Rugby a simple game made complicated

It is not fine as it is .There are a number of rules that are downright stupid.For instance the 'Mark ', which stops an attacking team dead and gives the advantage to the defence. The so called intentional 'knock on ' which is a ten minute penalty in the sin bin. If , however , the player manages to catch the ball instead of knocking it on , and then carries forward to the try line. Result , five points. There are other similar points such as the never ending advantage that only end when the ref decides to.

Well said sixo_clock! It is a technical game that requires a level of intelligence beyond other Football codes. I can't stand the constant reference between Rugby and League. In one game there is a genuine contest for the ball to every aspect of the game, in the other the ball may as well not exist other than when they decide to kick the thing! Our game is not simple and nor do we want it to be. If people want to watch a simple game go and watch League.

The free yardage concept, worth trying

The Contest. Prior to Professionalism there was a true contest for the ball but obviously the attacking team had an advantage. However,today the laws are so badly construed that in most breakdowns the defence has very little incentive to take part in a contest for the ball-hence the defensive wall by the defence and the lack of urgency at the break down. Not only did one compete for the ball at the breakdown but there was also a desire to put pressure on by disrupting the opposition and forcing them into errors. This lack of urgency of today leads to a flat footedness in the back line. I have noticed that Rugby backs have now lost the fleet foodedness and sharpness that they once possessed.The ball is not always placed in front of the receivor and we see less of the finger tip passing. I would one day like to organise some matches where the laws of the early nineties were used.I would certainly not allow the tackled player to play the ball on the ground-he would have to release upon making contact with the ground. Because the ball carrier can play the ball he is now going to ground-with a true contest the ball player would try to stay on his feet and allow a maul to take place.Rugby players have lost the art of ripping a ball and appear to make little attempt to steal the ball in the tackle.

@ KiwiDave. I'm not sure what the rate in the NRL is for retention of the ball at rucks (tackle). but it isn't 100% as every half of football would include instances of players losing possession in the tackle. The competition exists in RL, it just takes a different form - mostly wrestling and/or hitting to dislodge the ball from the ball-carrier. The wrestling in each tackle also induces fatigue in opponents and then error. Of course I'm not saying it is akin to RU competition at the breakdown, but to say defenders don't sometimes win back the ball in the RL ruck is not accurate. Sure it is somewhere in the 90% range, but it isn't 100%.

I'm not sure what measure was used, but Jock's recollection of the 90% statement rang a bell - and I found it here in comments by former Wallabies coach Rod Macqueen. http://www.smh.com.au/news/sport/cricket/the-changing-face-of-rugby-is-proving-a-tough-subject-to-tackle/2009/03/27/1237657146818.html "...that in 95% of breakdowns today the attacking side retains possession, suggesting that breakdowns have largely ceased to be real contests for the ball. But when players on their feet are allowed to use their hands in the ruck - as they can under the ELVs - the retention rate drops to 85%." I'm sure that it forwards are poor at competing that rate would be dire against their team, but Macqueen's comment (and I think Jock's) is that when you get two rugby teams competing at the pro level, for all the effort, endeavour and expertise the teams use, it still ends in 85-95% in favour of the team that took the ball in. Clearly, the rate isn't 60% or somewhere lower, which you would expect if ruck battles were turning over possession in contests.

Ha! Fiddler's Green! I've seen that before somewhere earlier this year but forgot it. Very funny line!

Everyone knows William Webb Ellis waited for the referee to blow his whistle then carefully took a free kick for points. This business about picking up the ball and putting it over the goal-line ? Over-rated. As rugby is a game about running with the football, I would *completely* eliminate penalty kicks for goal, replacing them with a combination of free yardage and sin-binning offenders.

KiwiDave, Nahh, CFL and NFL rules are pretty much the same - they are more similar than the two rugbies are. To pick two ex-CFL players, both Warren Moon and Doug Flutie had a very easy transition to and from NFL rules and CFL rules.

I will leave you imaginary 90% statistic alone (you can make up statistics to support anything, 75% of people know that) and point out that in 100% of "rucks" in league the attacking side retains possession.

and the Canadians play by different rules to the americans (number of downs, number of players, players in motion before the snap), which really makes it two sports.

Rugby could have been more complicated...It's a bloody good job that William Webb Ellis didn't go to school in Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantisiliogogogoch

Honestly rugby league is so simple that I find it boring and non stimulating. I ve watched the two for many years, but union wins hands down. I tink league's biggest problem is its simplicity. all it is is hit up -play the ball hit up - play the ball kick. On the other hand yes soccer has very few rules in comparison, but can be played in so many different ways, and different actions are always happening. Gridiron simple. please its so complex. there is hundreds of different plays, flags and infringments that can happen anywhere. its a farce how much its going on in it. Afl. simple enough, but honestly not that exciting.

Conversely Footy United, Soccer often relies on penalty shoot outs to determine the victor.. This is about as riveting as watching the grass grow.

“…The IRB have fiddled with rules, made rule changes that appear to favour some of the different playing styles of some countries…” I agree with much of what you write, there is a lot of politics involved as to why for example the referees are letting the lying all over the ball go completely unpenalised and some of the standing rules are absurdly unrealistic when the pack arrives. One year it favours the Boks the next year the referee interpretation of the breakdown changes to favour the ABs and so on. How exactly these rules change and who influences it is difficult to fathom (anyone who can enlighten please do, Spiro talks about this sometimes) although the UK countries seem to have an unhealthy influence on rules that suite them and select officials who will be influenced by what they want – example Paddy O’Brien head of referees. In another sphere of influence there is Peters head of SANZA: HQs down the road from O’Neill at ARU. All SANZA officials should operate out of the country they represent because each country gets a turn; the previous SA rep operated from SA. A lot seems to depend on how competent the particular countries representative union operates. To be more blatant; the NZRU for example. Agree attacking flair and skill should be rewarded, but it is too political, and agree rugby league do have the most sensible point system. Also I think RU officialdom is still creaking from its historical power base, which originated from the private school (in most countries) and being controlled by certain wealthy elites which makes it much less democratic than many other sports.

" I have written previously-the so called breakdown differs very little from League." lol.. Yea? No difference at ALL!

Lol.

Jock M Don't be so dramatic ,rugby is exploding in popularity across the world ,so I think your theory about rugby imploding because of the laws , and that it has become some sort of bastardised version of league is drivel . Rugby has always evolved and always will just like the english language and look how popular that is.

Sledgehammer, Please address the issue at hand.Personal attack serves no purpose. I firmly believe that Rugby has been reduced to a hybrid Rugby League. A I have written previously-the so called breakdown differs very little from League.Rugby players play the ball on the ground,League players stand up to play it. I recall reading figures that in 90% of breakdowns in Rugby,the attacking side retains possession.

It ain't broke!! It doesn't need fixing. The fact that it is complicated is a beautiful thing. .....and anyone who knows anything about Rugby knows that we don't call them "the rulles" ...we call them "the laws".