50:22 and more to be globally trialled by WR

[Kiwiwomble]

Which laws would we get rid of? I'm all for simplifying the game but can't put my finger on specific things right now

deliberate knock down...want to keep the ball? pass a second earlier

almost all scrum penalties...one scrum just stronger than the other?...so something the weaker scrum cant change...cards! the scrum is just a competition for the ball...and yet a dominant scrum is almost guaranteed to turn a knock on into a penalty kick, free kick, give them the ball and play on

sacking a maul?....why not?....the team with the ball want to keep mauling then get better, if the defending team want to risk having 2-3 guys stuck on the ground by trying to sack it...up to them, if they fail they'll be punished by the other team scoring

 

[Reiser99]

Goal line Drop out after being held up over the line.

What would you replace it with? Back to 5m scrums and rinse and repeat? I'd maybe go for attacking scrum on the 22, that way at least it's not right on the goal line.

deliberate knock down...want to keep the ball? pass a second earlier

almost all scrum penalties...one scrum just stronger than the other?...so something the weaker scrum cant change...cards! the scrum is just a competition for the ball...and yet a dominant scrum is almost guaranteed to turn a knock on into a penalty kick, free kick, give them the ball and play on

sacking a maul?....why not?....the team with the ball want to keep mauling then get better, if the defending team want to risk having 2-3 guys stuck on the ground by trying to sack it...up to them, if they fail they'll be punished by the other team scoring

1) Deliberate knock on is to stop cynical play, especially when a team has an overlap. Part of the attack is drawing players in to create space. That changes as defenders know they can commit and just knock the ball down to stop play. All I can see is it leading to more scrums and the game being ruined personally.

2) I agree the scrum needs sorting. Personally I would say that if the scrum is stable and there is not an immediate technical infringement then the maximum that can be given is a free kick. Only when a player cynically infringes at the start should it be a penalty. That way teams have no real motivation to keep the ball in the scrum and it gets out quicker.

3) This is similar to the knock on. All I can see is cynical play. Maybe it could work, but I think you would need to change the whole maul rules (something that needs looking at anyway tbh) so that teams aren't punished for not moving forward as when the opposition tries to sack you probably need a small reset which slows momentum.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

What would you replace it with? Back to 5m scrums and rinse and repeat? I'd maybe go for attacking scrum on the 22, that way at least it's not right on the goal line.

1) Deliberate knock on is to stop cynical play, especially when a team has an overlap. Part of the attack is drawing players in to create space. That changes as defenders know they can commit and just knock the ball down to stop play. All I can see is it leading to more scrums and the game being ruined personally.

2) I agree the scrum needs sorting. Personally I would say that if the scrum is stable and there is not an immediate technical infringement then the maximum that can be given is a free kick. Only when a player cynically infringes at the start should it be a penalty. That way teams have no real motivation to keep the ball in the scrum and it gets out quicker.

3) This is similar to the knock on. All I can see is cynical play. Maybe it could work, but I think you would need to change the whole maul rules (something that needs looking at anyway tbh) so that teams aren't punished for not moving forward as when the opposition tries to sack you probably need a small reset which slows momentum.

i get the "on peper" reason for them all...but generally theyre too subjective, deliberate knock ons carded when the players has actually knocked it up and then dove to try and catch it...... and cynical scrum stuff...its easy to make a scum collapse look like the other guys fault

taking the idea of "cynical" to the extreme/ridiculous to make a point...why is tackling a guy thats running fine but "tackling" a maul "cynical'...its only cynical because we've said it is in the rules...so change the rules, remove that and attacking mauls will just have to get more stable

all these things are in the name of "attacking" rugby, generally the team with the ball gets huge protection....but what it really does is just make things easy for the attacking team to be cynical....as i say with a dominant scrum you can easily turn a knock on into points, we want guys to attack and score tries but what we get is teams kicking penalties

 

[Reiser99]

i get the "on peper" reason for them all...but generally theyre too subjective, deliberate knock ons carded when the players has actually knocked it up and then dove to try and catch it...... and cynical scrum stuff...its easy to make a scum collapse look like the other guys fault

taking the idea of "cynical" to the extreme/ridiculous to make a point...why is tackling a guy thats running fine but "tackling" a maul "cynical'...its only cynical because we've said it is in the rules...so change the rules, remove that and attacking mauls will just have to get more stable

all these things are in the name of "attacking" rugby, generally the team with the ball gets huge protection....but what it really does is just make things easy for the attacking team to be cynical....as i say with a dominant scrum you can easily turn a knock on into points, we want guys to attack and score tries but what we get is teams kicking penalties

I guess part of it is looking at why we have the rules in the first place.

Knock on is to stop players just sticking out a hand. I can understand maybe players who try to catch the ball, but at the same time players can just knock it up and look like they are trying when they know they don't have much chance of getting it. For me it's a risk/reward scenario. You go for the intercept and succeed you could well go and score. You get it wrong though and it costs your team. I also feel cards are more consistent, at least in the premiership, as it's related to stopping a clear line break.

The maul mainly exists because at the line out teams would constantly be pinged for obstruction as even if the player catching could be tackled immediately, he could pass and other players are still in the way. It would be incredibly messy. However, if teams could just sack the maul whenever it makes mauling pretty much redundant as an attacking weapon. It would slow it down and wouldn't be as exciting. Maul in open play is the issue.

As for scrum as I said, make the it so maximum a team can get is a free kick if the scrum is stable for like 3-5 seconds. Once the risk/reward goes down then teams will get the ball out quicker.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

I guess part of it is looking at why we have the rules in the first place.

Knock on is to stop players just sticking out a hand. I can understand maybe players who try to catch the ball, but at the same time players can just knock it up and look like they are trying when they know they don't have much chance of getting it. For me it's a risk/reward scenario. You go for the intercept and succeed you could well go and score. You get it wrong though and it costs your team. I also feel cards are more consistent, at least in the premiership, as it's related to stopping a clear line break.

The maul mainly exists because at the line out teams would constantly be pinged for obstruction as even if the player catching could be tackled immediately, he could pass and other players are still in the way. It would be incredibly messy. However, if teams could just sack the maul whenever it makes mauling pretty much redundant as an attacking weapon. It would slow it down and wouldn't be as exciting. Maul in open play is the issue.

As for scrum as I said, make the it so maximum a team can get is a free kick if the scrum is stable for like 3-5 seconds. Once the risk/reward goes down then teams will get the ball out quicker.

i guess it comes down to what we want to see, i would rather see a team pushing their passes have it knocked down...and that player gets "punished" by loosing the scrum feed...attacking team can now launch form the scrum, just get rid of all the subjectiveness about "realistic chance to recover" etc, pass earlier or get the scrum...easy

and as i say...get better and mauling, a "sacking" player would still have to release once on the ground so if theyve failed to bring down the ball carrier then they're out of the game until the maul has passed...so there is risk and reward there too...just without the penalties

by and large we should just step back and remove as many rules as we can that rely on subjectiveness, in my experience thats whats putting new people off...we just keep banning things we thing slow the game down...when really...if you watch games form the 80's/90's...they were much faster because there were less reasons to stop play...we're getting closer and closer to NFL with the stop/start and rigidity of the structure of the game

bringing it back to the original question...50:22 is fine...we use in in club rugby...but why was it needed?

edit: i might not be explaining myself well...i just feel there were measures in place previously to deter some of this stuff (knock on scrum, out of the game on the ground)....did they need to be escalated to similar stance to actual foul play, play the scrum or free kick and lets get on with it...even the 50:22....attaching team always had the option to bang it into the corner and then throw 3 guys up and try and pinch it...but rather than people just getting real good at that...we brought in a new rule for refs to have to implement and get yelled at if they get it wrong

 

[Reiser99]

Tbh I can agree with the sentiment. Though there are some differences. If you went back to the 80s and 90s with the level of scrutiny we have now, I'm sure we would have just as much controversy if not more.

Problem is more rules are designed to remove subjectivity. It hasn't completely worked, but less rules wouldn't remove subjectivity either.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

Tbh I can agree with the sentiment. Though there are some differences. If you went back to the 80s and 90s with the level of scrutiny we have now, I'm sure we would have just as much controversy if not more.

Problem is more rules are designed to remove subjectivity. It hasn't completely worked, but less rules wouldn't remove subjectivity either.

do you really believe that...they literally have things like "realistic chance to recover" for things like contact in the air or those failed intercepts....the rules ask the ref to make judgement calls

i truly believe if there isn;t a rule then we cant complain about how its implemented...just allow more ****...tell teams to get better if they dont want the ball to get knocked down or sacked, lets the players handle it, concentrate on actual foul play, i think people would care less about cards being given for actual problems like head knocks if there hadn;t been cards for this other stuff

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

I mean you could scrap nearly all the lows around the ruck as they are only reffed every so often anyhow. Why bother having so much detail in general for 3/4 of the refs to just ignore some things and only focus on others.

Off side - most refs ignore this. Why have it if it's not used.

Ball into the scrum - enough said.


I think to grow rugby they need to simplify things and ref the game properly. There's loads of things I see each game which just arnt reffed properly.

 

[Scotty]

i get the "on peper" reason for them all...but generally theyre too subjective, deliberate knock ons carded when the players has actually knocked it up and then dove to try and catch it...... and cynical scrum stuff...its easy to make a scum collapse look like the other guys fault

taking the idea of "cynical" to the extreme/ridiculous to make a point...why is tackling a guy thats running fine but "tackling" a maul "cynical'...its only cynical because we've said it is in the rules...so change the rules, remove that and attacking mauls will just have to get more stable

all these things are in the name of "attacking" rugby, generally the team with the ball gets huge protection....but what it really does is just make things easy for the attacking team to be cynical....as i say with a dominant scrum you can easily turn a knock on into points, we want guys to attack and score tries but what we get is teams kicking penalties

Deliberate knock ons are cynical, knocking up is a risk they choose to take so both are worthy of a pen.

Sacking of the maul can be done by 1 player so gives a huge advantage to the defending team if they were being driven back.

I kind of want to see some infridngements be 'a tap and go' free kick so like a pen but no option of a kick or set piece, meaning teams that infringe need to retreat or players like Randall will rip them apart. Speeds the game up rather than slowing right down for a scrum. I just want less scrums tbh. I like them but not to many.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

What would you replace it with? Back to 5m scrums and rinse and repeat? I'd maybe go for attacking scrum on the 22, that way at least it's not right on the goal line.

Tap and go on the 22, faster than a scrum, too far out to repeatedly pick and go and not as punishing on the attacking team.

It would take redefining the free kick somewhat but that's hardly a bigger change than the 50/22 was.

 

[Scotty]

Tap and go on the 22, faster than a scrum, too far out to repeatedly pick and go and not as punishing on the attacking team.

It would take redefining the free kick somewhat but that's hardly a bigger change than the 50/22 was.

Id agree with that although youll see quite a few tap then drop goal

 

[ncurd]

deliberate knock down...want to keep the ball? pass a second earlier

almost all scrum penalties...one scrum just stronger than the other?...so something the weaker scrum cant change...cards! the scrum is just a competition for the ball...and yet a dominant scrum is almost guaranteed to turn a knock on into a penalty kick, free kick, give them the ball and play on

sacking a maul?....why not?....the team with the ball want to keep mauling then get better, if the defending team want to risk having 2-3 guys stuck on the ground by trying to sack it...up to them, if they fail they'll be punished by the other team scoring

1) Nope cynical infringements of laws should always be a penalty.

2) Agreed although I think its just a matter of switching out the laws between the ref guessing who broke it from knowing who it was. More simply I'd remove the reset from the game the ref gives a penalty or the scrum doesn't happen.

3) Actually complete opposite here by biggest bug bear is when a tackle becomes a maul and the defending team clearly sack it then get the ball. Never can quite work out that one.

 

[mdaclarke]

What would you replace it with? Back to 5m scrums and rinse and repeat? I'd maybe go for attacking scrum on the 22, that way at least it's not right on the goal line.

1) Deliberate knock on is to stop cynical play, especially when a team has an overlap. Part of the attack is drawing players in to create space. That changes as defenders know they can commit and just knock the ball down to stop play. All I can see is it leading to more scrums and the game being ruined personally.

2) I agree the scrum needs sorting. Personally I would say that if the scrum is stable and there is not an immediate technical infringement then the maximum that can be given is a free kick. Only when a player cynically infringes at the start should it be a penalty. That way teams have no real motivation to keep the ball in the scrum and it gets out quicker.

3) This is similar to the knock on. All I can see is cynical play. Maybe it could work, but I think you would need to change the whole maul rules (something that needs looking at anyway tbh) so that teams aren't punished for not moving forward as when the opposition tries to sack you probably need a small reset which slows momentum.

Back to 5m scrum rinse and repeat for me

 

[Kiwiwomble]

1) Nope cynical infringements of laws should always be a penalty.

2) Agreed although I think its just a matter of switching out the laws between the ref guessing who broke it from knowing who it was. More simply I'd remove the reset from the game the ref gives a penalty or the scrum doesn't happen.

3) Actually complete opposite here by biggest bug bear is when a tackle becomes a maul and the defending team clearly sack it then get the ball. Never can quite work out that one.

i think thats the crux of my argument...sacking happens and its not punished...sometimes it collapses with no one at fault or even the attacking team trips and yet the defending team get punished...its messed up....so make it legal...and then the attacking team will have to prepare for it rather than knowing theyve got a good chance to either drive over or get a penalty...remove laws that cant be ruled on in a black and white fashion

 

[Scotty]

i think thats the crux of my argument...sacking happens and its not punished...sometimes it collapses with no one at fault or even the attacking team trips and yet the defending team get punished...its messed up....so make it legal...and then the attacking team will have to prepare for it rather than knowing theyve got a good chance to either drive over or get a penalty...remove laws that cant be ruled on in a black and white fashion

Your rule would kill the maul though, line out... maul set up...starts moving... 1 player drags it down...

Also as it stands most of the forwards have to go in to defend it, that wouldnt happen but 3 go in and drag it down rather than a full compliment trying to stop it moving means more players on their feet in the defensive line.


I like a fast flowing game but i do also like the mauls and this rule punishes more powerful teams that could get push over trys and teams that do get the ball out because more defenders on feet away from the maul meaning less space there?

It doesnt work IMHO and also i see it policed right all the time in the prem.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

Your rule would kill the maul though, line out... maul set up...starts moving... 1 player drags it down...

Also as it stands most of the forwards have to go in to defend it, that wouldnt happen but 3 go in and drag it down rather than a full compliment trying to stop it moving means more players on their feet in the defensive line.


I like a fast flowing game but i do also like the mauls and this rule punishes more powerful teams that could get push over trys and teams that do get the ball out because more defenders on feet away from the maul meaning less space there?

It doesnt work IMHO and also i see it policed right all the time in the prem.

it would give the defending team a better chance to stop these maul but i dont believe it would kill it all together, lost of teams get the ball to the back very quick and so they would just get better at staying up if the defending team dragged down the first couple of guys...players get better at playing rugby rather than milking penalties

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

If the attacking players knew they could be sacked then it would take more than 1 player to sack a proper maul.

I completely agree on the point above though. Where you can't ref the game properly, scrums, mauls, even some rucks, then we need to find a way to play on as it's killing the game and refs get it wrong in every game I watch.

Scrum penalties are a joke, the refs have no idea.

Rucks are reffed sometimes and sometimes not, but you could penalise someone at every ruck as someone is always doing as someone is always breaking the laws.

If we don't improve our game and reffing it won't grow.

 

[Eleutherarch]

If the attacking players knew they could be sacked then it would take more than 1 player to sack a proper maul.

I completely agree on the point above though. Where you can't ref the game properly, scrums, mauls, even some rucks, then we need to find a way to play on as it's killing the game and refs get it wrong in every game I watch.

Scrum penalties are a joke, the refs have no idea.

Rucks are reffed sometimes and sometimes not, but you could penalise someone at every ruck as someone is always doing as someone is always breaking the laws.

If we don't improve our game and reffing it won't grow.

Not only does the game stagnate in growth, it can actually regress by losing longstanding fans. I have become really tired of the laws/refereeing becoming one of the main components of post-match analysis. How many times are close matches reduced to an obligatory congrats to Team X and commiserations to Team Y, before attributing said victory/loss to the rub of on-pitch decision-making at a few key moments? How many times are we listening to seasoned commentators/pundits getting stumped for several seconds as to why a penalty has been afforded? Or expressing surprise that something overt has not been penalised?

You guys may call me a wuss, but before big domestic games and especially internationals, I get a bit anxious thinking to myself, "God I hope there are no huge gaffs or contentious moments". Oftentimes, the game engenders bitterness unfortunately. It's why I find myself watching more and more 7s.

 

[Reiser99]

Personally I think anyone who says there was less controversy in the past is just wrong. There was probably plenty of controversy. Difference is the level of scrutiny and the number of cameras now. If you had the same level of video recordings available in past games I'm sure you would find loads of potential infringements missed. Further I'm hesitant about claiming the past was better. Not saying it wasn't, but generally people look back with rose tinted glasses and it especially doesn't help when most YouTube clips of the 80s for example are just of the best action and extremely little of the more mundane.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

seriously go back and watch a game from the early professional era. Team kicks the ball down field, there is a mess at the ruck, ref calls a random penalty from 20m away. I don't know anyone can say that the past had less controversy. If you want to kill the maul just make mauling obstruction. Sacking the maul is dangerous as well as cynical. Not hitting the ball forward is the fundamental principal of the game, teams should not be rewarded for doing it on purpose.

I'd like to see the goal-line dropout eliminated. Any play into goal should be given the scrum/22m option. Not sure what to do about being held up.

Every sport's media talks about the refereeing before, during, and after the match. Rugby is no different.