Law Innovations Trial QLD
-
@Crucial said in Law Innovations Trial QLD:
@voodoo said in Law Innovations Trial QLD:
I like pretty much all of those. On the advantage rule, if the ref is clear and the attacking team awake, they'll just need to make a call after the 2nd phase as to whether to have a crack on the 3rd or to take the penalty (by knocking on or whatever). Might not be perfect, but I detest unlimited and unclear advantage for 12 phases before being called back,
Can players just ask for the penalty to apply? Surely that is better than making them deliberately knock on? Call it like a mark. Often I think players keep on playing because they are unsure what the ref is thinking and the ref thinks he should keep advantage going because the players are continuing to play.
I don't mind that.
I do like 3 rucks and advantage over. We play faar too much advantage, and it's so variable. I like the idea of guidelines - typically 30 m upfield + possession = advantage, unless there's massive wind and a shit kicker. 20+ phases of advantage does my nut- and it's time wasted in the game that only one side can benefit from.
Please just drop the goal line dropout. League is successful because it's simple and tribal, not because of specific rules.
-
@nzzp said in Law Innovations Trial QLD:
@Crucial said in Law Innovations Trial QLD:
@voodoo said in Law Innovations Trial QLD:
I like pretty much all of those. On the advantage rule, if the ref is clear and the attacking team awake, they'll just need to make a call after the 2nd phase as to whether to have a crack on the 3rd or to take the penalty (by knocking on or whatever). Might not be perfect, but I detest unlimited and unclear advantage for 12 phases before being called back,
Can players just ask for the penalty to apply? Surely that is better than making them deliberately knock on? Call it like a mark. Often I think players keep on playing because they are unsure what the ref is thinking and the ref thinks he should keep advantage going because the players are continuing to play.
I don't mind that.
I do like 3 rucks and advantage over. We play faar too much advantage, and it's so variable. I like the idea of guidelines - typically 30 m upfield + possession = advantage, unless there's massive wind and a shit kicker. 20+ phases of advantage does my nut- and it's time wasted in the game that only one side can benefit from.
Please just drop the goal line dropout. League is successful because it's simple and tribal, not because of specific rules.
Goal line drop out was specifically to encourage teams to get the ball away from close piles of bodies for endless smashes at the line going to TMO for endless replays of a glimpse of 'ball and grass'. It hasn't worked.
-
i imagine a little version of the 6th tackle in league, players who know they have advantage trying something a bit more risky after a couple of phases, and i dont hate it
-
@Machpants said in Law Innovations Trial QLD:
@Kiwiwomble said in Law Innovations Trial QLD:
@Machpants said in Law Innovations Trial QLD:
How the fuck can it take 90 seconds to do a conversion, that should be 30 - get on with it. And drop the 'has to be same ball' rule to enable that
fuck you...it takes me 60 seconds to run the bloody tee out there
Fuck em, they can carry the t!
or only drop kicks, no more place kicking
-
Why are there no trials there for the maul?
The ball disappears. Random call goes against defending team (just because)even if attacking team is joining ahead of last player, or halting and regrouping, or twisting it sideways to draw a penalty.
I'm not anti the art of the maul but I am anti the absolute bullshit lack of balance around the rulings.
May I suggest.
-both teams must push straight and not wheel (just like a scrum)
-when ball is available it gets called as such and must be used (like rucks). If you want to push further then keep in in the middle. Actually same should apply to scrums. No scrumming for penalties.
-The binding description in the law book is applied (and this goes for scrums and rucks). A proper bind is required or you are not part of the maul. For some reason it is applied only to the defending side.How would this speed up the game? Less penalties and repeated cracks. Only well formed mauls get to tuck the ball and drive. Use it or lose it.
-
its just coming too me, how many sports have as many players directly involved in a "play" as rugby? league, AFL and football say you generally only have a 2-4, the player in possession and then a couple tackling or trying to tackle...rugby could have 16 blokes in a ruck/scrum/lineout...all doing different things that could be penalised.....is it just too complicated for a ref to get perfect?
-
The time compliance ones would be great.
Otherwise they look advantageous to NZ rugby style.
-
@Crucial said in Law Innovations Trial QLD:
@nzzp said in Law Innovations Trial QLD:
@Crucial said in Law Innovations Trial QLD:
@voodoo said in Law Innovations Trial QLD:
I like pretty much all of those. On the advantage rule, if the ref is clear and the attacking team awake, they'll just need to make a call after the 2nd phase as to whether to have a crack on the 3rd or to take the penalty (by knocking on or whatever). Might not be perfect, but I detest unlimited and unclear advantage for 12 phases before being called back,
Can players just ask for the penalty to apply? Surely that is better than making them deliberately knock on? Call it like a mark. Often I think players keep on playing because they are unsure what the ref is thinking and the ref thinks he should keep advantage going because the players are continuing to play.
I don't mind that.
I do like 3 rucks and advantage over. We play faar too much advantage, and it's so variable. I like the idea of guidelines - typically 30 m upfield + possession = advantage, unless there's massive wind and a shit kicker. 20+ phases of advantage does my nut- and it's time wasted in the game that only one side can benefit from.
Please just drop the goal line dropout. League is successful because it's simple and tribal, not because of specific rules.
Goal line drop out was specifically to encourage teams to get the ball away from close piles of bodies for endless smashes at the line going to TMO for endless replays of a glimpse of 'ball and grass'. It hasn't worked.
same as 50/22. Keen to see that dropped as well. It hasn't had the effect they wanted.
-
@Crucial said in Law Innovations Trial QLD:
@voodoo said in Law Innovations Trial QLD:
I like pretty much all of those. On the advantage rule, if the ref is clear and the attacking team awake, they'll just need to make a call after the 2nd phase as to whether to have a crack on the 3rd or to take the penalty (by knocking on or whatever). Might not be perfect, but I detest unlimited and unclear advantage for 12 phases before being called back,
Can players just ask for the penalty to apply? Surely that is better than making them deliberately knock on? Call it like a mark. Often I think players keep on playing because they are unsure what the ref is thinking and the ref thinks he should keep advantage going because the players are continuing to play.
Oh absolutely, zero issue with that
-
@voodoo said in Law Innovations Trial QLD:
@Crucial said in Law Innovations Trial QLD:
@voodoo said in Law Innovations Trial QLD:
I like pretty much all of those. On the advantage rule, if the ref is clear and the attacking team awake, they'll just need to make a call after the 2nd phase as to whether to have a crack on the 3rd or to take the penalty (by knocking on or whatever). Might not be perfect, but I detest unlimited and unclear advantage for 12 phases before being called back,
Can players just ask for the penalty to apply? Surely that is better than making them deliberately knock on? Call it like a mark. Often I think players keep on playing because they are unsure what the ref is thinking and the ref thinks he should keep advantage going because the players are continuing to play.
Oh absolutely, zero issue with that
I'm sure they can ask
-
@nzzp said in Law Innovations Trial QLD:
same as 50/22. Keen to see that dropped as well. It hasn't had the effect they wanted.
Difficult to judge - there have been a few, but is it not used because the defensive players are dropping back? Or because the kickers don't want to put through an uncontestable kick? Are attacks not going wide enough to make use of the space that might be there when they're attacking around halfway?
Watch nearly every Test team - if they get up to the 10m line it is usually a midfield bomb. You see the wingers/FB come up to contest, because they were hovering back around the 22 waiting, either on "coathangers" duty or for the 50/22.
-
@Machpants said in Law Innovations Trial QLD:
@voodoo said in Law Innovations Trial QLD:
@Crucial said in Law Innovations Trial QLD:
@voodoo said in Law Innovations Trial QLD:
I like pretty much all of those. On the advantage rule, if the ref is clear and the attacking team awake, they'll just need to make a call after the 2nd phase as to whether to have a crack on the 3rd or to take the penalty (by knocking on or whatever). Might not be perfect, but I detest unlimited and unclear advantage for 12 phases before being called back,
Can players just ask for the penalty to apply? Surely that is better than making them deliberately knock on? Call it like a mark. Often I think players keep on playing because they are unsure what the ref is thinking and the ref thinks he should keep advantage going because the players are continuing to play.
Oh absolutely, zero issue with that
I'm sure they can ask
I have heard the ref ask sometimes and occasionally the players but it isn’t common. I think it is worth a trial to make it clearly an option to see if it is used.
