What rule would you change, if you could only change one?

Huh? What’s SBW and Izzy got to do with your point about lowering the points value of a penalty goal. Why would you feel that anyone would want to lambast you because you are admittedly a "leaguie".

It's not inconsistent actually. Just as you can't collapse a ruck or scrum; you can't collapse a maul. The game of rugby requires the attacking team to progress the ball up the field. A maul is just one method that may be used to achieve this. It's been part of the game since Adam was a cowboy. It is defended by the other team attempting to stall that progress. You don't necessarily need access to the ball to achieve this. Is it obstruction? Well yes it is but the obstruction is lawful which is part of the reason for forming a maul. Obstruction in open play is of course not lawful. If a maul is obstruction, then using your logic, you would have to extend that to rucks and scrums. Having said all of the above, I do believe there is a problem with present day mauls in that the referees ignore the laws to the extent that the defending team is heavily disadvantaged.

Why is collapsing a rolling maul an offence? The priciple of rugby is the right to defend your line. Why is a maul excepted from this general rule? This also raises the question why a rolling maul is not sheparding? The ball carrier is protected from the opposition by teammates impeding the defeder access ti the ball carrier. In every other part of the game, this would be penalised for sheparding. Why this inconsistency?

I absolutely hate penalties for scrum collapses. Even if the ref could be certain which prop is at fault, which I often doubt, I just do not understand why why prop A overpowering prop B should be rewarded with a penalty. In all other parts of the game, if player A dominates playerer B , he is rewarded with gaining possession or position. No penalty, just an advantage. The props in the same tussle should be rewarded with the advantage of an indirect penalty - they have won possession, which is just reward for their superior play. I feel sick when a game is decided by a collapsed scrum, whichever side is involved. It is a dumb and unfair reason for a win.

Drop goals and penalty goals worth 1 point, Rugby Union would be the most exciting, diverse and fast paced contact football out there!

Kicking out on the full should be illegal inside in the 22. This will encourage teams to run more.

Probably for some old school rugby afficionados this will be unimportant, but I see it as something that open the game to the rest of the world... Change in pont value. The penalty goal should be lowered to 2 or even 1. Do you think anyone in the world thinks a penalty goal is good entertainment... The pinnacle is a try, and it should be presented that way... There is nothing worse than seeing a game of rugby where teama beats teamb, despite teamb scoring 3 tries to 1... Admittedly I'm a leaguie where exciting attack is already common place, and you can lambast me because of that... But all you need to do is look a 2 of the most exciting players in rugby in SBW and Izzy to know that league's development provides some amazing players..

Thanks, coaching is fun and rewarding! Agreed that laws rarely change, however, interpretations change -- so let me rephrase -- "current law interpretation" But I do think some of the points are raised are pertinent because so many people generally only consider elite rugby and forget how the game is also for those who will never play at that level -- or ref at that level. FYI I stopped reffing mostly because the average person doesn't understand the laws -- let alone players and commentators -- and I got sick of being hassled during and after a game. (Still I guess its better than being a soccer ref -- where the rules are easier but the personal danger is insane :-)

You mentioned current law which suggests there has been a change in the law. Daffyd there has been no change in the law. All the other stuff you raise is irrelevant. Good on you for coaching the kids however. - :)

I'm taking it where the ball is caught -- that is, behind (an imaginary line parallel to the goal line) from where it was passed -- not worrying about drift -- as long as it is caught behind where it was released. I personally think it is easier to referee than the current law -- although I understand the concept of momentum and the positions of the arms in not passing forward is therefore not a forward pass IHowever, it's all very well to be able to go to replays with multiple angles in Top Level games to see where the hands are. However, the vast majority of games played in the park that don't have that facility available to them. If the referee is in line with the passer and the ball is taken in front by the receiver in front of where it is released -- it is forward of the player who passed it. Or it was in the good old days. And I believe it is easier to referee -- especially if the "angle of arms & hands" is obscured by the body of the passer. As far as hips angles and so forth -- that was what coaches used to talk about when getting a back and the backline as a group to pass at speed and running straight. In my pinion, its the flat style of (spin) passing today that has led to momentum and drift having to be considered. I believe it is possible to pass the ball (not over your head) when running at full speed -- and have it caught behind where it was passed. I know it can be done because I used to do it every single practice for twenty or so years and coach kids to do it. So we'll have to agree to disagree.

Daffyd. Goodness gracious I get so frustrated with this. What an earth has pivoting at the hips, inside leg forward, leg toward the pass, spin passing, direction of the hands, got to do with whether or not a pass is forward. Why do you have to complicate the issue with all this stuff? Was the pass forward or not? This is the only question you or any referee need ask. When you played how do you know that every pass that drifted forward was called forward. If we had a way of knowing for sure I think you would be amazed how many were not called. A lot I would say. I repeat from my previous post. Get a rugby ball and two other people. Run with the ball and pass it back over your head. Have one person mark the spot where you passed the ball and the other one mark where the ball landed. You will find that the ball will land ahead of where you passed it. Have you passed the ball forward? Of course not. I ask you to do this then come back and tell me that you actually passed the ball forward when you in fact passed it backwards over your head.

This is a basic. "Clean up your mistake. If you drop the ball fall on it." Yes, you are correct, there is no advantage, but players who knock on are not going to stand around waiting for the opposition to pick it up. OTOH, if a player who is in front of the player who knocks on does that there is the penalty for offside.

Smokey, even though they go back 10 metres, they can still gain ground and kick it 40 m and get the lineout. The rule that needs to be change (and was implemented by the NRC) is that a lineout can occur after time -- not just the kick out ends the game. But on a technical advantage, ie there has to be a real advantage gained in terms of territory or possession, so once they go past the knock on point, the ref may call advantage over quite quickly -- and I feel a knock advantage should be called over quite quickly. With penalties I lean the other way. Allow the advantage to continue until there is a score or the team loses the ball. If additional penalties accrue, (going forward) then a new advantage applies. If going backward then blow the whistle and play the penalty. If several 'penalty advantages" occur in that sequence, then a yellow card should also be considered when play stops or in the event of a try -- award a penalty at the kickoff. In other words allow the attacking team to go for the try, knowing they have the fall back to a penalty. The tricky part is, what if the penalty occurs in the defending 22, and the winger makes a break and is bundled into touch on the other 22... do you return back 60m for the penalty? Maybe it a question to the captain. "Penalty back there in your 22. Or lineout to them -- 22 from your try line?"

Yes the concept that players are obliged to attempt to stay on their feet is almost extinct. Agreed!

When I played there was no "momentum". If it went/drifted forward it was called forward. The idea was to pivot at the hips / waist as you turned and passed with the emphasis on both hands with the inside leg forward. (The leg toward the pass would be back) The only player who spin passed was the half. if you pass the ball backward (enough) to counter the forward momentum, it will be caught behind where it has been passed. It all depends on where you pass. The simple exercise we would do at training was straight forward. Run straight toward a line, (the halfway or 22). Attempt to pass (backward) on the line and allow for the forward drift. Te ball can still be caught behind the line the if your pass is backward enough to allow for the drift. Players do not pass the same way now days. The emphasis is on flat spin passing which doesn't really require waist pivoting. At some point the interpretation became the direction of the hands, which logically makes sense -- but when I played that was definitely not the case.

Hi Smokey. The reason I asked you to read the advantage law was to make sure you are aware of its purpose. It encourages the non offending team to continue playing for the purpose of gaining an advantage. Effectively it results in more continuity or using your words it keeps the game flowing. If the law was changed to that which you have suggested then there would be little incentive for the non offending team to continue as there would be little or no advantage. So there would be more stoppages. The game would be less free flowing.

Having said drop goal worth 2 -- same as a conversion, let me correct that... Drop goal - 2, Penalty - 2, Conversion - 3 -- as per NRC. That will solve a lot of issues with dubious penalties and reward tries.

Yes bring back stomping and proper rucking, opposition lying over the ball HAH ! Some of my most vivid memoriies are of being spat out of the back of a ruck and vice versa. These memories and a few well deserved scars I will gladly take to my grave :) Mateship and Rucking - Good stuff. Glad I finished playing before the wimpy lawyers and marketing buffs got hold of the game.

Peter, if a scrum ball leading to a (scrum) result is going to be rewarded, why would it always lead to a collapsed scrum? If the ball was in the middle of the scrum it would effectively slow down the attacking team in taking a quick tap. If it was at the back of the scrum and it's play on it would make it harder for the attacking team's forwards to get to the next ruck and leave the attack more chance of being isolated.. What it would do is have a lot more ball in play and less interminable scrums, especially if scrums were abolished as an alternative to penalties and free kicks.

And narrow the uprights a couple of metres