The modern game has become boring
Roar Rookie
By maul trash, 28 Aug 2009 maul trash is a Roar Rookie
- Tagged:
- Bledisloe Cup, rugby referees, Rugby Union
Something is wrong when even a close Bledisloe Cup decider is largely a boring spectacle, but I reckon that’s what Saturday’s match was – and what most rugby matches are these days.
And I think it’s because of the changed rules at the breakdown.
Allowing the first player from each side at the breakdown to play the ball with the hands means that possession is a done deal before most of the forwards even arrive at the breakdown. The result is that defending forwards don’t commit to the ruck-maul because they are of more value out with the backs preventing a line break in the next phase.
Line breaks, and the random broken play they lead to, are the exciting part of rugby. But there’s so few of them these days that the game has lost its sizzle.
Allowing lifting in the lineout improved the lineout, but allowing hands in the ruck has been a dismal failure. We should go back to no hands in the ruck – at all – with its built-in penalty for those who want to lie over the ball – being spat out the back of the opponents’ side of the ruck with a complimentary set of thigh souvenirs.
Seeing a man rucked at Test level looks awful, so it satisfies the crowd’s blood lust, but it actually doesn’t hurt a solid fit young buck that much.
But it eliminates the referee from having to watch umpteen hands at the breakdown and guess which team to penalise (first hand to touch the ball = advantage other side / penalty), but most importantly it forces all the forwards from both teams to commit to the breakdown because possession is up for grabs each time for the team that rucks the hardest, leaving room for the backs to make breaks and set up the running and passing of the ball in space – the glory of rugby.
Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Rugby Union articles
- Will Super Rugby crowds continue their slide? (198)
- Will South African rugby force a Super 21 by 2018? (172)
- Brumbies 2012: New coach, new players, new attitude (128)
- Dan Parks and the unsolved questions of expat rugby (61)
- Pocock set to be named new Force skipper (56)
- Can the ‘Tahs win the battle after losing the Waugh? (51)
- What does the future hold for the Six Nations (50)
- Wales show Southern Hemisphere how to play running rugby (28)
- What opening matches of Six Nations taught us (18)
- Will Super Rugby crowds continue their slide? (201)
- Clinical Chiefs cost rusty Rebels in Corio (9)
- Six Nations shows rugby is a parochial game at heart (5)
- Goose’s Super Rugby up-and-comer XV for 2012 (29)
- What does the future hold for the Six Nations (50)
- Explore:
- Bledisloe Cup, rugby referees, Rugby Union
Yikes said | August 28th 2009 @ 7:45am | Report comment
Right.
You have not thought this through.
Can I win the ball with my hands at a tackle, before the ruck forms?
If so, then you have achieved nothing, because there will always be a grey area between when I am contesting for the ball at the tackle, and a ruck forms over the top of me.
allblackfan said | August 28th 2009 @ 7:49am | Report comment
Apparently, you can, Yikes.
It’s that grey area where the problems are occuring; how does ref determine whether it’s legal or illegal, and does one ref’s assessment differ from another?
Yikes said | August 28th 2009 @ 8:21am | Report comment
Sorry – I meant under the article writer’s proposed new Laws, not under current Law!
mitzter said | August 28th 2009 @ 7:52am | Report comment
How much time does the tackled player have to release the ball – it would have to instaneous for this to work. Yikes is also correct in that there is always that grey before a ruck forms but i do agree that this would also force more forwards into a ruck
Hoy said | August 28th 2009 @ 8:03am | Report comment
I am all for rucking. I think it would clean the game up automatically.
I also think if people are concerned about the penalty fest, don’t change any rules, except one. You can’t kick a penalty goal until you are in the 22. That means all these poxy 25 metre goals etc, will be kicked to the line, and hopefully once they are in the 22, the attacking team will go for a try.
mitzter said | August 28th 2009 @ 8:08am | Report comment
totally agree with this point. a soccer penalty needs to have the transgression take place in the box why do we in rugby feel that we need to have the same rules no matter where you are on the park?
countryboy said | August 28th 2009 @ 12:22pm | Report comment
Best rule suggestion I’ve heard. Seriously, that one change would go a long way to getting rid of the penalty-fest. Write to the IRB and suggest it.
AC said | August 28th 2009 @ 2:10pm | Report comment
It would be great if that could be trialled in the Shute Shield or other premier comps. I reckon most players would agree with it philosophically.
Willem said | August 28th 2009 @ 3:37pm | Report comment
I would be more inclined to say lets lower the value of a penalty given outside a certain range (if the shot is taken) and up the value of a penalty given inside a certain range to say 4. I say this because you still need the ofences in the other areas of the field to scare the possible offender, otherwise they will slow the game down and upping the value in the close courters should result in more treis as teams would chance their arm at defending rather then giving away a soft penalty that will cost them 4 points.
Campbell Watts said | August 28th 2009 @ 3:46pm | Report comment
Lower penalties to 2 points and use more yellow cards to punish cynical play. It shits me to tears seeing all the profesional fouls that get commited and refs allow 2-3 before warning a side. Give em’ one chance – then it’s a team warning – any more fouls in the red zone and you’re gone!
A few games like that with sides lossing 1-2 players each would sure open up the attacking oppertunities!!!!
Willem said | August 28th 2009 @ 3:52pm | Report comment
I dont think it matters how you do it as long as we remember that the guys slowing the game down are the guys giving away the penalty not the ones taking it, so we need to infact get stricter on them it doesn’t really matter how just as long as it scares them of.
simon said | August 28th 2009 @ 4:33pm | Report comment
I’d go with Hoy’s suggestion plus widen the field to 75 meter’s (I think its already 73 for Soccer??), and maybe even drop the number of players down to 13 (no flankers) to have less clutter on the field.
As for the article though, rucks have always been messy, even with rucking. Some players can’t roll away in time. Rucking cannot be controlled by the spirit of the game. This is why there had to be a law against it. It was too easy to use it vindictively. Best it’s gone. I don’t think it will solve the line-break issue either.
sheek said | August 28th 2009 @ 5:42pm | Report comment
Talk about throwing the baby out with the dirty bathwater!
The dimensions of the field are fine. The number of players is fine. Three points for penalties is fine. Use of the cards sytem is generally fine.
Reduce penalties to two points, & players will simply offend with more impunity. And frankly, I don’t want to watch a game where maybe half a dozen players are off the field regularly because of card related offences.
Just fix the breakdown area, & then we might get the game we all hope for. It might mean allowing a more relaxed attitude at the breakdown, instead of the ref looking for every tiny indiscretion.
Before anyone goes off half-cocked with new suggestions, try to remember this – for every action, there is an equal & opposite reaction.
You want to widen the field? How does this solve the problem of the breakdown area?
You want to reduce teams to 13 players? Think how this alters the entire structure of the game. it won’t necessarily be an improvement.
You want to reduce penalties to 2 points? Think how this will affect players commitments to remaining on the right side of the law.
Let me say again, I think most of the game is fine. The breakdown is the problem, has been for a long time. Sort that out & we might be okay. We don’t have to change a lot, just a little.
albatross said | August 28th 2009 @ 6:12pm | Report comment
But if they eliminate the use of hands in the ruck and this leads to players at the bottom of the ruck being stomped on all over where will they conceal the fake blood capsules?
Maul trash said | August 28th 2009 @ 6:53pm | Report comment
OK, so, hands in the ruck doesn’t work, no hands in the ruck doesn’t work – there’s only one thing left to do – get rid of the ruck! Make it that the tackled player has to hold onto, rather than release the ball. If the tackle halts the player’s forward progress, the ref calls ‘held’, then the tackler releases, the tackled player gets to his feet, taps the ball and passes and play continues. Plus, if we get rid of flankers to make more space for line breaks …
JustinB said | August 28th 2009 @ 9:00pm | Report comment
Yes, I think you’re on to something here…getting rid of the flankers is good, plus the scrums involve too many stoppages due to props either unable or unwilling to keep them up, so let’s make the scrums uncontested – removes the risk of injury too so the moms out there will like it. Also, lineouts involve too much stoppage time – just scrap the lineout and take a quick tap instead of bothering to throw the ball in…hmmm what else could we do??…..hmmmm… perhaps let’s just rename it rugby league and scrap the game and history of rugby union? Hmmm…yes, great idea…….not
sheek said | August 28th 2009 @ 7:19pm | Report comment
I’m thinking maybe a time limit. As soon as the player hits the deck, the ref starts counting, 3 seconds, probably 5. If the ball hasn’t been freed in that time, a scrum is awarded to the team going forward.
It’s bit like the old days except there’s a time limit involved. Okay, the reaction to this is that there will be more scrums. Which is a good thing because it will get the forwards out of the backline, but a bad thing because we have a more stop-start game.
Shock horror, we could adopt the league play the ball. That is, if the ball hasn’t emerged one way or the other after say 5 seconds, attacking team gets a quick tap & run. Okay, that doesn’t sound so good either.
it’s not easy finding the solution, is it……………….. ?
It’s okay coming up with ideas, but then you have to think about the counter reactions.