For five or six years, the IRB has been trying to fix faults in the game of rugby with band-aid solutions. These have over time been making problems worse.
The game’s governing body really needs to take some big steps, or rugby won’t come out of its downward spiral.
The first issue, which is the largest one at the moment, could have probably the easiest solution. That is the scrum. At the moment, we have a case where if you don’t win the initial hit, you will most likely lose the scrum.
First of all, nowhere in the law book does it mention hit. There is meant to be an engagement and no movement until the ball is fed into the scrum. I’m not sure why the IRB doesn’t pick up on this, but it is right there under their noses.
A passive engagement would potentially remove the referee from proceedings, where players are trying to guess his timing. Technique would then become the top ability required of a prop rather than pure brute strength. Heck, we may even get hookers hooking the ball and maybe some more balls won against the head.
Mauls have always been a bone of contention. I like them but I do believe they should be policed better. There should only be one use it or lose it, any player joining the maul may not join ahead of the player with the ball but rather behind him.
Any maul that isn’t going forwards for anything more than five seconds should have a scrum called against it.
Drop goals should be reduced to two points. Also, if a drop goal is missed and goes dead in-goal, there should be a scrum from where it was taken, rather than a 22 which only benefits the team that takes it as they will most likely get possession back again.
The number of substitutes – seven or eight – is too large. If you are having to change nearly half of your team in what is meant to be an 80-minute match, then something is wrong.
The game should be a marathon where players’ fitness is tested right to the end. I understand that injuries occur, so we would not want to remove all substitutes, but my guess is a lot of injuries are happening now when you have the players who last a whole game playing against seven or eight players who started on the bench.
These players are expending 80 minutes’ worth of energy in the last 20 against players who have been worn out after playing the first 60.
Games become interesting when they open up as players tire, not by staying tight the whole way through.
Anyway, these are my thoughts. I look forward to you Roarers ripping this to pieces or adding to my suggestions.
Hopperdoggy
Guest
I like the short arm for any scrum infringement. It neutralizes the hold up with a return to quick play the ball. It also gets rid of penalty tries for repeated infringements close to the try line. Repeated short arms close to the line will likely result in a try anyways. But earned!
Hopperdoggy
Guest
Wrong. Laws do not require the ball at the back of the maul at all. However it is good technique.
rockefeller
Guest
i like the scrum suggestion. i also like the suggestion that if a drop goal misses and goes dead then there should be a scrum to the defending side where the player took the kick from. leave drop goals and penalties at 3 points. why not extend this 'scrum where the kick was missed from' suggestion to penalty shots at goal also? may encourage a team to kick for the corner and attack if they are not confident of landing the penalty.. have a think about it..
Jock M
Guest
Bring back a proper competition for the ball at the breakdown and the rest will look after itself. Get rid of the use it or lose it rule and all the other rubbish that dictates how a player should enter a ruck etc. The beauty of playing Rugby in the old days was the uninhibited joust for possession and the forward momentum and committment which saw sweeping backline play, the likes of which do not exist under the current laws.
Gpc
Guest
Totally agree. The evl's year was the most exciting fast paced and least interrupted rugby I have seen in my 20 years or so of watching.
Gavin Fernie
Guest
The much maligned International Band Aid Board, otherwise known as the IRB, or 'the men from the ministry of misinterpretation', deserved to be much maligned, or better still, sent down a disused Cornish tin mine to sit in the gloom and contemplate their meddling in rugby. 1. The picture of substitutes rushing gleefully on to the pitch to grab their match fee, do an 'Ollie Le Roux' (accumulate a vast number of 5/10 or heaven forbid, 20 minutes caps comprising playing time which after a season adds up to a handful of full games. Albert van der Berg was another 'short time rugby specialist', who acumulated a large number of bogus test and Super/provincial caps) is a ridiculous spectacle. Late subs for genuine injuries only(tough if the offending team, if they are pulling a porky, have to play minus a player while a doctor checks the injury out) ; last 20 minutes no bogus subs for cash and caps should be the rule. 2. Any scrumhalf who stands at the back of a breakdown and directs traffic like a Parisien gendarme, should be 'activated' by an obligatory electric cattle prod connection all scrum halves have to wear in their underrods; this would be 'activated' by the TMO after 30 seconds of dithering by the scrumhalf. 3. Allow the Roman wedge, the utterly boring phalanx of 8 or more grown men trotting up the field unimpeded by the opposition, to be pulled down, and if the ball does not emerge after 30 seconds, blow a scrum for the defending team. The bloody rolling maul should be snuffed out at birth. 4.Make the scrumhalf put the ball into the tunnel, not under the locks feet. Why so strict in the lineouts and not in the scrums? 5. Scrumming previously discussed, with one addition; let a prop momentarily steady himself by putting a hand down on the grass; make props wear losser fitting jerseys so that a proper'grab bind' can be achieved. Props are rugby players, not ramp models.
Gavin Fernie
Guest
Cizzy Rascal, you have hit the nail on the head regarding the bumbling,inept twiddling around with the laws the IRB is guilty of in recent years. One can only imagine that the people who introduced the absurd comic opera of ' touch.....pause.....................engage' have never had to scrum down fifteen or twenty times in a scrum of more or less equal packs. The old neutral engagement, a bit of wriggling and grunting to get into the best position, waiting expectantly for the scrumhalf to put the ball in, and then the sheer beauty of getting YOUR shove timed to perfection, was a thing of rare exhiliration. The only thing even the best referees do is muddy the water, treat seasoned scrummagers like naughty brats when they, the referees have never mastered the art of scrumming. I believe that the referees shoul;d be made to play hooker as part of their training, off and on for months at a time, in tough packs made up of seasoned scrummagers. Go back to neutral engagement scrums allowing the players to match their respective scrumming skills without interference.
redsnut
Guest
The biggest problem with rugby at the moment IMHO is the "Touch, Pause, Engage" and the delay between each word, fiasco. And it's all due to this STUPID "hit" being allowed. Oh for the "good old days" when there was a neutral engagement. I have some sympathy with the substitution set up, especially when injuries are involved. I'd hate to go back to the days when an injured player could only be sub'ed after assessment by a doctor as to the extent of the injury.
sledgeandhammer
Guest
Despite rugby's new found popularity/ growth, there are major problems with the game. The scrum is a major problem for 2 reasons, firstly it doesn't function (50% resets is a joke) and secondly the failure of the scrum often leads to cheap points. At scrum time, the dominant scrum receives a penalty, this doesn't occur in other facets of play, where the dominant team is rewarded with possession. For example, if you jump for a lineout and are put under pressure, you might drop the ball, or throw a crooked ball. This error in technique or ability leads to a scrum. In the scrum itself if you are put under pressure and your technique fails (i.e. collapse the scrum) you are penalised. The answer to this under the ELVs was a free kick, which worked well and should be reconsidered.
Spencer
Guest
Everyone should read this!
sixo_clock
Roar Guru
RK, Is it at all possible you have a link to this submission from NH props? Imagine Jeznez would like to see it as well.
sixo_clock
Roar Guru
This only needs to happen once as usually it goes to a penetrating runner and then the others try to position him.
CizzyRascal
Roar Guru
I'm Irish actually.
Underarm
Guest
'The game’s governing body really needs to take some big steps, or rugby won’t come out of its downward spiral" What downward spiral, the game is going great guns all over the world at the moment. this just sounds like another Aussie trying to change the game the rest of the world loves
CizzyRascal
Roar Guru
Pretty simple addition to the mail thing is the ball must move to the back once each player engages.
CizzyRascal
Roar Guru
I'm not trying to devalue scrums. I am actually trying to make them relevant and work again.
stuff happens
Guest
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/apr/12/the-breakdown-six-nations-statistics?INTCMP=SRCH Cizzy you will be interested in this statistical analysis of 6N rugby that appeared in the Guardian yesterday.
Crashy
Guest
I think scrums have been far, far better this season. If they pack higher the scrums won't collapse anywhere near as much.
sixo_clock
Roar Guru
By the way CR, there is no downward spiral, Rugby is growing in every stat you can muster. But, back to the future eh. Yes to the scrums: the players organise, set and call every other phase. Maybe not to the drop goals: the same for both sides, and it is one of the harder skills to master. Twist to the bench: Have as big a bench as you want but replacements should only be allowed for genuine injury and blood bins (and yes, I'm aware the tricksters will try to pull stunts). No to the Mauls: The Laws require the ball at the back of a rolling maul so your suggestion misunderstands that the ball carrier is being protected, is not pushing as hard as the others usually, just maintaining a legal bind and staying on his feet. When a maul is impromptu, after a tackle then yes, agree with the current rulings, the ball carrier should be penalised for poor technique or poor backing up by team mates.
Bob
Guest
Give this man a job at the IRB.