The Current State of Rugby
-
@Duluth said in The Current State of Rugby:
@booboo said in The Current State of Rugby:
Not sure what the following achieves:
and for the ability to mark the ball inside the 22 from a restart
Seems to create a stoppage rather than making a team play out of their red zone. Eliminates the mid length kick off.
The standard kickoff is long with a winger sprinting to put pressure on. I miss the 10-20m kickoffs with locks competing to win the ball. That contest has gone from the game recently. By making long kickoffs easier to deal with, it moves the kickoff back into the competitive area of the field
this was exactly my reaction, it is trying to add an area of contest to the game and i'm all for it.
-
@Bovidae said in The Current State of Rugby:
WR needs to get rid of the caterpillar ruck. Limit it to being able to add only one extra player to the ruck before the halfback kicks. I have liked that the ref have tried to enforce the 5 sec rule more strictly too.
I think it's probably simpler - "halfback" can't roll the ball more than a metre or maybe once ball has moved more than a metre from where the tackled player placed it, it's out.
-
@Dodge said in The Current State of Rugby:
@antipodean said in The Current State of Rugby:
@canefan said in The Current State of Rugby:
I'll wait to see if they actually try to eliminate fake stoppages. That is one of my major gripes. If you fix the intentional slowing of the game, the bench/subs problems will probably go too, because loading the bench with forwards carries risk that they can't handle a faster game. But if they want to change that too, great
An easy way to eliminate fake stoppages is to simply not stop the game for someone who needs a breather or to tie up his boot again. Can't form a scrum because a prop has taken a knee? Take a quick tap or free kick to the other side.
I understand and don't disagree with the sentiment, however, you're ignoring how cynical rugby is these days - have a terrible scrum? Then concede a free kick by taking the knee.
In a game where possession matters, I think the benefits are outweighed by the negatives for the offending team. Especially if we implement this:
I agree with speeding the game up but if scrums take too long to set then free kick once, penalty next IMO.
-
Possession matters? The Current world cup holders would strongly disagree
-
I think of the greatest concern is the outlaw of the "croc roll"
Without this option, and with the current allowance of body height, and with the current interpretation of head contact in clean out, you can fuck the ruck up with one guy and leave 13 to defend, and your high odds to win that.
Attacking teams will do 1 of two things.
Play even less rugby in their own end
Be even more cynical about their front guy sealing off.Neither is good for the aesthetic
-
@Bones said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Bovidae said in The Current State of Rugby:
WR needs to get rid of the caterpillar ruck. Limit it to being able to add only one extra player to the ruck before the halfback kicks. I have liked that the ref have tried to enforce the 5 sec rule more strictly too.
I think it's probably simpler - "halfback" can't roll the ball more than a metre or maybe once ball has moved more than a metre from where the tackled player placed it, it's out.
It’s even simpler than that. Just blow the existing penalty for the halfback being offside when he walks up the side of the ruck and plays the ball with his foot.
-
-
@antipodean said in The Current State of Rugby:
@canefan said in The Current State of Rugby:
I'll wait to see if they actually try to eliminate fake stoppages. That is one of my major gripes. If you fix the intentional slowing of the game, the bench/subs problems will probably go too, because loading the bench with forwards carries risk that they can't handle a faster game. But if they want to change that too, great
An easy way to eliminate fake stoppages is to simply not stop the game for someone who needs a breather or to tie up his boot again. Can't form a scrum because a prop has taken a knee? Take a quick tap or free kick to the other side.
Yep and need treatment, go to sideline, need a drink of water go to sideline. no wtareboys on field at all, except in cases of high heat etc.
-
@Bones said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Smuts at least it's a start
But why apply the existing laws when you can strain their interpretation in a different direction to suit whatever the current controlling junta thinks will attract more marginal eyeballs to TVs?
Especially if it would force the refs to admit they ignore/misinterpret big chunks of the law book.
No, that’s almost as bloody stupid as focusing on how fun it might be to play under any proposed rule (ahem, you mean Law or lord help you, interpretation - Ed.). Only lunatics could focus on attracting/retaining more players. That way leads madness: a game with laws that mean what they say, that can actually be obeyed and create a (reasonably) fair contest for possession at every phase.
Nah, fuck that.
-
@Smuts I never sure of changes etc, but have to admit you have to make them. I been following the game for most of my (69year) life, alsmot never liked law changes, but seems I still follow game with a passion. Geez I can remember when forced into touch rule was played, could take a mark anywhere etc etc. We do tend to adapt.
-
Sure.
Short response, change is part of the game’s fabric - rules have constantly been refined to make it more fun to play. What’s objectionable is WR changing rules to try create a better “product” to sell. Changes that compromise the core attributes of the game - the things that make it unique and rewarding to all players (including tightforwards.) It’s bullshit: self-defeating betrayal of their mandate.
Longer response:
Probably go so far as saying that rule evolution is baked into Rugby’s ethos. If you go to the school the boy’s will show you the little hill and tree where the main okes used to gather before the game and agree on the day’s rules.
Amongst my many unrealized rugby dreams was to be so annoyingly good at something they changed the laws. Like the Windhond who fucked up so many 1st 5s they introduced the 15 meter line at the lineout. Before that he used to line up directly opposite the poor outhalf and melt them as they got the ball. Apparently it didn’t stop him. Just gave his FH more space.
But, Law refinement should be focused on making rugby more fun to PLAY.
That’s a wide ambit, but it fucking doesn’t include changes designed to make it more appealing to Australian League fans, or Lady Mygreatgreatgreatgrandpapamadeaheapofsellingslavesandmarriedthespoiltdaughterofafrenchgangster St John Smythe who likes the social scene in the Twickers members’ lounge.
They can get fucked. And I’ve yet to see any evidence that your more likely to get them turning on TVs by adulterating our game than gaining girls (especially girls) and boys who are born props and locks when they happen to flick by a glorious scrum or great counterruck. And along with those kids their friends and then their children.
And if you give them a game where they can have a fair contest at scrum, lineout and the tightloose there’ll be plenty of space for those pretty tries.
Explicitly allowing lifting is the best example I can think of. Lots of teams were already doing it. And the ref’s allowed it to develop by interpretation initially. Probably because it made their lives easier - keeping props and flanks busy so they didn’t have time to elbow and punch their opposites. It just made sense to sanction this development as it obviously made the lineout a much fairer contest instead of a violent lottery. But the important point is it was basically player innovation led and incrementally sanctioned.
Contrast that with the change to the breakdown/maul laws where if a player gets a knee down it’s a tackle. A rule that I doubt any active player was calling for. Actively reduces the contest for possession and typically is reffed without regard to the maul laws. So it’s confusing.
I missed a few seasons as it was introduced. So its corrosive impact was starkly obvious. Just a casual viewerbait abomination of a change.
Instead of the tightloose being a battle requiring and rewarding forwards committing to the point of contact, you have the absurd situation where 2 or more attackers charge into a defender upright - by definition a maul (seriously, go look at the picture under Law 16) - drive forward a yard or two and then flop over.
Ref then farcically yells Tackle! Release! And ignoring the fact that these two fat fucks are off their feet penalizes the defender on their feet if they try to pick the ball up out of this “ruck.”
Then this is all repeated.
Since there’s no point in committing to the ignored maul or the fairytale ruck the defender’s don’t. Instead they stay on their feet, fan out and smother the attack.
So because some nimrod thought the marginal viewer wants attacking rugby and because another nimrod told him the secret is allowing attackers to get quick ruck ball we compromised the area of the game that actually creates space and time for backs to waste/ignore.
And the Aussie Leagies yawned because their team was still shit and their ground humping was still better than our groundhumping. And Lady don’t ask me where the money came from still isn’t turning on the TV because she couldn’t give a fuck.
So in summary, Carthage must be destroyed.
-
the problem, smuts my dear boy, is that coaches are smarter than administrators, and they don't give a fuck about you. They want/are paid to win. And you win at rugby by bending rules, or flat our breaking them in a way that the ref can't penalise.
If these changes are brought in, some coach has already worked out how to exploit them for their own benefit, and a new set of whinges will come in.
Coaches want control, players and fans want chaos. This mythical game of contests you are describing died in 1992 (probably when we let the bloody saffers back TBH) and now the game is about control. And about milking the system to win. That's pro sport baby.
-
-
@Smuts said in The Current State of Rugby:
But we’re going to do that with every/any set of rules.
I’d rather they did it with rules that were fun to play under.
I am sort of the last one to talk then
I cheated my ass off, and did a few pretty dirty things
Had fun though
(Do those rules we played under include being able to hit fluffybunnies in the head and smash rucks for minimal penalty?)
-
I never did. Or at least, refs hardly ever penalized me for intentionally breaking the rules. Since I never intentionally followed them and since refs are sole judges of law and fact, I can’t have been cheating. And saying otherwise just shows you don’t respect those stupid, blind fluffybunnies as much as me.
-
Five cards and counting in the one and half games I have watched today. There has got to be a better way. Who wants to watch games like these?
-
@Crazy-Horse said in The Current State of Rugby:
Five cards and counting in the one and half games I have watched today. There has got to be a better way. Who wants to watch games like these?
Fans are baying for them now as well. Sad to see.
-
@Crazy-Horse said in The Current State of Rugby:
Five cards and counting in the one and half games I have watched today. There has got to be a better way. Who wants to watch games like these?
I'm still watching
