After watching the final...I think we need a change

[shtove]

<div class='quotemain'> i think teams want to play the final as a tight, defense orientated game as thats how they percieved the game to be. A test of discipline. What if they go into a finals game with a strategy of throwing the ball around? maybe its an elimination of the risks factor and the pressures of whats at stake?

but with that said, england at times tried to play to a style that was different to the one that got them into the final, that equaled to some mistakes, i guess its an adaptation, teams automatically think that both will play tight and hence this kicking back and forth, pick and go style, i guess they wanted to exploit the boks in that aspect but it didn't work coz it was their style.

What if one final, one team surprised the other by playing some expansive footy, will it stuff up the others defensive strategies? and will it result in a free flowing type of game? [/b]

The reason England tried to play running rugby was because thier lineout was completely ineffective. To play an effective 10 man/kicking game you need to be able to control your own lineout. Without getting clean ball from the lineout you can't control possession. South Africa just forced their hand and England changed their style. And as you could see they were incapable of playing running rugby. SA weren't even playing a rush defence most of the night, they were just playing a simple drift defence.

[/b][/quote]

England did put it through the hands against Aus as well, but to no great effect.

Ireland and Aus rely a lot on quick ball off the lineout, because their main attack is in midfield and that phase of play gives 20m of attacking space - but neither succeeded. If you made defences back off a similar distance at scrums and rucks, it'd be the same difference. Defences are just too tight.

It's the same rules as last year, but this time a bunch of teams turned up intent on kicking it high or long, starting with Argentina. There was no pre-tournament evidence it would end up this way. God knows why. And the new rule about passing back in to the 22 won't make a difference, because teams were happy just to thump the ball back down the middle of the pitch and hope for a mistake/turnover.

Maybe bring in Aussie Rules, where a clean catch anywhere on the pitch is a mark. The only risk to the catching team is a knock on. And there's no point in kicking it back long because of the offside rule - the chasing players just wouldn't arrive in time to force a mistake. And no point kicking it high because you're ceding territory on balance.

Got to say, I was sick of watching players catch it deep, run forward, then slow down and dip the head in preparation for yet another hoof.

Probably the best thing we can hope for is that coaches are now done with that tactic, and go about figuring a more effective way of playing. Over to you, NZ.

 

[ak47]

The game is so professional now there are no black n white miss-matches.

They need to implement a league style points system, where 2 points for penalties, and 1 point for FG’s or have short armed penalties, so you cant go for the 3

There is too much kicking in todays game, it’s a farce, its become soo professional this game is turning into a game of FOOTCHESS………where your kicking does the talking, not the running or tackling â€" the main factors of the game

I’ll accept the territory kicking, but I wont accept going for drop goals or 3 points whenever ur in the attacking territory

It takes away the element of tries.

If you look at the rugby stats and how the game has evolved since turning professional, you will find a massive decline in tries, a massive decline in line breaks, a massive increase in 3 pt penalties a massive increase in drop goals.

The way its evolved you need to have these traits to win â€" they are boring traits, and killing the flowing game they play in heaven.

Rugby League is now a faster more flowing game………1 argument I always faced when growing up, is that Union was more flowing as a ruck would be over, then run, and another ruck then run……..league was tackle, stop, play the ball, tackle, then kick after 5 tackles.

Now union is tackle, run, then penalty or scrum or injury, you take ur pick…when 10 phases happens the commentary goes nuts, as it’s the most condinuity they have seen since the amateur era

I still cant believe in the pinnacle of our game the RWC final, we only crossed the line once or twice, and barely even entered the 20m zone.

Union is more Yawnion today then ever.

We need to implement a points sytem that encourages more running of the ball, as 1 kick is more than half a tries worth â€" sorry that isn’t Rugby……..thats criminal, and a blight on the game in todays professional era.

Try 5 points
Penalties 2 pts
FG â€" 1 pt

Or bring in short armed penalties, unless it’s a yellow card offense, then u get ur kick at goal……otherwise tap n run *****, and make them tackle you, while the game plays out rugby as it should be.

 

[Brodizzle]

I think penalties should be 1 points and drop goals 2 points....simply because drop goals take a team effort to set up the kick and keep defenders from rushing the kicker...

 

[scuubasteve]

Maybe we're looking at things the wrong way here guys.

Why not look at the problem for what it is.

The thing that is really hindering running rugby, and simultaneously increasing the amount teams kick, is the speed of ruck ball.

As others have said, slowing down phase ball is an art in its own. England were awesome at it in the period building up to their crown in 03. NZ took over as world leaders in this skill thereafter. I'll admit that the better you are at slowing opposition phase ball, the better your defense is. Heck, France did it against the AB's in the quarter final.

So, aren't we looking at things the wrong way?

Instead of trying to force the attacking team to use the crappy slow phase ball differently, why aren't we stopping defences from deliberately stopping flowing/running rugby?

The new laws push the defenders back 5metres, but only at scrum time. If you're trying to get quick ball and make easy yardage, what do you do? You put it out one phase and crash it straight up to claim as much of that 10m of no-mans land as you can. Remind you of anything??? Rugby f#@king League!!

So I think that rule is a bad one for starters. Secondly, has anyone watched the horrible "Aerial Ping-pong" in the ARC this year? If you can't pass back into your 22, what do you do?

You put the ball back down the field as an up-and-under! The reason for this is that there is now an offside line at the tackle, not just the ruck. So everyone has to get back behind the guy who runs the ball up. So teams now appear to just kick the ball backwards and forwards up the centre of the field and try to force the turnover.

There are also far less penalty's now. So there should be far less kicks at goal, and more quick taps. But then this just encourages teams to slow phase ball down even more.

What I'm getting at, and what all this is leading up to, is that I think some of these new rules will be exploited in exactly the same way as the current rules have been. It will take teams a little while, but eventually the game will go back to basic percentages as one team (usually NZ) figure out ways to make the most of rules, and then everyone will pick it up.

I think if we really want to make rugby faster and with more running then we need to seriously discourage the tackler from not releasing the ball carrier and to make the tackler roll away from the ruck.

My solution is simple. Introduce a shortened penalty card system.

This would be similar to Ice Hockey's penalty box/powerplay.
Allow refs to give out 5minute cards (green or orange coloured, maybe). If players slow ruck ball and infringe, then you're off for 5mins. Its not as bigger call to make as a yellow card for refs, and players wouldn't need 4-5 of the same warning to justify being sent off. With the current yellow being 10mins, its quite a big call to make on the refs behalf.

Instead a 5minute loss of a player is not too serious, but still gives the attacking team a decent advantage. Teams could also very well lose a couple of players if they persist with negative tactics at the tackle area.

As for offsides, if the IRB implement the new law, where the Touch Judge (who is soon to be named the Flag Judge, I think) monitors the defensive lines, then teams should soon be caught for constant offsides.

If we can stop these negative tactics then it should make the game more conducive to attacking rugby, which will then decrease the dependency on kicking. Problem solved!

 

[scuubasteve]

It's also interesting to read some comments from Rugby League fans who really believe that they should make try's worth 5 points and penatlies worth 3 points (currently Try=4points, Penalty=2)

They believe that, by having it as 5points and 3 points, teams will be less encouraged to offend because the penalty is worth more than half a try.

Which backs up my point in the post above, teams need to be discouraged from offending. Not from taking penalties for points.

Drop goals should be used for deciding tight games only. So they should be only worth 1point (2 at a stretch). Drop goals should be used when the scores are all locked up with time nearly up (ala 95 WC final, 03 WC final) only. Not as a regular point scoring tactic.

 

[sambãd5]

otherwise tap n run *****, .
[/b]

:lol: amen to that haha.



the problem is that a team would always prefer having 3 points scored against them rather than 5. so they will always just give up the penalty so there is no try. NO TRY. its not that much of a attacking thing rater a defending team. if a team knew that there would be an actual concequence for slowing play then they would go for a try. its not league, its f***ing basketball. 3pts to one team, 3pts to the next untill one team screws up and gives a turnover.

as for any points changes, i cant see how anyone can justify having a game at 5-7 have a drop kick or penalty any less than 3. if you can tell me convinsinly why a unconverted try plus a penalty or drop kick should be worth LESS than a single converted try i will join you and use your one defence in my repatua

 

[thf2k2]

The referees must sanction the faults and give yellow cards systematically... When a team has 3 players outside, it will not make any more faults !

 

[RoyalBlueStuey]

I think penalties should be 1 points and drop goals 2 points....simply because drop goals take a team effort to set up the kick and keep defenders from rushing the kicker... [/b]

That'd mean an infringement whenever a team got anywhere inside the 22...the risk of 7 points would be too great and the 1 point penlty would be negligable by comparison.

Let the game happen....all this crying over the lack of try & wing-play....big deal. I don't want 7s or League. I want good, tough, brutal, ugly, messy, sometimes exhilerating rugby union. We've just had the most enthralling World Cup ever....why mess with it.

 

[dullonien]

I agree with alot of what Scuuba has said on this matter. The main problem at the moment is the slowing down of ball come ruck time. There needs to be a harsher penalty for the team who does this (especially inside the red zone).

I'm not sure if having other cards is a way it needs to go (not a bad idea though), but referees need to have the b*lls to give yellow cards earlier in games, not just the last 20min. If a player infringes in the 'red zone' (~10 metres from line) in order to stop a try, it should be instant yellow, no f**king warnings.

The rules are fine as they are in my opinion, just need to be enforced! Teams will figure out ways to combat the forward and kicking dominated game we have at the moment in the way that New Zealand and even Wales did a few years ago.

 

[Crackdown]

Scuuba has hit the nail on the head, I'm not sure about devaluing kicks though because teams do need to be punished. The tired card system is an interesting idea and personally I'd re-allow rucking players if they are lying on the wrong side instead of just the ball (as long as it wasn't to the head for example) and be far less lenient with offenders, ie; more cards.

I don't think you'd find many trying to slow down play then.

 

[RoyalBlueStuey]

Perhaps you people should find a sport you do like instead of trying to jazz up a perfectly good game into something it's not.

Union isn't rip-roaring excitment guaranteed, it's not set-up to flow...they are fleeting moments of perfection. It's a battle, a muddy, grinding, war of attrition.

People are dismissing so much of it that there's nothing left to distinguish it...for example territory is everything so the kicking game will always be a big part of it, it's a brilliant skill and a fundamental part of the game, why dismiss it as aerial ping-pong? It's not contrived to be exhilerating like rugby league, it's just a natrually messy game. Why can't we just love it for what it is instead of chasing rainbows for mass appeal.

 

[Crackdown]

Perhaps you people should find a sport you do like instead of trying to jazz up a perfectly good game into something it's not.

Union isn't rip-roaring excitment guaranteed, it's not set-up to flow...they are fleeting moments of perfection. It's a battle, a muddy, grinding, war of attrition.

People are dismissing so much of it that there's nothing left to distinguish it...for example territory is everything so the kicking game will always be a big part of it, it's a brilliant skill and a fundamental part of the game, why dismiss it as aerial ping-pong? It's not contrived to be exhilerating like rugby league, it's just a natrually messy game. Why can't we just love it for what it is instead of chasing rainbows for mass appeal.
[/b]

I don't think there should be many changes, that's the pont! (Maybe just refs enforcing the laws more?) New rules are trying to turn it into league - union has always had the grind mixed with flair and that's why I love it. I do quite like league though for different reasons. To be honest if union is going to be watered down I'll just switch codes. h34r:

 

[diehardkiwi07]

Maybe not everyone shares the view of a naturally messy game. I would suspect an open style running game wouldn't suit the likes of NH teams because they dont use it, so naturally they wouldn't enforce it. This is a forum and where allowed to voice our concern. Opening up the game with new rules worked in everyones favor for the super 14 when it was then super 12 at the time. Rugby greats and legends from New Zealand and Australia believed the game had been suffocated and changes needed to be made for the better of the game. From then on the viewing percentage climbed in NZ because of the open style running game that everyone had longed for. Thats exactly how our running style came to be evolved from S.A N.Z and Aus

 

[QKXV]

I like rugby union just the way it is, thanks boys. Each style has got it's merits.

The "NH style" doesn't ruin the game in any way for me, it adds to it the possibilty that teams have the freedom to play with a variety of tactics. Running rugby is not the be all and end all, Englands' forwards bullying Aus into submission was better to watch than NZ's running against Portugal.

While I agree laws need tweaking, some of the changes proposed in this thread will present us with the dillema that is facing nearly everything else in the world today - mediocrity, everything tastes like chicken, every high street in every town looks the same. You want a game where points can be scored in one way? Take google, search football.

Every rugby match the same? - no thanks, I am too much of a fan of individuality & intelligence.

 

[BokMagic]

Well, the fact of the matter is, as of next year, we wil see several rule changes aimed at improving the flow of running rugby. The new "Stellenbosch" laws that come into effect, will result in far less kicking, with players not allowed to pass back into the 22 before kicking out on the full.

The offside line at scrum time becomes 5m behind the no. 8`s feet, instead of the current "hindmost feet" rule, which should theoretically give a lot more space for your attacking runners to run into. Look at how much the extra space afforded by the offside lines at lineouts gives to the team in possession- tail of the lineout ball, off the top, is currently absolutely the 1st-prize form of 1st-phase possession, allowing teams to get miles over the gain-line, from where the attacking game is an easy one to play. We could quite conceivably see something pretty similar come scrum time under the new rules.

We`ll also see far less penalties w.r.t technical infringements in especially the lineouts, with the referees awarding free kicks on a more regular basis.

These are just 3 of the rule changes aimed at speeding up the game, and ensuring a more running-orientated game, with the emphasis being shifted from defense to attack.

Of course, that is counter-balanced by the ridiculous new rule about collapsing mauls, instead of making it an even contest by having the ball-carrier in front, thereby allowing competition for the ball.

But at the end of the day gents, the beauty of rugby is precisely in the fact that the game is ever-evolving, and there is no absolute set style of play that guarantees a win on every occasion. Teams who prefer to play a kicking, 10-man game, are effectively limiting their chances of getting the 7-pointer. So if you want to play that type of game, better make sure it`s damn effective, and your defense had better be damn effective too.

Much better for me to watch a game of contrasting styles and defense actually allowed, than watching a gaudy game of <strike>men`s netball</strike> basketball, where both teams just score with (gay ) abandon, and where no discernable defense is allowed.

 

[Crackdown]

I would suspect an open style running game wouldn't suit the likes of NH teams because they dont use it[/b]

I don't think this argument holds any truth, France are renowned for their backs/running game and SA were undeniably the less dynamic in the final, I'm tired of hearing all this north vs south bull. I'm still very sceptical of these new rules, how is pulling down mauls going to speed up the game (not to mention dangerous)? Guess we'll all have to wait and see how it pans out.

 

[polonius]

Changing the number of points for tries to make them more valuable than penalties has been tried before but has had little effect. When I started playing a try was worth 3 points, it was increased to 4 and then again to 5 points - and still the problem of too many penalty kicks exists.

I believe the game's administrators are looking at the problem through the wrong end of the telescope. A penalty should be just that - a 'penalty' a severe punishment for a team that has infringed.

Increase the value of the penalty, I say. That'll stop them being given away. Take Saturday's game - Tait made a sizzling break, Mattfield (that man again!) stopped him just short and, to stop the quick ball, Schalk Burger commited the infringement. No try resulted, England were awarded the penalty. 3 points to England.

Now, what if it was 7 points for a penalty, a yellow card for the miscreant and the kick to be taken from a designated penalty spot bang in front of the posts on the 22 metre line. Make the 'penalty' Draconian!

You can bet no defender would dare infringe ... but it would put the poor old ref on the spot.

 

[scuubasteve]

I think we have to accept and all agree that changing the amount of points for tries and penalty kicks is not going to help much.

If a penalty is worth less points (to try and stop teams from using it) then teams will infringe more, and less running rugby will be present. So essentially, changing the amount of points for tries and penalties is a catch22.

However, dropped goals (which were a massive part of the old game) are something which we can justify reducing in a game. If teams want to rumble the ball up (and by all means go ahead) I would prefer to see them push their way over the line and score points this way, rather than jumping back into the pocket and popping over a 3. Scoring a try from wave after wave of attack, close to the oppositions goal line, is one of the most exciting facets of rugby. It is usually difficult to accomplish, and should be worth at least twice as much as a dropped goal (not like it is now).

I will admit openly that dropped goals are a unique and important skill that needs to be maintained in the game of rugby, but the only time they are exciting is when the game is close (usually tied) and they are used to break a deadlock. I don't see how reducing them to 1 point would do the skill any disservice. I think it will give the dropkick a unique aura of being a game clincher at the death, rather than an easy substitue for a try, or a gamble to take when you've been given advantage for a long arm penalty.

As, for the claims that the new ELV's will make the game less messy and turn it into a repeditive and structured game like rugby league, have you watched any of the ARC this year?!

The ELV's are like rugby on crack!
With the new rucking laws there are soo many turnovers now that you never know who's going to come out with the ball and you often need a breather to catch your wits and reflect on things that have happened in the game. Every ruck is a massive wrestling mass of bodies and the larger amount of turnovers mean there is more disorganisation in defenses than ever before.

I will definitely not dispute that the game is far more intriguing under these new laws. I loved watching these games this year. And this coming from a Kiwi who has nothing to with any of the Aussie ARC teams.

I think that fans will be pleasantly surprised by what they get next year in the S14. But you may actually start to yearn for a little more structure (as I sometimes did) after seeing these new laws in play. It is definitely a step AWAY from rugby league!!

You will also probably see what I have talked about previously with the up-and-under kickathons.

However, I'm hoping that the Kiwi S14 teams will not resort to this tactic and that they will show the law makers just how exciting the game under these laws can be whenyou have skilled ball carriers and creative players (not just in the backs). These laws were made for NZ style players with all round atheticism. But it doesn't stop teams who want to rumble it up or play 10man rugby. It just makes general play more exciting.

The weirdest thing from the ARC was that it seemed that players didn't even bother to pull down mauls, because most teams just spun off and kept on going.

 

[shinji1977]

<div class='quotemain'> I think penalties should be 1 points and drop goals 2 points....simply because drop goals take a team effort to set up the kick and keep defenders from rushing the kicker... [/b]

That'd mean an infringement whenever a team got anywhere inside the 22...the risk of 7 points would be too great and the 1 point penlty would be negligable by comparison.

Let the game happen....all this crying over the lack of try & wing-play....big deal. I don't want 7s or League. I want good, tough, brutal, ugly, messy, sometimes exhilerating rugby union. We've just had the most enthralling World Cup ever....why mess with it.
[/b][/quote]

LOL... I loved that "I want good, tough, brutal, ugly, messy, sometimes exhilerating rugby union". Defense has become brilliant. I understand that we would all like to see a WC Final with 5+ tries per team, but let's get real: Rugby Laws have came to a great point were it is very difficult to change anything. They are almost perfect.
I would like to see more handling (I like that proposal of the kicks inside the 22) but defense is GREAT also (consider Argentina vs Ireland '99...)

Just thoughts:
a) What about removing the "mark" and/or kicks after being "kicked" inside the 22? I'd love to see FBs running as mad men through people... LOL
B) Penalty: 3 - Dop goals: 2
c) Offsides more agressively whistled in rucks

 

[Aeros]

Just thoughts:
a) What about removing the "mark" and/or kicks after being "kicked" inside the 22? I'd love to see FBs running as mad men through people... LOL
B) Penalty: 3 - Dop goals: 2
c) Offsides more agressively whistled in rucks
[/b]

I like your ideas, but I have a few comments:

a) A fullback's job isn't to run through people to the front so as to avoid offside situations. His job is to be at the back. Hence the name.

b ) A drop goal is hard enough to get, I'd leave it at 3.

c) That would only result in more kicking. I like the idea of giving advantage more, since it encourages the running game. When there is actually a stoppage of play or a turnover due to the defending team being offside, I'd rather give a scrum to the offensive team with a 10m field advantage. But that will never work for obvious reasons. Still, advantage is good.