourages it - but doesn't eliminate it.
I kinda like the rugby league "disruptor" rule.
If you jump up, you have to be making a genuine attempt to catch the ball, no one handed stuff.
Otherwise penalty.
Everyone one laughed when they brought the rule in, but it did clean-up that part of the game. -
@mohikamo said in Rugby Law Updates:
@nzzp said in Rugby Law Updates:
I have no issue with that - but I like the 'if you go up one handed and knock it on, that's a penalty'. Discourages it - but doesn't eliminate it.
I kinda like the rugby league "disruptor" rule.
If you jump up, you have to be making a genuine attempt to catch the ball, no one handed stuff.
Otherwise penalty.
Everyone one laughed when they brought the rule in, but it did clean-up that part of the game.Saffers were masters of flooding the area aerially with bodies - knocking catchers and disrupting. Smart play, but shit rugby I reckon.
-
No double attempts off mauls
Soon as it becomes stationary or goes backward it’s ‘use it’
And use it pretty fucking sharply
Added to that if the defensive team chooses not to compete at a line out thereby allowing the attacking team to throw it in crooked then if the defence drives the maul away from their own try line as soon as the catcher comes to ground and the maul is formed then the attacking team have to ‘use it’
See above
-
@MiketheSnow I liked your post twice.
-
@MiketheSnow
yeah tick tick tick tick tick -
@mariner4life said in Rugby Law Updates:
1 pass (or run) before kicking, that's very easy to police.
And i don't see the bomb from 10 as being the same, as the timing is way different for all chasers, and there is more jeopardy with chasers coming through.
You'd probably just have another player rolling it back then joining the ruck and popping it through their legs to the halfback.
-
@MiketheSnow yep, a single stoppage and its done, and police both sides entry points and collapsing.
-
I wouldn't mind referees (& TMO) getting ultra pedantic on the "truck and trailer".
When that shoulder breaks contact; even a millmetre, that's it, maul over. -
WR are definitely cooking something up on the rules side.
Kearney would be in the know.Looks like they are not going to float anything to the public. Just guna make some changes.
They've done that before.Robinson I know is keen to do something on the rules side.
-
@MiketheSnow said in Rugby Law Updates:
Soon as it becomes stationary or goes backward it’s ‘use it’
No. The maul needs to have some means of drawing defenders into the contest rather than just spreading.
I think I like your other idea though.
-
@Duluth said in Rugby Law Updates:
@Bones said in Rugby Law Updates:
If the "halfback" at the breakdown rolls the ball more than two feet, rolls it twice, touches it with both hands for more than two seconds....ball is out.
Easier just to have a quicker "use it" time that is strictly enforced. When that law was first trialled in the NPC it worked well (5 years ago?)
It ends slow motion rucks of any sort. Also it rewards organised teams with good cardio.. it punishes the opposite with errors/turnovers
Just penalize the little fucker for being offside like it says in the Lawbook.
Or at the very least let me clear him the fuck out instead of making him Royal game. See also scrums.
-
TJ's law change wishlist:
On kicking, he loves the 50:22. Not brave enough to ask to see the box kick changed or banned, but had a go at the change to the escort rule.
He does not want to see the box kick banned, but argued that players should be able to take a mark anywhere on the field, suggesting that this could swing things back again against the box kick as any inaccuracy would just be a straight up turnover.
On the TMO, he suggests that the usage needs reducing, so TMO can only rule on foul play and in-goal incidents, plus some captain's challenges, where you lose some/all future challenges if you challenge and get it wrong.
Doesn't think teams should be able to scrum for penalties. Suggests that there needs to be benefit of having a strong scrum, but that things have gotten out of hand. Essentially, goes back to the idea that it should be a free kick or just let the scrum finish.Discussion points (not necessarily suggestions):
Talks about making the game shorter (30 min halves) but with the clock stopping for each outage (goes off it after a bit of talk).
Advantage needs to be reorganized so that if it is a knock on and turnover with clean possession, that's the advantage.
On the bench, he argues that fatigue is missing, with 16 of the players on the field there who didn't start. How did we get to this? Essentially he argues that subs should be limited.All in all, nothing too interesting except his suggestion to fight the box kick.
-
@gt12 i like his idea with being able to take a mark anywhere, amd weve done the TNO to death...but shortening the game and stopping the clock...can't see how that speeds the game up and reduces stoppages nor will it add fatigue.
Oh, only read your summary, didnt listen, might do so at work tomorrow if I remember
