Rugby union is clearly at a crossroads, both globally and most pressingly, here in Australia.
The pressures of sustaining growth and competing with unprecedented choice for sports fans has seen the game drop down the charts in the last five years.
A lot of ‘rugby people’, those in the game that love the sport and just want others to love it too, would probably change very little.
But what about a shot-clock for all stoppages so teams cannot use breaks in play to fill their lungs?
That would mean once a scrum was called, teams would have 30 seconds to enter the forming phase. From here, scrums can’t be rushed for safety. If anyone wants to go back to props running at each other from 20 metres away and binding up on the move like the 80s, it’s just not going to happen.
Also, if we raise heights of scrums, we won’t have a fraction of the resets and play can continue easily.
Anyway, to the title of this article.
We obsess over scrums, 22m dropouts and other things that slow the game down, but there are more rucks and ruck stoppages than anything else in the game.
This really could be union’s answer to the ‘six again’ rule from rugby league. This is not fully fleshed out. Indeed, contribution in the comments here would be ideal. But it goes something like this.
Duane Vermeulen (Photo by Craig Mercer/MB Media/Getty Images)
The back ten rule
The main principle, is replacing some/most ruck penalties with a ‘back 10’ rule, similar to a free kick.
These include all offensive penalties inside the attacking teams half. So if the defending team forces a penalty inside your half, it’s not a penalty, it’s a turnover and you must now retreat 10 metres.
Similarly, if you are defending anywhere outside of your 22m, any and all first time, non-professional fouls will be penalised with a back 10. Repeat infringing in that same-phase will trigger another back 10 plus a 2-minute sin bin which happens in game rather than stopping the flow.
Further repeat infringements will result in full arm penalties, with sanctions if deemed professional. Now, you have cut out at least two stoppages and encouraged team to attack with extra space to operate.
Clear intention to slow the ball down will result in a full arm penalty. So if you get caught in a ruck, that’s a Back 10. If you kill the ball deliberately, that’s a penalty.
There is obvious room for interpretation there, but that exists already.
Inside the 22m, full arm penalties can be given.
Like a scrum free-kick can turn to a full arm, repeat infringements of a specific kind throughout a game, like hands in the ruck, can produce full arm penalties anywhere on the field.
That’s the core idea. So here’s a scenario where the rule could work.
Your attacking from your own 10-metre line, and one of their players is off their feet contesting the ball.
What happens now is either a penalty, or he is given several seconds to get away. In this new scenario, this infringement causes slow ball, a back 10 is called and play resumes with the attack having quick ball and space.
Let’s talk about it in the comments. Thoughts and concerns. Additions and subtractions. This idea would bring significantly more flow to games and give attacking players space to move and operate, a must for rugby to compete in the current sporting landscape.
piru
Roar Rookie
As a former ref, reading this confuses the hell out of me, I can only imagine how it would work in practice. I don't really see how this is any different to replacing penalties in certain parts of the field with a free kick. Would it not be a better idea to use a tool already in the tool box instead of trying to forge a new one? When the ELVs were in trial, they did exactly this and it did create a bit of extra pace (and space) but ultimately the powers that be decided against it. I can't imagine the result would be any different this time.
Paulo
Roar Rookie
Which means more aerobic fitness, which either means smaller bodies or more interchanges, sorry replacements. I get where your going and why, but I think your trying to fix a problem which isn’t there, or creating a bigger problem for something that is really just Aussies problem?
derano
Roar Rookie
I propose a whole new scoring and penalty system as follows: • On being awarded a penalty the game can carry on under advantage and the team awarded the penalty accrues a “penalty point”. As the game carries on they can be awarded more penalty points. • Penalty points need to be redeemed to be added on to the score. This can be done by scoring a try, kicking a penalty, or kicking a drop goal. All the accrued penalty points will be added to the 5 points awarded for the try but only 3 for a pen or drop goal. • Shots at goal and drop kicks can only be taken when a team has accrued 3 penalty points. If the kick misses the penalty points are not lost. The 3 points will be added from the penalty points total for kicks.
Kiwilion
Guest
Something that maybe similar but simpler to rule on, why not have, in a ruck or maul situation, defending players have to be back 10, or maybe 5 metres from the hind foot instead of being right on top of it. Obviously on the try line if it’s in that area. We don’t want or need more complicated rules that need explanation. This gives the attacking team that extra time for planned moves and opens up the game.
jcmasher
Roar Rookie
I’m not sure World Rugby will want to change the laws to make it more like league just to help Australia with an internal problem that a change of the laws won’t fix anyway. If RA want to grow rugby in Australia and fight the battle with the NRL and AFL they need to start at the grass roots and fund the game so more people can participate. I personally think it’s a fight they’ll never win as they haven’t got the funds to do it properly and so it won’t work. Rather than competing with these two sports in a fight to grow that they will never win they’re better off focussing on where they are now. Make it cheaper and easier for the current clubs to survive and grow. I referee in suburban Sydney and without fail clubs are losing ground because they haven’t got the funds to pay the cost of playing the game. Resolve that issue and let the clubs grow and things will get better.
Tom
Guest
Unless it's a real close game. I flick over to AFL.for penalty goals and reset scrums.
Here’s one
Guest
Go back to being able to kick the ball out on the full from everywhere on the field. Sounds like fun hey?
Crusher_13
Roar Rookie
Is this a global problem? Or one for Australia? This is a global game, something like this changes the way you play, which will have a huge effect on the Wallabies. Maybe when a player goes down injured, the game continues without them, they leave the field like football (soccer) and can only re-join when invited by the referee. All loose forwards need to be trained to pack into the second row, and if a front row forward goes down non-contested scrum on their ball, and free-kick (after 10 seconds, to give the defending team a chance to be onside, also the time you would expect it to take all forwards to be at the scrum) if it is opposition ball.
TheClubhouseCorner
Roar Rookie
Yes great point. This is an easy distinction to make and would help the flow.
TheClubhouseCorner
Roar Rookie
Yes, that happens, and it's a good point but it seems to work in the NRL. Teams will get better at retreating the more common it is, and repeat back 10s with a 5-minute in flow sinbin could allow for punishing those that don't retreat.
TheClubhouseCorner
Roar Rookie
Three strike rule always works right? Hands in the ruck, back 10. Slowing ball down, back 10. Hands in the ruck, full arm penalty. That could work. Most tries are scored within 10 phases anyway. This will open up some space and eliminate some of the penalties.
TheClubhouseCorner
Roar Rookie
Yes as part of the idea, the play would simply resume, with the defence being forced to retreat 10 metres. Whether not being back 10 would result in a penalty is something that you could debate, and it's a good question. You want to punish teams for not being back 10, so penalty makes sense but you don't want to slow the game down. Depending on the situation, we already heavily punish cynical or intentionally not retreating, so perhaps the idea of the in-flow 5 minute sin-bin could work with a repeat 'back 10'.
soapit
Roar Guru
you dont get a not back 10 penalty just for running into someone. they have to make a play at you
Mirt
Roar Rookie
I can see smith or white taking a quick tap and running at the nearest player, not back ten, penalty. So unless the game was stopped till mark was made and defence back ten it’s not going to work, and stopping the game was what we’re avoiding.
soapit
Roar Guru
Don't mind the idea at all. Always a fan of ways to give minor but meaningful warnings for things that don't really impact the game. Maybe you get 1 warning and then the next one in a row gets a penalty. Even if it cut out a couple that would be a success. Agree with the time limit as well. I also think it's time to get rid of scrum resets. If it collapses either penalise someone or free kick to the feeding team. Concern would be increased intentional collapsing but if one team has a clear disadvantage to collapse the team doing it would likely become more obvious. If you get a free kick with a dominant scrum you can choose another scrum as well. Again if it gets rid of a couple of resets a game that's a success
Etepeus
Roar Rookie
How would it restart from a back 10 - can anybody from team in possession just pick ball up and go or is a free kick type where game would stop while everybody resets. Is it a penalty if team does not retreat 10. I like the idea