Comments on: Rule change the rules to open up the rugby field

By: JEFF

JEFF — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 23:15:00 +0000

That’s a pretty low blow Chris. Similar to League only in the sense of the boring barge and barge. We all know why more tries are scored in League but it hardly makes it more interesting. I do like the Eddie Jones suggestion that the tackler has no rights to the ball. Anything to free the ball at the tackle. If we cannot have rucking then let’s try something different.

By: Chris

Chris — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 09:58:19 +0000

I’d like to see it happen – but the cost of building new stadiums would probably blow it out of the water.

By: Chris

Chris — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 09:48:54 +0000

You say that not enough tries are being scored – and then say the sport is too similar to Rugby League. It’s either one or the other, not both.

Or is it just a coincidence that tries are scored more frequently in League?

By: sledgeandhammer

sledgeandhammer — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 09:13:12 +0000

Here is a much better solution – I’ve stolen this from some bloke called Ian Cook (The Times Online).

Ian Cook wrote:
Dare I say this, but perhaps its was a mistake for the iRB not to allow the hands in the ruck that the LPG wanted introduced with the ELVs. Shock, horror I hear from the NH types, but hear me out.

I have seen this in practice and it works. It draws players into the ruck/tackle/maul and the ball is distributed quickly and efficiently. With the extra players involved in the breakdown, there is more space in the backs.

Allow only players who are on their feet, and who enter the tackle/ruck/maul through the “Gate*”, to use their hands in the ruck.
1. Anyone already off their feet at the time the ruck or maul is formed must roll away, get up and retire onside, or join the ruck or maul through the gate.
2. Players in a ruck or maul cannot leave. They must stay in it until it ends, as they do in a scrum.
3. Players may reposition themselves by unbinding, and immediately rejoining through the gate.
4. Players voluntarily going off their feet at the ruck or maul are penalised.
5. Any player pulling another player down is penalised.

NOTE: *The “Gate” would be defined as follows:

tackle – as per current practice (see the diagram in iRB Rugby Ready)
ruck & maul – the width of the ruck or maul from the leftmost foot of the leftmost player to the rightmost foot of the rightmost player on the joining player’s own side of the ruck or maul

The whole raison d’etre of this scenario is to allow a ruck to be turned into a maul (which currently cannot happen) and it is this aspect that helps to keep players committed. Any team that thinks they can just not commit numbers to the ruck/maul or tackle area so that they can line up in the back-line trenches will likely find themselves heavily outnumbered when the other team decides to pick up the ball.

By: Cattledog

Cattledog — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 05:20:36 +0000

Sorry Runningrugby, your post has no legs! Have to agree with the other Roarers here. One other thing…their laws rather than rules! Rule are for the blind obedience of fools and for the guidance of wise men!

By: Terry Kidd

Terry Kidd — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 01:48:16 +0000

Sorry mate do not agree. 4 + 4 players minimum in each breakdown would simply guarentee extra efforts to slow ball delivery …. and how do you adjudicate it? Example … attacking team player is tackled by G Smith who is quickly on his feet and burgling the ball, meanwhile 3 other attacking team players pile in thru the gate in an attempt to drive G Smith off the ball and retain possession (attacking team has 4 at breakdown), however G Smith swivels and releases ball back to wards his own team where it is cleared away. Is G Smith’s team penalised for only 1 player in the ruck?

Have a think mate, your rule changes will not work where you are applying more rules to an already complicated area. Also before you scoff at my example it actually happened Wallabies v Wales. Cheers,

By: mitzter

mitzter — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 00:34:49 +0000

yes have to agree with the other posters – too much regulation and what about quick rucks etc? would much rather a change in interpretation where tacklers not rolling away is seen as a more serious misdemenour than holding onto the ball (it does happen first!), making tacklers need to come through the gate as well (seen a number of penalties in this area) and my brand new idea “benefit of the doubt to which ever team has the most players in the ruck”

By: CK

CK — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 00:30:02 +0000

I agree with Dean, the game may be defensive, but it’s a test of charactor and team to beat the defensive lines. It’s not the defense stopping tries, it’s typically the penalties.

If you really want to explore the opportunity to free players up, maybe we should consider making the field 70 metres wide as opposed to 60 metres?

By: Pippinu

Pippinu — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 22:21:28 +0000

For a game that is already so regulated, casual fans have trouble following the rules as it is – with the first rule proposal in particular, you are simply heaping on more regulation on an already over-regulated part of the game.

By: Pippinu

Pippinu — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 22:15:34 +0000

That’s a bit like Catholics talking about reform without mentioning Protestantism.

By: Barking Glider

Barking Glider — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 22:08:25 +0000

For once I’d like to be able to read an article about rugby reform without it resorting to mentioning rugby league.

By: Dean Pantio

Dean Pantio — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 22:04:49 +0000

Suggestion number one would make it even worse to referee at the breakdown – there’s enough going on there as it is.

Number two is ignorant of the fact that it limits the tactical options available to a team and defenders are now one on one specialists, not the air grasping fumble fingered monkeys of yesteryear.

Rugby is a game where there is more than one way to skin a cat and you want to change it to suit yourself. This isn’t going to be supported by anyone who truly loves rugby. If you want to watch tries, go watch sevens.