I support almost everything that Twiggy is trying to do, but while this competition offers itself as the perfect place to try new things – a variant of the same old rugby, no offence – on this occasion he’s missed the mark by a long shot.
The whole scheme is smart – tapping into a rugby-mad Pacific market while venturing into previously unknown-to-rugby parts of Asia and harnessing the disdain for Rugby Australia and the appetite for top-level rugby in the west.
With players, or should that be legends, like Dan Carter and Matt Giteau, the potential is there.
I even like the idea of going radical. But geez, mate, you’re a long way off the mark.
The law changes are as follows.
Time differences
- 35-minute halves.
- After 15 minutes of a red card, a different player is allowed on.
- Reduced time allowed for kicking at goal and kicking off.
Kicking
- No kicking out on the full from own 22.
- Rugby league-style 40/20, with finding touch – after at least one bounce – inside the opposing 22 after kicking from inside your own ten.
- No marking inside your own 22.
- No kick needed for power try, which will be worth 9 automatic points.
Discipline
- Penalty goal reduced to two points.
- Defence must be back 10 metres at scrums, as opposed to five.
- Orange card citing system for match review officials.
- Teams allowed up to ten ‘rolling subs’.
(Daniel Carson/Getty Images)
The first one is straightforward, and I’ve got no issue with it. It obviously appeals to the broadcasters, who would like that a game can be over in approximately 90 minutes from kickoff to siren, whereas currently they tend to take around an hour and 45 minutes.
Reducing time for kicking at goal wouldn’t alienate many rugby fans, but actually enforcing it will be key. The 60-second time limit for scrums was never more than a theory in World Series Rugby this year.
With an increase or a perceived increase in red cards over the last couple of seasons, quite a few fans have been calling for World Rugby to allow a replacement on the field after 15 minutes or something similar. I can’t see an abundance of send-offs happening in RR, so let’s hope this never has to happen.
Eliminating kicking directly into touch from your own 22 – in-goals included? – is a step too far. Love it or hate it, clearing kicks have been a part of the game for forever and are an art. Perhaps reduce the 22 to 15 or 10 to make opportunities less frequent.
The ’40/20′ or ’40/22′ reeks of rugby league. Surely a kick from inside your own ten or 40 into the opposing 22 is a pretty routine play in rugby, only to be rewarded with a lineout throw?
And clarify for me: does he want to encourage kicking into touch or not? Certainly as us on the east coast would know, this rule is taken right out of the NRL rulebook.
I’ve never jumped out of my seat yelling with ecstasy at a mark being taken, so I honestly don’t care that he’s getting rid of them. This one can get a thumbs up.
After just two power tries were scored in this year’s WSR, Andrew Forrest – or whoever is making these decisions – has decided that this was from a lack of motivation and the stakes being too high, not because of a lack of skill that comes from either having not played for almost nine months or being a thrown-together XV.
Add this to two-point penalties, and the benefits from scoring a try are much greater. I can already see teams practising kick-offs that land as close to the 22 as possible without crossing it and subsequently turning the power try ‘on’.
Rugby is a multi-dimensional game, and without clearing into touch or any real kicking at goal outside of conversions threatens to change all that, which is my main issue with two-point penalties.
Defence being back ten at scrums won’t do much, I’m thinking, but maybe someone who’s more of an expert can clear this up for me.
I’m also undecided on orange cards. If it makes it easier for players to receive the fair treatment rather than getting away with Owen Farrell-level shoulder charges, fine.
Ten substitutions, up from eight, will only encourage interchanging of players and a boost in footballers who can’t play for long stretches, even though unfit players are exactly what Forrest seems to be against.
We don’t know exactly how much he will change the game of rugby. WSR didn’t flip the game on its head, as many experts on this site have pointed out, so maybe that’s why Twiggy’s team have jumped at this.
We can only wait to see how it pans out, but for the next three months I’m a sceptic.
Hoges
Roar Rookie
I couldn’t agree more
In Brief
Guest
Agree, knock on was step too far ;)
Ex fan force
Guest
RA does not need an excuse to ignore WA. They are experts at it. The changes will make no difference.
Ex force fan
Guest
If T10 is the only cricket played in my city because RA cut everything else and I like cricket I will have to watch it, wouldn't I. We are not as spoiled with choices as the Eastern States of the Australian sporting capital is are we? If I have to watch it, I can just as well enjoy it. Maybe it develops a momentum if its own and its own following like T20 did.
Ex force fan
Guest
You have luxury of choice. WA fans do not, we have to get behind the experiment and hope for the best...thanks to Rugby Eastern Australia. So if you have no alternative for WA Rugby fans you should consider if your criticism is fair?
Agree except for the knock on.
Ball in play struggles to make 40 minutes in a match, if you reduce to 35 even with supposed time saving measures you will see less rugby, add rolling subs rugby will turn into unfit, muscle bound behemoths with less cardio training.
Rolling subs, lets play NFL yeah.
2 point penalty kick will encouage professional fouls. The two point kick was trialed in Varsity rugby, then removed.
If no mark can be taken in 22 you areencouraging box kicks into the 22 and encouraging the chase, thus going back to 2009
If you remove kicking out on the full in own 22 ou are changig the dynamics of rugby. You are effectively removing the exit srategy from the game. What you are then saying is kick the box kick and play 2009 jakeball rugby. Think of the net effect of these law changes.
AndyS
Guest
I'm inclined to agree. Getting rid of both the mark and clearing kick is going to encourage mindless dunts down field, in the 5% hope of a lucky bounce and expectation it'll be kicked back otherwise. Happy enough to get rid of clearing kicks, but there has to be risk to go with the reward of forcing the opposition back. For mine, maybe kick and find grass and the defense can't clear the ball. Kick and it's marked and they can. I'd even be tempted to allow the defense the throw-in, to put a premium on good tactical kicking and punish bad.
jcmasher
Roar Rookie
My biggest issue is that he's just handed RA the perfect excuse to ignore any of the players in this game. It doesn't matter how good they go, they can be ignored because the rules are so different. I think these have reduced the whole thing to an exhibition match with no relevance to rugby
Working Class Rugger
Guest
I'm happy to take a wait and see approach on the law variations. There are some I'm not too enthused by but you cannot make an informed judgement before you actually get to see them in action. I suspect some will work while others won't. As is the way with these kinds of things. I don't have an issue with the 35 minute halves. I actually thought they would be even shorter at 30 minutes. Nor do I with the defence having to be 5m further back at the scrum. I don't even mind the 40/22 rule. Yes, there is the scent of RL to it but so what? It's intended to put defenders in two minds around either keeping numbers up in the defensive line opposed to having one or two players back to cover the kick. The only one I actually dislike is the no mark on a catch in the 22. I don't mind the not allowing to kick out of the full from within the 22 variation but I think they are missing a trick by removing the 22 mark instead of using it to help enhance the kicking decision making. I'd rather them make it that if the ball is kicked into the 22 and is not contested by a player (being actually in the air going for the ball) from the kicking team then the defending team get a short arm penalty at the spot of the kick. This way instead of the 'lob it up there and hope' we see all too often now kicking it will hold real implications and if you are prepared to do it it better be contested every time.
piru
Roar Rookie
I think there must be a middle ground, maybe a total number of changes like the AFL does (don't they?) only make it less than the 3.1 million they seem to be allowed per game.
DNZ
Guest
The risk you're running here though is whether you're inventing a T10 league instead of T20 where the spirit of the game is completely gone and you are basically playing a joke of a sport. No doubt some of the ideas are good, and I have been wanting to see some amendments to the rules for a long time but it's hard to know until it's in practice what will and will not work. I hope it goes well but I have serious reservations about the impact it will have.
In Brief
Guest
There are laws that could be/ should be changed, but I don't think these are the ones. The scrum penalty must go (all of them - encourage cheating, not consistent with laws) the penalty for 'not releasing' has to go (no penalty - tackled player is entitled to play the ball) the intentional knock down penalty has to go (play on) the accidental off side penalty has to go (free kick only) the double knock on should be play on (outcome is possession only, so why go to scrum?) in fact let's get rid of the knock on rule altogether -if you fumble, play on That would make rugby great again.
piru
Roar Rookie
Exactly Enjoy your luxury of being able to take this or leave it, easterners. I hope you will forgive us in the west for embracing it
piru
Roar Rookie
Well, I guess you folk in the east have the luxury of being sceptical or even alienated, you can pop along to a super game if Rapid Rugby isn't your thing. We in the west don't really have much of a choice. You know what is really alienating? Having the national controlling body tell you you're not required, or even wanted for involvement in the top level rugby comp. Having them "soften" the blow by promising support for your grass roots and then never delivering. Twiggy is looking out for WA and I'm prepared to keep the faith a but while GRR settles into it's groove. I personally don't think the more radical of the laws will last all that long.
Ralph
Roar Guru
Agree. Storm in a tea cup until he builds a commercially viable competition of some size.