NRC rule changes to promote running rugby

One of the biggest myths in rugby is that 3 point penalties deter illegal play. If they did deter illegal play, the number of penalties per match would be minimal. The opposite it true, penalties come thick and fast at all levels. This is the type of irrefutable logic that escapes most rugby supporters who opinions are based in belief and emotion. Which brings me to the biggest mistake with the NRC law changes: they don't go far enough. The reality is the laws of rugby simply don't work. The players out there who are continuously penalised (as in all rugby players) are not cynical cheats.. They are players trying to play rugby. The laws as they stand are simply impossible to obey. They are as technically obtuse as long distance walking, in which participants are disqualilfied for not walking correctly. Changing the point system doesn't fix that. Bringing back the ELV sanctions which were dropped would. These were used in the inaugural ARC and received overwhelming support from the players, the most important resource the game has. They did what thousands of amendments and 'improvements' have failed to do. . They simplified the laws of rugby and made the game playable again. The sooner they come back the better . Don't believe me? Watch a game of Top 14 rugby and get back to me. Watch the first Bledisloe and get back to me. Reality is hard to argue against, but happy for you to try.

In Brief, "If you love rugby union, you should support improvements." This is a straw man. It's a fallacy. Google it. I love rugby, but my support is reserved for sensible and rational improvements to the structure of the game, not the desperate thrashings of a drowning swimmer crying out for help from the IRB. The problem with rugby's popularity in Australia IMO has little to do with the rules. Sure, the rules are complex, but these same rules are not a barrier for the popularity of rugby all the other major rugby nations. Australian rugby's problem has more to do with: 1 - SANZAR conflicts of interest, 2 - An ongoing inability to reconcile the various levels of the game into one system, 3 - An ongoing over-dependence upon the Wallabies finances and branding to drive the game, and 4 - An ongoing failure to nurture grassroots rugby. There's probably other problems too, if anyone else would care to add more to this list? Substantially changing the rules for the NRC is not going to overcome these problems. Indeed, if the NRC fails, these problems will get far worse. That said, maybe the game could be improved, in theory? But in practice this requires expert players and coaches making considered small changes and testing them, not having a flippin fan forum! What's being proposed involves a number of large changes, all made to a brand new competition that is trying to attract fans to its almost entirely brand new teams. The NRC is a big risk, and these rule changes only make it risker. If you want to see evidence of rule-changing irritating fans, have a look at AFL. The ability they have to constantly tinker with the rules (because they don't have an international body to pursuade) has led to a farcical situation where the rules change every year. It ends up pissing everyone off. Still, it's probably futile me suggesting these things. If you've got your mind made up, (saying "no one can tell me..." ) then clearly there'll be no convincing you. However, my disagreement of opinion with yours does not make mine wrong. It's funny (and somewhat shameful) that you should think that it does.

Is this the ARU's attempt of creating a product like T20 cricket, designed to attract a different breed of spectator (not the purest) in an aim to grow popularity on a high impact/speed game. Find a bit more money as well? I don't see the need for the change to scoring system otherwise. Penalty kicks are and important facet to the game. If all people want are tries, then they are watching the wrong sport. Maybe that is what they are trying to cater for, the in between crowd.

"thought perhaps they were winning because they had the best players in the world in about a third to half the positions" Its an incredible coincidence, isn't it? Those pesky kiwis get given (by God, Allah, Zarquon, whoever) so many of the best players in the world. And they didn't to a THING to deserve it! Its just not fair.

I was not aware the IRB had given their approval, or even thought it through to be honest. Now I am more surprised that the ARU would allow their new baby to be risked in any way. But if it brings in the crowds in the first year, well.......... I should be open minded but I still think it foolish.

Just time off for scrums

Agree Diehard how is this going to produce tough props, just more amigos

Well you might be seeing twenty a game now, enjoy that!

We have been using government money that comes from the public for years now so what's the difference. - Governments own and redevelop stadiums so it doesn't bankrupt clubs. - They fund training facilities. - District clubs play at council run facilities which are funded by ratepayers. - Governments fund drug testing and 7s programs. - The Australian Institute of Sport is Government funded. - The Brumbies receive annual funding from the ACT Government. - Governments bid for test matches and stump up RWC bid fees. Fund facilities and infrastructure improvements. - NRL clubs are going cap in hand to their Government for new stadiums. So have a think about where Australian sport would be without decades of Government funding that derives from the public.

Haven't got the strike power --- hahahahahahahahaha This is a case of don't let your Pulver get wet - sorry, it's already wringing WET

The Vodacom Cup isn't taken seriously by supporters and loses money.

Not everyone has small crowds and consider it to be boring. Your teams due to poor management (ie the Canes) and union's obsession with the ABs have driven support away not the laws. ' but if I was a “Dwyers Wallabies and Knuckles Reds” supporter, I would still find that boring.' Quiet the contrary the crowds loved it when their team drove their opponents 30 metres up the pitch. The Wallabies also had a strong scrum back then too. This seems to be the root of the decline in Australian tight 5 play. We moved away from what was working and allowed opposition packs to dominate us. For how long will Kiwi teams refrain from using it? The Chiefs set up centre field mauls. Not even the Saffies resort to that. Your juniors are getting stuffed up front as they can't compete against stronger tight 5s so either improve or continue to get stuffed. I think the root of that is that your coaches don't pick players who are exposed to that kind of play and think that they can carry on winning matches like they did in the past.

Statistics and lies. Would you like to be pull down in a maul and have someone off balance land on top of you? Of course not and Rugby should be a game played on your feet. If you are off your feet you are out of the game so it encourages cynical play.

at a much lower level.

It's not a massive risk in comparison to getting swamped upright by three or four opposition defenders. Making it go to ground isolates one or two of them.

In brief not all countries wanted a cheats charter which reduced cynical breakdown play to a free kick. The silly ones like collapsing mauls which is frankly dangerous didn't even make it to Super Rugby level. We had varying ELVs in different levels of competition. An utter farce. I believe that and interpretation changes led to a decline in refereeing standards. It just confuses them. It wasn't just poor management from O'Brien. There were a few refs in the Pro 12 by error (which I can't fault them) refereed some matches to the previous season interpretations which confused everyone and was embarrassing for them. The NRC is also there to improve the ARU's lack of representation at the IRB refs level. Don't confuse them with changes that won't make it Super Rugby level. They have already refereed Super Rugby and club games this season to a different set of laws.

I agree. One of the areas for the NRC is promotion. Unlike NZ or SA we have to compete with AFL and league. Supporters from these groups aren't going to go and watch union if it is a, to them, a goal kicking exhibition. Get the newbies first interested then get them into the main course.

2 individuals from those countries doesn't mean much. The fact is that the ELVs didn't make it past county level and in the south Super Rugby. The free kick ELVs were tripe and the good ones were kept.

I agree, I was watching an old game at the Sydney Sports Ground, Australia v England and the players ran to the scrum to pack down.

'No one can tell me that removing points for arbitary penalties is a bad thing. ' And that was thrown out as quickly as next week's garbage.