FEWER SCRUMS PLEASE? HUGE Law Tinkering for 2024 | Analysis & Loop Holes!
Вставка
- Опубліковано 24 бер 2024
- World Rugby Law trials discussion
-----------------------
Rugby artwork in background courtesy of Blair Skivington www.etsy.com/uk/shop/BlrArtGB - Спорт
The slow death of Rugby Union. Turning into Rugby League. It really is a disgrace.
If you want to stop dead time in the scrum then always stop the clock when the whistle is blown and restart on "set" or when the ball is put in.
I think with the scrum the problem is with penalties, not free kicks. They need to reduce the number of infractions that result in scrum penalties. Genge's knee brushing the turf against South Africa springs to mind as a good example of this. Let the power teams scrum but the objective should be to push the opposition back and reduce their ability to leave the scrum once the ball is free, not to milk them for soft penalties. Being pushed back in the scrum should not be a penalty against you, the opposition has already gained advantage by pushing you back, that is enough.
Hamstringing the effectiveness of the scrum and maul as an offensive weapon is a huge step backwards imo. They're such an integral part of rugby union.
Not when 60% of tries are scored from a maul
if you dont like scrums , their is another form of rugby. GO WATCH RUGBY LEAGUE
A bit of an excessive comment, scrums are great, 15 minutes a game of resets and teams playing for penalties isn't!! Watching League is definitely not the answer! 😂
Perfect in my opinion. There’s different variations of the game for different tastes. League, 15s, 7s, 10s, beach, flag, wheelchair.. if you don’t like one version go to the other. Don’t mess with the foundation of the sport.
😂😂😂 Dankie. 👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾
So many of these problems have occurred because of fundamentally flawed law changes in the 1990s. One example is the ruck. You used to be allowed to continue the contest for the ball whereas now players are told ‘leave it’. The problem occurs because when players go off their feet they make a heap on the floor. You used to be able to step over and ruck over. This continuous pressure would force the scrum half to use it.
I understand that there was a fine line between rucking and stamping but it incentivised players to get out of the ruck. It also drew in players which created space for the backs (as did the open field maul). If you want to avoid making it rugby league then bring back the real competition in the contact area in open play.
I think those laws around the ruck and the in field maul were safety related.
Having said that, the Tasmanian unions are having an outsized influence on law changes. Making Rugby Union more like Rugby league doesn't help either code of Rugby.
Water carriers: just ban them completely. If a player can't manage 40 minutes without a drink then they should go to the sideline and get their own.
Barry John didn't need all that water.
Weve just had a fantastic WC a great 6 nations whats there really to dislike?Personally I think the problem is ball in play time.Why dont they stop the clock at the scrum until the ref says set.If it takes 3 minutes to have a scrum and there are 10 scrums a game thats 30 mins more Players will soon speed up scrums as its often used to eat up time.
The problem is SA winning two in a row. Do you think it is a coincidence that so many of these law changes aim to take away or defuse their strengths and tactics?
I would be very wary of abolishing the jackal. Such a key part of the game and would make defence boring without it
The jackal is an important part of the game, but we do need to do more to protect the player. The tackled player should place the ball back and then clearly let go. When you get a conflict between the tackler trying to place the ball back and the incoming Jackal trying to pick up the ball then the Jackal should have priority. The less time the Jackal spends crouched over the breakdown the less dangerous it will be.
Getting rid of the jackal is basically saying you can’t pick the ball up.
FEWER scrums. But I'm fed up with all this tinkering. We don't want to finish up like rugby league, it's no longer a spectator game.
Stop the clock whilst any scrum forms up.
Reduce number of replacements. 4 is a good number, 2 forwards and 2 backs. Perhaps replacements just for injuries. Medical person to agree. It’s a 80 minute game not a 50/30.
All these roads if they keep on it leads to rugby league eventually. Rugby union has an identity crisis.
Rugby is a game for all shapes and sizes. Scrumming is an integral part of rugby. It should work thus: scrum called, clock stopped, ball out of the scrum, time on. Football matches go on for 90 plus minutes, what's wrong with rugby going on for 80 to 90 minutes?
so what do say about a team attempting to keep the ball in the scrum and push the opposing scrum further back or even over the try line
MAUL , give the ball to the team going FORWARD
Gaming for penalties is irritating. This is too often the objective for a scrum. In any case now that referees do not demand that the ball is put in straight the hookers can no longer contest in the scrum. My answer is to insist on straight put ins and give an indirect kick, not a penalty for anything that goes wrong.
Mauls - 'use it' once the maul is held up: that is the most sensible of the proposals.
Limiting replacements? Only if the RFU is happy to get sued by players whose injuries are aggravated by not being able to be replaced.
The interpretation of deliberate knock on is often absurd. Yellow cards (if at all) should only be for the most blatant cases. On penalty tries, why issue a yellow card in addition to 7 points? It seems to me that there should be a few more penalty tries but fewer yellow cards.
Does anyone have any suggestions how to reduce the number of forward passes? Could a tracker in the ball work? My impression is that there are often passes that stretch credulity, but also many knock-on infringements that are far from self evident.
I agree with all you have said with the exception of scrums.
On scrums firstly the average scrum penalties per game is the same level as the 90s, slightly lower in fact, so this isn’t a major issue in the first place. Secondly, your call for only free kicks for all scrum infringements would completely de-power the scrum and result in significant repercussions for the game.
With only a free kick, what’s to stop weak scrums from intentionally conceding a FK? Especially in their own 22, etc. it’s much easier to defend a FK than a scrum which sucks in 8 forwards in a small area on the pitch. In fact why would teams have big props or hookers at all? Could replace them with more mobile loose forward types. While they would likely concede a FK at scrum, the benefit of having 6 loose forwards on the field instead of 3 would be huge. Fatties would be completely eliminated from the game and the scrum would become nullified as an attacking platform. In the end every scrum would be a FK and you might as well eliminate it al together.
Lastly on the scrum feed, I don’t have an issue with this. There are so many other things for refs to worry about at a scrum and adding to it won’t help but regardless there are other reasons too. With scrums being more technical and powerful these days, if the feed had to be policed strictly, it would put the team feeding the ball at a big disadvantage. The hooker would not be able to focus on powering the scrum and would instead have to focus on winning the ball. All this does is allow the opposing scrum an extra man to overpower the scrum battle and you would see regular turnovers and collapses with the team feeding the ball being regularly penalised or put under significant pressure each scrum and I don’t think anyone wants that.
Scrums are the most important set piece that defines rugby. It is THE set piece that allows for players of all shapes and sizes to play. Any change which reduces the jeopardy at the scrum would have a significant impact on the game.
My suggestions are:
1. At the ruck when the ref says “use it” you can not add players to the ruck / caterpillar.
2. To stop teams giving away free kicks if they have a weak scrum, the second free kick becomes a penalty.
3. at a maul if you are in it next to the opposite scrum half you are off side if you break off or attempt to handle the player or ball. You are only onside once the ball is handled by another player or if the scrum half goes past the rear foot of the opposite side of said ruck.
4. At a maul or ruck a blocker is only onside if he remains behind or level with the scrum half - at present the blocker gets in an onside position but then when the scrum half picks up the ball he will step back to take his kick and this makes the blocker offside
5. During “kick tennis” the ref can & does call players moving in front of the kicker as offside but this never happens when the ball is run - in future ALL players in front of the ball are deemed offside and must remain still, thus not blocking defenders.
6. At a ruck the clear out but be straight as at present start that but then turn & clear out to the side - this should be treated as side entry.
7. If foul play, which is determined by the offending player getting a straight red card or getting cited, results in a long term injury then the offending player can not return until the injured player if fit or until 1 year has passed if said player has to retire due to said injury. Harsh but it would stop some of the serious injuries.
8. Any form of blocking of kick chasers if illegal, ie if the kick if going over a players head they are offside and have to stop moving - they can not run back towards the receiver!
9. I’ve used ref link for years and is absolutely brilliant except once when I had it for a Wales v France game & the ref spoke French to the French players! There was a French only channel but not an English only channel and this needs to be considered. This would mean three ref link feeds when you have teams from two countries that speak different languages eg France v Italy would have the actual ref on one channel, a French channel & an Italian channel and this could be increased to four if you wanted a English & Welsh channel in Wales. Also maybe it should be trialled that you can also hear the assistants as well!
Why are all law changes made to predominantly benefit the professional game , which accounts for only approximately 10% of the worlds rugby players . Perhaps the reason for the reduction of the number of players at community level is that the law changes always speed up the game and require higher levels of fitness and training - which require too much commitment for amateur players .
I have a massive problem with changing the laws a) midseason, b) every year. Players, coaches and to a lesser extent, referees having to reassess how the interact with the laws instead of how they innovate or perfect their play is just going to reduce the amount of spectacle. How often are we complaining that the outcome of tournaments is dictated by refs. If we're getting to the end of the season and suddenly the landscape the coaches and players has changed and the referee's are expected to do things differently are they more likely to make "errors"? It's a committee somewhere thinking they have the right to be the creative force in the game, circumventing the expertise of all the current players and coaches.
Yea I agree, the law rewrite on the kick off is going to create new issues. The law should say the kickoff must land between 10 and 22mm lines. If not receiving team gets scrum on halfway line. The shot clock applied to setting scrums, and lineouts is good also. Croc roll must go. Jackal must stay. It's important tool in defensive play. I don't recall seeing many injuries from Jackal. If you remove Jackal how does defensive team get access to the ball to counter attack. In my view this aspect adds drama and dynamic change as attack and be flipped in an instant.
One of these day they will need to consider giving this game a new name
The rule changes I'd like to see are:
1. A rip should not be a knock-on. A player who dislodges the ball should be rewarded, not punished.
2. A limit on goal-line pick-and-goes. The resulting head collisions may not result in concussions, but the cumulative damage is still substantial.
I like change number 1.
For your second point, I would keep the offside line as the back foot of the ruck and not the try line. Having the offside line on the try line is the reason for multiple ‘ pick and goes’ which go nowhere. More tries in my world.
…………looks like Rassie read the tea leaves - pretty prescient consulting Nigel Owens then appointing Jaco Peyper to his coaching team
If we have a time limit on taking a kick why not time scrums and line outs; forwards take an age to get to the mark!
I have seen several remarks by posters concerning the fan experience, but none have even considered why I hardly ever go now, and that is noise in the stadium when play is not going on. You can not talk to your mates or visiting fans and it is not going to be practical having anything interactive on the phone without a full noise cancel head set.
Having the music so loud spoils the humanity of what used to be a friendly atmosphere where fans discussed things not hated the opposition.
Why are you concerned about holding a conversation on the phone? How annoying is it to have to sit next to someone that has to chat with a friend?
On the jackal, I think it needs to go. Teams should be rucking past the ball. The issue with this is when the play is out wide so, my idea would be this:
Only the person that makes the tackle can make a jackal attempt
The 1991 world cup final got through 35 scrums and 80 minutes of play in under 84 minutes with no tactical replacements allowed. Modern front rows couldn't keep up with that pace - the front row has gained 50kg since 1991.
The problem isn't having scrums - the problem is the milking rest time, penalties, and cards from them.
Penalties from scrums going backwards and up/down under pressure rather than an actual infringement like boring in, binding on the arm, or stepping your hips out should be changed to a free kick - give the team who won the scrum the ball and tell them to get on with it - no "scrum again" option. The point of the scrum is to restart with a contest for the ball. If more scrums resulted in a quick free kick instead of a load of backslapping and a 40 yard stroll to the lineout, then the game tempo would increase as would ball in play.
I am a big fan of the 20 minute red - I would rather it was 10 and the sanction on the player afterwards was heavier.
Scrums are already being organized more quickly in Super Rugby (higher ball in play times). Teams should be allow a full bench, the whole squad. Then lower the number of total replacements to two per side a game.
Alot of rule changes some i do like the extending of the shot clock to scrums and lineouts for instance and referees calling use it before a caterpillar is formed Somd im not to keen on like the ref calling use it when a maul stops the 1st time As usually the maul is just changing direction rather than actually stopped Eitherway there is alot to ponder and discuss with in the rugby community
Love your work Rich, really interesting conversation.
Cheers boss
Re Caterpillar ruck, the half should not be able to be in front of players bound in a ruck and touch the ball, eg half has to be at the back and players forming the caterpillar must ruck the ball back to the half?
Calling ‘use it’ to the SH and sticking to 5 seconds. Ref shouldn’t have to signal the 5 second countdown - up to the SH to count him/herself.
scrums Are best part of game with quick ball it's the wastibg time resetting linnout should not matter if straight or not whoever gets it
Should now call it rugby NFL.
If you want to stop the water carrier problem, maybe each team should provide one, and they carry for the opposite team.
The game is more complicated than it needs to be because a player has to learn not only the laws, but also the interpretations. Some laws are routinely ignored, such as feeding the scrum straight, and at least two major laws are broken at almost every kick-off. When the American referee gave a penalty against England in Saturday's women's international for not immediately obeying her "use it" call, the players were simply astounded.
It is understandable that the authorities are trying to outlaw high tackles and head contact, even where it is accidental. To do this, they have permitted red cards to be issued for mere accidents in an effort, they say, to get players to change their habits. While there is some merit in that, it is short-changing the public to give a team a one- or two-player advantage for a whole game as a result. Some sort of "orange card" system should clearly have been introduced at the same time. This was such a foreseeable consequence of the lawmakers' stochastic approach that it reveals how little thought is given to overall sporting fairness and to the experience of the paying spectator.
Thank you for explaining the new rules I don't think I'm qualify
I forgot about the tap and go penalty, I had't seen one for so long.
You mention outlawing the ‘croc rocll’ on 9th May, but Red Roses lost a player to a red card from just that, so has the law changed already or was there no need for a new law.
If everyone had a balanced opinion we would be saying, we still want the scrum, just not at the cost of ten mins playing time. It is by all means been turned into yet another way to waste time but it doesnt need to be. We can have it both ways. We can have scrums and have plenty of playing time and it is STOP THE TIME WASTING!.
If kick-offs had to land between the 10 & 22; that area would become very congested, making it easier for teammates to block the opposition from making a tackle 🤔
oo...I didn't think of that one! Great point. I guess you could split your chasers left and right evenly to mitigate this a bit. But I take your point, thanks
More scrums! If you want to watch kickball, it's over there somewhere ===>
And put the chuffing ball in straight.
Interceptions are exciting but the rules discourage it because if they go for it and fumbled it's a red card and six years in jail.
I don't see why they need to change the laws the games in the last 2 years have been the most exciting ever
Some interesting changes here.
I like the idea of a mark option from a restart. Shorter kick offs could result in more contests there.
So long as these changes are done for the right reasons; for player safety and for making the game simpler for casual fans
For the jackal/ruck issues... I'd like to see a change where all defending and attacking players must bind with at least one hand to a ruck before joining/competing. Makes players entering the ruck check their run. First player in on both sides MUST seek to form ruck/not pick up the ball.
Tinkering with the laws is a waste of time.
I'd be ok with the 20min red card change IF world rugby were consistent with bans. No reduction because they apologized, no reduction because they went to tackle school. Those things should be mandatory. The only thing that should determine the length of the ban is the nature of the foul play itself.
in MHO the laws DO NOT need to be changed or even tinkered with just enforced (sorry maybe wrong choice of words) if the refs knew they had the backing of world rugby or IRB then there would be no issues/problems. Enforce the 5sec rule, when the ball is at the back of the maul/ruck or even maybe the scrum, let the ref shout ”5secs to use the ball scrum half” then immediately start a verbal count down (5-4-3-2-1)
as for kick tennis, (if it is that boring and slows the game down) just tell refs to enforce the off-side rule, every one in front of the kicking teams kicker is off-side until the kicker has chased the ball to the point where it lands or is caught, obviously the kickers team mates can follow the kicker once the kicker has passed them. At present we have a situation where the kicker kicks the ball and then hangs back waiting for the kick to be returned, as a result we have a session of kick tennis
re the scrum, unless the ref is an ex-front rower ‘and knows the dark arts’ it is very hard for the ref to know whos doing what and to ensure it is a good, fair contest, however with reset after reset it can take up/waste time (a tactic used by many teams), maybe start with a “straight” put in/feed, not crocked put in almost direct to the second row
Amazes me that the game ever managed without the 'assistance' from the pencil necks.
Re. phone interactivity during the game, yes please! Wd love audio commentary when at the match
No option to scrum again on scrum penalty - means worse pack will give away penalty to get out of scrums
I just cant understand why they dont want you getting messages to your team. Its what coahing is about. Also sounds like they want rugby union to be rugby league and to please NZ
Lots for Rassie to find new loop holes
I dont know which is more tedious ... all these law changes or employimg the services of touchline timekeeper. They would start and stop the match clock accordingly, and they would ping the referee when time infringements were committed.
There should be laws for bad referees, mostly to encourage newer and lower level division referees to improve their game, thus improving all those involved.
Hands and knees on the ground is 100% not supporting your body weight. I would say there is a gray area for having the forearms and the person to assist seal the ruck.
But instantly going to the ground is absurd.
Fine with the TMO, but only if the referee is challenged by the TMO, or only if the ref asks in certain situation such as a try scored or foul play, otherwise the ref decision is final. But FFS don't ever ever have the Bunker again !!!!
Maybe if a red card is given then the offending team loses their last points scored but still have the replacement player bought on immediately.
Anything that leads to more ball in play time, and speeds up the game is good imo. Less subs as well would mean more athletes; if we want to grow the game globally then it has to be accessible, both to the fans and players. Not every nation can produce 8 20st forwards with another 4 on the bench.
Obviously allow for temporary replacements for blood or head injuries. But reduce the permanent replacements to 4. Still have 8 on the bench, but different situations will depend on which 4 you use. Every player will then need to have the ability to last 80 minutes if need be. And if a few of them are blowing near the end then it will open up space to attack.
I’d rather see all offences by the defending side within 5meters should be a penalty try but no red card. From that you would reduce the repetition of head contact, no kick straight seven points. Restart the game.
More attrition less size wanted as more speed more attrition. Not one law change. Also if the TMO comes in a says to the referee there’s a penalty. No mothers meeting game back to where it occurred, restart ?
Game lasts 80 min. actual play is 55 min.why? they start clock while resetting scrum + faffing around, want my money back...
I’ve always thought that the scrum offences should be free kicks and not penalties as the scrum is a way of starting the game again from that particular place on the pitch,it doesn’t seem right to be gaining 50 yards then the throw in at the line out
I have been saying that for years. No way does a scrum infringement give the opponent a gift 3 point penalty at the half way line
Think you need to really think this through. Is a FK easier to defend than a scrum with more players on their feet instead of sucked into a scrum? Especially defending scrums in their 22? Will teams with weak scrums absolutely exploit this? Will teams start to consider replacing big front rows with 3 loose forwards instead reducing mismatches and space on the field?
Maybe have a think about this and then decide if you really want to remove jeopardy from the scrum.
The 5 second rule, all very well saying it has to be visual, but the scrum half is focused on the ball not the referees arm.
If it were up to me, as soon as the ball appears at the back of a ruck the ref would call "ball available" and would then count "3...2...1...play" and at the word "play" it's fair game for the other team to run round the ruck and go for the ball. So it's up to the team in possession to get the ball away from the ruck much more quickly, either with a pass or a kick, or by the scrum half running with it......
that is why the ref needs to immediately start a verbal count down (5-4-3-2-1), something i seem to remember a player did and was told off by the ref
Biggest issue for me are the scrum pens. I hate watching teams milk penalties from any and every scrum.
My suggestion to change this would be; scrum infractions are issued a ‘scrum penalty’ this cannot be kicked for goal.
If the ball is useable after a scrum infraction, the attacking team get a ‘free kick’ advantage where it comes back for a free kick if they do not benefit.
I feel this would help to promote positive rugby whilst also maintaining the importance of the scrum
The more law changes the more complicated the game becomes. I personally don’t think a lot of these law changes has improved Rugby from a spectator perspective over the last 20 years.
Try enforcing current laws, feeding the ball in straight at the scrum. Hookers should be penalized if they throw a line out standing inside the field of play.
good comments CalSota, refs need to enforce existing rules/laws and back by IRB or world rugby
And overall the average length of actual play time is 60 minutes, which means we lose 20 minutes by non-play.
Get rid of 'the mark' when catching long kicks. Or if a ball is caught in the 22, the catching team get a free kick from where the ball was kicked.
Penalty advantage should last say 5 phases or 20m gain. If they truck the ball up 40m and drop it then tough luck!
A red card should stay why get a player sent off for 20 minutes then replaced with another player a team should be at a disadvantage
More kicking will be the result as the field remains cluttered . Scrums can be sorted out with one law change , Make props keep the outside door forward creating a three point balance more stability . No micro phones for water carriers .
No water carriers AT ALL. What was wrong with a slice of orange
Bad for crocodile be on pitch. Very dangerous animal. Need be caught put back in zoo
WR are losing the plot on scrums. If they want a game without scrums or at least a game where one side cannot use a clear advantage at scrum time to wear down the opposition then WR should go over to rugby league.
Scrums are one of the unique characteristics of rugby union. Strange that WR still refuse to crackdown on crooked feeds.
Third phase ideas
1. reducing shot clock is excellent,
2. being able to call the mark from a restart though is nonsense. We have seen plenty of examples of teams not being able to manage an exit strategy efficiently and gifting the opposition field position, that should be encouraged.
3. The 1 stop maul rule is also complete nonsense and will come close to eliminating the rolling maul from lineouts, teams will simply stop competing at line outs close to their line and drive immediately on the catcher feet hitting ground, if the maul goes backwards even an inch that counts as the first stop, effectively before the maul has had a chance to properly form.
4. Scrum half protection idea, my first comment is why? What is this designed to stop? What I would like to see stopped is the rather pathetic push/shove antics we too often see between the 2 scrum halves once the ball has been put in.
5. New "not straight" rule for lineouts is excellent.
4th phase ideas
1. 20 min red card - just no, or at least not for the majority of red cards ie not for dangerous or reckless play, so all those red cards for connecting with the head of a player in a tackle or clear out should be for the entire game.
2. Breakdown safety review - reviews are also a good idea, it is just the results of the review that are frequently the problem! IMO good jackling should be rewarded but I like the idea of bringing back rucking in a big way - just as long as we are allowed to tread (delicately of course!) on the player on the ground.
3. Streamlining the TMO process - yes please, and I have yet to meet a rugby fan who would not like that.
4. Reducing number of replacements - definitely yes, and as an added bonus it will reduce the influence of power rather than stamina
5. Fan experience review - fine not important to me
6. Tackle height review, in principle I agree but I would like to see the current laws in place for a while longer to see if the generation just starting pro rugby have changed behaviour
Biggest problem for me is that changes seem to be about reducing the success of South Africa rather than consider what is the ethos of the game and how do we both enhance the fans enjoyment and honour that ethos.
Forwards will not keep up with the pace.
My rule change would be that you could only box kick in your own 22. Thus we would have much more ball in hand play. It is two much ball in the air that turns me off as a spectator.
So if the ruck is 1m outside the 22 then no box kick? Also is a box kick all kicks from the 9 or just high contestables? Also all that would happen is the ball would get passed to the flyhalf to kick long so wouldn’t actually reduce kicking and would just reduce contestable kicks, which would reduce attacking opportunities etc etc. Not sure you have properly thought this one out
I think the Red Card for 20 minutes is a great idea, as otherwise it can completely ruin a game. Especially as the game itself has imposed these harsher sanctions. Also the person committing the foul does not get to come back on, so they are get most of the punishment and the team still loses a player for 20 minutes. It would help those games where a player is sent off after say 10 minutes and completely ruining the chances of their team competing for the win.
I think the review on jackalling the ball would be terrible especially in conjunction with the fact that the breakdown has arguably become less contestable through strengthening rules protecting the 9 and, as other commenters have noted, the idea that after a certain point the refs call “leave it”. All of these things would compound to make keeping possession way easier and defensive play less exciting. Maybe I am being cynical and speculative here but if offence has been empowered so, would the next logical reaction not be to limit offensive play in other ways? For instance say limiting the team in possession to 6 phases…. Pretty sure that already exists… any ideas folks? 😂
That is a great point, refs do call' leave it' even when the contest is still fair. Not sure it's actually a law thing just that refs want the game to get moving. Ruck are so hard to ref I sympathise but the call of 'leave it' may as well but short hand for "leave it, you may well be legal but because it is getting really complicated and i don't want to have to make a decision so can we all just get on with it and pretend this never happened"! LOL I might mention this in another video.
Wouldn’t complain too much about new laws rules. World rugby coming off certainly the best World Cup Ive seen , so they’re doing a pretty good job improving rugby so far. Let’s see how it works . If it’s good keep it bad get rid of it. I don’t think any teams are being targeted , but if changes make for a better game why not. Everyone complained about having to tackle lower but we now see this working without too much problems .
You don't get penalized in the line out if the other team is better at lifting. You don't get penalized in the centers if you get stepped, Why do you get penalized for not being as good as your opponent in the scrum?
Playing for a scrum penalty is cynical. Aren't we opposed to cynacism?
Glad you changed the title #grammarrocks
Stopping jackling would kill my interest in the game a bit I can’t lie , even suggesting it as a possibility triggers me. Rugby is dangerous, that’s the point.
It’s a game that can be played with all sizes of people it’s not rugby league so don’t turn it into it
I'd like to see reserve players removed from the in-goal area and entering the field of play when a try has been scored or about to be scored. More stopping the clock for time wasting, eg during kicks for goal and scrum resets. 2-point penalties and no marks at all would be good improvements to the game to make it flow better. And my pet hate, intentional knockdown when going for an intercept and it doesn't go to hand. That is friggin' ridiculous.
The problem is not more or less scrums, but the extreme power of the scrum. Because a penalty is such a big momentum swinger, teams put a lot of effort into scrummaging which is why there is so much time set up. So rather than getting rid of scrums, just give them less impact on the game. Instead of a penalty, give the beneficiary team a 10m walk forward and then a free kick. I think you’d find everything else would speed up from that. My other idea is instead of a scrum for knock on, just give a free kick.
100% YES
The whole idea about having strengths and weaknesses is what makes it exciting. Why should a team who is good at something be punished. If that’s the case why don’t you just say you can only get 1 maul try per game to stop teams who good at that
Sport exists to be played first and foremost. Law changes never consider non-elite players.
knock on should be a free kick and not 3 minutes of a scrum
Its mostly about refs having the guts and the inlination to ping teams, unfortunatly at the moment they have neither
For years now World Cup Rugby Union Committee have always changed rules and it's not about what happens on the field regardless of the rules. If you want safer scrums, play league. If you don't want scrums, go and play netball. At the end of the day World Rugby are disgruntled, disturbed and intimidated by Southern Hemisphere dominance of World Cup Rugby. Why can't you be just straight up? I say this to the committee. It makes no difference, Southern Hemisphere Rugby will always dominate World Rugby. They always adapt much faster and better than Northern Hemisphere countries. So go ahead do what you've done for years, Southern Hemisphere will still dominate.
For Sure👍👍👍
Why are all these tinkering suggestions so anti-forwards!?
Not one of the Law changers have benefited the game or the safety of players,
Some really strange comments under this video that don’t consider the implications of unintended consequences. Very easy to throw out ideas like “no scrum penalties”, “no box kicking” etc when you haven’t given it much thought.
Immediate law changes:
- Agree with use it call. Have seen it in some URC and SR games with refs counting down. If a team is still able to form a caterpillar ruck, then good on them but they will be taking a risk now. Can't see anyway to ban these caterpillar rucks without some severe unintended consequences
- Brake foot fine. This was reffed strictly in the rugby championship in 2022 but then seemed to go away - usual story with rugby
- Water carriers should only speak to their team. Any chat to the ref (obviously not including just a friendly hello etc) then team gets penalised and water carrier banned for a few weeks
Possible changes:
- DuPont law should be changed but think reverting fully back could cause major issues. If the full back is tackled at the back and held on the ground for a couple of seconds with nobody else able to put the team onside, this would also be farcical. There was a reason there was a loophole in the first place. I think that the rule should be amended so that offside players need to retreat 10m and then can move if opposition runs 5m or passes etc. This would still provide the space to counter attack but would account for when the whole team is unable to be put onside.
- No scrum off a free kick is just nonsense. Even though refs wouldn't allow teams to give away free kicks with impunity, teams could still exploit it by only giving away a free kick when they are defending a scrum in their 22 and scrum normally elsewhere. Much better for the defence to defend a free kick rather than a scrum which engages 8 forwards and creates space out wide.
- Agree on croc roll. Very dangerous and causes severe injuries very often - see Darcy Swain and Shannon Frizzell who inflicted long term injuries on their opponents
Possible trials:
- Don't think a shot clock is a good idea. For line outs, these are the main source of tries currently so why would you want to do anything to hamper this. Don't mind if teams take a bit of time to set properly in order to do this. Refs must just make sure teams aren't taking the piss but a shot clock has all kinds of implications. Sanction would likely be a free kick so defending teams would rather defend a free kick than a lineout deep in their 22 so what's stopping them from taking the piss and running the clock down? The speed of the lineout needs to be refereed according to the situation in the game such as how late/early in the game, who is chasing the game, whether teams have a man in the sin bin etc. and you cant legislate these situations into the laws.
For the scrum, the main reasons scrum setup takes a bit of time is largely due to safety so any change that compromises that should be carefully considered. Again I don't have much issue with setup time because scrum injuries have been reduced to virtually zero with these law changes and sacrificing a bit of time to ensure we don't have a repeat of the horror spinal and neck injuries (sometimes even deaths) we used to see in the 80s and 90s is well worth it. And again, the same issue of gaming the system is obvious. Late in the game, defending a scrum in their 22, why wouldn't a team just a) waste time and b) concede a free kick instead (assuming another scrum cannot be taken) which is easier to defend.
Imagine these laws were in place when the English scrum was getting battered in the semi final? They would much rather have wasted time and conceded the free kick rather than a penalty and it would have turned into a farce. Instead we got to see one of the great scrum performances in recent years. I think set up time for scrums are fine and should be used to PROMOTE the scrum battle. Commentators should stop being lazy/negative and rather inform viewers about key scrum techniques, stats etc etc. Lets rather get people excited about one of the very unique aspects of union and one of the few places where the "fatties" of rugby get to shine.
- Marking the ball from the re-start is probably one of the dumbest rule changes they could possibly have come up with. Firstly if a non-kicker catches the ball, they don't have to call a mark and will just run and carry on as before with the usual box kick from 9 after a ruck or two. Or they will call a mark, push back to opposition 10m then tap and run and gain more ground than they otherwise would have and then we would still see a box kick from 9 (except now there are more stoppages in the game). If a kicker catches it, they can then kick away under no pressure. How will removing competition or jeopardy from re-starts improve the game? Only benefit is that SA will probably call a scrum from the mark and that would really set some people off. Probably the quickest way to get this law binned if it is implemented:) also restricting it to between 10 and 22 also won’t work and won’t be contested as the receiving steam will just stack players in the small area of space.
- Agree with the maul change. Stops this barely legal "shifting" of the maul that happens these days. A maul, like a scrum, should be down to power and technique.
- Protection around scrumhalves not a major issue now surely? Either way wont have a huge impact
- On lineout throws, I don't have a massive issue but I am not a fan of anything that reduces the impact of performing a skill under pressure. Throwing a lineout is a specialist skill and teams should be rewarded for being better than others at this. If a hooker cant throw properly under pressure in his or oppositions 22, then why should they be let off? Should we allow knock-ons if there is nobody else around to compete? Should we allow forward passes if there are no other defenders around? Even though a defence might not jump, they can still put pressure on the throw by stacking the front and middle, forcing a longer throw etc.
Areas for further analysis:
- 20 min red card is stupid. It’s mostly an antipodean idea. The new head contact protocol has already resulted in a higher rate of lower tackles and will continue to do so and the idea it isn't working doesn't hold water. Its not working for SOME teams because, for some reason, they refuse to take it seriously. Must be a pure coincidence that the country (NZ) pushing the most for 20 min reds has been the worst disciplined Tier 1 team in the last 2 years. Their neighbours aren't too much better either. Also must be purely a coincidence that these 2 poorly disciplined countries have trialled 20min reds in Super Rugby for the last 2 years. But anyway here are a few stats that might provide some insight:
New Zealand have received at least one red card every year since 2019. They have received 5 red cards in the last 2 years, the joint most for Tier 1 nations (England being the other), all for dangerous head contact in the tackle or cleanout. They have received 20 cards in total over the last 2 years, again the most out of Tier 1 nations. New Zealand were the most carded team at the World Cup for both yellows and reds (tied with Namibia) and had a significantly higher card/game ratio than any other Tier 1 nation. Now with this in mind, if anyone really believes that NZ want 20 min red cards in order to make the sport of rugby better, well I have a bridge to sell you.
- I take my comment back about the re-start being the dumbest change. Removing the jackal would be a disaster for rugby. We might as well all give up and watch league if this is introduced as the unintended consequences of this will absolutely kill this game. Without competition at the rucks, there is no incentive to pile bodies in and there will be far fewer turnovers which are a healthy source of tries plus more players in the defence line reducing space. So lets play this change out to its potential end point to show what would happen.
If you remove the jackal, there would be fewer tries from counter attack obviously and would result in more players in the defensive line on their feet which would reduce space out wide and lead to fewer tries. With no incentive to throw players into rucks, the defence will obviously choose to fill up the defensive line. Attacking teams, now with less space on the field but no jackal threat would of course just carry direct into the line time and time again trying to make metres with almost zero risk of a turnover. You would regularly see a huge number of phases where its only carry, tackle, carry, tackle etc. 40+ phases (but super boring monotonous ones) will be a regular occurrence. This would need to be fixed then right? So how does one do this? Well you can reduce players on the field and/or limit the number of phases each team has to play and/or push the defence back 5m from the tackle to create space. Is this starting to sound familiar? Whoever came up with this stupendously idiotic idea needs to be removed from any involvement in law changes at World Rugby ASAP. Jackal has to stay and to improve safety, remove croc roll and be more lenient on side entry (which is already the case) to counter the jackal threat.
- Complaints about TMO are misguided and any changes will just bring a new form of different complaints. Reduce the use of TMO and people will complain when an error resulting in a try isn't called by the on field ref. Increase the TMO use and people will complain, as they are now, that they are stepping in too much. This is a no-win scenario. Howlers are extremely rare these days and no, a marginal decision that goes against your team isn't a howler. Even the recent Scotland disallowed try wasn't a howler, contrary to popular belief, and is actually a clear example of the type of moaning you will see when there is less TMO involvement. Under the old TMO protocol (try/no try), when they were more involved, this would have resulted in a try. Now with the on field ref being the main decision maker, the TMO could not award the try under the new protocol. Maybe a better idea would be for World Rugby to consistently punish coaches and players who denigrate referees (which in turn ramps up the abuse against them by fans). They didn't make a video or post tweets but how have DuPont and Galthié not been sanctioned yet for their comments on O' Keefe. Galthié especially has now, on 2 separate occasions, blamed O' Keefe for the QF loss. Its not as bad as Rassie but itself still warrants a fairly hefty response from World Rugby.
Areas for further analysis (continued):
- Studies conducted by World Rugby with Bath University and others on the impact of replacements on injuries indicate that more replacements reduce injury risk overall. The highest injury risk profile is a fatigued player vs a fatigued player. With technology, teams can accurately track players' energy levels etc which happen at different times so trying to standardise substitution replacements is just daft. With World Rugby already under a serious amount of heat with lawsuits etc, its hard to see them changing this. Anybody calling for reduced subs need to first look a the studies and the data and try to refute it. This idea of creating more fatigue will lead to a more open game doesn't fly either. Rugby players themselves say that they feel more fatigued in attack then defence and having fatigued players running around on attack will make it slower, less accurate lower quality. Does anyone really think that players hobbling around like Sexton was in the WC quarter final will really improve the quality of the game?
- Lastly on tackle height, I don't think this is necessary for the professional game. There is already a good indication that teams (when they actually take it seriously) are tackling lower at much higher rate then before. SA and Ireland good examples and England recently. If it takes another 5 or 6 red cards in the next 2 years for other teams to take it seriously, then that is their problem. With the current protocol and sanctions, most teams are already adapting. England have already shown massive improvement already, influenced I'm sure by Nienaber's apprentice, Felix Jones, actually coaching them properly. As for our antipodean brothers, well they will either change or keep getting punished as they have been.
Sheesh........It's FEWER scrums, not less scrums. Use fewer when you can count something, and less when you have to measure it.
I stand corrected and have changed it...that should mean 'less' comments like this ;-)
Personally I think WR are being daft...the more "dead time" the more ad space...capitalize on it...use the monies from ad revenues to support struggling unions...by the way more people are watching rugby now than ever before with the current laws,America is investing into the sport...we need to find creative ways of appealing to big American brands...ad space people...srums provides us that !
Exactly who identified these “problem” areas? And for what audience?
Scrums could be fixed by not giving penalties so freely. Teams clearly train to win penalties at the scrum. If the incentive is removed to try and win a penalty then players will just get on with it.
Requiring the ball to be placed down the middle will bring back hookers -smaller players with different skill sets than the third prop that currently wears the # 2 jersey.
And at the end of the day how much additional time in play are we talking about?
Tbh, I don't know about a lot of these things. Water carriers not coaching or passing on messages seems like a no-brainer. I don't care for the supersizing that is going on right now, yes I'm thinking of France in particular, but it'satrend in general. When are players big enough? Used to be the case that a 19 stone player was huge. They could be undersized if the current trend continues. Are we going to see players who need knee braces, like you see in American football? Are morbidly obese players a good look?
Fewer.
Grammar and UA-cam don't always mix, my apologies ;-)
Me learn English from this channel so important get grammar right for me
Thanks, now I can relax👍
@@rugbyanalyst the fact that you changed this for my petty Stanis Baratheonism is brilliant.
Keep up the awesome work!
No need for a props if when the scrum is reset only option is a free kick - if rugby league is so much better why do so few people watch it vs union
Think the free kick idea is great if a scrum is a bit shit shouldn’t be giving away free points as world class kickers are going to slot from anywhere in the opponents half.
Obviously getting rid of the DuPont law as the kick tennis is stupid. Means you can’t just have a backfield booting the ball to each other one of them must put everyone on side will most likely result in more comparable kicks/ less kicks
Definitely don’t eliminate the jackal is such a great part of the game can really switch momentum and penalises lazy teams with one up runners.
Have more of an emphasis on counter rucking not all this “leave it” because the attacking team have fallen over the ball. The more people in a contestable ruck the more space to play.
Definitely speeding up 9s who might as well be sitting having a cup of tea getting the ball out. If they life with their hands in a ruck automatically the ball should be in play. Hate the caterpillar ruck so definitely on the time on these so a better exit strategy needed
Get rid of the wing forwards.
Water carriers should be that, not members of either team
It’s going to end up like football cynical changes for changes sake leave the scrums alone or let’s go back to the good old days
doesnt sound like the right thing, sounds shit. Some laws are obvious but the less scrums, and less reserves are clearly aimed at springboks, something they have done before.
Yes but we'll "overcome" this 💩 and win the next W.Cup as well!!! RASSIE POWER😊