Australia and New Zealand agree Super Rugby Trans-Tasman rules

I don't understand what is wrong with that? Are tries being overturned without reason, are players being sent off despite being innocent of wrongdoing? Things only change if the footage justifies a change.

My concern with the RC 20 mins is that a coach may be tempted to bring on an enforcer to take out a critical player on the other side knowing that his enforcer would eventually be replaced while the other team would lose their player for the game. While this would be completely underhand and a deplorable thing to occur, I think pressures of finals rugby could easily see it being done. While we would all certainly criticise it, the team would still have won

I sort of get that and there also an argument about a scrum not rewarding the defence of the team that stopped the try from being scored. Maybe I’m just being old fashioned in this.

ruuger shud be looking to make the existing basic LAWS effective and properly enforced - without making dime a dozen changes every six months and making refs confused. if u look in any fora - there is at least 50% comments on how the reffing was so-so. first try to get the basics right before going for reverse sweeps and switch hits !!! :silly:

shows how poor the reffing is in Aus and NZ. this website has video of Mike Brown - that was seen by the tmo and he basically brought back play from one end of the field to the oither. its high time auz n nz try to improve their reffing panels - including those on their bums. look at USA - MLR. they have got hold of JP DOYLE , after he was made redundant by RFU the world id basically poorer of quality refs - less than 5 good ones going around and none from auz or nz

It is the need to 'reward' the team that failed to execute I don't really get. If a kick goes wrong, does the kicker get to call it back for an attacking scrum? They did the work and were rewarded by the chance to score, and they tanked it. They'll likely get the ball back from the clearance anyway.

I love a good scrum. I get excited for a good scrum. But I am getting sick of scrums as there are very few good scrums these days. They collapse, twist or something else that causes a penalty. The constant resets are just driving fans away. I know when the ref blows the whistle for a scrum I can go grab a beer, take a leak, sometime walk the dog before the scrum actually gets going. And to top it off the the scrum halves need to put the ball in the middle. People don’t like the goal line drop out because it is to much RL like, but I’d take a line drop out once or twice a game with a big lad on the charge up the middle any day of 20 scrum feeds into the 2nd row.

Yeah but I don’t have a problem with scrums on the 5m. I don’t think they are “constant” at all and I think they give more reward to a team that has worked their way up to the goal line but not scored.

Think the goal line dropout needs to go for held up, it hasn't worked as hoped imo

Yes but this rule is bad for teams like Saders and Blues who rely on dominant scrums playing against good defensive teams with poor set piece. Free get out of jail card.

My understanding is all teams start on zero- no carry over points

It just hit me that if, as I believe, 2nd round points carry over to the TT, then the starting points table is going to be crowded - 3 Au teams had 3 wins each and in NZ Chiefs would start on top.

As I mentioned on Nick’s column a week ago., the captains referral was trialed at Stellenbosch Universities internal hostel league for a full season years ago and subsequently scrapped.. It’s now reared its ugly head again and Kudos to Aus and NZ for discarding it so quickly.. .. That’s not the case elsewhere though.. Watching a collision in real time and then again in ultra slow mo is 2 very different beasts..

The line drop out stops the constant scrums on the 5m. What you get is much more running rugby without the constant stoppages and penalties. It also means that teams will usually only attempt a try if it is on and not constantly barrage in forward pods which we were seeing lots of before.

Yet it was used on 9 occasions to point out foul play the 3 refs and the TMO all missed...And 2 ( I think ) of those became YCs

If the captain’s was used to point out foul play the referees may have missed it would be good to keep. However the captain’s misused it and it distract from the game. 50/22 did not make much of a difference anyway. I like the 20 min red cards with forced replacements as at least the game is not over once a red card is issued.

It's funny jcm that we look at rewarding the attacking team, but that's only half the game. I like to see good defense rewarded as well. Some might say that holding up the ball over the line is a bit late. I say better late than never. I'm not a big fan of the goal line dropout, traditionalist who sees too much RL coincidence, but I'm prepared to say that it seems to give both sides of the ball a bit of a reward for both their efforts.

Good decisions there. Personally I'm not a fan of either the captain's referral or the 22/50 & 50/22 laws so glad they aren't included. TBH I'm also not a fan of the line drop out as I'm not sure it provides the attacking team with enough reward for their efforts but I can live with it.

Dropping the 50/22 will be a good transition to test rugby rules for our guys. Should be a nice game of cricket at the SCG this weekend.

The captain’s challenge is used as a weapon to milk yellow / red cards and to over turn tries that have been scored. That’s all it is really.