posted Dec 19, 2006

the current 22m rule allows the defending side a fair response to the negative attacking option of kicking the ball down the ground.
if you disallow out on the full clearances from the 22 then are you not just encouraging the attacking side to kick into the 22?
a change in the rule seems to demand that the defenders be more postive whilst encouraging the attacker team to be more negative?
how can that be a good thing?

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Dec 19, 2006

After Playing rugby for a few years now and seeing how rules are there for both saftey and protection I am shocked to see even the suggestion of these rules....If they are introduced they should be made into a new type of rugby...Rugby union is what it is now because of is supporters, players and managers, implementing the rules would be like a dagger through the heart..It just wouldnt make sense..

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Dec 19, 2006

I've always been a fan of 606 becuase I've enjoyed seeing some genuine good debate about slections, supplemets etc. However, I had to join when this debate started and people starting writing some 'interesting' ideas.
As both a qualified referee and a player whos being playing both for school, club and county I would say I understand the game.
Now soem of the changes I agree with I hate getting pinged for scrumagging or a bit of deliberate obstruction, which I see as part of the game.
But I am an old-school forwardwho plays hooker as well and loves rucking. Now I handle in rucks I cheat and I'm ahppy to admit it but when its illegal you cant do it all the time and to be fair refs most of the time notice and ping. I love rucking over and driving and having a contest at the breakdown, if you allow handling in the rucks you may as well not have rucks because the team will never lose the ball. all they will need is one supporting player to bridge and the hands go in easy. Now this is okay when it is the tackle situation but when 4 or 5 people are having a genuine physical contest for the ball why would u want to remove this competiition by allowing some palyer to go ill just bring it back with my hands, it takes away the one vital ingrediant of union over league and that is you have to sceure your own ball. I'm a gerat fan of league but whenever I wtach international rugby and see locks on the wing playing like backs I cringe. Back play is exhilarating to watch but the reason GP is better then Super 14 is the physical contest. These rules are taking away the fndementals of rugby.
I love wtaching fowrad play lets not ruin union by turning into a game of 7's.
If you think the rules make the game too dangerous then don't play it as they are fine as they are.
What is worng is the inconisstencies between refs.
Refs who don't let you take quick line-outs and make you tell hime how many you are going 2 have in a lineout. If we take away the inconisstenices around the tackle area then the rucks will take care of themselves. Fix thsi and rugby will be so much better. And I agree lets keep rugby for all shape and sizes as I'm only 5ft 10 and weigh 10 and a half stone, my friends all weigh 14 or 15 yet I'm still in the team, size is no excuse (nothing wrong with protein or creatine as i've taken both but at my age don't really ahev an affect)

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Dec 20, 2006

Yes! this is just what we've been needing. rugby has become frustratingly boring and technical. it's lost the flair and grace.
i would say do away with allowing a lineout for the team that kicks a penalty into touch. this creates 'safe' boring options, while everyone watching is hoping they'll run the ball, but never will.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Dec 23, 2006

First of all: Good comments you gave there, they all made me making up my mind.
I think this change of the rules would do alot of changes of the actual game and all what goes with it, the tactics, the fans, the media. It is more complex than we think it would be, on the positive but also the negative side.
I started playing Rugby just about 2 years ago, and recently just built a team n my school in germany. I have to admit that there are some rules i dont even get or know that they exist after this time. When I watch Rugby with my friends who do not play it, it takes long to explain the rules, and im always finding myself in the situation of not knowing what to tell them why a penalty was awarded or something like that. It is hard to get into the rules, and thats why Rugby is not as popular as for example soccer is.
The new rules would certainly tidy up the ruck situation and the out on the full explanaition. But would it make the whole lot easier to explain?
So, lets say if it would become easier, that would probably mean that Rugby would become more popular, which is good on one hand for sure. In countries like the one i live in, Germany, where Rugby isnt played alot, but still, starting to grow, it would be great. It would make it easier to introduce Rugby to people who never sseen or played it before. That would bring some difference in the Rugby scene, maybe there would be other nations which would develop to be a top 10 team?
But is the growth of fans really needed? Arent we happy with the situation at the moment? We got friendly spectators, no hooligans or whatsoever and our stadiums are still packed for the top games. It is because they all know about the spirit of Rugby, and that it is a very fair sport. Would that be the case for new fans who just like the physicial aspect and think of Rugby as a sport with no rules and only violence? There would probably be hooligans, and do we really want that?
Well, you see there are some positive aspects, but only for players and fans who just started the sport. Lets say it would make it easier for amateur teams, the game would be more flowing and easier to play.
But were looking at professional Rugby, and the introduction of those rules to it. Professional Rugby means Rugby at the extreme limits. Players play after the rules (well, mostly if we dont look at the casual handling in the ruck), but they use every free space and the grey areas. So if we take away a single "cant do", we will have to concern that players will adopt that and try to make the most of it. And this will bring new "grey areas" with it, which would make the referee rather more important. Lets just think of the hands in the ruck, does that mean that you wouldnt even have to let go of the ball when youre tackled and just hand it to the scrum half? Or would everyone just try to grab the ball and a ruck would end up being even longer than it now is..?
So you see the game would change more than we think. And also the tactics. It would basicially be a different game in the end.
So my summary is:
--> If we change those rules it would be a more spectacular game, there would be more running and stunning tries. It would certainly bring some difference in a positive way. But we would have to carry all the things that come with it, a huge amount of fans, maybe hooligans?, and it would maybe end up being a game of rugby league.
But lets see how the expieriment goes to talk about this again.
P.S.: sorry for all the wrong spelling and the wrong words but i didnt grow up talking english..

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Dec 31, 2006

In my opinion the present rules are OK but in the interest of making the game more attractive to young players and spectators I can be pursuaded to concede to change. However, some of the proposals need reviewing.
1. Creating space by setting the offside line 5m back at a scrum will inevitably lead to more offside infringements and will be a nightmare to police.
2. Kicking directly into touch from behind the 22 is still a better rule. To bring the lineout back to the kicking point for the proposed infringement would provide unfair advantage to the team who were not in possession of the ball.
3. Bringing down a rolling maul is dangerous. It may not appear so at the moment because it happens infrequently but when it happens several times in every game then someone is going to get hurt.
4.Free kicks instead of penalties will promote more infringements and more game stoppages. The punishment has to fit the crime. If it doesn't then players will be inclined to offend knowing only a free kick will be given.
That said there are two rules I would like to see changed. a)Get rid of calling for a 'mark'. b) Get rid of the "turning the scrum" rule.
Finally, forward passes are becoming increasingly missed by officials. The rule should be "if it ins't backwards then it's forwards".
Cheers

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jan 8, 2007

Hi one and all, well having completed the first game of the new year with the new law of the scrum I must admit I think it's dangerous and should have been looked at with the props in mind. Having played at tighthead and loosehead (Brian Ashton my number is available if you require cover on both sides of the scrum) over the past few (33) years I find it safer to touch and hold the opposite props shirt, legally before engaging. This allows both props to gain the correct distance apart and reduces the liklihood of a collapsed scrum. In this way there is no risk to either opposing props on their necks etc.. I do wish that before the laws get changed that proper consultation with players from all levels have the right to voice thier opinion afterall it's our game and injuries affect our livelihoods etc. RFU Please review and think again while you're doing look at the increase of collapsed scrums and the panalties given as a result and see this isjust a joke law.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jan 9, 2007

Collapsing A maul and new scrum laws will lead to broken knecks. Handling in Rucks u might as well turn it into league. Don't mover conrer flags part of the fun. Rest of its seems okay. I'm a bit dubious I don't like the new rules.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jan 16, 2007

Don't like the pulling down of the maul, if the cuurent set of refs could actually penalise the blatant obstruction in the so called maul, then there would be no need to change.
It looks like a crocdile, with a string of players heading downfield, and the defenders penalised for daring to try to stop it!
The way the entry through the gate is refereed is abysmal, with some refs allowing players who are at the side, not onside to enter play, and others penalising players who come from the back, their own side, but are deemed to have come in from the side.

The proposed 22 change is good, it is ONLY for balls PASSED back into the 22, not for long kicks downfield, that travel into the 22.

Handling in rucks?
they allow it now, but not consistently.
As long as they stop the driving down to the ground, of players on their feet, legally playing the ball, fine, but I smell a mess here.
Pretty rugby is one thing, but sort out obstruction, (which they don't seem to want to) as this is what is killing the game.
Forward passes?
I agree, if it isn't back, it IS forward.
Forget this silly attempt by the Aussies to show momentum passes as not forward, even 60% of their examples are forward, by their own definition of the position of hands.
Pichot deliberately passed forward in the Ospreys game, to put a man through the hole, result, 7 points.
It is not the first time he's done it either.
If I've seen him do it, why hasn't the ref and TJ?
Deliberate foul, now that is worth a yellow card, he wouldn't do it again!

add comment | complain about this comment