NRC: The law variations the ARU are looking to trial

3,6,7 & 10 I can't go with but willing to see how the others work out.

B Umm, hang on - The rule is to encourage more try-scoring so my query is what if both teams have the ability to score 4-tries plus? Isn't that what the rule is meant to encourage...scoring more tries?? What would you rather watch - a game with great attacking rugby and multiple tries or a game with great defence and minimal tries if any at all? It really isn't about penalising bad defence. The 4try BP was introduced for the same reason - to encourage try scoring not improved defence. The outcome of that BP was teams had to improve their defence to prevent 4tries being scored and that's what my take is. No matter how good the D is, a team or teams will look at engineering multiple tries and if that's the case, those sides should be rewarded....not penalised because the other side managed to score 2tries when the game and match was already lost.

Kane, The idea is to create competition and to get the defensive forwards to compete for the ball. The attacking team will always have the advantage because they clearly have the ball. You would find that if players were prevented from playing the ball on the ground they would make every effort to stay on their feet and have a maul formed. Is there anyone out there who is as disappointed as I am about where the game has gone? We need to do something about it.

Yeh for 4 5 and 6 they just might make a differnce with the abysmal situation with scrums

'What happens when both sides score 4 tries – in my eyes, I’ve just witnessed a spectacular match of 8 or more tries and yet, this rule inhibits both teams from '' It penalises bad defence and why should the losing team or in a draw for that matter get a bonus point. They lost because they didn't defend. Rugby is about defence and attack it isn't basketball. Since for and against doesn't matter why continue attacking after getting the try bp and the result is beyond question?

' Because claiming a mark anywhere on the field actually slowed the game down and allowed the ball catcher to mark and kick it out.' So why bring it back. For some ridiculous reason they have brought it in to kids Rugby in England.

That's why I think the 4 try bp has become outdated. On one hand positive is rewarded but on the other it doesn't stop sloppy Rugby and encourage teams from playing out the full 80 after they have reached the 4 try goal.

True if the mark is outside the 22m zone but by calling a mark you are giving your opponent precious seconds to regroup the defence knowing a tap and run is to follow rather than catch and pass immediately across the field to find gaps in the opposition defence. Its introducing a stop in the match rather than immediate return with ball pass movement. I dunno if this will stop poor tactical kicking. The only way to stop poor kicking is more kicking practice and improved skills - not taking marks.

Firstly, let me say that I've always been an advocate for this new competition simply to provide another level of rugby between club and super rugby which I believed would help AU rugger to eventually increase its player depth for future SR and subsequent test rugby. But I have to admit, never did I think ARU would also consider tweaking existing rules as proposed here to improve the play, increase the games pace and advance the spectacle of rugby. So with that in mind, allow me to be the devils advocate and provide my take on these proposals: 1. Today's game with so much emphasis on defence hasn't made it any easier to secure 4 tries. If a team is deserving of a bonus point by scoring 4 tries then it should be allocated. This rule takes that away from any team provided they score 3 or more tries than the opposition. What happens when both sides score 4 tries - in my eyes, I've just witnessed a spectacular match of 8 or more tries and yet, this rule inhibits both teams from securing a bonus point. It seems to me to penalise teams with try scoring ability and favours teams without. 2. This has already been modified down to I think, 40secs. If there really is an effort to minimise time wasting with goal kicks then why stop there - lets revert to 7s rugger and make all goal kicks to be field goal kicks - that will definitely remove potential time wasting. 3. This does nothing to stop penalty kicks at goal except favour the team that infringed in the first place. If a team infringes, then an advantage is given to the other team. A successful goal is then followed by a scrum to the team that infringed. An unsuccessful goal has the same outcome. What happened to the re-start at halfway after a successful penalty kick awarded because the other side infringed. It seems to me that the team that's successful is immediately penalised by losing the ability to receive the re-start. Another 7s rule. 4. There is sufficient evidence to show that referees can monitor this aspect so I don't believe setting a time frame to pack scrums is going to increase the pace of the game. Already, teams are being penalised for incorrect bind, pushing early, collapsed scrums etc. Now a new penalty for taking too long to pack the scrum - then its easy to remove. Just stop the 3 call set-up of crouch, bind, set and let the scrums be a free for all. Time wasting if that is the true intention happens after the scrum is set and not before when the above examples come into play. 5. Again, I think this rule penalises the team with the dominant scrum and prevents them from obtaining a points advantage for that dominance. The outcome would be after x scrums, the ref finally allows the dominant team to secure points via a penalty so how many scrums does the ref decide before allowing a kick? The only way to reward dominant set piece sides is to allow them to take the points on offer every time - not prevent them. 6. Isn't there already a rule in place to penalise a halfback who leaves the scrum and joins his defensive line. Shouldn't the HB retire outside of the 5m zone like the rest of the backline?? I agree that stopping the HB at the mid-line point would improve the quality of distribution but again, I think this just favours the slow, cumbersome HB rather than reward a HB who is quick enough to attack the scrum ball release. 7. IMO, this is the most foolish of all proposals. Rugby adjudication is officiated by the referee, assistant referees and TMO. It should not be the prerogative of players to officiate in any match let alone have the option of who should be sin-binned. Players are there to play rugby and not officiate how this rule proposes. 8. Once again, current rules prevent players from a side entrance to cleanout and prevents players from clean-outs beyond the opponents last feet placement in the ruck. The current rules require players joining a ruck to come through the gate. What should happen IMO, is stop players from standing around the sides of rucks and in front of their own last players feet in the ruck. This has become the eye-sore and IMO, the root cause of why players are taken out in the first instance. 9. Well, I've said enough on this matter in previous posts suffice to say, it shouldn't happen. 10. This was the rule before the current rule to mark only in your own 22m zone. The reason why the current rule was initiated was because previous marks and consequent kicks to touch actually slowed the game down. The mark in your own 22m zone in conjunction with direct kicks to touch from the 22m zone only, were initiated to ensure that the ball did remain in play between the 22m zones. Currently, any player who catches a ball anywhere between the 22m zones, has to immediately use it in play irresctive of whether the kick tactically good or bad. 11. In a close tussle, I think the team that wins a penalty and has a very slim lead, would want to kick it out knowing the game is over. Conversely, a side that is trailing by less than a penalty score and requires a lineout to enter the opposition half has one chance to go for another penalty or a try, provided they reclaim the lineout ball, to secure a win. Does this happen on a once only basis? 12. 7s rugby has this rule because space is available to chance the opportunity to run the ball back at the opposition. Current rules for man in front of the kicker and/or failure of the kick to travel 10m means a scrum at halfway. If your team's set piece is being dominated, then the choice would be to take a free kick rather than the scrum. The free kick should be an option because the team with the dominant scrum would IMO take the scrum and minimise the opposition defence on either side of the scrum. IMO, I think that by allowing a competition to play under rules that are outside of current rugby rules, must surely impact upon the players overall abilities when they return to play under existing current rules. If not impact upon their abilities, then IMO, I think it will definitely impact upon the players thought and intellectual processes to believe that certain aspects of the game will favour their side when in fact, the opposite occurs and the players a penalised. Hence, being the devils advocate in this instance, I can only assume that the real intention to consider these changes is to eventually convince the IRB and its member nations to also consider them and eventually promote perhaps, an integration of some if not all rule changes, into the international arena as a trial first before inception. IMO, the current rules if played in the spirit that they are written, provides an excellent platform for this game to be the spectacle that everyone strives for. It is only the cynical actions of a few who IMO, are setting firewalls legal or otherwise, that prevents this game from being enjoyed by all and sundry. But, I do wish the ARU best of luck and every success with the new competition even if they deem it necessary to tweak the rules to provide an enjoyable spectacle for its supporters.

I like the concept of rule 7. My suggestion was that the opposing captain could decide when a yellow carded player was sent from the field. e.g A captain may wait until 10 minutes before fulltime to have a player sent or when they are on the opposing try line.

So the difference this time is they won't be able to kick it out. Will be interesting to see whether that is enough to maintain the flow of the game.

Andy Because claiming a mark anywhere on the field actually slowed the game down and allowed the ball catcher to mark and kick it out. They did 2 changes to the rules to stop this slow play. They allowed a mark only in the 22m zone and a kick out on the full from the 22m zone. I like handles, played with the "mark" being allowed anywhere on the field and IMO, it did slow the game down. The intention was to keep the ball in play between the 22m zones.

Interesting point. They presumably changed the law for a reason - anyone have any recollection why?

That was the point of the discussion - the rule specifically says the WINNING team gets the bonus point for 3+ tries ahead, not any team. As written, the Brumbies would get squat.

This is a reversion. When I first played rugby (late 60s) a mark could be called anywhere on the field.

Yeah, it was one of the ELVs trialled in the ARC and was credited with causing the massive increase in kicking as everyone was so worried about getting turned over they tried to clear their territory before going into contact.

No. In that case under current rules, the Brumbies got a four try bonus point. Under proposed rules, Brumbies would get a "3 or more tries ahead" bonus point, so no difference. As for the result of the game, if the Brumbies were that cynical and gave away 6 or more kickable penalties (9 or more if they converted their own tries), then they probably deserved to lose.

I played in a competition on the gold coast that allowed hands in the ruck and as an openside i personally thought it ruined the game. It gave the defending team the advantage and that's not something you'd want if you want to see tries scored.

I don't like 6. The incentive for the defensive side to keep the halfback near the scrum should be the threat of loose forwards and attacking halfback running a narrow line, not some arbitrary "zone". Sounds hard to enforce, and artificial to me.

Tap 'n' go, drop goal.