I have really enjoyed some rule changes that have come into rugby. The five-second rule for me has been really pleasing and it has really sped up the matches.
The new lineout rules have also been a hit.
Overall they indicate a new direction in taking rugby forward, making it a faster, more running game. And ultimately a game with more action, more skill and a better overall product.
However, I would like to see two more new rules trialled. Firstly, the mark on the full rule being extended to anywhere on the field.
Alternatively, if you mark the ball on the full, you go back to where the kicker kicked the ball, and a penalty given to the team who took the mark. However if it’s in your own 22-metre line, you don’t go back to where the kicker kicked it and a mark is called, as is now.
Before you head to the comments and call the idea crazy, hear me out.
Basically, it’s called rewarding positive play, and punishing negative play and poor skill levels if your team is on the back foot.
For example, if you’re crammed in your own 22 zone, you can’t just do a typical halfback box kick, or a high ball then all charge in in an attempt to pressure the fullback or winger who takes the high ball and knowing there is a good chance he or she may drop the ball, due to being nervous and intimidated.
As players are humans, not robots, they may drop the ball through fear. This rewards the team on the back foot, not the other way around.
Under my rule, if you choose to play aerial Ping-Pong you get punished. The first rule would see a mark called, and play on within three to five seconds after mark called and opposition defence has to wait for you to re-align and set. Or you can just play on straight away, the option is yours.
If the other team drops the ball, the kicking team obviously gets rewarded, as the ball will be knocked on, and a scrum given to you.
Or a direct penalty where the kicker kicked the ball from on the pitch.
This two rule change really improves the game. It really punish the aerial Ping-Pong five-eighths in world rugby and would result in less aerial Ping-Pong.
Furthermore, it improves the player welfare as it gives players who catches the ball on full more protection. No longer would they be cannon fodder and in a helpless position to defend themselves, and allow the other team to re-gain momentum
It would see the end of annoying halfback box kicks in mid-field to get out of jail and negative five-eighths. If you kick, you know it needs to be highly skilled, and away from fast fullbacks or wingers, because if they catch it, the ball goes back to where you kicked it from and you concede a penalty, unless the opposition team catches it in their own 22m.
I like the rule in Australian Rules football. In the AFL, if you take the mark from an opposition kick, you get a mark and rewarded three to five seconds to get on with it, or just play on. It rewards good tactical kicking but also punishes teams who kick badly, not the other way around.
Too many rugby games I have seen halves put up box kicks and midfield high bombs to get out of trouble when their side is losing momentum in a phase, and under pressure.
The result is they are rewarded, as they know a high ball will intimidate the opposition team, fullback and wingers catching it will result it in them being smashed, and the ball is dropped. That, to me, is unfair on the opposition team.
Why should they get punished when the other team’s forwards are playing badly?
On a player welfare issue too it is unfair and gives unfair self-confidence to the team in trouble.
I’d rather a team that gets rewarded who have skilled halves, Mark Ella types, not aimless unskilled box kicking, high ball types.
I disagree with the time out in basketball as it rewards failure when your team is in trouble. The same applies with kicking in rugby currently.
Make the team’s halves be skilful in both kicking and passing, not just kicking. With the mark on the full applying to all parts of a rugby pitch, not just 22 metre zone, this will mean if you kick, you really should be kicking in a meaningful way, and it will be well thought out kicks that take a lot of confidence and risk.
Rugby could be massively improved as a sport if there was more motivation to punish aimless kicking. More ball in play and running rugby would be the result.
Neuen
Roar Rookie
I love that word attacking rugby. Wow this side is attacking but basically they are attacking because they are a counter attacking side and feed of bad kicks and turns overs as well as the 1 or 2 unforced errors to score the tries, Every action have a reaction. Changing something in rugby and you mess with a other part of the game. This is exactly how we ended up with all these laws of today confusing many a arm chair pundit. Counter attack is the best way to score and the best way forwards but as attacking as a team like NZ are they do not play a lot of high risk rugby. That is running the ball from deep in their own half unless its from a counter. Otherwise they will use technical kicking to get on the other side op the field and then force the opposition into mistakes. How many times have we seen law changes then a team works out a new method to secure ball which is ended by more laws changes where teams use something else and another bucnh or law variations have to be tested etc etc. Also I urge teams and their supporters to think about the smaller nations where there are thousands of supporters who love the game as well but their infrastructure are not that well developed. That means the skill level will be lacking and they still need to develop. Which is hard when that coaches and training staff etc etc is not there. Now you want them to play at a high skill set to which they are not familiar yet or it has been implemented and at a young stage. Sometimes tactical kicking and big pack of forwards rolling upfield is their strongest entry into world rugby to stay at least competitive on a certain tier level. They can at least keep the ball for some spells and 10 man rugby is a solid start to try and compete. Especially when you are facing a top tier team and are forced tor un it from inside your own half only to get 150 points run in on you most of the times. Who learns anything by that? We started out that way and we valued our set pieces a lot playing of it, Use to play 10 man rugby but we started to play a bit more by giving something in attack rather than trying to defend for 80 minutes. In the WC in 2011 we tried to defend offering nothing in attack against NZ basically and lost not by far but we did not offer anything going forward. But as the players started to develop the ball skill started to appear and the players started to link up. It happened in small portions but at least it was happening. Same the minnows must go through it some starting at the bottom. The more competitive teams there are in WR the better/ But changing laws to advantage the top nations and making it harder for them to catch up is unfair. Not everyone gets a contract at a French club or at a English club the 10 man rugby is heavily relied upon them. I really think before we do anymore rule changes the scrums and the guessing game at times must be sorted out. Bring back the oldie scrums where flankers and such could break way.giving sides the option to defend the set piece or contest the scrum.
FraggleWrangler
Roar Rookie
I agree with the general principle, as in discouraging aimless kicks for territory, but how about this as a simple alternative: Marks are awarded under the 'old' rule. You must be stationary when catching a mark. Once awarded the player can kick for touch as if a penalty has been awarded. Not many would kick for territory and risk an opposition line-out back near where you kicked it.
mitzter
Guest
Not a fan of the new quick throw in rules but then again I'm not a fan of the quick throw
Hoges
Guest
Another help for the wallabies is they don't have a single player who can actually catch a high ball any rule that limits the number of high kicks is a positive. Of course the All Blacks are a team that can actually catch so I'm sure they don't want to see any rule changes. -- Comment left via The Roar's iPhone app. Download it now [http://itunes.apple.com/au/app/the-roar/id327174726?mt=8].
Hoges
Guest
This plan would be great for the Wallabies seeing Will Genia has the worst kicking game in world rugby. He box kicked against Scotland in Newcastle and it was blown back over his head, then he tried it again and again same result. The Scots were smart enough to keep the ball low to the ground with their kicks and they won the game - go figure! -- Comment left via The Roar's iPhone app. Download it now [http://itunes.apple.com/au/app/the-roar/id327174726?mt=8].
Darth Vadar
Guest
good, let's change the rules now that the Wallabies have proven they can't catch high balls! Maybe also depower the scrum and make them like Rugby League!
sledgeandhammer
Guest
ELVs didn't fail, in fact many were adopted. A couple of ELVs which weren't adopted will come back in soon (i.e. simplifying the breakdown).
nickoldschool
Roar Guru
Agree with those who say kicking is part of the game. Johnno, I have the impression the mark rule would make the game less fluid than it is. The ref would have to ensure players are back where they should be etc... I really like the 5sec and new scrummaging rules. In terms of kicking, the 40/20 is overdue. It would bring positive kicking into the equation. The league guys don't always have it wrong!! :)
The Battered Slav
Guest
Well, I can't fault the thought that's gone into this proposal Johnnoo, solid effort. However I still can't really agree on the basis of the arguments put forward above. I rather like seeing box kicks and midfield bombs being diffused successfully, equally as much as I enjoy seeing somebody like Gio Aplon getting destroyed by that plonker Chris Ashton after taking a high ball, being it bomb or box kick. Don't get me wrong, the 2009 style box kicking game frustrates me. Any sort of over reliance on any one tactic frustrates me. Mixing it up well and peppering the opposition with defensive box kicks, attacking bombs and deep rakers to the back three is a great part of the game, so long as any one tactic is not overused. If these kicks are taken on the full by the opposition, the resulting net loss of field position when they come steaming back at you is punishment enough, without adding further penalisable offences to an already cluttered book of laws. Also, do we really want to be encouraging more grubber kicking and chip kicking? I don't think our current lot need any such encouragement..... Lastly, with the player welfare thing, it's not tiddlywinks out there and I don't think crash tackles on stationary opponents are any less dangerous than any other contact related part of the game. I just can't buy into that argument at all, sorry man.
redsnut
Guest
If you want to protect the "bomb catcher", then don't allow anyone within (say) 5 metres of him. That way a poor kick is penalised by giving the opposition time to set up a move. The way things are just now is that both teams are hoping for the others to make a mistake, and to my mind that is counterproductive for the kicking team. I think it was Cliff Morgan of Wales who developed a way to kick that, most of the time, bounced sideways into touch when it landed. Now that is a useful one for a long kick down field. While Johnno's idea has some merit, IMO it will only lead to more matches becoming penalty-goal-fests. I thought we wanted fewer matches decided on penalties, and more on tries. I hate the long kick downfield not finding touch. It's a waste of time and effort, and a major frustration for fans. An up and under that is within the teams capability to challenge for it when it comes down is great to watch. IMO of course. I do have to agree that the catcher needs some form of protection.
Raffick7
Guest
Johnno Rugby has LAWS not ''Rules''. A minor point but it is as aggravating as having twits always talking about the need for ''downward pressure'' to score a try.
soapit
Guest
you have to think about the full consequences. contunually forcing people to run it out of their own end means teams could be more likely to constantly drive good possession deep and make them run out and so search for a penalty. its a complex game and tweaks can often have unintended consequences.
Kiwi
Guest
I don't agree. Kicking is an essential part of the game and good players mix it up well. Why is it always in Australia that they try and change the rules to suit their game. First ELV's ---failed --- and now this silly rules change. The game is fundamentally good with great crowds and veiwing figures everywhere apart from here. Is it because you haven't got a flyhalf that can control a test ....only Beale and Cooper.
Wal
Roar Guru
While I don't mind the idea, most of the points above come down to execution, Dagg, Jane and Kahui showed last year that any team not executing a midfield bomb perfectly were punished. A good fullback in Union has far more space than in league and therefore should rarely catch the ball static once again Dagg is a master at this he will almost always takes a bomb on run and off his feet protecting him from getting smashed on contact. I think you will still get the same number of kicks if not more just alot deeper (into the 22), the best a defending team can hope for from a mark inside their 22 is a return to about half way and posession goes the original kicker at the lineout. So once you pin a team in there own 22 they will have no means of escape, think the Boks in 2008 and 2009 when they would send the ball deep and wait for a mistake. It could almost become so important that teams would carry a kicker (who may have no other skill) to ensure they are able to kick the ball 60+ metres concede the mark but regain possession inside the opposition half. I also like the Original ELV's however teams soon worked out they could concede freekicks instead of penalties and infringement rates went up. The hardest things about rule changes is there are some very smart people in Union (not so much league) who find ways to make them work for their advantage sometime positively sometimes not.
Devo
Guest
Why do you call it aerial ping pong? surely that is a tautology as ping pong balls are always hit backwards and forwards in the air, unless I have missed something.
Wal
Roar Guru
I agree we would end up with Eddy Jones style rugby where forwards would become more like Leagues, the high kick done well can be a great attacking weapon, and exciting. BUT watching 2 fullbacks smack it back and forth not so much.
johnnoo
Roar Pro
The Battered Slav Thank you for your views. I thought about this for a while and will try to answer some points. With the predicability fear, and defensive patterns being more certain and less confused i think the following. There will still be many ways to kick a ball, you will see more kicks along the ground chip and chases, and kicks along the ground and teams back rushing onto ball and try and get ball or tackle guy not he ground. You could also maybe push the fence back to 7evens metres as opposed to 5 as is now i think. My point is too many teams do get out of trouble by a box kick or a high ball. Only then for the player to catch the ball be smashed with no means of defending himself if he takes the high ball. So on a player welfare issue it is 1, and also it does force the teams halves to be more attacking and enterprising and showing ther skill facets of rugby not just high balls and box kicks, to get terriority or get out of trouble. So still plenty of kicking just under my rule more skilled kicking. Or you could do it in general play 20m to 80m, a mark or penalty if team takes on full. A penalty, but in side your own 20 metre just keep mark rules as are now. On weekend i watched so much aerial ping pong and box kicking for teams to get out of trouble, and some nasty tackles on the players who caught the high ball smashed with no means of proectioning themselves. not tackled in the air just hit hard after taking ball. Think in rugby league eg like when brett stewart got smashed by mick crocker you don't want to see these hard tackles it is so unfair on the catcher of the high ball no reward for his high ball just smashed, and team driven backwards. So player welfare should be proected. I like rule in AFL where you still get mark if you catch opposing teams kick, it punishes bad kicking by your opposition. A big box kick in rugby only sees the other teams player get smashed and swarmed. Play running rugby to get out of jail not a box kick or high ball
Sam
Guest
Loving the 5 second rule, its definitely going to stop the meerkatting at the breakdown! Not sure if everyone's noticed, but with the quick line out throws- the team throwing the ball in can now throw the ball in anywhere between their defensive goal and where the ball was kicked from (not where it went into touch). I'm surprised it hasn't got more press.
The Battered Slav
Guest
Discouraging kicking out of hand would reduce counter attacking opportunities in broken field play, which is one of the highlights of the game. This would be a terrible idea and would lead to greater predictability in game play, fewer counter attacks and would remove one more aspect of the contest, the contest for territory between kickers. Good kicking gets the rewards it deserves by winning the kicking team territory, whereas poor kicking rarely goes territorially unpunished. This is a fundamental aspect of the game they play in heaven and long may it remain so. Nothing wrong with thinking about these things though johnnoo.
Markus
Guest
After watching the Wallabies forwards continue their tactic of running 30 phases of pick and go and one off passes, even a box kick would have been a nice change. A team with no vision and no gameplan is going to look aimless and terrible, regardless of the laws in place.